WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr Clive Palmer Palmer United Party candidates@palmerunited.

com
5
?

22-9-2013

Ref: 130922-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer Re AEC and other matters

Clive, I understand that you have some considerable volume of complaints in regard of the AEC 10 and as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I can state that in the past I lodged a volley of complaints, and actually comprehensively defeated the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) on 19 July 2006 (after a 5 year epic legal battle) in the County Court of Australia in regard of 2 appeals. As such I so to say earned my striped in court to prove they are wrong. But reality is, that the AEC has so to say placed itself above the rule of law and couldn’t give a darn about any wrongdoing, 15 that is when it does so.
.

I discovered that for example its barrister Mr Peter Hanks QC was perverting the course of justice by purportedly quoting from Authorities, but having substituted certain words, not at all used by the judge concerned, as to make it being applicable, even so the Authority was actually 20 contrary to what he submitted.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate) QUOTE As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he 25 honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support 30 it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. END QUOTE 35

As you may recall, I lodged my 2 September 2013 complaint with the AEC, about what I held deceptive and misleading advertising about electing as Prime Minister, but I did also make clear that this was the general claims by others also. As such I didn’t portray you just to be a lone offender in that regard.
.

To me it is essential to present matters comprehensively, albeit still as limited as possible in volume. I may use my self proclaimed “crummy English” because English was not my native language nor did I have formal education in the English language (hence my grammatical structure of sentences are often up the creek, but I can assure you that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I leave 45 many lawyers gasping for air, because they may call them selves with an oxymoron title “constitutional lawyer” but knows next to nothing about constitutional matters, and this include judges of the High Court of Australia. Indeed, it was that a judge of the High Court of Australia, shortly after his appointment abstained to hand down a judgment because he as I understood it to
40 p1 22-9-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

be, stated he didn’t know the constitutional subject matter. the Appellant then lost on 3 for and 3 again. Now, how would you feel to go to court and then lose your case because a judge hasn’t got the competence to adjudicate. Why then is is in the first place a judge of the High Court of Australia you may ask? 5 When I took on the Governor-General, as first defendant, as to failure of proper gazetting the 2001 writs for the then federal election and the writs being a day short in the time table, and hence the election should have been held a week later, I later discovered that all 7 judges had visited the Governor-General, and no guesses what they did with my case. Albeit, when judges are fraternising with one party without the knowledge or consent of the other party then their 10 subsequent judgment is null and void. Obviously, the question may arise and likely did why on earth a man seemingly being a billionaire would want to spend all his time in the parliament when he has important business venture to attend to? 15 Reality is, that the Framers of the Constitution set out what was expected from a Member of Parliament and I did recently set this out also to Mr Tony Abbott (130912-Mr G. H. SchorelHlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic by stealth!) and subsequently to Mr Malcolm Turnbull as follows;
20 QUOTE 12-9-2013 correspondence to Mr Tony Abbott But, as s64 of the constitution allow the Governor-General to commission any person to form a government and to appoint subsequently any person, even not holding a seat in the Parliament, for being a advisor (minister of the Crown) to the Governor-General then the election itself cannot dictate the validity of the appointment for up to 3 months. However, we must consider also the following: 25 HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE 30 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates, and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown.

35

END QUOTE What basically is applicable is, that a person not when elected but when actually taking up the seat in the Parliament at the return of the writs, then and only from then on can the person be paid an ‘allowance’, not being a ‘salary’. On Wednesday 128 September 2013 I happen to read an article about a Victorian Member of Parliament 40 Geoff Shaw, who was instead of being at his local (Frankston) political office was actually working at his accountancy office. it seems it was held he was ripping of the public doing so. The truth is he did precisely what the Framers of the Constitution debated to be applicable. That those who are elected continue to work in their normal daily job and receive an “allowance” (not being a “salary”) towards the travel expenses and loss of income for attending to the Parliament. essentially people have been by masses brainwashed that a person 45 who actually acts appropriately in that regard may be deemed to be a thief. END QUOTE 12-9-2013 correspondence to Mr Tony Abbott

It must therefore be clear that there would be absolutely nothing wrong with you conducting your business affairs, while also being a Member of Parliament (if elected and 50 taking up the seat).
QUOTE Mr Malcolm Turnbull, Minister Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au 21-9-2013

55

Ref: 130921-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbullt Re republican versus monarchist-etc p2 22-9-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

Malcolm, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I put the challenge to you to disprove my reasoning in my “ 130920Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic by stealth!” correspondence to Mr Tony Abbott, of which you were provided a copy via email at the same time. While your email refers to “MP” it must be clear you are not a Member of Parliament until the writs are returned, and you are sworn in for the seat elected for. If in fact you fail to accept the seat then you will not become an MP (Member of Parliament) either. It is of concern to me what we have people running around using the references of “MP” even so they are not, and worse are fraudulently using Consolidated Revenue Funds for this. With all those lawyers in the parliament it seems not a single one understand the true meaning and application of the constitution and many are therefore fraudulently using monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds as result, but if a pensioner was to do the same then politicians would argue they deserved to be punished as they are stealing from the taxpayers. Well to me every politician doing the same likewise should be facing the courts and no excuse for not knowing what is applicable.
.

10

15

20

25

30

I can accept that any successful candidate for purpose of travelling to the Parliament to take up the seat would be entitled to compensation in regard to this, including a limited overnight accommodation cost. That the Framers of the Constitution considered and for this also provided for an “allowance”. Therefore a Minister of the Crown is entitled, when having taken up a seat in the parliament, to an “allowance” and as a Minister also entitled to receive remuneration for being a Minister of the Crown. the ‘allowance is payable from Consolidated Revenue Funds whereas the “salary” is payable by the Queen, for which Her Majesty receives monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds. It is important that it is understood that a Minister is and remains entitled to any “allowance”; when also being a Member of Parliament. A Minister, such as yourself, not now being a Member of Parliament therefore cannot receive the same amount of monies as you would once you become a Member of Parliament, if at all. For example, so to say, you could be declared a bankrupt before being able to take up the seat and then by s44 of the constitution you would not be able to take up the seat and your appointment as Minister would expire by no later then 3 months after the appointment commenced (Section 64 of the constitution). Obviously, my issue is if you and other former Members of Parliament, since the House of Representatives was dissolved, nevertheless continue to use the perks as a Member of Parliament, such as mobile and other communications at expenses of the taxpayers and likewise travel and use accommodation even so not constitutionally entitled upon?
.

35

The mere fact that you continued to use the email address “Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au” seems to indicate to me you lack a proper understanding about the true meaning and application of the constitution, this despite that many years ago I already pointed this out to you, when you were in the Howard led 40 Government. I refer to “Howard led Government” because it was not a “Howard Government” because constitutionally the Governor-General is heading the government as the CEO of the Commonwealth of Australian representing the British monarchy. END QUOTE 45

In my 5-9-2013 correspondence to the AEC I stated; QUOTE 5-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE As I stated in my previous correspondence:

QUOTE It is to me incomprehensible how the AEC specifically appointed as to conduct elections seems to be so 50 incompetent to supervise matters appropriately, and allowed this gross deception to be ongoing continue upon the Australian electors. END QUOTE

END QUOTE 5-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
55

And in my 8-9-2013 correspondence to you I stated;
QUOTE 8-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE As I understand it the writs issued had: 15 August 2013 closing nominations as such 23 days must be counted at conclusion of the 15 August and the poll cannot be held until the conclusion of the 23rd day. As such, it is not on the 23rd day! Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 16 August 2013 Friday 17 August 2013 Saturday 18 August 2013 Sunday 19 August 2013 Monday

60

p3 22-9-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

25

Day 5 20 August 2013 Tuesday Day 6 21 August 2013 Wednesday Day 7 22 August 2013 Thursday Day 8 23 August 2013 Friday Day 9 24 August 2013 Saturday Day 10 25 August 2013 Sunday Day 11 26 August 2013 Monday Day 12 27 August 2013 Tuesday Day 13 28 August 2013 Wednesday Day 14 29 August 2013 Thursday Day 15 30 August 2013 Friday Day 16 31 August 2013 Saturday Day 17 1 September 2013 Sunday Day 18 2 September 2013 Monday Day 19 3 September 2013 Tuesday Day 20 4 September 2013 Wednesday Day 21 5 September 2013 Thursday Day 22 6 September 2013 Friday Day 23 7 September 2013 Saturday Day 24 8 September 2013 Sunday, after which the first Saturday can become polling day! Day 25 9 September 2013 Monday Day 26 10 September 2013 Tuesday Day 27 11 September 2013 Wednesday Day 28 12 September 2013 Thursday Day 29 13 September 2013 Friday Day 30 14 September 2013 Saturday, first and last available polling date! END QUOTE 8-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

And this is only applicable if the Governor-General’s proclamation was not only placed in the 30 Gazette but it was available to the public prior to the writs having been issued, otherwise no election at all was valid. This didn’t occur in 2001, as I proved in court! Obviously the AEC never disclosed this to the JSCEM (Joint Select Commission on Electoral Matters). and continue to persist in making the same errors. Did you ever wonder if the AEC prosecuted for concealment (failing to declare) the financial gains they had during the election (considered to be a contribution or financial benefit) those who were using their MP email addresses during an election and receiving an “allowance” as an MP as well as were using taxpayers funding travel and overnight accommodation, etc, as if they were MP’s this even so when an election is called, regardless if they stand for re-election they 40 are not MP’s if they were Members of the House of Representatives and are not until the return of the writs and they take up the seat elected for. The same regarding the Senate in case of a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION.
35

Why indeed is it that despite of technology we now have election time tables designed to suit the AEC rather then the electors? keep in mind that when the constitution was framed there was no benefit of computers, air travel, motor vehicles, etc, as now exist. Yet the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 has been often amended to suit the AEC, not the electors. That is also why the unconstitutional “deposit” has increased and so the number of signatures required for a elector to stand as a candidate. This too I extensively litigated in court and the AEC lawyers 50 never challenged any of it, hence it should accept the court ruling upholding my appeal. I didn’t engage any lawyers for the cases because as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and a (now retired) Professional Advocate I proved to have enough competence to defeat the highly paid lawyers of the Commonwealth time and time again in the case.
45 55

Because of the structure of so to say two gangster mob political parties any submissions to the JSCEM is basically a sheer waste of time, and often submissions are not published when they expose their rot.
p4 22-9-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

While as a mining magnate you may have experienced ample of problems in transport of products and the ports being insufficient to deal with it, but you may never have been aware that the s101 of the constitution Inter-State Commission was specifically set up to act independent from the Government and the Parliament to act upon expert advise as to Trade and Commerce 5 issues, including ports facilities, and deal with matters to the interest not only of the Commonwealth of Australia as a whole but also as to each relevant state and part thereof. the constitution makes the Inter-State Commission mandatory, as it refers to “shall be”! If your own lawyers and those of other mining companies never understood this to be so and failed to advise on this then may this not then underline that lawyers should not be confused with 10 having competence in constitutionalistical issues You became who you are because of your desires and input and I became a CONSTITUTIONALIST for the same reasons. .but whatever we have achieved so far during our life time it would be worthless if we didn’t have others around us as our status is nothing 15 unless we have others to share it with. If you were the only person in the world then monies and status has no meaning. therefore, we must work with others to ensure that our status and positions are to the benefit of others also. In this case you can in your own way pursue the constitutional and other legal issues against the AEC, so others may benefit from this also. the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any elector was qualified to become a Member of 20 Parliament if elected. therefore the numerous signatures to nominate (for an independent candidate) and the “deposit” I view is unconstitutional. As I recently posted on the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) ?Facebook web page
25 QUOTE 3-9-2013 POSTING https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission/posts/510419275711079?notif_t=like (Posted at about 3.06am Tuesday 3 September 2013 by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.) 30 Due to problems with posting I will placed it in parts, but it must be read as one statement. Part 1 of 4 As I indicated (see also my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati) I am against "compulsory voting" and not against voting itself. What we must accept is that we have a constitution, from which all legislative powers is derived. We have courts that adjudicate, We had the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 deciding to uphold my appeals against convictions of FAILING TO VOTE. The lawyers for the Australian Electoral Commission submitted to the Court that it was not in the public interest for it to pursue the matter further against my appeal, and failed to challenge any of my numerous submissions based upon constitutional matters. The AEC clearly capitulated and it had at the time the opportunity to challenge my submissions but clearly failed to do so. If it was not in the public interest to pursue convictions for FAILING TO VOTE, then why this after about 5 years litigation when they are nevertheless pursuing hundreds of thousands if not millions of FAILING TO VOTE issues against others? It, so to say, cannot have the cake and eat it. It was left so to say with egg on its face, and its clear failure to pursue a conviction must be accepted as an acknowledgement that it knew that it had no hope in the world to score a conviction in the County Court of Victoria against me for numerous reasons. Part 2 of 4 I have now already voted, this because I held there was a candidate who deserved my vote. that I view is what voting should be about, candidates must earn the primary vote! And as on my blog set out, no elector can ever vote for who shall be prime minister. As we saw with John Howard, he was defeated by Maxine McKew and even if his party had succeeded in holding on to government, he would not have been prime minister. This gross deceptive conduct upon electors that they vote for who shall be the next prime minister should never have been tolerated let alone been allowed by the AEC. It must act responsible! Palmer United party seems to also claim you can vote for him to become Prime Minister. You cannot. He can only bed elected within his constituency by the electors to represent them in parliament. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I maintain it is the prerogative power of the GovernorGeneral to decide who shall be commissioned to form a government. the Governor-General even could commission me even so I am not a Member of Parliament and n either a candidate in the p5 22-9-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

35

40

45

50

55

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

election! It should make not one iota of difference what legislation is on foot for the AECV, if it is in conflict with the constitution. Playing two faced as to concede defeat in court, when on the other hand defrauding electors by fines to me is a serious matter that undermines the credibility of the AEC. I urge those who do exercise their right to vote to do so in a proper manner, as to vandalize the ballot paper (as many do) isn't going to get you anywhere. it is a childish prank at the very least and displays immaturity also. I urge that the legislation permits an elector to mark only the number of candidates the elector desires to support and once those candidates no longer are in the running then the ballot paper simply no longer is relied upon. it serve no elector that a vote is used for a candidate which the elector simply didn't desire to vote for but is compelled to do so. Part 3 of 4 As I made clear that I stood in the past as a candidate because I held no other candidate was suitable to obtain my vote. Why on earth then should I be forged to vote for an opponent? Clearly, the court accepted this reasoning also. If you like the rot you are now subjected to then vote as you did before but if you desire to change matters then well you have the power to vote otherwise. Just don't complain afterwards, as quite frankly I am sick and tired of people complaining afterwards that the politicians lied. Of course they do., and you should know that their mantra about health, education, etc, is just that and nothing will be better in 3 years. un less you vote for those who can deliver, or proved to do their bit to assist society. The constitutional right not to vote is what you may desire and then also accept that by this you withholding to vote may in fact serve the party you may not like to gain government after the election! We must also have the AEC to become independent, and not deceive electors, nor should it accept the "deposit" as legal because the Framers of the constitution made clear that any elector was entitled to be a candidate. they would be horrified and so to say turn in their graves to know that a huge deposit is required and numerous signatures. it is unconstitutional and I view the AEC should challenge the validity of such unconstitutional legal provisions rather then to tow the line regardless of being in violation to the legal principles embedded in the constitution. the aim is to encourage electors to make informed decisions to vote and for whom to vote, and cut out the false./misleading/deceptive political claims and also place candidates on a contract that if they act as a member of parliament in violation of their election promises then by 10% of their constitutions petitioning the court their seat can be declared vacant, as cost of the former member to hold a byelection. that will teach them to be honest. Part 4 of 4 If just we had the AEC with some so to say balls to stand up for the right of electors! Not, as I understand it to make submissions to try to reduce the number of candidates by increasing the deposit, and number of signatures, because this is counter productive and indeed in violation to any citizens constitutional right if they are an elector. Elections can only be valid because of being held in accordance to what is permissible within constitutional context, and as I proved on 19 July 2006, I knew the constitution better and how it applied then the AEC. Well, it is long over due it finally became realistic and alter its modus operandi of sheer ignorance, and seek to look after the rights of the electors and not act adverse to their rights. ordinary people would likely make far better Members of Parliament then those we now seem to get, just that those surviving on the breadline and having all relevant experiences by the huge cost of deposit are prevented to stand as a candidate. Again, the lawyers were at court and merely had to present their case but instead claimed it was not in the public interest to pursue to oppose my appeals. Neither did any State Attorney-General oppose my submissions either, even so they were all informed about it. Therefore, lets get realistic and accept no one can be forced to compulsory register/vote, but the AEC should divide a system that will attract more people to register and vote and become candidates so that it becomes a truly national issue people desire to engage in and not like slaves people as forced labour are subject to attend to a polling place regardless if they do or do not formally fill in a ballot paper. My wife who dreads ordinary being forced to vote now could not wait for the poling place to open up because there was a candidate she felt deserved to vote for. After decades of retirement it was looking as if she was back at work again. This is the kind of excitement missing in general from elections because generally is it a choice, so to say, between dud no1 and dud no 2by musical chairs and very much the AEC has been an active participant to prevent ordinary people to just nominate themselves and that is it. We do have a constitution and do not just seek but demand that finally the AEC adheres to the true meaning and application of the constitution, and not despite of it. END QUOTE 3-9-2013 POSTING

p6 22-9-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

You may research the material published on my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati or check out my website www.schorel-hlavka.com as to constitutional and other matters.
http://au.businessinsider.com/it-was-really-expensive-for-kevin-rudd-to-replace-julia-gillard-2013-7 5 QUOTE BEN COLLINS 8 JULY 2013 6:48 AM Kevin Rudd's Toppling Of Julia Gillard Will Cost Taxpayers Millions In Staff Payouts Severance payments to political staffers who quit after Australia’s leadership spill will cost the country around $5 million. 10 According to a News Limited investigation, a lot of ministerial staff dumped after the failed leadership coup in March have been re-hired, after they already received severance payouts just a few months ago. They needed to be re-hired after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd shuffled the ministry after he won the Labor Party leadership. A lot of staff who worked for former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and ex-Treasurer Wayne Swan are also 15 quitting, and will need to be paid out. Gillard is leaving politics at the election, and Swan needs less staff as he is contesting his seat but won’t have a portfolio if the party is reinstalled. END QUOTE

Essentially, what we need is a so to say reformist within the Parliament who isn’t in it for the monies but to serve the People in the right manner to reclaim our constitutional government we supposed to have. I do not accept that a Prime Minister should have a staff of about 50 as this is a sheer abuse of power and misuse of Consolidated Revenue Funds, and can be done well without. After all all taxpayers, including large companies are ending up paying more because of 25 this wasteful spending. As I wrote to Mr Tony Abbott (130920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic by stealth!): QUOTE
20 30 With the carbon tax, it doesn’t require any legislation to abolish it, to stop it being applied, because the Government can simply direct not to have it applied. Governments are not required to enforce laws which goes against the will of the People, and in the recent election they trusted you to not apply the carbon tax, and now that somehow it will remain until 1 July 2014 is to me utter and sheer nonsense. I understand that Mr Peter Dutton is “Sports Minister”, can you set out within which constitutional context you can have a Sports Minister? Don’t argue about external affairs, because the Framers of the Constitution made clear this related to the powers provided for in the constitution,. as such not for the Commonwealth to fancy and make up extra legislative powers that never existed.

35

END QUOTE
40

In my view cut government spending and taxation, and this will result to an increase employment, because the level of taxation we are having is crippling industry and by this many will avoid hiring staff because of the huge associate cost. I for one would look forwards with interest to your complaint against the AEC.

45

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
®

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(

Our name is our motto!)

p7 22-9-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati