ISSUE: 20180502- Re: Crime of aggression, privacy, treason, etc & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

QUOTE Chapter - Crime of aggression, privacy, treason
Chapter - Crime of aggression, privacy, treason
* Gerrit, this chapter title covers a lot, doesn’t it?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, indeed it does.
* Why do you use so many computers and each with anti-virus on it and yet only one used on the
internet?
**#** This is the privacy issue. As you may be aware
https://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/82587-government-denies-asd-plan-to-spy-on-australians.html
Government denies ASD has plans to spy on Australians
QUOTE
The Australian Government has been quick to deny a story that the Australian Signals Directorate is trying to
extend its spying powers to Australian citizens.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told reporters in Cairns: "The current laws safeguard the privacy of Australians but also
provide us with an opportunity to keep Australians safe."
The story ran in Sunday editions of News Corp newspapers and cited correspondence between the head of the
Department of Home Affairs, Mike Pezzullo, and Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty.
It said the ASD was seeking powers to monitor Australian citizens for the first time and such powers would allow the
agency - which has so far had an external role - to secretly access emails, bank records and text messages.
Additionally, the proposal said that the defence and home affairs ministers could sign off on the data grab,
removing the need for any judicial oversight.
END QUOTE
Well, remember Paul Keating (Prime Minister) ‘L.A.W.’ about superannuation and he reneged?
Remember John Howards (PM) ‘No G.S.T.’ and he reneged?
Remember Julia Gillard (PM) ‘No Carbon Tax’ and she reneged?
In my view any warrant issued by the signing of by the Attorney-General is unconstitutional, this
as the Framers of the Constitution (by this embedded the legal principle in the constitution) made
clear that both sides needed to be heard before a judicial determination can be made. As such,
some kind of ex parte warrant issue I view is and remains unconstitutional.
Well, I view Menzies as Prime Minister created ASIO as to spy on Australians and I understand
indeed did so as to keep himself in power. As such I would neither trust ASIO in what I
understood even preventing a teacher to get a job by directing a school not to hire the person.
That is I view terrorism from within. As such I do not trust any government that makes claims
while secretly doing the opposite. Often a leak is to gauge the response of the wider community
and then if it goes against it well another FALSE FLAG event will make sure that the general
community are softened up to accept it under the guise of national security. I have in the past
written about the Port Arthur issue and made clear I view this was a FLASE FLAG event.
Likewise with Iraq so called MWD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) it is obviously that with my
writings (including in the courts) exposing the crimes of aggression, treason, war crimes, crimes
against humanity, etc, that I can expect to be targeted and hence have computers which never go
on the internet to avoid losing the data.

p1 2-5-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
* CRIME OF AGGRESSION that is something!
**#** If you check out the book I published in 2008 (INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & Fabricated
'INCEST' allegations-1st-Ed-CD) then you will get some idea. And mind you that was written
long before other investigations proved it was all a con-job by politicians and no WMD existed!
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & Fabricated 'INCEST' allegations-1st-Ed-CD
A book about exposing fabricated allegations ISBN 978-0-9803712-2-2
A book on CD ISBN 978-0-9803712-3-9 A book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-4-6

Chapters 609 to and inclusive 628 are dealing with Iraq issue.
QUOTE A Book, Part 08-IRAQ, 633-Chapter 609-ROYAL COMMISSION REGARDING IRAQ INVASION
Chapter 609-ROYAL COMMISSION REGARDING IRAQ INVASION
.
* Gerrit, you did seek legal redress in the High Court of Australia, to try to prevent
Australians to participate in the invasion into Iraq, didn’t you?
.
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, indeed I did, on constitutional grounds.
* Why on earth do you desire a ROYAL COMMISSION regarding the invasion into
Iraq?
.
**#** As a “constitutionalist” I opposed the invasion because unless the Governor-General
published in the Gazette, using prerogative powers, no Prime Minister can authorise an
armed invasion into a “friendly” country as Iraq was at the time.
END QUOTE A Book, Part 08-IRAQ, 633-Chapter 609-ROYAL COMMISSION REGARDING IRAQ INVASION

http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/mark-curtis-for-the-british-political-elite-the-invasion-of-iraq-never-happened/
Mark Curtis: For the British political elite, the invasion of Iraq never happened
QUOTE
When the Chilcot report on the Iraq war appeared in 2016, the media widely commented that it failed to
explicitly say the war was illegal. But it did say: “Mr Blair asked Parliament to endorse a decision to invade
and occupy a sovereign nation, without the support of a Security Council resolution explicitly authorising the
use of force. Parliament endorsed that choice.” The invasion could only have been legal if it had secured
such explicit UN authorisation. All Cabinet members were surely aware of this since it is basic
international law – even though, as the Chilcot report showed, Blair withheld some key legal advice
from them.
Sir Michael Wood, the most senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office at the time of the invasion, was
unequivocal, advising the government that military action without UN approval was “contrary to
international law” and would constitute a “crime of aggression”. He told Ministers they risked offences
under the International Criminal Court Act and for “misfeasance in public office”. Wood’s deputy
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned in protest on the eve of the invasion, told the Chilcot inquiry that
“all the lawyers dealing with the matter in the Foreign Office were entirely of one view”.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 17-4-2018 email to Jeremy Corbyn

Gerrit to Jeremy Corbyn-Fwd: see attachment 20180417-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to President
Donald J Trump-Syria issue-supplement 5
From Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To jeremy.corbyn.mp@parliament.uk
Cc Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Reply-To admin@inspector-rikati.com
Date Today 22:00 (17-4-2018)

Jeremy,
I understand you correctly as Opposition leader questioned the justification of the bombing of Syria.
After all that is the function of an opposition to ensure that a government acts responsible.

p2 2-5-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 I provide you hereby with a copy of a letter I earlier emails to President Donald Trump. Other
correspondences can be downloaded from my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
In my view, considering what was stated in the constitution debates it is Her Majesty the Queen who
regarding the United Kingdom (and the Governor-General for Her Majesty in the Commonwealth of
Australia) only can declare war or peace.
If however there is a direct attack upon the United Kingdom then this in itself is a declaration of war and then
the British government is well entitled to respond. Such an attack by a foreign country upon British soil
would in itself constitute a declaration of war and no formal declaration of war is then required by Her
Majesty to be published in the Gazette.
However, in regard of Iraq and now Syria (or for that any other nation) if no attack is made upon British soil
then I view the Minister of Defence can only recommend to Her Majesty to publish in the Gazette a
DECLARATION OF WAR naming the particular country/countries to whom it is to apply.
It is only AFTER such DECLARATION OF WAR is published in the Gazette that the Minister of Defence
can act. The matter has absolutely nothing to do with the Prime Minister or for that with the Cabinet as to
make a decision. The Cabinet can debate matters but ultimately the Minister of Defence is the
'responsible Minister' to advise Her Majesty.
For this, I view that unless Her majesty had published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR naming
Syria the Military attack upon sovereign Syria was unconstitutional and so illegal.
.
While governments often rely upon conventions, this however cannot override the royal prerogative powers
of Her Majesty.
You will find that my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati has numerous other documents
available for downloading regarding constitutional issues and about the Syrians and Iraq attacks.
HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the
Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one
would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a
responsible Minister.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they determine upon
asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my part, I believe that all the
prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as they relate to Australia. I never
entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
END QUOTE
You may find that my writings to President Donald Trump is very informative and may clarify some issues.
In my view Prime Minister Theresa May had no legal authority as Prime Minister to possibly plunge the
United Kingdom into a war, as I view she did when attacking the sovereign nation Syria. Technically by this
attack I view the United Kingdom is and remains at war with Syria unless and until if ever at all a PEACE
TREATY is signed by the parties. And this requires Her Majesty to be involved in doing so.
Perhaps Prime Minister Theresa May failed to look in a mirror to realise she is merely the Prime Minister and
not Her Majesty, and as such she should respect to the prerogative powers of Her Majesty and show also
respect to proper protocol that ultimately the Minister of Defence is who must make the call to request Her
Majesty to publish a DECLARATION OF WAR naming Syria.
As this involves the prerogative powers of the Crown it is not something that can be demanded of Her
Majesty. Her Majesty may refuse any request involving prerogative powers where Her Majesty views to do
so in the interest of the British community and a war sought might be merely to shore up a desperate
government for a political issue such as a political election, etc.
I look forwards to your response,
Gerrit
END QUOTE 17-4-2018 email to Jeremy Corbyn
p3 2-5-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
* Is that meaning that even if there had been WMDs without the Monarch publishing in the
Gazette a DECLATION OF WAR naming Iraq any invasion still was unconstitutional?
**#** That is correct.
* As such, is this meaning all politicians who endorsed this CRIME OF AGGRESSION in the
UK (United Kingdom) and Australia all could likely be guilty of the CRIME OF
AGGRESSION and other related crimes?
**#** That is why I view a Royal Commission should be established to investigate matters. And
I view that those Prime Ministers, such as Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull by their
failure to act upon my request to them about the royal commission are as such obstructing the
course of justice and are in my view as guilty as those who committed the crimes as alleged.
* Did you forget to mention Tony Abbott, as he was Prime Minister also?

**#** Not at all, as he as a Minister at the time would in my view be as guilty as John Howard
and other Members of the Coalition (then in power). And so I view also the then members of the
Opposition as their silence when they should have opposed it I view makes them also guilty.
* What ab out the treason bit, is that too relating to the Iraq issue?
**#** Actually, it is rather dealing with what I view the judiciary of the High Court of Australia
did and continue to do. Our constitution gives absolutely no judicial powers to the High Court of
Australia to amend the constitution either directly or indirectly, and I did it did so such as with
Sue v Hill. Likewise so the politicians involved in it all. I have extensively canvassed this in the
past and no need to set it all out again.
* What is this with the EU (European Union)?
**#** As I understand it:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-
43659260?ns_mchannel=email&ns_source=newsdaily_newsletter&ns_campaign=NEWS_NLB_Wk18_Mon_30_April&ns_linkname=b
bcnews_privacy_newstech_privacy&ns_fee=0
Are our online lives about to become 'private' again?
Our privacy is ongoing undermined and that needs to be stopped. Regardless what anyone may
claim otherwise the EU rulings are still applicable to the commonwealth of Australia for so far
they are not conflicting with our constitution and are supplementary to our constitutional
provisions. I have set this out in the past so anyone can check out my blog at
www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
* How would you combat terrorism?
**#** First of all have a Royal Commission mandated for every time Australian troops are
deployed overseas. And As John Howard and his cohorts claimed that they were making the
world a safer place they should be held legally accountable to prove they did do so.
* Do you mean to pursue to reduce the impact of having violated constitutional limitations, etc?
**#** Obviously, they need to be held legally accountable and in the process also prove there
were WMD and that they made the world a safer place. Do not ignore the fact that as I
understand it service women were caused to be immunized and well I understand at least one
claimed later that she no longer can become pregnant due to the immunization. Well, I find there
is absolutely no excuse for having harmed any service personnel as such.
We some months ago also had this warmongering by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Julie
Bishop Minister for Foreign Affairs as to deal with North Korea. I then made clear to leave North
Korea alone.
p4 2-5-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
And we had this nonsense FALSE FLAG about the Skripal case with Malcolm Turnbull joining
in instead of waiting for OPCW report. And then we had this FALSE FLAG claim of Douma
Syria gas attack. I view only some imbecilic Moran would fall for that nonsense. And yet
Malcolm Turnbull was supporting yet another Crime of aggression.
https://russia-insider.com/en/opcw-investigators-found-no-evidence-chemical-weapons-syrian-facilities-bombed-us/ri23292
OPCW Investigators Found 'No Evidence' of Chemical Weapons at Syrian Facilities Bombed by US

Then consider:
http://this.deakin.edu.au/society/is-freedom-of-speech-under-
threat?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=mc_display&utm_campaign=contenthub_16H1
Is freedom of speech under threat?
The only way to protect our safety and security is to hold those people engaging in War of
aggression and those supporting it all legally accountable. Obviously the Government of the Day
prefers to use electronical details to undermine whistleblowers from reporting and so exposing
matters. To know the identity of who was a whistleblower. To know who had damaging material
and then hack into their system and delete it all or otherwise unduly interfere with it all. As ASIO
proved it was spying on Australia for Menzies and then inappropriately preventing certain
persons to obtain employment. That is very serious. In my view hacking into computer systems
without a warrant issued by a court and without the subject of the warrant having been allowed to
object I view is unconstitutional. What a Government of the Day can do sis to hack into political
adversaries computers and then destroy any material adverse to the Government of the Day so
they could stay in power. If there is electronic voting then they can interfere with this also. No
use to say trust the Parliament.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
Constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is
required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet
together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to
draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment,
which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most
important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters
that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth
citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really
defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with
it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the
provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this
p5 2-5-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is
the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal
Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why
it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood
who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the
Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for
joining the Union.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of
federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on
the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is
to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again
and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as
lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
END QUOTE
This is why I consider the Judges of the High Court of Australia to traitors. The High Court of
Australia simply has nor had no direct or indirect judicial powers to amend the constitution and
yet in Sue v Hill purported to change how the constitution applies. We have traitors within and as
such instead of pursuing to undermine the, liberties of Australians we can achieve far more just
by holding the warmongering politicians legally accountable. Malcolm Turnbull may claim
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (Liberté - Égalité - Fraternité) for Australians but in my view he
does precisely the opposite in various ways. And well we see how he supported the Crime of
aggression against Syria to be well aware he talks but doesn’t do the walk about Liberté -
Égalité - Fraternité). After all he ignored my request to remain NEUTRAL and well he was
entitled to do as he desires but then should now face the legal consequences of having supported
a Crime of aggression!
* I take it from this that in the overall you do not consider him to be a competent statesman?
**#** Neither Malcolm Turnbull or for that this guy Bill Shorten. Well I refer to guy but I do not
know if he joined the loss of identity brigade not being either male or female. How is he going to
explain his mantra of needing 50% females in the Parliament when now we have such a variety
of gender or non-gender claims that soon there be more diverted gender/non-gender statuses then
there are seats in the Federal Parliament. No kind of legislation can make the world a safer place
other than if it was to imprison each and every politician so they cannot pursue warmongering.
* Surely you cannot just imprison politicians? You need criminal charges against them to justify
imprisonment even if interim while awaiting a trail, don’t you?
**#** I can assure you I can level ample of charges against them, as I have written about in the
past. As with AMP, I warned them in 2009 but they ignored me, and well so to say now heads
are rolling. Malcolm Turnbull then ignored my writings also! That shows how much he cared
about the victims. Remember he did the same at to my 2016 Bourke Street mall warnings!
END QUOTE Chapter - Crime of aggression, privacy, treason
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)

p6 2-5-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati