You are on page 1of 7


ISSUE: 20190330- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 39-Port Arthur issue

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

* Gerrit, oh boy did One Nation get itself in a pickle.

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, actually while it may appear to be so I have a different view.
But as I have stated for years Pauline Hanson should do her homework as to the legal principles
embedded in the constitution and she would be in my view a lot better off.
* Why is that?
**#** In past PRESS RELEASES I extensively canvassed about our constitution being in part
based upon the USA constitution and for militia to defend also against invaders. Well, if militia
doesn’t have arms to defend the local community then you got no defense.
* Are you saying it is implied that citizens are entitled to have guns like the 2nd amendment in the
USA constitution?
**#** Our Framers of the Constitution made clear that our liberties would if not equal then
greater than the USA with its then 14 Amendments to its constitution had.
* I understood that you dislike weapons, have you changed your opposition?
**#** I actually won first prize in the battalion shooting competition on all weapons but dislike
the weapons to be in the hands of so to say nutters. However as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I
accept that the Framers of the Constitution held that citizens ought to be able to protect
themselves against any invading force. In my view we hardly have armed forces to defend
ourselves and so with any invasion it more then likely will be for the militia that then is
organized to protect citizens. Well, waving a booklet which contains the constitution isn’t going
to do it.
* But what about Port Arthur?
**#** In my view this was like the WMD (Weapons of mass Destruction) and the Russian Gate
hysteria in the USA. From what I read this bloke who was accused/convicted of murdering so
many could never achieved that as such. I understand his guilty plea was to silence him and well
where was the Royal commission to investigate such disastrous heinous killings? When you
consider, as I understand it that the former President of the Senate was the undertaker at the time
who had in advance ordered a mighty large truck to transport the bodies, then I wonder how on
earth was he aware of it before the Port Arthur shooting eventuated. I can tell you if my family
had been killed I wouldn’t accept the mantra dished out but would want a Royal Commission to
have it appropriately investigated. It is ironically that with a bush fire we have a Royal
Commission, not that I view it was not justified, but when it comes to mass murder, crimes

p1 30-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
against humanity, treason and a lot more with the Iraq invasion then somehow no Royal
Commission at all. Likewise with the Port Arthur killings.
*.So you would prefer a Royal Commission into the Port Arthur mass murder?
**#** Indeed I view this is well justified and so in regard of the Iraq invasion. We now got
politicians pursuing that anything to deal with white skinned people somehow is to be banned
from the internet, not the violence promoted by certain religious groups! Not banning the violent
games that promote murder, etc. What they are after also is to sideline small groups in elections
so that the election is stolen from electors that the leaders of the 2 main parties have the right to
determine who shall be Prime Minister regardless of what the electors decide.
*.Moment is it not that they vote who shall be Prime Minister?
**#** Our constitution doesn’t at all provide for any elector to vote who shall be in government.
It is the constitution that provides for the Governor-General to decide who shall be forming a
government under his control. And well I view that Governor-General Peter Cosgrove is a war
criminal, mass murderer, etc, and got the position to silence him about Iraq, and likewise so those
Members of Parliament who were involved in the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq. Here we
have one person killing about 50 human beings and that is terrible even if there was only one
person killed, but our politicians have been to cause mass murder in Iraq and no one has been
held legally accountable for this. I would like to see them charged, convicted and locked up.
*.What about One Nation from some gun lobby, is that not interfering with our election
**#** Can you explain to me if invading another country for regime change based on lies is not
interfering with that countries election processes? In my view neither Scott Morrison or Bill
Shorten are suitable to be Members of Parliament let alone Prime Minister as neither have got as
clue what the legal embedded principles in the constitution are about. In my view they are the
once undermining our constitutional rights. Look at how the ALP is promoting to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars if it is elected in to government, even so we do not elect a
government and they really are meaning to rob the citizens of their monies so it can give it away
as they desire to promote themselves. Let it be clear no government gives away monies as it is
the taxpayer’s monies. It is the Parliament that is to decide if an Appropriation Bill for any
expenditure is to be approved or not. But what we have is grandstanding by politicians spending
other people’s monies. And we have that Scott Morrison now was promising billions regarding a
train to the airport this even so it is not his call but that of the Section 101 Inter-State
Commission to do so without any political involvement.
*.The NZ killings appears to have been religious targeting on Muslims, wasn’t it?
**#** We should condemn any killings but for far too long we had all kinds of killings promoted
against Christians, etc, and this Antifa promoting as I understand it to even kill USA President
Donald Trump and his family surely should have been an issue long ago. However because
politicians are against President Donald trump in general they not only didn’t careless but even
themselves made derogative comments. Well we have now seen how in NZ at least 50 innocent
people were mass murdered. Remember Pauline Hanson entering the Parliament with a Hijab
and she was severely criticized for this?
Well, let us check reality.

p2 30-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
Made-up to look beautiful. Sent out to die. The young women sent into crowds to blow
themselves up.
Since then, militant groups such as Hezbollah, the Kurdish PKK, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Hamas and
Black Widows in Chechnya, have all used women and girls to carry out suicide attacks.
But Boko Haram has outstripped any one group by far in the scale of its brutality, according to Elizabeth
Pearson, associate fellow at the Royal United Service Institute in London.
She estimates that hundreds of young girls have been forced to carry out attacks in the past three years, in
Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger.
By the end of 2017, 454 women and girls had been deployed or arrested in 232 incidents, Pearson says. The
attacks killed 1,225 people.
Pearson is the author of a study about Boko Haram’s use of female suicide bombers.

Imagine if one of those girls dressed in a hijab is doing the same within the Parliament? There
would be an outcry that there was no proper protection but is that not what they themselves
ensured by mocking the warning of Pauline Hanson?
Facebook to ban white nationalism and separatism
Facebook has said it will block "praise, support and representation of white nationalism and
separatism" on Facebook and Instagram from next week.
QUOTE Posted 6.01pm 28-3-2019 by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Do media giants realise that because they are publishing in countries where discrimination
is unlawful they could get themselves in trouble to allow one group to publish hatred and
murder while preventing others their political rights to state their views. See also Dow
Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56-Re Internet publication. Australia has a
legal principle embedded in the constitution such as: HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution
Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.

It is one thing to promote violence against ANY human being that includes abortion of 3rd
term pregnancies, but another to merely cast once view about political issues. We live in a
word where generally everyone has a opinion that may or may not correspond with our
own. We must tolerate some comments as that is what democracy is about. If it promotes
or support violence then I see no issue with banning this, however we must refrain from
curtailing FREEDOM OF SPEECH. We had this heinous attack upon USA President
Donald Trump that he was a traitor and a Russian agent and yet it is now proven that he
was innocent. Where was Facebook and others to demand evidence instead of allowing this
absurd allegation to go on and on? Is vilification an acceptable norm by Facebook, I
wonder? If Facebook and others desire to ban violence then start with videos that
encourage people to participate in killings. Ban also everyone, not just a selected group,
from promoting the killing of innocent citizen (even the unborn ones) for religious or other
p3 30-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
reasons. Ban the religious publications of any religious text that promotes the killing of
anyone who do not belong to a particular religious group. Banning a particular group but
allowing others to promote hatred and killings I view only is indicative to the twisted
minds that are deciding what is offensive.

*. Well stated.
**#** Here we had Governor-General Peter Cosgrove going to New Zealand while he in my
view had no business to be there. His Governor-General ship is only applicable within the
borders of the Commonwealth of Australia as a representative to the Queen. He had Minister to
attend and if he desired to go as a private person at his own cost that is his business but not at
taxpayers cost rorting the system.
*. Isn’t Russia now placing bans upon some servers?
Russia Orders Major VPN Providers to Block ‘Banned’ Sites
Fundamentally, depriving humans of their fundamental human rights, such as the right to communicate
freely, which implies anonymously (for without anonymous communication, like whispering between
neighbours or friends, then any despot can imprison, torture etc, thus making communication fundamentally
non-free) eventually causes a backlash.
Perhaps some enterprising Russkies will finally get some full p2p/n2n local node mesh networkie thing
happening. Would be a great day since if some I2P Neighbour to Neighbour type thing takes off, we'll all be
morally and spiritually better off for it, despite the natural consequences of empowering to some degree,
illegal and "illegal" activity.
Actual freedom means taking some of the actual "bad" of life with the good, otherwise freedom (in a
particular domain) does not exist.
The clamour for safety, for protection by any external authority such as government, inevitably ends up with
that external authority being targetted by sociopaths and despots who end up exercising the "power to
protect" or "responsibility to protect" (R2P), despotically and sociopathically.
This is as natural and as certain as water flowing downhill.
The fundamental human malaise today is the desire for protection and safety (and even comfort!) by external
authorities - that is, by authorities external to ones self.

The problem with censorship by any government is that it could use this then to silence any
opposition for publishing something that the government may oppose. This clearly would offend
at least in the Commonwealth of Australia the political liberty implied in our constitution. No use
to argue that some party might not do so when in government because we too often have
witnessed in the past who what they stated prior to an election is not at all followed through and
then they use all kinds of nonsense of claims to seek to justify their 180 degrees turnaround. That
is why one better not open such a can of worms where it can go out of control.
*.Do you support certain restrictions on the internet?
**#** I as a constitutionalist and hold that any freedom of speech usage includes from refraining
from any criminal motives. As such the moment someone were to use the internet for criminal
purposes then I view this no longer can be deemed FREEDOM OF SPEECH but an abuse of it.
Facebook rapist Rhian Lee Ryan jailed for five years as judge attacks social media giant
A Perth man has been sentenced to more than five years' jail for repeatedly raping a child he met on Facebook, and
forcing young girls to send him naked pictures of themselves that he then threatened to post on social media.

Key points:
Rhian Lee Ryan posted more than 330,000 messages to Facebook from age 14-19
p4 30-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
His flirty messages to girls escalated to threats, blackmail and sexual assault
The Judge said Ryan's messages showed a "disdainful" attitude to females
District Court Judge Stephen Scott said the "extraordinarily disgusting" messages Rhian Lee Ryan sent to the
girls, and his "complete disdain for females", further added to the trauma and profound distress his crimes
had caused them.
Judge Scott said the social media giant needed to do more to protect its users from being exposed to such
extreme bullying, and the message the sentence delivered to the community was "those who steal the
innocence of young girls need to be properly punished".

In my view the judge was correct in what he stated. When anyone misuse the internet for
criminal purposes/intent then I view it is appropriate for restrains to be in place. However, I do
not agree to prevent honest political communication.
*.What about making a statement to support white skinned people?
**#** Are we to ban people of black skin from promoting their colour of skin and their
grouping. I do not think so. Likewise anyone other of whatever skin colour should not be banned
for being proud upon their skin colour. It is however different if one promoted a skin colour for
criminal purposes/intent. I grew up in The Netherlands with parents and siblings where a
person’s skin colour was never an issue. Likewise I never made it an issue with my own children.
And perhaps the video that can be downloaded may also explain some issues. Likewise,
whatever religion or not having a religion of another person never was an issue to me. The
concept of being a human being is rather to me more important than whatever may or may not
eventuate after death. Once you are death you have no longer the body you used to move around
and as such for those who have the view there is an afterlife they ought to consider in what
Jordan Peterson_ The Video That Will Change Your Future - Powerful Motivational Speech
2018 Regarding IQ, etc.
I attended to a technical school and the Principal then called in my parents that I should go to
university but I declined this as I desired to learn first a trade. Now retired and looking back
having been in management of factories and as a Professional Advocate having represented also
lawyers in litigation I never regretted this decision when I am able to fix about everything around
the house also. Jordan Peterson in his video made known that about 10% of people will basically
be unsuitable for any kind of employment. I disagree with this. I had a sheepherder asking for a
job and admitting that the personnel manager already had refused a job. I nevertheless hired him
and within about 6 months he was better than the machine setters who were on the
jobfor3decades or more. What you need is a person to be eager to do a certain job. Not everyone
wants to be a baker, plumber, etc. So try to use the person’s interest into a job opportunity.
*. I understand from our past conversations you are not particular a so to say greeny but what is
your view about the current electricity debacle?
**#** I yesterday actually did watch some videos I had on my computer and I list them below
where one can watch them. Environment is not a federal issue, regardless of whatever agreement
the Federal Government may have entered into with other countries.

Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
p5 30-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.


Therefore any such treaty cannot be enforced against citizens. To do otherwise would effectively
allow the Federal Government to absorb all state legislative powers by treaty making process,
and that is not what the constitution provided for.

There is also an issue as to using for example those windmills as is explained in the next listed
videos that thousands of births end up being killed by those windmills. As such the greenies who
proclaim to be all for nature are actually causing the loss of b bird life, etc.
When you also look at the raw material used to produce such wind mills and transport them, etc,
then the harm to the environment is considerable greater. I saw recently a video about
regeneration and in it the explanation was given that the scientist pursued the killing of more than
30,000 elephants some 30 odd years ago in the (mistaken) belief that this would avoid the
destruction of the land but now admitted that it was the wrong thing to do. China has started
regeneration of the desert both in China and in other countries and this is what I view Australia
also ought to get involved in. A success story is in Africa where desert was transformed into
fertile land.

A reality check on renewables - David MacKay TEX-Ed

Why renewables can’t save the planet _ Michael Shellenberger _ TEDxDanubia

5 Amazing RENEWABLE ENERGY Ideas & Solutions For The Future

Elon Musk says Australia’s energy emergency is easily fixable - Part one _ 60 Minutes Australia

Elon Musk says Australia’s energy emergency is easily fixable - Part two _ 60 Minutes Australia

with the coming federal 2019 election it would be far better if instead of Scott Morrison and Bill
Shorten going on and on about One nation and gun issues they actually addressed real issues
concerning Australians. No longer the mantra Health, Education, etc, because with every
subsequent election as parrots they repeat the same. With health why not simply make it that
funding should reflect per capita of inhabitants? Education for all students to be equal regardless
if they attend to a private school or not, albeit a private school cannot use this monies for
religious purposes. It is absurd to claim increase of the police force, teachers, doctors, etc, when
per capita the ratio is lower than before. As with increase of population there needs to be more
police, teachers, doctors, etc. just to keep the same ratio in applicable. Then we have portable
schools and why not portable living quarters so that when there is a season for fruit pickling or
whatever those kind of living quarters could be as flat packs delivered to areas where
accommodation is required to enable people to go fruit picking, etc.

p6 30-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
*. Now that appears to be a great idea to consider.
**#** I was really never interested about this claimed climate change because there was too
much of lies about global warming. But having watched the videos I have just referred to I view
that we might just do better such as using the Dutch-Chinese example to use the ocean currents
to have generators for electricity. Likewise, to use diversions for turbines without harming fish.
Also to ensure that nuclear power is used as a baseload to ensure that there always will be
electricity. Here we have the greens going on about plastic bags killing sea animals, and while I
can understand this concern they obviously are blatant ignorant that those solar panels that are
obsolete will soon likely also end up as poisonous pieces in water ways, etc. so what is needed is
to have a fair dinkum government that makes clear that jacking up the energy prices to allegedly
protect environment but really in the long run destroying the environment then let’s make critical
decisions that is a balance to human life, animal life and nature in other manner.
*.So to you going back about what we just discussed those who are pounding upon One Nation
are really wasting the air they breathe in and they do better to address real critical issues of which
some you just mentioned?
**#** Where the politicians do not even bother to hold a Royal Commission into the mass
murder of Iraqi people, who had done us no wrong, and by this promoted it that they killings
were COLLATERAL damage what moral standing do they then have to argue about killings
otherwise? What they are saying in my view is that if they are involved in mass killings
regardless it is unconstitutional then that can be promoted but if someone else does it then this is
a very serious matter. To me the killing of any innocent human being is deplorable!
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!

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!)

p7 30-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://