1

Registrar High Court of Australia 15-9-2020

enquiries@hcourt.gov.au
5 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir/Madam,
I on 10 September 2020 lodged with the High Court of Australia an Application with
what I consider in the circumstances an Affidavit setting out numerous issues.
.
10 I am aware of

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/federal-court-says-hard-border-best-at-
stopping-coronavirus-from-entering-wa-in-clive-palmer-case/ar-BB18l0af
Federal Court says hard border best at stopping coronavirus from entering WA in Clive Palmer case
15
In this case it appears to me the Court appeared to rely upon FICTIONAL claims, rather than to
uphold THE RULE OF LAW being s92, etc.
.
As I made clear, I am not seeking to have some “bleeding heart” court which disregard the true
20 meaning and application of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
That in my view is the most important issue before any Court!

McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)
QUOTE
25 The authority which the statute vests in the court to enforce the limitations of its jurisdiction precludes the
idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere averment or that the party asserting jurisdiction may be
relieved of his burden by any formal procedure. If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his
adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof. And where they are not so
challenged the court may still insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed, and
30 for that purpose the court may demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify his allegations by a p - See
more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/298/178.html#sthash.vq35K1Gk.dpuf
END QUOTE

If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the
35 case must be dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The Accuser
Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.

“Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties”. Griffin v.
Matthews, 310 F supra 341, 342 (1969): and “Want of Jurisdictionmay not be cured by consent
40 of parties.” Industrial Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 US 310, 313.

QUOTE

BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) -- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant,
before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz,
45 (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163
p1 15-9-2020 © 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
 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303, IN THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On
Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California "A statutory
privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional right." People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d.
5 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the
judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is
realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield." Vela v.
Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously, administrative agencies, like police
officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights . Southern Pac.
10 Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California.
November 23, 1976.] If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, un-contradicted and of such nature it cannot
rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law.
Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952) If they can get you asking the wrong
questions, they don't have to worry about answers. Thomas Pynchon They will do whatever we let them
15 get away with. Joseph Heller ~*~

END QUOTE

I could list numerous other authorities but it ought to be clear that if an opponent is to object to
the jurisdiction of the Court then I have the onus to prove it. Regretfully when I object to the
20 jurisdiction of a court then generally the court will ignore it, and by this actually never invoked
jurisdiction. Yet when an opponent Counsel OBJECTS TO THE JURISDICTION then the Court
insist I must prove jurisdiction as it cannot rely upon past cases it may have dealt with the same
or similar cases.
.
25 Hence, I rely for example upon:

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

76 (i) arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation;

30 However, as I have still outstanding the 4-12-2002 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL

MATTERS in which the Commonwealth is involved and so also affect the STATE OF
VICTORIA then this too can be relied upon, where the Commonwealth is a party to those
proceedings.
75(iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued
35 on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party;

Likewise where my application of 18 march 2003 was against the Commonwealth of Australia
this too can be relied upon.
.
40 I was well aware knowing how the High Court of Australia prevented matters to be heard
appropriately, such as my objection to the constitutional validity of the purported Cross Vesting
Act (February 1995) that I could well again have some judge lacking to understand what is
constitutionally applicable to so to say railroad my case.
.
45 The High Court of Australia principle interest is first if the matter is within its jurisdiction!

Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Limited [2010] HCA 47 (15 December 2010)
QUOTE
As Mason CJ rightly said in Autodesk Inc v Dyason [No 2][1], the exercise of the
50 jurisdiction to reopen a judgment and to grant a rehearing "is not confined to
circumstances in which the applicant can show that, by accident and without fault on the
applicant's part, he or she has not been heard". The jurisdiction is, however, to be
exercised with great caution[2], having regard to the importance of the public interest in

p2 15-9-2020 © 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
 3
the finality of litigation. That Mason CJ dissented in the result in that case does not deny
the accuracy of the propositions just made.
END QUOTE

5 While Dawson J on 27 February 1995 held that an Appeal was to be heard the following day
before the Full court of the Family Court of Australia and so declined to intervene, in my view
that was a gross denial of justice as the issue was that the purported Cross Vesting Act was
unconstitutional. In my view the High Court of Australia had a constitutional issue before the
Court and should have heard this. And the fact that Dawson J by this also held that a pre-
10 determined order was that His Honour made an error, I view was a serious violationn of His
Honours obligations to have intervened that if the original orders was pre-determined during the
trial and then that order and any subsequent order was without warrant of law and ULTRA
VIRES and no need for me to appeal this matter further. Actually His Honour likewise had
already failed to intervene when I appeared on 8 December 1994 before the High Court of
15 Australia.

Each time my issue was to present the High Court of Australia with a matter of “jurisdiction” and
each case His Honour Dawson J refused to deal with it appropriately.

20 With the 18 March 2003 Application there could be no doubt that within context of constitutional
issues I had a valid case to pursue. Yet, the court never heard the matter upon its merits which
appeared to me to be bias as it wrongly held to be part of government instead of being an
“impartial” administration of justice.
We now had numerous lives lost in the decimation of Iraq and for what? Because of the
25 deception about WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) that didn’t exist!

The High Court of Australia is not and never was nor ever can be above the constitution. It is to
serve the constitution and nothing less than that. It must be and remain to be “IMPARTIAL” and
must be seen to be so.
30
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
35 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE

My wife was born in Czechoslovakia and lived through WWII and subsequently through
communism until she was able to escape. Yesterday I had to drive my wife for treatment and
40 later for blood samples because of her heart failure and other underlying medical problems in
view she is 87. She was in fact terrified to even get into the car and finally when we were back
home she gave me the understanding that she never had such a fear before in her life as she has
now knowing the police to violently attack people, in particular videos of attacks upon women.
She wonders why on earth the High Court of Australia has not bothered to immediately provide a
45 case number regarding the Application I lodged on 10 September 2020 as if it totally disregard to
uphold the rule of law. She grew up with her father being a senior lawyer, and as such learned
from her father legal ethics. It is beyond her why the High Court of Australia in the past failed to
deal with the rule of law when I made Applications.

50 Violence is escalating on the streets in Victoria where the Victorian Police are generally
commencing this. For example arresting a journalist Mr Avi Yemini who was being filmed by
his camera man standing there on his own when suddenly a police commander ordered Mr Avi
Yemina to be arrested for obstructing the police.
p3 15-9-2020 © 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
 4

https://youtu.be/IP4k1aJpIcM
AUSTRALIA’S SHAME: Melbourne police bodyslam reporter Avi Yemini covering
pandemic
5
When one then consider:
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v BRADFORD JAMES ROBINSON
[2019] HCA 46

then one Has to ask what was the legal basis of the arrest of Mr Avi Yemini unless it was nothing
10 more but a way to seek to justify an “move on” order so he couldn’t report what was going on.

While the High Court of Australia may and so correctly that it cannot be some “bleeding heart”
court as that is for Mr Avi Yemini to pursue through the court, reality is that the Victorian Police
displayed a total ignorance the High Court of Australia previous decision in the case referred to
15 above. And one may ask then what on earth will this have to do with my 10 September 2020
Application, well it does a lot because by midnight 14 September 2020 I still have not been
provided with a case number of my application. That means the longer, if like a snail, the High
Court of Australia is to provide a case number the longer this kind of violence and abuse of
power continues.
20 I did make known to Premier Daniel Andrews that I had lodges on 10 September 2020 my
Application with the High Court of Australia and requested for the State Government to maintain
the STATUS QUO, however he simply seemed to me to have blatantly disregarded this.
More than likely because the High Court of Australia didn’t provide a case number.

25 I for one cannot understand why the High Court of Australia has such a problem with advising
me about the case number. However, I was given the understanding by others that more than
likely the High Court of Australia will seek to railroad my application once again.
.
Perhaps to follow suit as did the Federal Court in:
30
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/federal-court-says-hard-border-best-at-
stopping-coronavirus-from-entering-wa-in-clive-palmer-case/ar-BB18l0af
Federal Court says hard border best at stopping coronavirus from entering WA in Clive Palmer case

35 .

It should be absolutely clear that S51 subsections are not at all showing any legislative powers to
the States, as rather they are to deny the States those listed legislative powers. However, it is the
40 hansard Constitution Convention Debates records that show that the Framers of the constitution
intended to let the States within Section 106 “subject to this constitution” to legislate until the
Commonwealth commenced legislation after which “no new laws” could be provided by the
States upon the same subject matter and any existing legislation preceding the Commonwealth
legislation could no longer be amended. Any previous colonial/State legislation would still be
45 subject to Section 109 of the constitution and such legislation could no longer be amended.
Obviously where the High Court of Australia despite of the embedded legal principles in the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) handed down its Sue v Hill decision,
then this is for so far it violates the constitution was NULL AND VOID.

50 The High Court of Australia might so to say feel stepped on its toes but that I view is absurd as it
rather should welcome to be corrected.
.
p4 15-9-2020 © 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
 5
I am quote frankly not a bit interested if some judges were somehow offended for being exposed
for failing to uphold the constitution appropriately as every judge failing to do so deserve to be
ousted.

5 I always had respect when I appeared at the bar table and a judge made known he was wrong
about a certain issue. This, as only when a person admits to have been wrong can one expect this
person to have learned from this and may in future seek to avoid to repeat such wrongdoing.

This court primary obligation is to consider if my application deals with constitutional issues
10
I too refer to s92 and also to s117, etc.

R v Smithers; Ex parte Benson (1912) 16 CLR 99.

15 Ex Parte Nelson (No 1) [1928] HCA 33; (1928) 42 CLR 209 (22 October 1928)
In Gratwick v Johnson (1945) 70 CLR 1 at 17
In Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360 (at 391) at 18

20 However in view that the High Court of Australia now has (finally) accepted the usage of the
Hansard Constitutional Convention Debates records as it is clear that the States has certain
legislative powers such as closing off the borders if it comes to certain animal diseases but just
not regarding “man-kind” diseases.

25 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section
of the 52nd clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with
regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to
30 diseases among man-kind.
END QUOTE

In my view, and that is my personal view, I would hold that the Commonwealth would have
legislative powers when it comes to import and export as to prevent animal or other diseases to
35 enter the Commonwealth of Australia as now already is enforced by Border Force. This as it
doesn’t whatsoever interfere with the States inter-state transport of disease animals, etc.
.
In my view the decisions about s92 therefore should be re-visited where they were handed down
at a time when the Hansard Constitutional Convention Debates records were not (albeit wrongly)
40 allowed to be used.
.
This then opens up further matters relevant to my Application.
.
As I also made clear in my view the Chief Health Officer can only act within the powers of the
45 Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) for so far authorized by the Commonwealth and any State legislation
would therefore be ULTRA VIRES where it relates to “man-kind” diseases. It is the
Commonwealth and the Commonwealth alone which is responsible for “man-kind” diseases
being it COVID-19 or whatever. If the State of Victoria therefore desired to have some exclusion
zone or whatever applied then it should have been requesting the Federal Minister of Health to
50 provide for such directions, etc. That is I view the chain of command that applies.

p5 15-9-2020 © 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
 6
We now have the Victorian Police a privately registered corporation as some private army acting
for the Victorian Chief Health Officer (also referred to as CMO = Chief Medical Officer) in total
disregard to the legal requirement of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth).

5 As the Framers of the constitution made clear Parliament can act whenever a Member pursues an
issue however the High Court of Australia cannot do so unless a party(citizen, etc) lodges an
Application for the Court to hear and determine matters within its jurisdiction.
And again, the Framers of the constitution made it very clear they didn’t desire to have some
Attorney-General on political basis decide if a citizen could or couldn’t lodge an Application as
10 the Constitution provides for any citizen to do so.

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
15 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
20 QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
25
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
30 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

This means that the High Court of Australia being “part” of the constitution must pursue the
plain English language and not some fancy claims as to what some foreign country may have
35 determined with a constitution totally alien to our constitution.

While in the circumstances prevailing I was not able to have the Affidavit printed out and sworn
in, this however should not be an obstacle to the Court where this resulted from the very
unconstitutional conduct of the State of Victoria I am pursing in the case.
40
This court has acknowledged in the Albert Lange case that indeed there is “political liberty” and
yet in Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews makes clear about political protesters

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/selfish-unlawful-wrong-andrews-chastises-anti-lockdown-
45 protesters/ar-BB18XkAp?ocid=msedgdhp
'Selfish, Unlawful, Wrong': Andrews chastises anti-lockdown protesters

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/people-protesting-against-coronavirus-lockdown-arrested-in-
melbourne-amid-clashes-with-police/ar-BB18YGxw?ocid=msedgdhp
50 People protesting against coronavirus lockdown arrested in Melbourne amid clashes with police
"Protesting is selfish, protesting is stupid and protesting is dangerous," Premier Daniel Andrews said
today.

The truth is that regardless if it is dangerous or not it is not the call of the Premier to make. After
55 all if there was a danger then he could have requested the Federal Minister of health to provide
appropriate directions. The Bisosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) makes it clear that the (Federal) Minister
p6 15-9-2020 © 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
 7
cannot delegate the responsibility and so it is the Federal Minister who ultimately is so to say in
the driver’s seat.

What may appear to one person to be a danger may to another person not to be so at all. And, for
5 this we have the judiciary to hear and determine any disputes. However, the chain of command
must be followed. Now however we have that Premiers are all making their own decisions and
regretfully the Federal Court appears to me to be some “bleeding heart” court rather than being
a court which first of all determines what is constitutionally applicable. If then the constitution
prevents the States to interfere with freedom of trade, etc, then I view the Federal Court should
10 have made clear that the Premier of WA should follow the provisions of the Biosecurity Act
2015 (Cth) and request the (Federal) Minister responsible for disease issues to provide what the
Premier deems needed directions/decisions.

It is the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth to deal with age care, etc, and again
15 any Premier who desires certain conduct must request the relevant Federal Minister for his/her
assistance.
.
How on earth can any judge make a decision as some “bleeding heart” court where the figures
are “assumed” and may be totally unreliable. Hence, I in support of my application seeking to
20 end up having the High Court of Australia to present itself as some “bleeding heart” court listed
numerous internet links to scientific/medical documents and videos. As such, to indicate that if
the Court somehow held that alleged statistics are relevant then well I have opposing statistics, as
well as to show that much of the details are not only questionable but also fabricated.

25 As such, the first issue for the court is not to become some “bleeding heart” court to argue about
which statistics, etc, are to be relied upon if any at all but if the Application has a constitutional
issue to address.
.
Only if the Court determines that there is one of more constitutional issues for it to adjudicate
30 upon and any other issues that can be adjudicated upon then it can proceed for so far it is relevant
to consider whatever other evidence either party may desire to submit. However, it may very
well restrict itself to the issues such as if the State of Victoria is bound to act within the confines
of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) and if this is so then the validity of any Victorian legislation
and any declared STATE OF EMERGENCY / STATE OF DISSASTER regarding any “man-
35 kind” disease has no legal force. The High Court of Australia then simply is not interested to go
through the array of statistics as to whomever may produce them as they are irrelevant for the
purpose of constitutionality. It is then for the parties to seek the (Federal) Minister of health to
determine what, if anything, he hold is the best way to deal with matters regarding any “man-
kind” disease.
40
I understand that Mason CJ reportedly had stated to a USA journalist that His Honour used
judgments to provide for rights, etc, where His Honour held the Parliament had failed to do so. In
my view this was a violation of the separation of powers. It is not for a judge to by backdoor
manner encroach upon the powers of a Parliament.
45
Only an “impartial” court can earn the respect of al.

I have over the decades always urged people to pursue the rule of law and I do expect nothing
less but for the High Court of Australia to so to say be a model citizen and adhere to that
50 principle also.

p7 15-9-2020 © 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
 8
Perhaps the Registrar may have sought the involvement of a judge as to determine if my
Application can proceed. However, if the Registrar has any doubt than I view the Registrar ought
to have conveyed this to me immediately without delay and give me an opportunity to explain
whatever may be needed to be explained.
5 .
I understood that His Honour Kirby J in 2003 urged lawyers to pursue before the High Court of
Australia the issue of “citizenship” and yet since 4 December 2002 my NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS also dealing with the issue of “citizenship” is and has been
outstanding. And, when the High Court of Australia was dealing with s44 issues I then wrote to
10 the Registrar about my NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL matters but found no response
whatsoever. It came across to me that the High Court of Australia would be embarrassed that a
citizen somehow could expose the High Court of Australia had it all along wrong and well just so
to say railroad the matters

15 I do not know why at the time of writing this correspondence I still have not been provided with
a case number, this even so I view this is a matter of (national and) public interest.

Is the court going to argue, after perhaps more violence has erupted or worse, that the High Court
of Australia was so scared and trembling in its shoes in fear of COVID-19 that its brain-cells
20 became inactive and so it couldn’t manage to deal with even the simplest things?

Well I have a wife who is in ill health and I for one cannot just expect but demand that the High
Court of Australia acts competently in the circumstances and provides interim orders to
safeguard all those who are entitled upon this.
25 .
QUOTE In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)
Be it so; yet you had no right to take the law into your own hands, I will tell you what you
ought to have done, and if you did know, I will tell you that the law conclusively presumes
that you did.
30 END QUOTE

The danger is of course that if the High Court of Australia has placed itself on being non-active
then who can expect citizens who continually are deprived of their constitutional and other rights
to remain subjected to the constitutional terrorism now subjected to?
35 In my view a competent judge would not have any problem to understand that the Biosecurity
Act 2015 (Cth) is the governing legislation and therefore any violation by State legislation, etc is
NULL AND VOID and ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio.
The High Court of Australia may not like me personally for being so outspoken, but then I am
entitled to be so, and in particular where lives are at stake, in addition of our constitutional rights
40 then any undue delay is deplorable to address the issues at hand.

I look forwards to your positive response and provide the relevant case number.
Due to a hearing disability I do not answer phone/mobile to avoid misunderstanding/
misconceptions as my hearing aids are defective and cannot be repaired due to the restrictions in
45 place by the premier.

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

50 (Our name is our motto!)
p8 15-9-2020 © 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