ISSUE: 20170905 - Re Is Bill Shorten now stateless, etc & the constitution

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

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-17/dual-citizenship-the-moment-we-could-have-avoided-this-mess/8807534
Dual citizenship: It looks like we could've avoided this mess 120 years ago By Michael Collett
Updated 19 Aug 2017, 10:29amSat 19 Aug 2017, 10:29am
Posted by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Facebook 6.55am 5-9-2017
Michael Collett doesn't seem to get it. 'Citizenship' referred to in s44 of the constitution refers not to
nationality but to a person living in a foreign jurisdiction and/or having benefits of as if living I a foreign
jurisdiction. For example holding an off shore bank account in a foreign jurisdiction and by this have taxation
benefits of a foreign power!
The British statement 26th July 2010
This is to confirm that William Richard Shorten born 12 May 1967 in Melbourne, Australia applied to
renounce British citizenship on 15 May 2006. The Secretary of state for the Home Department approved the
application on 26 June 2006
In the Pochi case Mr Pochi was held not to be an Australian citizen because while it had been approved
he had been unaware of it. Hence he was deported.
POCHI v. MACPHEE (1982) 151 CLR 101
(at 2) On 11 September 1974 the plaintiff applied for a grant of a certificate of Australian citizenship. On 25
February 1975 the application was approved by or on behalf of the Minister for Immigration, but neither the
Minister, nor his Department, nor anyone on behalf of the Commonwealth notified the plaintiff that his
application had been successful. As a result of the absence of notification, the plaintiff, as was reasonably
foreseeable, did not take an oath or affirmation as specified in s. 15 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948
(Cth), as amended, and there was not issued to him a certificate of citizenship.
POCHI v. MACPHEE (1982) 151 CLR 101
10. Where, as here, an alien migrant has a family (spouse and children) living with him in Australia,
exercising the power so as to break-up the family would be inhumane and uncivilized. The plaintiff's wife
and children face the awful dilemma of staying in Australia, so that the family is broken-up, or leaving
Australia with Mr. Pochi to live in a foreign country. In Pochi v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
(1979) 36 FLR 482, at p 514; 26 ALR 247, at p 275 Brennan J. said of Mr. Pochi:
" . . . it is certain that (his) deportation . . . would destroy or gravely damage a growing Australian family,
and that would be a grave detriment not only to them but to Australia. His deportation, separating him from
his Australian wife and children or requiring them to accompany him to a country that the children do not
know, would be destructive of their prospects in life as well as his . . . I am not persuaded that the applicant's
deportation would be in the best interests of Australia."
While Mr Pochi had not made the oath/affirmation the issue was he had not been notified about it
having been granted.
Bill Shorten while having made his application to renounce British citizenship on 15 May 2006 it
was approved on 26 June 2006, but not notified until 26th July 2010.
It was not apparently until about 24 November 2007 that Bill Shorten was formally advised that
he no longer a British citizen was. But, under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) the embedded legal principle is that he is a British subject and this he didnt
renounce. Neither could he renounce being a British subject and be a Minister of the Crown
under this British constitution.
As I wrote in the past, you can call a cow a dog but the cow still remains to be a cow ! As such
our constitution didnt change and neither needed to be so but the judges of the High Court of
Australia beyond its jurisdiction decided to twist the true meaning and application of the
constitution by making a British subject to be unqualified to be a Minister.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
p1 5-9-2017 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
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 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 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born
in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the
commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old
country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of
the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies
should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired
his appointment.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:

They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution second
to none in the world. When the question of a second chamber comes to be considered, they will assuredly
not be satisfied to possess less freedom. More than this. In framing a federal constitution, we should set out
with the explicit claim to possess and exercise all the rights and privileges of citizens of the British
empire to the same extent that they are possessed and exercised by our fellow-countrymen in Great
Britain itself. Australia is entitled to absolute enfranchisement. In our union we attain political manhood
and the stature of a full-grown democracy.

END QUOTE
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and nobler
than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present
when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position
we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal
citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a
Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I see therefore nothing unconstitutional,
nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to
enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the question of federal citizenship.
END QUOTE
As I did have a court order dated 4 December 2002 from the Magistrates Court of Victoria at
Heidelberg, by CONSENT in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka re citizenship issue in the Form 78B
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER and this was never challenged by the
Commonwealth when I succeeded in representing myself in both successful appeals on 19 July

p2 5-9-2017 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
2006 then the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 was placed by me under a legal challenge and it
remains to be ULTRA VIRES, where no court pronounced against it.
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of
Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and
judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in
good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen
cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is
ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity,
judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See:
Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against
them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional
torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity."
Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr,
952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
"It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or ministerial to so
perform every official act as not to violate constitutional provisions."
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
In the US of A there was this social worker who was dealing with rape victims. She got so swept
up with the mania then driving in the US of A that she then herself accused her own father. He
got convicted and imprisoned, only later to be freed being innocent of any wrongdoing. Still she
later held that regardless her father having been innocent it was for others a good example he was
imprisoned. As such the truth no longer was relevant.
My wife is a self-professed hypochondriac and so she had cancer several times. For months on
end I get the sermons ab out her ill health only later to show she never had any. The same with
numerous other illnesses. Likewise, this mania went around to call nationality citizenship and
so many went on the bandwagon. Lawyers/judges/politicians simply are having blinkers and no
matter what claim citizenship as a nationality. Bill Shorten making clear that as he desires to
become Prime Minister he then has to show is doesnt hold dual citizenship!
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section
of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to
aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each
person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is
meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I
am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation
of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of
Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary
provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it
is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that
we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page
1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to
p3 5-9-2017 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
 be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth
Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put
this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should be a citizen of the
Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE
Therefore, Mr Bill Shorten fails to understand that dual citizenship is that he is a Victorian and
as a Victorian is also living in the Commonwealth of Australia and by this hold dual citizenship
If one considers liquor laws then you find cases where for example a person staying overnight in
a hotel can order alcoholic liquor but not a patron of a bar after closing hours. For purpose of
residency the person resides at the hotel. That is the difference.
When a Member of Parliament goes for say 3weeks on holidays in a country then the person
technically is residing for those weeks in that foreign country and as such is entitled to the
ordinary rights as anyone residing there for so far not excluded by special legislation. The person
for example is bound to follow the road rules like anyone else. Constitutionally this makes the
person disqualified to be a Member of Parliament, because the Member of Parliament is having
the benefits of a foreign power. It was not about nationality at all but to be having the benefits
of living in a foreign jurisdiction. Fancy the Prime Minister holding offshore tax haven accounts
and by this having the benefits of a foreign power to pay less tax while pursuing citizens in the
Commonwealth of Australia to pay a certain level of taxation. Stop twisting the meaning of the
word citizen in the constitution! It is not about nationality but about where you reside,
temporary and/or permanently. So, a person residing in Indonesia cannot be a Member of
Parliament because he resides within a foreign power, regardless of his/her nationality.
Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF
APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from:
[2003] EWCA Civ 168
18. The Aliens Acts did not apply to the inhabitants of the British Empire. They were not aliens. Mostly they
were British subjects owing allegiance to the Crown, although the British Nationality Act 1948 drew a
distinction between Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and citizens of the independent members
of the Commonwealth. All were entitled to come here freely until the first Commonwealth Immigrants Act of
1962.
As such, while for constitutional terms (s44) Australians remained British subjects the
Commonwealth of Australia federal Parliament nevertheless had changed its legislation from
naturalization to Citizenship Act. This however cannot validly override the constitution.
Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
19. The Immigration Act 1971 brought everyone under the same system of control. It abolished the
distinction between aliens and British subjects and introduced the distinction between patrials with the right
of abode, who were not subject to immigration control, and non-patrials who were subject to immigration
control. Under section 24 of the 1971 Act a person commits a criminal offence, among other things, "if,
having only a limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he knowingly either - (i) remains
beyond the time limited by the leave; or (ii) fails to observe a condition of the leave" (s 24(1)(b)).
Bill Shorten born 12 may 1956 then clearly was born within the constitutional context of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as a British Subject. He was also
born within the meaning of the The Immigration Act 1971 (UK) as a British subject. If Bill
Shorten never actually resided in the UK then he simply was never a British citizen. Any
application to renounce his non-existing British citizenship can be approved as it makes no
sense. If a person so to say is a goofy to believe something he isnt then well he may never learn.
To be a Minister of the Crown within the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) one doesnt have to be a British subject! However, to be a
p4 5-9-2017 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
Member of Parliament s44 provides shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or
a member of the House of Representatives. This word chosen is not about election itself but to be
chosen to take the seat at the time of offered to make an oath/affirmation for a seat. This as the framers of
the constitution themselves made clear a person subjected to a bankruptcy order can still be validly
elected provided the person has the bankruptcy order set aside before taking the oath/affirmation of the
seat. As such Julian Assange can be elected b ut cannot take up the seat elected for, if he were, while he
resided in the Ecuadorian embassy. As he is technically a citizen of a foreign power.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON.-How would you define the word "citizen"?
Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." A citizen is one who
is entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a citizen. I do not think you require a
definition, of "citizen" any more than you require a definition of "man" or "subject."
Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?
Mr. SYMON.-Why not?
Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not.
Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have the rights of a
corporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of this Constitution.
[start page 1783]
Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a corporation.
Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I
END QUOTE
Clearly the issue was not about nationality when reference was made about a corporation but
about citizenship rights.
In my view any person born within the Commonwealth of Australia by virtue of the legal
principles embedded in this constitution will be a British subject (nationality) unless having
renounced this. It would seem at odds to me that a bloke who so much announced to wanting to
be Prime Minister would forgo the very legal status required to be a Member of Parliament that
is to be a British subject. In my view Bill Shorten simply proved not to understand/comprehend
the true meaning and application of the constitution and he desires to become Prime Minister?
He was born a British subject and no amount of British and/or Australian legislation can alter
that. The Commonwealth of Australia was created as a POLITICAL UNION, as since was the
European Union and you cannot have a nationality of a POLITICAL UNION.
And those who read the Pochi case would be aware the judges then confused citizenship with
nationality. There is absolutely no formal requirements to pledge an oath/affirmation to be a
citizens. Bill Shorten for all I care could move to Tasmania or Queensland and then becomes a
citizen of that State he moved to and no one in his right mind that is would claim he has to make
an oath/affirmation to reside in another state.
The High Court of Australia may decide to declare that Australians are now under the Queen of
Sheba, but it wouldnt alter for one iota the legal status of Australians, it may however be
perhaps a justification to lock up those judges in an asylum.
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE
With the ongoing rorting by parliamentarians I could likely get rid of most if not all politicians
within s44 of the constitution and so without needing to twist or infringe upon the true meaning
and application of the constitution!
How many Members of Parliament who were born within the Commonwealth of Australia with
being British subject from birth (other than Bill shorten) renounced their British subject status
before entering Parliament and how many did after entering Parliament? Or was it all right to
have Senator Wood and Senator Heather Hill so to say kicked out but not all other British
subjects who at the same time were Members of Parliament by birth?

p5 5-9-2017 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
If Bill Shorten intended to renounce his British subject status but misconceived this to be
British citizenship then if the British Government accepted this by making the same error then
this might mean that Bill Shorten actually is stateless. It also might mean he no longer is entitled
to be a Member of the Bar nor could practice as a lawyer.
Consider also Moller v The Board of Examiners [1999] VSC 55 (10 March 1999) and Calvin's Case 7 Coke
Report 1a, 77 ER 377 http://www.geocities.com/englishreports/77ER377.html
When I left The Netherlands, my country of birth, the government simply wrote me out as being
a citizen of the City of Utrecht, where I had resided in the Dutch Army camp, however I
remained holding the Dutch nationality.
Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
19. The Immigration Act 1971 brought everyone under the same system of control. It abolished the
distinction between aliens and British subjects and introduced the distinction between patrials with the right
of abode, who were not subject to immigration control, and non-patrials who were subject to immigration
control. Under section 24 of the 1971 Act a person commits a criminal offence, among other things, "if,
having only a limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he knowingly either - (i) remains
beyond the time limited by the leave; or (ii) fails to observe a condition of the leave" (s 24(1)(b)).
Clearly, the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1971 may have abolished the distinction between
aliens and British subjects, but could not in my view have affected the legal principles
embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and neither could
have affected the status of those born being British subjects
Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
KIRBY J. : A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution power where none exists.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should remain
constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have borne in
1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
None of the judges to my understanding, presiding over the Wood and/or the Heather Hill cases
had renounced their British subject status! They were born British subjects, admitted to the
bar and adjudicated as such. And here we have a clear example why the Privy Council is so
important, because it would have made a decision upon the true meaning and application of the
constitution and would not have has a self-interest to pretend something that didnt exist.
Rightfully, on constitutional grounds we have no legitimate government nor legitimate members
of Parliament if they are not British subjects, and well who needs terrorist when you got people
pretending to be Australian citizens holding Australian citizenship as a kind of nationality that
doesnt exist within constitutional context.
What we need to do is to make clear to the High Court of Australia their contemporary unelected
representation is totally irrelevant. Their judicial powers do not include to twist/pervert the true
meaning of the constitution. That there can be no claim that the purported Australian Citizenship
Act 1948 was constitutionally valid as clearly it was beyond legislative powers to enact this kind
of legislation. Both Senator Wood and Senator Heather Hill were rightfully elected and wrongly
ousted at the time. It should be understood that if the unelected judges can twist/pervert the true
meaning of the constitution to whatever, then what stops them to declare we are part of the US of
A or China? The constitution belongs to no one else but to We, the People! If the High Court of
Australia was so to say stuff about more than down the road it will become more complexing to
deal with. Again the High court of Australia has absolutely no judicial powers to declare
otherwise but the true meaning and application of the constitution be acknowledged. I
SUCCESFULLY legally challenged the validity of the act and it remains ULTRA VIRES!
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 5-9-2017 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