20191219-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Marise Payne Foreign Affairs & Julian Assange

ISSUE: 20191219-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
ISSUE –
Re Marise Payne Minister Foreign Affairs & Julian Assange
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, Am I to understand you question the competence of Marisa Payne as Foreign Affairs
Minister?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I understand she is a law graduate but I question her
knowledge and understanding as to what the true meaning and application of the constitution
stands for. And as I will set out below in my view she grossly neglects to appropriately represent
Australia governing Mr Julian Assange’s constitutional rights.
Obviously when making such an attack upon her I view I better explain some matters.
.
HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE
As such a Minister is to be a “constitutional adviser”! Well let us have a look about this first.
So to say one of my students (in constitutional issues) wrote the following:

QUOTE
The Hon Stuart Robert MP Mr. John Abbott
PO Box 733 1 Piccolo Street
Biggera Waters 4216 Coomera, Qld, 4209
14 March 2016
Dear Stuart
Re: Response from Senator Marise Payne
p1 19-12-2019 © 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
It appears that the response from Senator Marise Payne regarding the issue of Australian military
involvement in Syria is Constitutionally inaccurate for reasons that she relies on section 61 of the
Constitution as the head of power to justify sending our troops to war:
Quote
“As you would be aware, neither the Australian Constitution nor current Australian legislation
requires the Government to gain parliamentary approval for the decision to deploy the Australian
Defence Force (ADF) overseas. The prerogative powers, such as the power to go to war and/or deploy
troops, fall within the executive power of the Commonwealth, under section 61 of the Constitution….”
I have not included the balance which deals with the government not taking lightly or without
consideration.
It appears that the Minister for Defence has not understood the provisions of our Constitution and
especially has totally misunderstood said Section 61 which provides:
Section 61:-
“The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by
the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and
maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.”
I cannot see where the Minister for defence interprets this section to reflect her claim that section
61 somehow affords the Government (who ever she is referring to), on its own volition,
command our defence forces to war in foreign countries. Unless off course, if the Minister has
reversed roles with the Governor General?
Quote from the letter from the Minister dated 25 Jan 2016 at paragraph 2 of page 1 mid sentence:
“The prerogative powers, such as the power to go to war and/or deploy troops, fall within
the executive power of the Commonwealth,
under section 61 of the Constitution.”
My understanding of section 61 is: “The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the
Queen and is exercisable by the Governor General as the Queen’s representative” in that, “as the
Queens representative”, it is for the Governor General to issue a declaration of war (with the
Defence Ministers advise) and the subsequent deployment of troops ensues.
I am also aware of section 68 which provides:

S.68 “The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested
in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative.
This section, S.68. Gives prerogative power of our naval and military forces directly to the
Governor General and not the parliament and or the Legislative assembly and certainly not to the
Minister of defence.
Section 51. ss. vi provides that the Parliament have power to make laws:
S. 51 ss.vi “The Naval and Military defence of the Commonwealth and the several States,
and the control of the forces to execute and maintain laws of the Commonwealth’.
This section, provides for the Parliament, as I understand it, to make laws for the defence forces
to protect the Commonwealth. In this, our troops in Syria are in no way protecting the
Commonwealth and thus could not be used as a means to send our troops to any foreign nation or
country.

Section 51 ss. xxxii provides:
“The control of the Railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes
of the Commonwealth.”
This section deals only with the transport of our naval and military forces within the
Commonwealth of Australia.
Thus, I would ask you again to inquire as to on what authority is our military involvement in
Syria:
1. Did the responsible Minister advise the Governor General that war should be declared against
Syria and on what basis?
2. Did the Governor General, upon that advice make a declaration of war upon Syria?
3. Did the Governor General sign a declaration of war against Syria?
I am also mindful that if our involvement in Syria is without a proper declaration of war as
provisioned by our Constitution then we may be charged with illegal activities and held to
account and be forced to pay compensation. It seems that on more than one occasion,
compensation has been paid to foreign countries for damages (collateral) due to the fact that no
official war had been declared.
I look forward to a response from the Minister of defence.
Regards
John Abbott
END QUOTE
It would have been nice if he had actually included:
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
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
As such the Governor-General representing Her majesty only can declare War or Peace on behalf
of the Crown. The Minister of Defence can only comply with the directions/decisions of the
Governor-General and failing there being any DELCARATION OF WAR published in the
Gazette naming Syria then I view that the Minister had no lawful authority to have any
Australian troops in Syria.
I often make clear to opponent lawyers, after they lost the case, that it is not how much you know
but that you know what you need to know for a particular case. I view likewise Marise Payne

may know something about laws but to me she seems to lack the competence to be a
“constitutional adviser”!
After all I view it is nothing less than TREASON to authorise Australians to go to war, and into
their death at times, in violation of what is permissible by the embedded legal principles of the
constitution. Also to cause an armed attack upon a “friendly” nation which I understand itself is
also punishable by the Crimes Act (Cth).
And Now that Marise Payne is a Minister for Foreign Affairs it appears to me she yet again
proved how grossly incompetent she is.
.
Why is it that she failed to secure that Mr Julian Assange who is “DETAINED” awaiting an
extradition application and not serving any sentence is nevertheless kept in solitary confinement,
denied proper access to his lawyers, denied proper human rights such as medical care, etc and
she just blatantly ignores it all? In my view she should spend less time so to say in a make up
room and more time pursuing the job she is being paid for.
Oh wait she might just need a break for the festivities and who care about the
unconstitutional/unlawful suffering of a person such as Mr Julian Assange! Well, I for one do
care about any Australian who is denied his/her constitutional rights.
In my view, Marisa Payne should be haunting the British Government that they immediately stop
the cruelty upon Mr Julian Assange.
If she has a law degree then surely she ought to understand and comprehend that Mr Julian
Aassange is denied his constitutional and other legal rights. If she doesn’t then well she better
vacate the Ministerial position to let someone more competent doing the job.
I will now quote my correspondence to 20191219-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Lady

Hale, President UKSC
QUOTE correspondence to 20191219-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Lady Hale, President UKSC
Lady Hale President UKSC 19-12-2019
C/o Mr Boris Johnston PM

boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk
Madam,
I forward this correspondence to you via Mr Boris Johnson PM so he may present this to
you.
.
As you may be aware Mr Julian Assange was ordered to be in detention pending an extradition
request from the USA.
The Court held that it was in the circumstances appropriate to detain Mr Julian Assange. As I
understand it the Supreme Court is a supervision court and ought to step in where the lower court
fails to appropriately supervise its own orders.
It is clear that an application by the USA for extradition is one of an “alleged” violation of USA
laws. It is not for the United Kingdom courts therefore to determine his guilt or innocence in the
meantime as to inflict a punishment as this would in my view violate the very constitutional
provisions the United Kingdom enacted regarding the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK)
As I understand it Mr Julian Assagne has been treated like a mainstream prisoner and even
worse. He cannot be held as a prisoner because this would violate the purpose of being detained.
He should be a detainee who cannot be punished but detained for purpose to answer a extradition
application.
My understanding is that Mr Julian Assange however at times is placed for 23 hours a day in
isolation which I view violate the rights of any detainee.
I understand that Mr Julian Assange is denied proper legal counsel access which I view is a gross
denial of the rights of a detainee.
I understand that Mr Julian Assange is denied appropriate medical facilities and medical care
which I view denies him the rights as a detainee.
I understand that Mr Julian Assange is denied considerable freedom of communication and
association with persons who desire to visit him and again I view this is a violation of his rights
as a detainee.
It is and would be utterly wrong to classify Mr Julian Assange as a “prisoner” as he can only be
referred to as a “detainee”.
Indeed, if he was “imprisoned” then I view the court would have erred in law as you cannot
“punish” a person for alleged offences of some foreign power that are beyond the powers of the
United Kingdom courts to determine.
While the United Kingdom Court may make an assessment if a person should or shouldn’t be
extradited it can however only then secure the presence of the accused by “DETENTION” not
as a “prisoner”.
From the numerous media report it appears that Mr Julian Assange is severely suffering due to
being “IMPRISONED” rather then to be held as a “DETAINEE”, and in my view this means his
“IMPRISONMENT” MUST BE IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED.
The Court then must hold that the unlawful “IMPRISONMENT” of Mr Julian Assange and the
consequences to have denied him his legal and other human rights warrants his immediate
release and he be allowed to return to his native country the commonwealth of Australia to be
able to get the maximum benefits for recovery, for so far possible, with the loving care of his
family and friends.
While my writings might be extraordinary to this court nevertheless the court cannot ignore a
grave injustice upon a person wrongly IMPRISONED where he should have been DETAINED.
The lower court clearly failed its duty to supervise its own orders and hence this court in my
view cannot derelict its duty of supervision of a lower court.
In my view if the supreme Court were to fail to correct this gross and grave injustice then I
view it would itself undermine the ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
QUOTE 18-12-2019 correspondence to Rt Hon Boris Johnson PM

Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP 18-12-2019
Parliamentary. House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk
Boris,
hereby I request you to adhere to the British legislation regarding the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within the UK jurisdiction.
As you may be aware the United Kingdom Parliament legislated this constitution with
considering also the Constitution Convention Debated leading up to tis constitution. As such the
members of the United Kingdom Parliament had full knowledge of what was proposed, and in
fact some issue were not accepted. Hence the final form in which the constitution was enacted
was different then what was proposed.
However, we do have a record of what were the legal principles that were enshrined within the
constitution.
.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
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.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
One of the principles of Western civilisation is that a person is:

“INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”.
I now come to the centre issue and that is Mr Julian Assagne.
No matter what anyone politically may view is appropriate it should be understood that the
United Kingdom having legislated the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) then is bound to observe the same. Hence, Mr Julian Assange awaiting trial for
extradition must be provided with all rights ordinary provided to an accused, and I view that the
current Belmarsh Prison conditions placed upon him are not in accordance to the embedded legal
principles of our constitution.
Agin:
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE
In my view the cruelty inflicted upon Mr Julian Assagne defies our Western culture and
principles of “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”.
I urge you to ensure that Mr Julian Assagne as like any other person accused but not convicted is
provided with appropriate facilities and rights, such as his rights to have legal counsel and prison
facilities that are appropriate considering his status of health and where this kind of facilities is
not available within the prison system he is provide appropriate alternative accommodation.
":.. 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)
Hansard 2-8-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Clause 113.-Every state shall make provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of persons
accused or convicted of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, may make laws to give effect to this provision.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I think the words "or detention" should be inserted after "the detention."
At present the clause reads-"The state shall make-provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of
persons accused or convicted," &c. We do not want to punish "persons accused." I beg to move-
That the words "or detention" be inserted after "detention."
The clause will then read-"For the detention or detention and punishment," &c.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I do not think that amendment would quite do. I could understand the
clause being amended so as to make it read-"detention or punishment of persons accused or convicted." The
object of the clause, as it stands, is to keep together the terms "accused or convicted," so, that the relation,
both of accusation and conviction, to the laws of the Commonwealth may be made clear. The clause only
applies to accusations or convictions in respect of laws of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, these words
"accused or convicted" are kept together just before the words "offences against the laws of the
Commonwealth." I think that if my honorable [start page 693] friend (Mr. Glynn) would alter his amendment
so as to make it read "detention or punishment," there can be no misreading of the clause.
Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I think the words should stand as they are. You have to make
provision for both things.
Mr. GLYNN.-Not for the punishment of accused persons.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Provision has to be made both for detention and punishment. I think the clause is
clear enough as it stands at present.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I believe that my honorable friend's (Mr. Glynn's) feeling is that, by
leaving the words as they are, the clause might be interpreted to enable the federal authorities to demand from
the state the detention and punishment of persons who were not convicted, but I do not apprehend that
there is the slightest difficulty on that score. I do not think any court would interpret the words to mean
the punishment of a person accused and not convicted.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-My contention is that, as the clause stands, the words are to be read
conjunctively in relation to the word "accused." The clause says that each state shall make provision for the
detention and punishment of persons accused or convicted. You must read the word "punishment" in relation
to "accused," as well as to "convicted." The clause should read-"For the detention, or detention and
punishment, as the case may be, of persons accused or convicted," &c.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I think the clause might be amended to get out of the difficulty
which has been pointed out. As it stands at present, it provides that the state shall make provision for the
detention and punishment in its prisons of persons accused or convicted. Now, evidently, the detention is for
those who have not yet been convicted, and the punishment is for those who have been convicted, and I
think that those two classes ought to be separated.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have an amendment which I think will meet the case, and enable us
to get on. I beg to move-
That the clause be amended by striking out the words after "detention" down to "Commonwealth," and
substituting in lieu thereof the words "in its prisons of persons accused of offences against the laws of the
Commonwealth, and the punishment of persons convicted of such offences."
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I would point out that, under the clause as now proposed to be
amended, a state might make provision for whipping persons convicted, but not for detaining them in
prison.
Mr. ISAACS.-Detention may be part of the punishment.
Mr. GLYNN.-But the punishment may not be detention, it may be flagellation. Are you going to allow a
state to make provision for the character of the punishment for an offence against the Commonwealth?
Mr. Barton's amendment was agreed to.
END QUOTE
In the end the following Section was provided for, as part of the United Kingdom legislation and
enactment:
QUOTE
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
120 Custody of offenders against laws of the Commonwealth
Every State shall make provision for the detention in its prisons of persons accused or convicted of
offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, and for the punishment of persons convicted of
such offences, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws to give effect to this
provision.
END QUOTE
As the United Kingdom has the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then
the United Kingdom Government is bound to adhere to these principles and must avoid that
Belmarsh Prison is used as a form of punishment against Mr Julian Assange.
Currently, as I understand it Mr Julian Assange is in grave mental health condition and denied
ordinary rights that ought to be provided for a person who is detained but not to be punished.
I urge you to show that you will not allow the United Kingdom so to say be used like some
puppet-on-a-string to deny Mr Julian Assange his constitutional and other legal rights and will
without undue delay ensure that Mr Julian Assange is transferred to a facility that is appropriate
for his health condition and enables him to have visitors, including that of lawyers, without any
undue interferences.
Just consider if you were accused of something and placed in conditions similar to those now
applied to Mr Julian Assange would you then not object to them not to be a mere detention but to
have become a form of punishment that is unlawful to be applied without a conviction having
eventuated?
I trust you will act immediately without undue delay to ensure that you as United Kingdom
Prime Minister will not stand for any abuse and misuse of powers and will take urgent and
immediate action.
If indeed for example Mr Julian Assange physical/mental health has severely deteriorated due to
the conditions he has been confined to then in my view his immediate release is warranted, this
as his incarceration has been grossly misused and abuse to inflict an unconstitutional/unlawful
for of punishment. It also ought to be understood that while the Courts may order the detention of
a person ultimately the Governor of a Prison (In this case Belmarsh Prison) is entitled to release a
prisoner where the circumstances/conditions warrant this.
In my view the form of detention must be that is appropriate to the person detained in all relevant
circumstances. Where I understand Mr Julian Assange was even denied appropriate
liberty/freedoms to consult with his lawyers then this underlines the extend that the detention
unconstitutionally/unlawfully was used as a form of punishment this even so Mr Julian Assange
is not detained on basis that he violated any laws to which the extradition request of the USA
relates. As such, the Courts have grossly failed to supervise its own orders of DETENTION and
hence the British Government under your leadership should make clear not to tolerate such
unconstitutional/unlawful conduct.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 18-12-2019 correspondence to Rt Hon Boris Johnson PM
A copy can also be downloaded from:
I assume no one ever bothered to present an argument/submission as I am doing to Mr

Boris Johnson regarding the unconstitutional/unlawful conditions regarding Mr Julian
Assange.
This document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/440218810/20191218-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-
Hlavka-O-W-B-ISSUE-Re-Suppl-77-Detention-v-Punishment
In my view the Courts can only obtain respect for the ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE if
the courts themselves ensure that they operate within the confines of the rule of law and
appropriately supervise their own orders. In my view there is a gross neglect in proper

supervision as clearly the reported circumstances of Mr Julian Assange imprisoned in Belmarsh
Prison rather then being DETAINED underlines this.
If the lower court made an order for Mr Julian Assange to be ‘IMPRISONED” rather than to be
“DETAINED” then I view it exceeded its own judicial authority this as there was no issue before
the court to exercise a judicial decision as to violation of United Kingdom laws. Even with
regard of Mr Julian Assange having previously failed to report back to the courts, he was for this
already sentenced and as such the court was in no judicial position to inflict a second
imprisonment term upon Mr Julian Assange but only could order at least in my view a
“DETENTION”.
The conditions and circumstances to have Mr Julian Assange held, as I understand it, in a prison
facilities with convicted murderers, etc, underlines that in law an “innocent man” (INNOCENT
UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY) nevertheless has been held equally if not worse then a convicted
murderer., and suffer simular if not worse punishment.
In my view, regardless that this correspondence may be unusual in manner of approaching this
court, it cannot deter nor justify this court to allow an obvious MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
to continue.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE correspondence to 20191219-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Lady Hale, President UKSC
* What do you expect the Minister for Foreign Affairs Marise Payne to do?
**#** Nothing less but to pursue this with the United Kingdom Government and also pas this on
to Mr Julian Assange lawyers, etc. Perhaps even on behalf of the Australian government present
the matter before a court that the United Kingdom Government is violating its own legislation
regarding Mr Julian Assange, etc. And demand that immediately Mr Julian Assange is provided
with appropriate facilities and medical care at the very least any DETAINEE is entitled upon.
* Would it also be better if people pass on your writings via social mediate to DEMAND he is
no longer denied his constitutional and other legal rights, etc?
**#** The more people were to do so the better. After all if they can do it to Mr Julian Assange
then who would want to be the next person so grossly deprived of all rights?
Regardless what any person may view about Mr Julian Assange, no one in his right mind can
accept a blatant disregard to any persons constitutional and other legal rights as well as his
human rights. How on earth can we accept the courts to portray they are to enforce the rule of
law when in fact it is in violation of the rule of law?
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!)


20191219-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Marise Payne Foreign Affairs & Julian Assange

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

20191219-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Marise Payne Foreign Affairs & Julian Assange

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ISSUE: 20191219-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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

The resolutions conclude:

So to say one of my students (in constitutional issues) wrote the following:

Re: Response from Senator Marise Payne

p1 19-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

I am also aware of section 68 which provides:

p2 19-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

I look forward to a response from the Minister of defence.

It would have been nice if he had actually included:

p3 19-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

I will now quote my correspondence to 20191219-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Lady

C/o Mr Boris Johnston PM

QUOTE 18-12-2019 correspondence to Rt Hon Boris Johnson PM

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

One of the principles of Western civilisation is that a person is:

Hansard 2-8-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

That the words "or detention" be inserted after "detention."

Mr. GLYNN.-Not for the punishment of accused persons.

Mr. ISAACS.-Detention may be part of the punishment.

Mr. Barton's amendment was agreed to.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

A copy can also be downloaded from:

I assume no one ever bothered to present an argument/submission as I am doing to Mr

This document can be downloaded from:

p9 19-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

p10 19-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Você também pode gostar