Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supplement 52-Classified-etc
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-06/abc-raids-what-they-tell-us-about-press-freedom/11187364
What do the AFP raids on the media mean for journalists and their sources?
QUOTE
"It's in the Commonwealth's Director of Public Prosecutions guideline in relation
to whether or not they commence a prosecution based on public interest."
END QUOTE
I view that the ex parte warrant against the journalist and the ABC are unconstitutional
for various reasons of which some issues I have canvassed.
This document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/412571449/20190607-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
ISSUE-Re-the-Theft-of-Our-Democracy-Etc-the-Constitution-Supplement-51-Warrants-etc
https://www.scribd.com/document/412564700/20190607-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Joint-Standing-Committee-on-
Electoral-Matters-Supplement-1
On 19 July 2006 I then in County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 in
regard of 2 appeals relating to FAILURE TO VOTE I stated also:
QUOTE
The Defendant submits, that even so he does not require to state his religion and neither which part of his
religion is relevant for a religious objection as it can be a secular objection, he has religious objections and
one is that “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” where Mr. John Howard unconstitutionally authorised the
murderous invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq. How on earth could anyone expect me to vote by preference
voting for what I consider a mass murderer and one who committed treachery, treason, sedition and
committed crimes against humanity, and by this voting for anyone who supported the war, such as members
of his political party.
My right to abstain from voting could not be denied, neither be punished.
Likewise, in regard of the 2001 election where unconstitutionally, against International obligations, such as
the maritime report in regard of the sinking of the Titanic it is unlawful to allow or to send any boat or ship
away that is unseaworthy. Yet, we had the Government using the navy to do so and refugees drowning in the
process. We had the Australian Federal Police, a law enforcement agency, being involved in what was
claimed to be conduct to discourage people smuggling, but it was being to prevent refugees to come to the
Commonwealth of Australia, and in the process we had the sinking of SIEV X, with 363 people aboard of
which 146 children, on 19 October 2001.
END QUOTE
https://www.scribd.com/document/412564700/20190607-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Joint-Standing-Committee-on-
Electoral-Matters-Supplement-1
On 19 July 2006 I then in County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 in
regard of 2 appeals relating to FAILURE TO VOTE I stated also:
p1 8-6-2019 © 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
QUOTE
The Defendant submits, that the Court rather seeking to enforce unconstitutional legislation against the
Defendant it would do better if the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions were to occupy the
Courts time instead to have Mr John Howard and others facing the Courts as to their unconstitutional and
otherwise illegal conduct.
To disregard the, what I consider plain murder of refugees, by towing their unseaworthy boats back into the
sea and so leave the occupants left to the perils of the sea in my view is unacceptable and the Commonwealth
Director of Public Prosecutions, so to say, ought to get his act together and pursue those responsible for their
day in Court. After all what are laws for if those in power can unconstitutional authorise a murderous
invasion and get away with it?
While the Australian Federal Police, as the Defendant understands it, seeks to excuse themselves that they
paid people to “discourage” refugees from coming to the Commonwealth of Australia, in the defendants
view, where any person acting so then goes to the extend to tamper with boats causing the death of many,
then the Australian Federal Police must be held accountable for their deeds.
For this also, the Defendant holds that no one could demand nor expect that the defendant was to cast a vote
that could be utilised then by any person involved in such criminal conduct as to claim to have the support of
the people in view of the votes cast.
Because it is a preference voting system, the vote of an elector could turn out to go to a person they never
really wanted to vote for by the preference counting still could be.
The Defendant submits, that if the elections were held in a manner that an elector could vote for the number
of candidates he desire, and once those choices are exhausted then the vote simply no longer is used, but
because a preference voting system requires a voter to list all candidates, the elector is by this robbed of a
FREE election.
As a candidate, I opposed the murderous conduct against refugees in 2001 and for this also was entitled not to
vote where the major parties appeared to support the conduct to tow unseaworthy boats in breach of
Australian law, as well as International Law, back into Indonesian waters regardless that people died as a
result.
END QUOTE
The Commonwealth DDP made known that it held it was not in the public interest to oppose my
appeals. They did not in any way challenged my 409 pages written submissions in the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
* Surely the issue of unconstitutional invasion into Afghanistan and/or Iraq would be in the
public interest to be exposed and any war crimes that appears to have been committed?
**#** And this is why I question what “public interest” really stand for. It is merely to e used to
over up mass murder, crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc? Here we had in the so called
Afghan files, which y the way I only downloaded and read on 5 June 2019, refer to a Australian
soldier left with a man tied up and after he shot and killed this man he claimed he had released
this man and had to shoot him as he was trying to get his weapon. Proper investigation, such as
an autopsy might have been able to ascertain if the man was killed while sitting tied up or not.
Was he killed and then his ties cut to pretend a different scenario? Children were killed and yet it
appears to me each time soldiers were exonerated. Well I have been in the armed services in
NATO and served in Germany at what was then the Iron Curtain and well aware that at times
you may be placed in a position that in a fraction of a second you have to decide to kill or be
killed.
* Have you ever been in such position?
**#** I had a friend who was a very strong person and loved his automatic .50 weapon that
ordinary is mounted on top of a tank. He would walk with it as an adorable baby. We had a
shooting competition of the decision in the snow and boy was that cold. Nevertheless when you
are to use a weapon you need to ignore the cold. Mind over matters. I scored 39 points out of the
maximum 40 points on various weapons. The second placer had 29 points, the third placed was
on 28 points, and the rest from there on. My friend made known he really admired how good I
was compared to all others. A few days later we were with live ammunition on a range walking
in a formation in an exercise with life ammunition when he was on the outer flank turning
p2 8-6-2019 © 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
towards everyone stating his weapon was jammed and trying to out the trigger with pointing the
weapon to everyone in line. Imagine if this weapon had gone off it would likely have killed most
of us all. I dropped to the ground and was about to kill him when he realized this and he lifted his
barrel up into the air. He made later known it was stupid what he had done and seeing me
dropping to the ground and aiming at him, knowing I was extremely good in using a firearm, it
caused him to react. We remained friends afterwards.
* And what is your view about the killings of children and unarmed men, etc.
**#** While in aa theater of war one may never know if some innocent child might hold a
weapon hidden from sight on the other hand children are very curious and you have to allow for
that also. I do not accept that killing a child that is asleep under a blanket can be considered to be
a threat. Neither do I accept the many other stories of unarmed persons having been killed. Let
alone the mutilation of a dead body, in fact various of them. To me those are war crimes.
* OK, if you view they are war crimes do you then accept or reject they are classified material
and not in the public interest?
**#** We have a constitution and the Framers of the Constitution stated:
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
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
In fact in my view the Australian Federal Police may itself be held guilty of obstructing the
course of justice to seek to thwart journalist to expose unconstitutional/unlawful conduct.
In my view the AFP should first have checked what the material was about before it pursued a
WARRANT issue. So it could clarify to the Court if the purported classified material was to
cover up serious crimes or not. In my view the issue should be who authorised the warrants
issue? If it was a court then was the evidence before the court setting out precisely what the
purported classified material was about? Did the AFP conceal from the Court relevant details? If
it was not a Court but an Attorney-General who issued the warrants then that to me is
unconstitutional.
If there was a court hearing then why was not first those targeted by the warrant application
given an opportunity to oppose the warrant issue as the framers of the Constitution made clear
both sides had to be heard before a judicial determination was made.
Reportedly the warrant against the AC seemed to authorise the AFP to delete material, to me this
is utterly absurd as this effectively allow the AFP to delete critical data without any accused
having been given a chance to oppose this.
*. You are on the record warning that to ignore Julian Assange plight may have severe
consequences and is this not now proven to be so?
**#** Regretfully, I am proven to be correct. I have to a great extent been reading articles in the
USA about Julian Assange and his 1st Amendment rights and while people keep stating that we
do not have a Bill of Rights the reality is they misconceive what our constitution stands for.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-06/abc-raids-what-they-tell-us-about-press-freedom/11187364
What do the AFP raids on the media mean for journalists and their sources?
QUOTE
Australia does not have a bill of rights or clear constitutional protections for
journalists and whistleblowers like the US, UK and Canada do.
END QUOTE
If anyone bothered to take their time to research what the constitution stands for then surprise,
surprise, they discover it has a Bill of Rights embedded in it.
*. If you were a journalist would you find it to prevent you communication with certain persons?
**#** One doesn’t have to be a journalist for this. For decades I have warned people never to
contact me via my ordinary mobile, in that their mobile can be traced. I from time to time
purchase cheap mobile phones and lots of simcards. When someone desires to talk to me
confidentially then I might send them a mobile and a simcard in it. Then when they confirm
having received the items I activate the simcard. As such it is on my name. I have actually
cancelled a simcard that was inter-state and transferred the balance to another simcard, so I can
avoid losing any left benefits on the simcard.
As such a journalist merely provides a simcard (with or without a cheap mobile) he/she activated
to a source and the META DAATA is in fact worthless.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-06/abc-raids-what-they-tell-us-about-press-freedom/11187364
What do the AFP raids on the media mean for journalists and their sources?
QUOTE
"It sends a clear message to media organisations, journalists and sources that
they are at risk if they publish information the Government doesn't want them to
publish."
END QUOTE
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of
everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE
In Victoria the Victorian Police as I understand it claimed that desperate times require desperate
measurers and so seek to excuse itself from using lawyers as informers against their own clients
and perverting the course of justice and placing the administration of justice in disrepute. Well
there can be no excuse. The AFP must be checked for its doing and if it is a political motivation
to scaremonger journalist from exposing war crimes, etc. It is not for the Government to dictate
what the media, including anyone sitting behind a computer publishes on the internet, may or
may not publish. Every citizen as a sentry is obligated to pursue justice and to not stand by
silently allowing war crimes, etc, being committed without any legal accountability.
http://corpau.blogspot.com/2019/01/failed-police-raid-cover-up-followed-by.html
END QUOTE
Friday, January 4, 2019
Failed police raid, cover up followed by falsified evidence
*. Is what the AFP really are doing to the ABC and the journalist is what was done against Julian
Assange?
p6 8-6-2019 © 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
**#** Julian Assange was exposing war crimes, such as the killing of 2 journalist in Iraq and
well in droves journalist claimed he was not a journalist, etc. They are now perhaps, if not too
small minded, reality. Perhaps soon enough the New York Times and other newspapers may be
subjected to the same invasion as they were publishing CLASSIFIED material. It is a way, albeit
unconstitutional, to try to keep the media from exposing war crimes and other unlawful conduct.
https://theconversation.com/assanges-new-indictment-espionage-and-the-first-amendment-117785
Assange’s new indictment: Espionage and the First Amendment
https://russia-insider.com/en/assange-haters-line-spew-their-vitriolic-factually-irrelevant-
arguments/ri26718?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=bca68144be&mc_eid=2c57cd92c9
Assange Haters Line Up to Spew Their Vitriolic, Factually Irrelevant Arguments
QUOTE
This is literally never the case with people who want to see Assange imprisoned, in my extensive experience.
There’s never, ever any calm, fact-based rationale for why the benefits of prosecuting and imprisoning him
for his publications outweigh the risks and costs of doing so. It’s always vitriolic, hyperbolic, frequently
profanity-riddled arguments from pure emotion, usually something to the effect of “He collaborated with
Russia/helped Trump win the election, therefore and I want him punished because I hate him.” Which is just
another way of saying, “I want Assange imprisoned because of the way my feelings feel.”
Now, aside from the established fact that the US government’s agenda to prosecute Assange has nothing to
do with the 2016 election but with the exposure of US war crimes six years earlier, this is also a completely
fallacious argument from top to bottom.
END QUOTE
In 2017, Turnbull had announced a new Department of Home Affairs modelled on the UK Home Office,
empowering ASIO with more direct influence over security policy and law enforcement. A review of
Australia’s intelligence community was conducted to establish the super-ministry, overseeing and
coordinating all security operations of ASIO; the Australian Federal Police; the Australian Border Force; the
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission; the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
(AUSTRAC); and the Office of Transport Security. The Office of National Intelligence was later established,
reporting directly to the Prime Minister in its role of coordinating all intelligence assessments from
Australia’s five spy agencies.
What they are in fact identifying, is that ASIO is the Trojan horse for the US and UK to control our foreign
policy, as ASIO operates under the “Five Eyes”. In 2018, Five Eyes leaders, representing the UK, USA,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand, accelerated their anti-China campaign. They held secret meetings to
coordinate the campaign to lock Chinese telco Huawei out of participation in 5G network development
globally; a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) cyber security pact was signed in
April; new foreign interference laws were coordinated; and the August 2018 Five Eyes summit on Australia’s
Gold Coast pushed for a global police-state capability under a new “transnational model of security”, with
increased intelligence agency control over internet content. Within less than 20 days of the March 2019
https://russia-insider.com/en/nsa-gave-israel-access-all-us-citizens-communications-data-leaked-documents-
show/ri27167?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=fd04c05de8&mc_eid=2c57cd92c9
NSA Gave Israel Access to All US Citizens' Communications Data, Leaked Documents Show
US also cooperated with helping Israelis conduct targeted assassinations against Hezbollah, no surprise there
Meaning that Australian Intelligent Services are spying on Australians and passing this on to
other countries not part of 5 Eyes. And5 Eyes itself I object against.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-06/australia-spy-chief-nick-warner-biggest-threats-to-the-nation/10974214
Spy chief Nick Warner on the security threats facing Australia, from terrorism to North Korea
QUOTE
Balancing threats with civil liberties
So what can Australia can do to best manage security concerns? And what does the ONI's new mandate cover?
Mr Warner says the intelligence agency's role isn't to brief the government on the "worst case scenario" that could
"needlessly" cause alarm.
"What we do is tell the government how we see the situation now and how we think it will develop," he says.
He identifies ONI's role in combating threats as twofold: successfully assessing security risks, as well as coordinating,
integrating and evaluating Australia's 10 intelligence agencies — which includes Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation (ASIO) and the intelligence division of Home Affairs.
"Agencies see value in coordination," he says.
"They see value in us helping them come up with a strategic workforce plan. They see value in us coming up with a joint
capability plan and to build joint capability. All those things are happening now."
END QUOTE
Note the wording: “What we do is tell the government” and not what I view should have been
stated: “What we do is to advice the government”. Even I with my self -professed Crummy
English understands the difference with telling versus advising.
In any event the issue of the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) underlined how the so called
intelligence service are not at all intelligent services but merely doing what was dictated by the
so called American intelligent services. After all one must be a complete idiot to accept that 5
different intelligent services all came to the same conclusion that Iraq possessed WMDs
It would be far better that the Government address issues such as Canada does:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-border-agency-migrants-dna-1.4765487
Canada using DNA testing, ancestry websites to investigate migrants
Immigration officials are using DNA testing and ancestry websites to try to establish the nationality of
migrants, the Canada Border Services Agency said on Friday.
Anyhow, I do not accept that classification for NATIONAL SECURITY can be misused to
cover up war crimes and other crimes or deny whistleblowers to expose it. We cannot have
secrecy hidden from the general community as then electors are hoodwinked to vote for a
politician who might be involved in serious crimes. In my view the Inspector General ADF
should investigate what I had set out before the court on 19 July 2006 and likewise the a Royal
Commission into war crimes and other crimes.
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!)