David,

the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) it for protecting constitutional matters
and not to prosecute each and every official. As such, say you have a claim against an official that he is acting
unconstitutional and ask the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) to provides its
opinion, it then will look upon the constitutional issue and present to anyone interested, not just you, its
finding if a certain conduct and/or legislative provision is deemed to be unconstitutional. If its deems it is
unconstitutional then it can in its own right institute legal proceedings before the High Court o0f Australia to
address the issue. Again it would deal with the matter as a constitutional issue! The High Court of Australia
then would be provided with the same set out as you had been provided. It is then that the High Court of
Australia in its own right determine the matter. currently the High Court of Australia has no such kind of
source of information and so judges often get it wrong not having all relevant details before it, as we say in
numerous cases such as MABO, Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, Tasmania Dam case, Senator Woods case, the
19923 case about acquisition and numerous other cases.
.
The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) will not take over litigation of anyone,
so neither of you and neither are your rights affected even if the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for
get the hyphens!) commences itself to litigate about the constitutional aspect or intervenes in the litigation.
Your right as a party will remain unaltered. It may however that where the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN
(Don’t for get the hyphens!) it becomes involved you may seek to withdraw from the case upon the
undertaking by the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) it that it will continue the
litigation and if it decides not to proceed your rights are reinstated to continue the litigation in your own right,
if you so desire. As such the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) it will not like
the Department of Justice intervene and rob you of your rights. Again, the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN
(Don’t for get the hyphens!) is there to do no more but to pursue the constitutional aspect and once this has
been achieved then its task is completed.
.
Obviously, the High Court of Australia will over time take considerable consideration as to any submissions
put forwards by the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) it because of its expertise
in constitutional issues far beyond any judge of the High Court of Australia ever could accomplish.
.
Therefore if the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) it deems an official is acting
unconstitutional in a case you are suing an official then it may intervene in regard of the constitutional issue
to have that determined and once that has been done it withdraws from the case and you can continue, if you
so desire, to sue the official for damages, etc.
.
It should be kept in mind that any legislation or part thereof is ULTRA VIRES from the moment there is a
legal challenge to it and unless the Court pronounce a judgement against it to declare it INTRA VIRES the
legislation or part thereof objected against is and remains to be ULTRA VIRES. Again, the error is by many
to hold the view that legislation is only ULTRA VIRES/UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF THE high Court of
Australia decide so as the High Court of Australia may never even become involved. For example, when I
OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION of the Magistrates Court to hear and determine the charge FAILING
TO VOTER upon the legal basis that it was unconstitutional to compel anyone to register/vote then from that
moment the legislation was and remained IULTRA VIRES and it was for the PROSECUTOR to obtain a
judgment to validate the legislation in that regard to have it declared INTRA VIRES. This the Prosecutor
neither any Attorney Generals of the States pursued. Lawyers generally do not understand/comprehend this
because the way they so to say have been brainwashed during legal studies.

Page 1
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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-
94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

[start page 2004]

Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.

END QUOTE
.
Fancy you challenge the validity of the legislation and for some reason the high Court of Australia were not
get to the issue for another 2 years or so, then can you be deemed guilty because the High Court of Australia
has in the meantime not made its decision known? Surely this would be nonsense. As was stated in Gould
that anyone can disregard unconstitutional legislation/court orders but obviously you take the risk that if the
Court holds it is not unconstitutional then you can be in serious problems because of the legal consequences.
Therefore always be careful not to just assume something is unconstitutional unless you have so to say done
your homework and have all relevant facts at hand to back up your claims.
.
Because I challenged the validity of the legislation for compulsory enrolment/voting and the prosecutor failed
to get a ruling in its favour then it is not just applicable to me but applicable to every other person in the
Commonwealth of Australia as a legislation or part thereof cannot be unconstitutional for just one person as it
is for all or none. Meaning all people now fined and/or convicted for FAILING THE VOTE are so wrongly
fined/convicted. Because there is currently no formal records kept in that regard by the OFFICE-OF-THE-
GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) that is used by the Courts it means prosecutors are around
Australia abusing/misusing their positions to score convictions where their obligation is to reveal to the Court
that I defeated the crown on compulsory registration/voting! It is the prosecutors obligation to pursue
JUSTICCE and so advise a court thereof.
With the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) such gross deception of perverting
the course of JUSTICE would in the main be avoided. Hence instead of citizens each having to battle in their
own right the one citizen succeeding then clears it for all others, as it should be.
.
It should be understood the High Court of Australia has absolutely no constitutional powers to amend the
constitution directly or indirectly. All it can do is to interpret the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution,
and we all are part of the Framers of the Constitution whenever we vote in as referendum and veto or approve
a proposed amendment.
.
The above is written again by me even so time and time again so canvassed in the past and published by me
on my blog and each time I do so in repeating the same it really is wasting my time and keep me from
attending to other urgent matters. I specifically publish matters FREE OF CHARGE on my blog but often
people are simply too lazy to check it out and where thy are so they better forget about the constitution
because laziness get you no where.
.
I get every day numerous requests from people asking me to explain matters because they argue that it takes
them too much time to check out my blog. Now here they have it all for free and too lazy to even do some
basic work, hence generally I simply delete their emails as I lack the time to do so and would need a huge
office just to do so for every request and who then pays the people to do so?
.

Page 2
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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-
94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
It is not for me to do the litigation for everyone because they like a freebee but as I am a
CONSTITUTIONALIST and I publish my researched views in details on my blog and in my books. As such.,
those who can’t bother to check out what is provided FREE OF CHARGE should forget about litigating
because their laziness generally will result in a legal disappointment because the other party isn’t going to do
the job for you.
.
I have had from time to time considerable financial offers to assist people in litigation (effectively they want
me to do it for them) but I have refused this time and time again because that is well outside the scope of
being a constitutionalist albeit at times I assisted FREE OF CHARGE where I held it was in the special
circumstances appropriate.
.
Hence, people should respect my assistance but not demand it and certainly not so to say pester me to death
with phone calls and emails demanding I do their case for them because I do not charge.
.
Anyhow the above should have given you ample of explanation and as to the set up of the OFFICE-OF-
THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) my blog is setting it all out and so my various published
books and I have no intention to spend huge amounts of time rewriting it all merely because people are too
lazy to read the material published. There is a limit to what I can and/or will do!
.
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
21-4-2011

John as I stated;

QUOTE

Those who desire to promote the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) could do so
without causing any friction and to present their suggestions in an appropriate manner. Unity only exist for so
far those willing to achieve a goal work with those involved.

END QUOTE
It is in my view not just silly but outright dangerous to have some OFFICE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARDIAN in existence by people who are not going to deal with constitutional issues. People may easily
become confused between the two and then additional problems to undermine the real issue to appropriately
promote the true meaning and application of the constitution!

.
The right approach would be to provide the support to the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get
the hyphens!) as creating a parallel kind of body and so to say leave me struggle to pursue the real
constitutional issues isn’t going to do it.
Often people ask me why I do not take all constitutional issues into the courts. They seem to forget that my
time is very much occupied with research, etc, and they cannot expect I do all the research and other
associated work and then litigate each and every issue so everyone else has not to bother to do anything. But
just benefit of what I achieve.
Page 3
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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-
94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Lets be clear about it that over the years I have provided numerous constitutional set outs within the
OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) status and by this have a certain established
credibility but lacking any financial and other support. Now, if you consider wanting to do something for the
good of mankind, Ok Australia’s general population then support what I am doing rather then wasting monies
and time, etc, on trying to set up something else. Don’t try to turn this into some pet project because you
fancy it and really in the process disregard what really needs to be done.
Indeed where is the teamwork that was written about, the silence if deafening!
.
Did you ever consider the financial cost associate with what I have been doing to promote the OFFICE-OF-
THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) and then all you can do is to have your own pet project
seemingly pretending to promote the constitution where you really seem to do anything but that?
.
Lets be clear about it that you are either going to do it the right way or better stay out of it all together
because you may just be ending up making it harder for me and others who are trying to do it the appropriate
manner.
.
As I indicated already years ago that the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) isn’t
to exist just out of lawyers but to be including ordinary citizens as they have far better common sense then
lawyers. It is their down to earth no nonsense se views that more then likely will be better then lawyers
talking double talk depending who they represent.
I never did stipulate and indeed never canvassed that any person getting involved in the OFFICE-OF-THE-
GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) has to be an all rounded constitutionalist rather the contrary that
ordinary people from all walks of life were to become involved as the constitution belongs to the people and
not to the privileged!
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. We
END QUOTE
.
Granted in the current circumstances I am so to say leading the charge because of my extensive knowledge
but I will not always be around and the essence is that those who will be dealing with matters after me, can
and are understanding the platform from which to work from and no doubt they will succeed once they
understand this.
Once I had a 16-year old kid from shepherding asking me to be able to work in a factory albeit he never had
been inside of one before. Well all I needed from him was the willingness to learn and within a few months
he was a better setter then any of those who had worked for some 25-years already in the job. This kid proved
he was eager to learn and became the best that I made sure he was being paid adult wages to show my
appreciation of what he produced. As such, never under estimate the ability of anyone. As the Framers of the
Constitution made clear that any person should be able to be elected to the Parliament, not just the rich or
famous, and every elector was by being an elector qualified to be a Member of Parliament provided they
didn’t offend s.44 of the constitution, and of course were successfully elected.
.
Success generally is associated by being humble towards your workers as then they will more then likely
enjoy working for you and produce a better outcome. Therefore the issue is to work with citizens who like to
promote the work of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) regardless of their
social status because it is their eagerness to support this project that is what is ultimately most important.

Page 4
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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-
94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
.

If you do not desire to provide support for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the
hyphens!) then stay out of it all together but do not cause problems that may compromise the purpose and
ability of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) because of what you may get
into.

.
There are people whop in the past offered me free of charge facilities for the OFFICE-OF-THE-
GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) provided that I first did their court cases and I refused this
because to me this is not what I am on about because if a person doesn’t want to provide support voluntarily
then they better stay out.
.
I recommend you forget about the fancy OFFICE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN and if you
really mean wanting to promote the meaning and the application of the constitution, as after all that is what it
should be about, then I expect you will prove your support and not merely so to say mouth off but produce
nothing.
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
21-4-2011

Just to clarify matters to place it beyond doubt, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I very much take the position
that trial by jury must be as existed at the time of federation and not what governments may now pursue to
undermine this. As such also it decides both on facts and on law and can nullify any law!
I made also clear that the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) is not to interfere
with the rights of a litigant, but take upon its own litigation regarding any issue it deems to be
unconstitutional, so that where a party is lacking financial ability to litigate the constitutional issue it still can
be pursued.
.
Neither would the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) interfere with the current
court independence as it will be an advisory body in the first place and not interfere whatsoever with the
independence of any court.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I hold it essential that any proposal to improve the application of the
constitution must be operating within constitutional context.
.
Lets give an example who it could operate appropriately.
.
A Member of Parliament proposed a law (Bill) for the Parliament but this Member (regardless being a lawyer
or not) likely lacks any understanding what is constitutionally permissible and his leader of the party will
direct other members to vote for the Bill. Yes, they are famous singers, sport stars, etc, and may all deem the
proposed law is worthwhile to have and so they all vote for it. It passes through the houses of parliament and
the Attorney-General advises the Governor/Governor-General it is a ok as it is constitutional valid, this even
so the Attorney-General wouldn’t have a clue what is constitutionally valid and the constitutional advisory
Unit likewise lack any understand in that regard, as shown such as with the now defunct Cross Vesting Act.
Page 5
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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-
94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
What we therefore have is a law that is enforced against the community at large being claimed the will of the
people where in fact it is totally contrary to constitutional provisions and as such cannot be the will of the
people. But you and I can then face huge legal cost to try to get such legislation of the books.
.
Now lets have the same incident again. The Member of Parliament desires to place before the parliament a
proposed law (bill) but before doing so submits this to t the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get
the hyphens!) which then provide with the proposed law its opinion what if any part of the proposed law
(bill) is deemed ion conflict with constitutional provisions and limitations. Now, we have that every member
of parliament instantly has independent advise they never had before. Any member now can object to the bill
being accepted for debate and insist that the Speaker/President of the House first had the constitutional
validity adjudicated upon by the high Court of Australia. If then the high Court of Australia finds that parts of
the proposed law (Bill) is contrary to constitutional provisions then clearly this part or these parts cannot
proceed. Pending to how much effect the parts objected against affect the whole of the proposed law, the
proposed law may we permanently withdrawn.
So, no need for citizens to having to fight the laws in courts as it will never see the light of day in the first
place.
.
Ok the High Court of Australia gave it so to say the green light and the proposed law passes both Houses of
Parliament but then I or anyone else challenge the legislation on constitutional grounds. None of us are
prevented from doing so and the High Court of Australia may very well subsequently find that you or I
presented further details that may at the time not have been or may not have been properly considered and
still deem it to be unconstitutional. After the verdict the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the
hyphens!) will update its advise to anyone that includes the latest judgment. Obviously in general the
OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) will have a more comprehensive data base to
use and may more then likely be correct to its advise but it still can also at times not have all relevant details
and hence the right of any citizen to pursue a constitutional issues is therefore not denied.
.
What we have therefore is that the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) is not
interfering in any constitutional separation of powers but rather will be an aid to all of us and so including to
the judges.
.
Take for example the issue of the State land taxes. If the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the
hyphens!) were to hold it is unconstitutional then it could in its own right take the matter before the High
Court of Australia as to determine the validity or the lack thereof of the legislation. Its primary function
would to obtain a judgment and once obtained it has completed its obligations. Then if any land holder holds
to have a right to sue the State Government for unconstitutional land taxes to be refunded then that is every
landholders right but has nothing to do with the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the
hyphens!). Currently however many are ending up paying because their lawyers advise them to do so with
their lawyers not having any competence in constitutional matters if in fact this is constitutional valid or not.
.
Let it therefore be very clear that the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) is not to
be designed to interfere with any ones rights but rather is to advance the ability of citizens to obtain JUSTICE
even if they themselves cannot financial afford to litigate against any unconstitutional legislation or
legislation they deem wholly or partly to be unconstitutional.
The above is a mere limited explanation but may indicate that one shouldn’t fear the OFFICE-OF-THE-
GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) as going to rob anyone of their legal rights. It should however be
under the Governor-Governor-General so that no political interference can exist to thwart the operations of
the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!).

Page 6
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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-
94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
.
So to say the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) would be a safety valve that is
long overdue and very much needed.
No more the government claiming that it has privileged legal advise because the advise of the OFFICE-OF-
THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t for get the hyphens!) will be to all persons the same.
.
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.
22-4-2011

Page 7
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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-
94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com