ISSUE: 20171103- Re: Can there be a valid resignation, etc & the constitution

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

We had that Senator Perry purportedly submitted his resignation on 1 November 2017 but how
can one resign from a position that one never have been deemed to be validly elected for. Well at
least if one goes by past High Court of Australia rulings as to citizenship.
In my view resignation by any person who didnt constitutionally qualify to hold a seat in the
Federal Parliament is a non-event. Either you were legitimately elected or not. If not then you
cannot resign from a seat you never held. And even regarding former purported Members of
Parliament, if they never were eligible then they too should repay all monies to Consolidated
Revenue Funds as like they enforce against pensioners and other welfare recipients. We cannot
have that someone purportedly resigns and so to say get away with ripping of the taxpayers.
Politicians can only blame themselves for having ignored my (by consent) obtained 4 December
2002 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka court orders that lawfully challenged the validity of the
purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948. Since then the Act from interception became ULTRA
VIRES and remains so unless, if ever at all a court rules against it. Representing myself in the
cases I knew what I was after and well all those lawyers involved simply under estimated what I
was about. Israel is reconsidering those who were naturalized more than 50 years ago and
Australia now has to do so since 1948. If the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948
remained ULTRA VIRES then the best anyone can hope for is that being a British subject within
the British Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) they are still legitimately
residing in Australia. Where the judges held they were holding an Australian nationality in Sue v
Hill then their judgments clearly are without legal justification as they can only be regarded to
have held British nationality and therefore it in my view was treason to declare otherwise.
If no one has in fact Australian nationality (purportedly called Australian citizenship) as the
purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is ab initio invalid then everyone is stateless unless
being British subject or having retained some other nationality.
The deportation of non-citizens as such based upon the immigration act also would be invalid
as if there is no legislation to define/declare nationality then neither can one deport someone
according to the non-existing legislation not being a citizen. Below I reproduce correspondences
sent out earlier today albeit I understand Josh Fryenburg had an automatic response that I view
as (that is if he is) a Member of Parliament is absurd to demand some other form of contact. In
the end his future is on the line and if he acts ignorant then so be it and in my view he gets what
he deserves.
If some person resigns while never having been validly elected to perhaps try to save-guard
his/her million dollar retirement fund, let it be clear that any resignation has no legal meaning
and any monies having been paid is to be refunded to the consolidated revenue funds and any
purported superannuation payment from incorrect monies paid neither can be claimed. As such
the correct manner to deal with it all is for once and for all sort out this citizenship debacle as I
have been seeking to do at least since 2002. The government cannot excuse those persons not
having to repay monies where it demands and indeed at times pursue terms of imprisonment for
others when they are pensioners or welfare recipients.
QUOTE 3-11-2017 correspondence to Brandis

p1 3-11-2017 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
Senator George Brandis 3-11-2017
senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
George,
I understand you are pursuing a change of legislation and/or an amendment of the
constitution. Well, if you had bothered to read my writings you would have been aware that the
constitution is not the problem. As for the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 this was
legally challenged by me and as both my appeals were upheld unchallenged in AEC v Schorel-
Hlavka, on 19 July 2006, it means that my unchallenged s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS by this also was upheld. No court did rule against my legal
objections and hence the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is as if it never existed.
Meaning that any person provided with an alleged Australian nationality do not have this. It also
means that all those claiming to have renounced citizenship of any other country effectively are
stateless. And, as my submissions were before the Court that the State of Victoria has no
citizenship laws then no one either can have Australian citizenship derived from this. I did notify
the Registrar of the High Court of Australia about matters and indicated to seek leave to
intervene and you were notified about this also but elected to ignore this. Now many were booted
out of the parliament when I view some, not all, were entitled to be Members of Parliament. And
you call yourself being an Attorney-General when you fail to act in my view appropriately to
shield fellow Members of Parliament from uncalled harm? As I also indicated there is no
constitutional provision for any Commonwealth electoral roll, this as Section 41 of the
constitution relies upon adults of State electoral rolls. I am well aware that politicians and the
courts can continue to ignore constitutional reality but then consider who in the end is losing? I
am not. I did my cases (I represented myself, for your information) successfully!
The Commonwealth with its highly paid lawyers simply were unable to defeat me!
What is needed is that politicians are getting to their senses and accept that like it or not this
current ongoing disaster of politicians being booted out of the Parliament could have been
avoided had the Commonwealth complied with the 4 December 2002 court order regarding my
s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and not been ignorant to communicate with
me so seek to resolve and properly address the issues I raised. Now persons who may have
worked darn hard to achieve their positions are booted out of the Parliament where most of them
could have been spared this kind of harm. You cannot change the purported Australian
Citizenship Act 1948 as it is ULTRA VIRES already! And amending the constitution is neither
the answer. All that is needed is to ensure the true meaning and application of the constitution is
adhered to.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 3-11-2017 correspondence to Brandis

QUOTE 3-11-2017 correspondence to Fryenburg

Mr Josh Fryenberg MP 3-11-2017
josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Josh,
I understand you are a Victorian Member of (Federal) Parliament but I am not aware you
bothering to provide any response to my past writings about citizenship and nationality issues. It
is not me who stands to lose a lot, I just carry on. I had never any doubt that those ignoring my
p2 3-11-2017 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
writing soon or later will have their day of reckoning. What needs to be done is to for once and
for all sort this all out. While I understand you object to your mothers nationality having been
reinstated causing you to have dual nationality (not dual citizenship as such) to me there is no
difference then those who beyond their involvement, including Barnaby Joyce due to paternal
rights are so to say booted out of the Parliament. Technically I objected to the constitutional
validity of the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 and because of this the Act is and
remains ULTRA VIRES unless and until if ever at all a court declares it to be INTRA VIRES.
On that basis you could be deemed to be and remain to be a British subject. This in your case
obviously cannot overcome the Hungarian part as such, but then as I made clear in previous
writings the Framers of the constitution made clear that where a person makes an oath to acquire
another nationality then this person doesnt belong in the federal parliament. Clearly you made
no such oath, at least to my understanding. Moreover, if any foreign country could pass
legislation that affectively would cause a person to be denied to be a Member of Parliament then
not a single person can be deemed safe where most people originate from foreign countries
through their family trees. Being a citizens of the British Commonwealth of Nations then also
could wipe out the eligibility of any person to be a Member of Federal Parliament. This I view
cannot be accepted having been the intent of the Framers of the Constitution. And this is where
the issue lies. The true meaning and application is not to be what unelected judges fabricate from
it but what without twisting and perversion it really means. While the Federal Government failed
to comply with the 4 December 2002 court order (by consent) in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I am
entitled to the benefit of my 19 July 2006 successful appeals, that were upheld and so
uncontested by the Commonwealth. Hence that the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is
and remains to be unconstitutional and as such is ULTRA VIRES. The High Court of Australia
was notified about this also and decided to ignore it as after all it appears to me it doesnt serve
its intentions to pervert and twist the true meaning and application of the constitution to their
own temporary views. Why on earth you never could bother to contact me (being also in Victoria
residing) to address issues is beyond me but then in the end you are the loser and not me!

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 3-11-2017 correspondence to Fryenburg

QUOTE 3-11-2017 correspondence to Morrison

Mr Scott Morrtison MP 3-11-2017
Scott.Morrison.MP@aph.gov.au

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Scott,
I understand the sentiments you expressed about how absurd the citizenship sage is
becoming, but then again I did in a legal manner challenge the validity of the purported
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (it remains ULTRA VIRES where no court overruled my
objection to declare it to be INTRA VIRES and as such what is the High Court of Australia on
about citizenship when this is still to be sorted out?, and by consent on 4 December 2002 in AEC
v Schorel-Hlavka obtained a court order that my section 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS that included also the issue of citizenship was to be heard and determined by the
High Court of Australia. Yet, the Commonwealth as the prosecutor failed to do so.
QUOTE 17-8-2017 CORRESPONDENCE

p3 3-11-2017 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
Registrar High Court of Australia 17-8-2017

enquiries@hcourt.gov.au

Cc: Senator George Brandis Attorney-General senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir/Madam,
I understand that currently before the High Court of Australia is the matter
Commonwealth v Barnaby Joyce and Ord, in relation to qualifications within s44 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
On 4 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of Victoria (by consent) in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
ordered that the S78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS be dealt with by the
High Court of Australia. This notice included:
QUOTE
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER

1. The Defendant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA gives notice that the

proceedings involves a matter arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation
within the meaning of section 78B of the judiciary Act 1903.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
37. That I seek this Court to adjourn these proceedings and to place before the HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA a CASE STATED as to have the High Court of Australia to first determine the following
matters;

(i) Can a person obtain Australian citizenship without first obtaining State citizenship (Quasi
States being Territories included)? If so, then by which constitutional valid manner?

(ii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to define citizenship? If so;
(a) under which provision? And
(b) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(c) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?

(iii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to declare and/or grant citizenship? If so,
(d) under which provision? And
(e) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(f) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?

(iv) Does the Commonwealth have the constitutional powers to determine the rights of a resident in a
State to obtain citizenship of such State? If so, by which constitutional powers?
END QUOTE

I am aware of the High Court of Australia Sue v Hill judgment but as this was to some extent
outside the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia anyone can disregard this.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE

The Framers of the Constitution made clear:

p4 3-11-2017 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
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
And
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
And
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
And
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."

END QUOTE
And
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
constitution.
END QUOTE

It therefore was beyond the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia to make any ruling
violating the true meaning and application of the constitution. In my view it was nothing less
than TREASON by the High Court of Australia to pretend otherwise then what is
constitutionally applicable.
The Commonwealth (for the AEC) was being the prosecutor have pursued the s78B NOTICE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS at that time before the Melbourne Registry of the High
Court of Australia. In my view it was CONTEMPT OF COURT if it failed to do so. I for one
p5 3-11-2017 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
never did receive any notification from the High Court of Australia about the s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS to be listed for hearing before the Court. Considering this is
nearly 15 years ago it is obvious that the Commonwealth couldnt bother to comply with the 4
December 2002 court orders it consented to. In my view, the High Court of Australia cannot
proceed with the hearing of the matter of (as I understand it to be) Commonwealth v Barnaby
Joyce and Ors where it may have sought to circumvent the High Court of Australia making any
decision in regard of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS as this might be
adverse to the Commonwealth and now would totally defeat its case in Commonwealth v
Barnaby Joyce and Ors.
In my view the High Court of Australia therefore, considering there was a 4 December 2002
order by consent for the High Court of Australia to determine matters of the s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS before it embarks upon the matter of Commonwealth v
Barnaby Joyce and Ors. This also, that were the High Court of Australia find that the
constitution doesnt permit the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare citizenship and that
Australians are and remain to be British subjects then it has to overturn the Sue v Hill decision
also and dismiss the Commonwealth v Barnaby Joyce and Ors matter. I anticipate that the High
Court of Australia will now list matters in its proper order and instruct the Commonwealth to file
and serve its documents including a copy of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS in the Melbourne Registry of the High Court of Australia and matter will proceed
with the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS so to say being the first cab of
the rank to be heard and determined. It may also be noted that New Zealand is within our
constitution regarded as a state regardless it may never actually have joined as such.
I have published a copy of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS on my
blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.

":.. 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)

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE

Constitutional interpretation

1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:

"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -
someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."

END QUOTE

p6 3-11-2017 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
Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the
Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 17-8-2017 CORRESPONDENCE

Why didnt the Government pursue this matter appropriately?

Electors are fed up with what they deem a bunch of idiots being Members of Parliament who
themselves cannot even grasp the true meaning and application of the constitution and are to
legislate for the general community competently?
I have not downloaded the judgment of the High Court of Australia at this time, but I have no
doubt it contains likely utter sheer nonsense.
Citizenship in the constitution refers to residence and based to reside within a British territory.
You cannot twist the meaning of this to suit some unelected judges of the High Court of
Australia.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that qualification is not within the ambit of the
Court of Disputed Returns! This, as it remains with in the relevant House of Parliament.
People are fed up with this elaborate nonsense. Australians are citizens of the Commonwealth of
nations and is this now going to be used by the High Court of Australia to so to say wipe any
person from eligibility to be a member of (Federal) Parliament? Come on surely we can expect
more competent politicians to take on the judges for what I consider treasonous conduct?

We had this nonsense about the WMD to invade Iraq and instead of holding the so called
intelligence services accountable for their failure of proper intelligence we handsomely rewarded
them with more money.

We have this nonsense about global warming that it was predicted that Australian rivers would
be dry years ago.
We have this utter and very dangerous nonsense about vaccination
QUOTE

why flu shots don't work

A stunning new scientific study has solved the riddle of why flu shots don't work.

After decades of lies and propaganda from the junk science vaccine industry, we now know that growing
viral strains in chicken eggs causes them to mutate, making them largely ineffective for human immunity.

We've all been lied to for decades, in other words, about flu shots.

My feature story brings you all the details. Read it here.

p7 3-11-2017 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
 https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-01-vaccine-industry-in-panic-as-scientific-study-solves-riddle-why-
flu-shots-dont-work-immunization.html
Scientific Proof: Flu vaccine found to be completely ineffective because of how it is made, new study
finds
By Ethan Huff | Read the full story
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-02-scientific-proof-flu-vaccine-found-to-be-completely-ineffective-
because-of-how-it-is-made-new-study-finds.html
END QUOTE

Do you really desire to be creating as legacy you were part of a murderous bunch of politicians
who were more interested to serve the chemical industry then to protect the rights of children and
others?

No use to complain about how the citizenship sage is off the rails when you failed to deal with it
despite my past writings.
More than likely federal Members of Parliament may all find their future pensions, etc, being in
jeopardy where their statuses also are in question if only because of being a citizen of the British
Commonwealth of Nations unless of course this time you and others finally wake up from the
self-induced ignorance to reality and start acting as competent Members of Parliament.
If just the Federal government had acted appropriately in the first place considering the 4
December 2002 court order, as then all this hassle could have been avoided!

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 3-11-2017 correspondence to Morrison

I can but say: I told you so.

When on 15 July 2016 and 21 December 2016 I warned about possible mass murder specifically
mentioning Bourke Street Mall politicians shouldnt give a hoot about it. 6 people died
subsequently, which I view could have been prevented. So what those who are booted out of the
parliament have a personal devastation, at least they are still alive which those who were killed
have no opportunity to say. Perhaps some form of karma exist?

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!)

p8 3-11-2017 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