WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Australian Electoral Commission

11-7-2015

[email protected]
5
Cc:

10

Senator George Brandis [email protected]

George Williams [email protected]
Mr Clive Palmer [email protected]
Jacqui Lambie [email protected]
Bill Shorten [email protected]
Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o [email protected]
Ref: 150711-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AEC Re COMPLAINTS etc

Sir/Madam,
15

I will give an example which albeit relates to State political election will give
an indication as to the issue of declaration, as to Federal political elections.

When it comes to filing a declaration of political expenditure I have the first concern that
the details must be correct. Hence, for example when I stood in the State election for
Ivanhoe and had been subjected to having Anthony Carbines (ALP) as then councillor of
20 Banyule City Council involving staff to remover my elect ion posters, etc, I obviously
request Banyule City Council to compensate me for this. Hence in the subsequent council
elections I decided not to file a return not knowing if Banyule City Council was going to
compensate monies then as it would have affected my declaration. Well, I held not filing a
declaration in the circumstances where Banyule City Council had not clarified its position
25 was better than to be facing to file a declaration and later be accused of filing as fraudulent
declaration if Banyule City Council was so to say setting me up for this. That this was a set
up became clear where another former candidate simply had n either filed a declaration
but Banyule City Council pursued me for it, yet never the other candidate. I ended up
before the court and well the court held I had failed to file a declaration, but the other
30 candidate was never charged for the same. It clearly was so to say a political witch hunt
against me, where unlike the other candidate at least I had a reason not wanting to file a
false/misleading declaration.
In recent times it is clear that Mr Bill Shorten failed to declare at least $40,000.00 on his
declaration. But as I understand it Mr Tony Abbott previously also amended his
35 declaration.
After the 2010 State election I was invited to a Liberal Party function, this even so I stood
as INDEPENDENT candidate and was not a member of the Liberal Party. At the table I
was at the treasurer then raised the issue that he got a $50.000.00 to which he had no prior
knowledge.
40 It is very clear that political parties do have campaigns, and there was a report that Mr
Clive Palmer allegedly spend $12 million of the 2013 election campaign, and that seeks to
sue some of his former party members for the cost. On this basis it must be clear the
money was allegedly spend for the candidates.
p1 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

The same is with candidates of other political parties and as such, like Mr Bill Shorten and
Mr Tony Abbott to mention a few, their political machinery was on an advertising
campaign that did cost many millions. The advertising campaigns are also misleading and
deceptive because it portray that the party leader is to be elected by all electors rather than
5 that the local candidate is the person they vote for. This, as electors cannot vote for who
shall be in government and/or who shall be a (Prime) Minister.
See my correspondence 130908-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer &
AEC Re COMPLAINTS for this also!
As such, I view the cost of political advertising by the political parties must be spread out
10 to the number of candidates of that political party and then declared by each candidate as
such. After all and INDEPENDENT candidate would have to declare such kind of
expenses and any donations as such.
Where then candidates of political parties failed to declare this kind of donation from
their political party campaign then I view each and every one should be charges for having
15 filed a fraudulent disclosure statement.
.

QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343

Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.
END QUOTE

20 The AEC as I understand it cannot make payments for primary votes if the candidate has
not incurred any cost for the political election campaign. While candidates may assign
payments for the primary voted to their respective political party nevertheless it is a
payment made upon the candidates entitlement not that of the political partys entitlement
as the political party was not a registered candidate. Therefore all and any monies paid
25 on behalf of a candidate to his/her political party I view can only be justified if the
candidate declares the expenses and so the benefits of the candidate, a reasonable estimate,
from benefitting of the election campaign paid for by the political party.
Political parties pre-spend monies on the election campaign well aware that after the
election the candidates primary vote payments will cover a lot of the cost incurred. As such
30 it gives a disadvantage to INDEPENDENT candidates which has no such ability.
While it was a State political election campaign Attorney Carbines even hired a shop front
that was staffed by people. The hiring of a shop front clearly cost monies. Daniel Andrew
had a buss during the 2014 state election. And I understand likewise in federal elections
busses are painted with slogans to vote for a particular party leader, etc. Then I view those
35 cost should be declared by the respective candidate. It is monies spend on behalf of a
particular candidate. And I may state such as in Victoria, why have a bus going around the
State to vote for Daniel Andrews when only his own electorate can vote for him, as there
and only there he is a candidate.
The same with federal political elect ions the usage of a bus to travel around pretending
40 that all electors no matter not being in the electorate of the party leader somehow can vote
for the party leader as a candidate I view is grossly deceptive and misleading, but the AEC
despite responsible for the fair and proper conduct of elections so far failed to take any
actions against the offender.
I am not aware the AEC pursued charged against Clive Palmer, this even so I made a
45 formal complaint.
Even so in the municipal council elections, as was the evidence before the court, there had
been no donations at the time and so no details as such were withheld, nevertheless the fact
that I had failed to file the declaration itself was an issue, this even so I had the issue not
having any response from Banyule City Council and so couldnt complete a declaration
50 until it did so and Banyule City Council had been made aware of this. Again not regarding
the other candidate.
p2 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

If the not filing of a declaration, regardless no donations were received, is an issue then I
view the making of a false declaration should be considered a FRAUD.
As such, I view it is well overdue that the AEC pursues matters against all candidates of
political parties who failed to disclose their political party donations to each candidate (in
5 the form of advertising, etc) and also those candidates who had amended their disclosure
form afterwards.
.

10

It makes an utter mockery of the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) that it ignores
such serious matters and undermines FAIR and PROPER elections.
Actually as yet I am not aware the AEC provided me with an appropriate response to my
correspondence 130908-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer & AEC Re
COMPLAINTS COMPLAINT!
.

15 It should be understood that political parties not being a candidate therefore themselves
cannot have any lawful entitlement to be provided with any payment of first preference of
a candidate unless the candidate assigns his/her own right and can show to have spent
monies as such. If therefore the candidate didnt disclose spending this monies himself,
which couldnt be if the political party paid this, as then it is a donation, then no payment
20 per primary vote can eventuate.
Also, any person who stands for re-election as a member of the House of Representative s
is constitutionally not a Member of Parliament once the Governor-General has dissolved
the House of Representatives and issued writs and as such they are no longer Members of
25 Parliament but former Members of Parliament and therefore must disclose the benefits they
had by claiming cost against the Consolidated Revenue Funds as if they are still Members
of Parliament. Ministers are not entitled to use either Consolidated Revenue Funds for
political election campaigns and nor are entitled to the Parliamentarian allowances.
.

30 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

35

Mr. GILLIES:

Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid
500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary
as a member of parliament.
END QUOTE

While Senators have generally an election while still remaining a Senator (other than with
a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) their election cost should never be allowed to include
40 charging against the consolidate Revenue Funds.
Where then for example there is a by-election the Prime Minister (as like any other
Minister) has no constitutional position to attend at cost of the taxpayers to promote the
local candidate, this as it is not relating to his portfolio. Hence, any charges the Prime
Minister (so any other Minister) incurs to attend to such by-election to support a local
45 candidate must be regarded as a donation besides that it is unconstitutional. You cannot
have that Mr Bill Shorten is held accountable for not having declared certain benefits
where neither so did I estimate most other Members of Parliament and other unsuccessful
candidates.
50 It is beyond me why we appear to have such a grossly incompetent Australian Electoral
Commission, where this fraudulent conduct flourishes with no end in sight.
p3 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Below are examples that monies of the Consolidated Revenue funds can only be spend on
public purposes and not used for political elections.
Therefore, where Members of Parliament are using alleged allowances for political
election purposes then not only is this unconstitutional but also should be declared having
5 used this funds as such. It is nonsense to hold that a Member of Parliament can incur huge
cost on advertising prior to any political elect ion and not disclose this in a declaration as a
donation, even if it is unconstitutional. What we now have is that members of parliament
are spending I estimate hundreds of thousands of dollars on future elections but are
purportedly permitted to do so by the uniter party arrangements. As such hiding the real
10 cost (including donations) incurred as such.
.

In my view political advertising is such as the following

QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re polical
15 advertising-COMPLAINT
It also refers to:
QUOTE
A LABOR GOVERNMENT WILL:
END QUOTE
20 And
QUOTE
Labors plan will ensure that STEM careers will start in our schools and Australians
can get the start they need to b e a part of the workforce of the future.
END QUOTE
25
END QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re polical
advertising-COMPLAINT
This is about if a Labor Government is in power and not about issues of a current
30 government.
To me this is a misuse and abuse of allowances and each and every member of
parliament having failed to disclose this kind of advertising for a future election, etc, I
view must be legally severely dealt with. As such there must be a register where each
35 Member of Parliament referring to a future government must record the associated cost
(including printing, handling and postage cost) and then this must be declare in a
subsequent election by this person if st5anding for re-election, and if this Member of
Parliament is not standing for re-election then it is spread along all candidates of the
particular political party.
40
QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re polical
advertising-COMPLAINT
Mr Tony Abbott PM
[email protected]

45
Cc:

Senator George Brandis [email protected]

George Williams [email protected]
Mr Clive Palmer [email protected]
Jacqui Lambie [email protected]

50 Bill Shorten [email protected]

Herald Sun Andrew Bolt [email protected], [email protected]
Mark Robinson [email protected] Jay Clark [email protected]
p4 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Ref; 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re political advertising COMPLAINT

5 Tony,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware about the intentions of the Framers
of the constitution and political advertising to campaigning for an election that is not
even called at cost of taxpayers is unconstitutional.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.

10

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

15
Therefore even if the Federal Parliament legislated to allow such abuse of Consolidated
Revenue Funds (taxes) it still would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
.

I have reproduced a pamphlet that I received today in the mail box and it clearly seeks
20 people (not just electors) to write to the President of the Senate and Senators
QUOTE
We ask the Senate to call upon the Abbott Government to provide our youth with the opportunity and
support they need to get into further training, education and into work.

25

END QUOTE

It also refers to:

QUOTE
A LABOR GOVERNMENT WILL:
END QUOTE
30 And
QUOTE
Labors plan will ensure that STEM careers will start in our schools and Australians
can get the start they need to b e a part of the workforce of the future.
END QUOTE
35
Using a pamphlet for other purposes cannot excuse the usage of a political statement and
as such the entire cost of the pamphlet and so associated cost of staff working on it, the
printing, postage, etc) must be held to be for n on public purposes but for political
purposes. It does state LABORS PLAN FOR THE JOBS OF TOMORROW and
40 therefore is a clear political election pamphlet.
I will now reproduced both sides of the pamphlet:

p5 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

p6 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

First of all the Senate has no such power to call upon the Abbott Government, this as the
Framers of the Constitution made clear that any Minister is answerable to the House of
5 Representatives. The Peoples House.
Senate Estimates is not about accountability of a Government. The Senate may request a
Minister and/or his/her department to brief the committee on certain financial issues but it
p7 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

cannot operate as to hold the entire government accountable to the Senate. If Jenny
Macklin fails to understand the basics of the constitution and the legal principles embedded
in it, despite for so long having been in the Parliament and even a Minister then I view it is
well overdue she gets some form of education about what is the true meaning and
5 application of the constitution.
Further, this pamphlet in my view is nothing but a political election campaign with the
quoted wording as to what Labor will do.
Here we have people so to say asked to tighten their belts and we have a Member of
10 Parliament who is wasting huge amount of monies on advertising.
It may be argued that members have a certain amount of entitlement to send out mail, but I
view this is nothing but blatant political advertising and should be born by Jenny Macklin,
out of her own pocket. When an election is called it must be clear there can be no fair and
proper election where here we have a Member of Parliament using taxpayers moneys to
15 get an advantage upon any other candidate so that by the time an election is called she so to
say is in the drivers seat.
This is also one reason that I refuse to vote and as you ought to be aware I defeated
on 19 July 2006 the Commonwealth on compulsory voting.
In my view it would be better to reign in this gross abuse of taxpayers monies as soon or
20 later you may just discover that the power to make such a decision may no longer remain
available, as others will make that decision instead.
.

The same is when writs are issued for a general election, then every Member of the House
of Representatives is no more, they hold no seat, not even if re-elected until they are again
25 sworn in. As such, from the day the writs are issued they cannot use Parliamentarian
privileges, not being paid, travel at taxpayers cost, use their mobile/laptops, etc, at
taxpayers cost, stay in placers at cost of taxpayers, as they are no longer Members of
Parliament. As ought to be clear no person can be a Member of the House of
Representatives for more than 3 years. There always will be a short period of a break that
30 they are no longer a Member of the House of Representatives regardless how many times
they are re-elected. Actually the same applies with a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION with the
Senate. Those who are Ministers of the Crown can continue to act as Ministers of the
Crown but are prohibited from claiming any benefits as Member of Parliament, regardless
if they are a Member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
35
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

40

45

Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual
allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to
time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual
allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except
to suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could
be adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for
services is a misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those
colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the
p8 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that
members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why
not say that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual
allowance? I move as an amendment:

That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

. Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.

10

15

20

If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with
reference to the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in
the bill which are not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions
which take into consideration the salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some
provision is required in order to guard against officials being paid double. When a member of
parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid
as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not
at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than the bald provision already made.
Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid
500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary
as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to settle a
matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own judgment, and
certainly not to the judgment of the public
END QUOTE

25 THE CONSTITUTION DOESNT PROVIDE FOR A SHADOW CABINET OR A

SHADOW MINISTER AND THIS ROT ALSO SHOULD BE STOPPED.
In fact by s44 of the constitution anyone who is in the receipt of a salary from the
Commonwealth is automatically vacating his/her seat. Ministers are not employed by the
30 Commonwealth of Australia but their salaries are paid to the British Crown who then pays
the relevant Minister. Hence upon a Prime Minister or other Minister vacating his seat by
elect ion or otherwise no further payment can be made out of Consolidated Revenue
Funds. No free offices and free transport, etc, for them and/or their family members
because it would constitute fraud.
35 The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate are employed
in political offices!
.

40

45

HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices
of Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are
parliamentary offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent
that really the Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit
their own Estimates, and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are
altogether untouched by the Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices
of profit under the Crown. I think that that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in
England and elsewhere.
END QUOTE

50
p9 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Let us be clear about it that any Member of Parliament, not being a Minister of the Crown
(including President/Speaker) who is paid a salary/superannuation is automatically
disqualified from holding a seat in the Parliament. As such any so called shadow
Minister getting paid for such position is I view then defrauding the commonwealth (so
5 the taxpayers) and no longer eligible to suit in the Parliament, regardless if Parliament
provided rules otherwise, this as Parliament cannot override the constitution.
As for so called midterm budgets, they are unconstitutional also:
10 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

15

. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042]
as he pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws
for taxation including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going
outside the ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be
imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any
stage of its existence.
END QUOTE

20

25

30

35

40

45

It also means that the sacking by John Kerr as he did was in fact unconstitutional, as a
Governor-General should stay out of the political fight between opposing parties. First of
all John Kerr as governor-General had a duty and obligation to ensure that the government
of the Day had passed the appropriation and taxation Bills long before the commencement
of the financial year they applied to. When there was a failure to do so the GovernorGeneral then could have removed the commission from the Prime Minister and
subsequently given the commission to someone else, even if the person was not even a
Member of Parliament. As Edmund Barton the first Prime Minister neither was a Member
of Parliament when he was commissioned.
As such the withdrawal of a commission ought to have eventuated before the
commencement of the financial year.
Further, within the principle embedded in the constitution the Governor-General is limited
to call a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION but cannot do it in the manner as he did to replace
Withlam with Malcolm Fraser and then allow the Senate to pass money bills and then call
a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION This as quoted above the Appropriation and taxation bills
cannot be altered or otherwise interfered with during the financial year they applied to. It
was Governor-General John Kerr who therefore in my view acted incompetent and lacked
proper supervision and was the real reason of the demise of the Withlam Government in an
unconstitutional manner.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Governor-General is the CEO and the
Ministers are his constitutional advisors.
Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!

p10 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the
expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and
powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the
Commonwealth.

Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?

Mr. BARTON: Yes.
END QUOTE

Taxation and Appropriation Bills to comply with the constitutional requirement must be
10 introduced at such period of time that allows the bill, if twice rejected, to be put to the
electors for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and then if rejected again a JOINT SITTING is
convened between the Houses of Parliament. As such basically the Budget as generally
referred to is to be handed down allowing this period of time and so required to be
presented say before the end of the calendar year prior to the 1 July of the following year at
15 which time the Appropriation and Taxation Bills will come into effect. Therefore, not
even in time of war can Taxation Bills and Appropriation Bills be altered.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

20

Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not
receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]

25

END QUOTE

Clearly any tax exemption or other kind of payments is unconstitutional.

.

To fund churches or other religious organisations would basically force taxpayers who are
not associated with any kind of religion to pay for those who do, and this in itself is
30 unconstitutional.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that there was a separation of powers been
State and church.
With Jullie Bishop travelling overseas and staying wherever in performing her job no one
35 can make an issue out of this provided she acts reasonable in the circumstances, but when a
person like Treasurer Joe (smoking) Hockey is a Minister then he is not allowed to claim
ordinary Member of Parliament entitlements, and as such cannot claim overnight
accommodation to be paid to his wife where on the other hand she travels with him at
times as his wife. And may even a have a split income for taxation returns. We need to
40 clamp down on this and I view the ATO should investigate this also. After all if Joe
(smoking) Hockey is paying rent to his wife then are they separated or not?
In my view Centrelink would call it a scam if people on a pension were to do as Joe
(smoking) Hockey and his wife were doing.
I view the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) should also investigate matters, as after all
45 where Joe (smoking) Hockey makes a payment to his wife then it is in my view so to say a
commercial arrangement and no longer can be held to be his allowance or otherwise from
the parliament.

p11 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

As for taxation matters the Commonwealth cannot excluded certain soldiers from taxation
merely because they serve in a certain area, as this would be unconstitutional. The
Commonwealth can increase their pay as to compensate for the monies having to be paid
in taxation but not excluded any person from paying taxation.
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

10

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-A rather important point has been raised with regard to subsection (2), in regard to the question of uniformity of taxation. While there has been no express
decision by the American courts as to the meaning of the words "uniform throughout the
Commonwealth," there are expressions in one of the cases which render it necessary for us to use
caution. I therefore ask for a little more time in which to consider this matter.
Mr. HIGGINS.-To allow graduations and exemptions, is it?

15

20

Mr. BARTON.-My own desire is that the Federal Parliament should be unfettered in the exercise of
its taxing power, if it has to use any direct taxation at all. Whatever my own opinions may be as to the
way in which that power should be exercised, it is necessary that the authority to which it is confided
should have the power in full force. That being so, I wish to see that this authority is properly
conserved. For that reason, I think it advisable to postpone the matter, and I therefore move that it
should be postponed until after clause 80 has been considered. It would then come on immediately
before the provision relating to finance and trade, to which it is so nearly related.
The motion was agreed to, and the clause postponed.
END QUOTE

25 Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

30

35

40

45

Clause 52, sub-section (2).-Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the
Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to
another.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this sub-section,
which puts the matter into a form which would express the intention of the Convention, whilst
avoiding a difficulty. Honorable members will recollect the difficulty that arose over the construction
of words equivalent to "uniform throughout the Commonwealth" in the United States of America.
Although no actual decision has been given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word
"uniform." The celebrated income tax case went off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongst
the people according to numbers, and this point was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has been
thrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment of Mr. Justice Field. I think that although the
word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in form" throughout the
Commonwealth-still there might be a difficulty, and litigation might arise about it, and prolonged
trouble might be occasioned with regard to the provision in case, for instance, an income tax or a land
tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to prevent a discrimination between citizens of the
Commonwealth in the same circumstances. I beg to moveThat all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that the following
words be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between goods
passing from one state to another."
I conceive it to be quite unnecessary to retain these words in view of clause 89, prescribing free-trade
among the several states, under which any duty or tax on goods passing from one state to another
would be clearly invalid, and could not possibly be allowed by the operation of the preference clauses.
p12 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

I propose not to say anything about goods in this connexion passing from one state to another, as that
is sufficiently provided for, and I put in this provision, which prevents discrimination or any form
of tax which would make a difference between the citizen of one state and the citizen of another
state, and to prevent anything which would place a tax upon a person going from one state to
another. I beg to moveThat all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted, with a view to
inserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or
between persons or things passing from one state to another."
The amendment was agreed to.

10 END QUOTE
It is clear that to exclude one or more persons but not all who receive the same amount of
pay from taxation is unconstitutional and beyond the legislative powers of the
Commonwealth of Australia. It means that the gun toting former AWB official who was
15 reportedly paid $1 million dollars to represent the Commonwealth of Australia in Iraq, then
also still should be paying the tax for that monies. Lets be clear about it the various
Parliament have legislated that items can be confiscated where they are deemed proceeds
of crime. As such the same can be used against politicians who defrauded the Consolidated
Revenue Funds for monies not entitled upon.
20
Perhaps you may be able to guess what I would do if I were in power! I would make sure
that those who violated the constitution and so its embedded legal principles would be held
legally accountable for it all.
25 This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all
details/issues.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

(
)
30 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
END QUOTE 20150623-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re polical
advertising-COMPLAINT
35 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
Ethics Orientation for State Officials
Misuse of Public Funds

40

45

50

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that
public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public
purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private
purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official
possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be
expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose
nor are they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal
benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.
p13 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

For example, the payment of a public employees salary confers a personal benefit on the employee,
but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the
employee for public purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure
is not merely incidental. The term public funds is not limited to money, but includes anything
of value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and
use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other equipment and resources.

Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

10

15

1.In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to

purchase items for himself and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even
though those receiving the discount paid for the items with personal funds.
2.In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county
vehicle to transport a political candidate, his staff and family.
3.In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to
work on his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
4.In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in
connection with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to
Great Falls, Montana and back.

20 Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil
sanctions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.

25

30

35

40

45

50

State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public
funds. This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is
a list of what well cover in this section.

Stanson v. Mott
Endorsements and Informational Materials
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines

Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns

The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of
public funds in election campaigns.
In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
challenging the directors expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a
statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding
that in the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public
funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign.
Stanson v. Mott
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: A fundamental precept of this nations democratic electoral process
is that the government may not take sides in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of
several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our countrys founders lay in the possibility that the
holders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their
allies, in office....
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson ...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of
course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government
agency may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote
its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not
promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
p14 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot
measure elections.

10

15

1.The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to
disseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide
the public with a fair presentation of relevant information.
2.The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar
knowledgeable public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the
public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to
improper campaign activity.
3.To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal
treatment to both sides of the issue.
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines
from the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996,
Sacramento County paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining
the effect on the county of several ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a
position on the ballot measures and was not a neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Let's Review
TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.

Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.

20 Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone

calls before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governors campaign
fundraising dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government
on a variety of issues, may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.

25

Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal
political purposes rather than for a public purpose.

Let's Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer
questions about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds
for this purpose.

30

a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
b.The materials do not make false statements.
c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable
impacts of the measure.

35

Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and
unfavorable impacts of the measure.

Remember These Points

40

Expenditures must be for a public purpose

Expenditures must be authorized
Public funds may not be expended for personal use
Information must be fairly presented
Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions

END QUOTE
p15 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

10

Mr. HIGGINS.-Ought you not to have the same phrase in sub-section (2) as you have in subsection (3) of clause 45?
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46 you put an
express reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by inference any other class of
insolvency. There is another point, and this is also a very serious one, to which the Premier of Victoria
drew my attention before lunch. Sub-section (3) of clause 46 provides that the seat of a senator or
member of the House of Representatives is to become vacant if hedirectly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service rendered by
him for and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.

15

No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision made
elsewhere in the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services rendered to the
Commonwealth, which might include his services as a senator. Clause 48A provides thatUntil the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator, and each member of the House of
Representatives, shall receive for his services an allowance of 400 a year, to be reckoned from the
day on which he takes his seat.

20

The allowance spoken of there might be regarded as an honorarium, or as a fee, but it is an

allowance for "services," which is the word used in sub-section (3) of clause 46.
END QUOTE
Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)

25 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

30

There are, of course, many formal matters relating to both houses, such as the election of president
and speaker, disqualifications, the issue of writs, elections, and so on, with which I shall not on this
occasion trouble the Convention. It is provided, then, that each member of either house shall have an
annual allowance for his services, which is proposed to be fixed in the meantime at 500 a year. The
ordinary disqualifications are inserted as to members holding offices of profit, with the exception of
ministers of the Crown, or becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.
END QUOTE

While the quotation below refers to salary, being paid for work the legal principle is
that an allowance is not a salary.
35 Hansard 21-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

40

Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the States Assembly or
of the House of Representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of four hundred pounds a
year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
Mr. GORDON: I move:
p16 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."

10

The ground for the motion is that 400 a year is insufficient. While some local Parliaments are
paying their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers 300 a year, 400 is not enough for a member
who has to leave-as most members of the Federal Parliament would have to do-his colony and
practically abandon his business or his profession. He would have to rely either upon his private
means or his parliamentary salary, which, in this case, would be inadequate. I think, if 400 a year is
fixed, the choice for members of the House of Representatives will be limited to those who can afford
to leave their business or profession, and to those who are prepared to depend entirely on the small
parliamentary salary. While members of both of these classes are exceedingly desirable members of
any Parliament, I think it would be a mistake to have the whole Parliament consisting of them, which
the payment of the salary proposed would probably lead to. I think 500 is little enough; the 100
makes all the difference to the ordinary professional or business man.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: 400 is quite enough.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: 100 too much.

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mr. GORDON: I think it is a question on which the sense of the Committee should be taken, and,
without further remark, I move the amendment.
Mr. HIGGINS: I think that, having regard to the fact that the Federal Parliament will have much
less to do than the ordinary local Parliaments after the first Parliament, 400 is sufficient. I am as
strongly in favor of payment of members, on the grounds alluded to by Mr. Gordon, as any man, but I
say that the work done in the States Parliaments takes far more time than will the work in the Federal
Parliament, after its first meeting. It is not likely, indeed, that the Federal Parliament will sit more than
two months in the year. I should like to strike out "four," with a view to the insertion of "three." At the
same time, as 400 has been fixed as a compromise, I hope it will remain at that amount as the
maximum.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: I consider that 400 is ample payment for the services of members. In
addition to that they possess the privilege of a free railway pass. The amount proposed to be paid400-is twice as much as the Dominion Parliament of Canada pays its members. I trust hon. members
will not support the amendment to increase the amount to 500.
Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no right to
assume that the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our experience teaches us that,
as civilisation advances, the requirements of the people increase, and the tendency to ask Parliament
to do things, that in the past have been done by private enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feel
confident that the Federal Parliament, instead of having less to do as time goes on, will have a great
deal more to do. I think that it will be found to the advantage of the States to hand over work to the
central Government. Of course, I can understand the objection that any sum is too much, by
those who disapprove of the principle of payment of members. But the principle of payment of
members has been adopted throughout all the colonies. It was adopted after a good deal of resistance
on the part of those who disapprove of it, which showed the strong growing public feeling in favor of
paying members for the work they do, and of looking upon the position of a member of Parliament not
merely as a position of honor, but rather regarding them as State servants who are paid for their work.
We are paid not merely to reimburse us for expenses incurred, and to pay members of the Federal
Parliament 500 a year would be little enough, considering that during a portion of the year they will
have to be great distances from their established homes.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It will cost them nothing to travel.

45

Mr. TRENWITH: That is a very popular delusion.

[start page 1033]
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Let them keep out of Parliament.
p17 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. TRENWITH: That is exactly the idea. I say let the people have the widest possible area of
selection for Parliament in order that all sections may be represented.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: To keep a lot of idle fellows doing nothing.
HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Mr. TRENWITH: I am anxious that members of Parliament should not be idle fellows. In the nonpayment days a great many members were idle fellows who looked upon a seat in Parliament as an
addition to their social position, who cared very little for its worth, and in some instances who paid
themselves very handsomely by the opportunities they had.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: You cannot say that with truth. That is a most scandalous assertion!

10

Mr. TRENWITH: It is the truth.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Quite scandalous. You have no right to make such a statement.
Mr. TRENWITH: I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort, but when Sir William Zeal
talks about idle fellows, he brings upon himself, naturally and properly, the rejoinder I have made.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: A most unjust rejoinder.

15

Mr. TRENWITH: In some of the colonies the best lands and water-frontages-the very eyes of the
colonies, in fact-were mopped up by members of Parliament during the regime of non-payment of
members.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: How many of them?
Mr. TRENWITH: As I said before I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort.

20

Mr. WALKER: What you say may be the case in Victoria, you know.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It is a gross exaggeration.
Mr. TRENWITH: I am not speaking merely of Victoria. I lived during the early part of my life in a
nice little colony which suffered in the same way.
Mr. WALKER: Do you mean Van Diemen's Land?

25

30

Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people tend
towards payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir William Zeal,
interjected that we have free railway passes. I would remark that any person who knows anything
about travel must recognise that it carries with it a large amount of expense. Those who are
here, away from their homes, know that if they were getting 400 a year for this work, they
would be losing money, and they would not even be reimbursed for the expenditure incurred.
Those who urge that the amount should be left as proposed in the Bill, are not in favor of payment of
members, but are simply favorable to reimbursing members for the disbursements they make in
connection with the performance of their duties.
Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.

35

Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have looked
thoroughly at the question or he would not have spoken as he did.
Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for being here,
but he is bearing it cheerfully.
p18 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. TRENWITH: There are some who could not afford to lose anything at all. Parliament is to be
composed, as it ought to be, of representatives of all sections of the community. There must be in
Parliament some who cannot afford to lose anything at all, and who must be paid for their services,
and if those services are worth having, there ought to be adequate remuneration for them. I sincerely
hope that the higher figure will be [start page 1034] adopted, not because I believe in extravagance,
but because I believe that any lesser sum will not pay members of Parliament for their work.
Question-That the word "four," proposed to be struck out, stand part of the question-put. The
Committee divided.
Ayes, 26; Noes, 9. Majority, 17.

10 END QUOTE
As this is a COMPLAINT I expect and entitled to be dealt with appropriately and an
investigation is held into all current and former Members of Parliament those candidates of
political parties if they did make the appropriate declaration. While this may involve
mountains of work, then again had the AEC been more competent and so to say on the job
15 it could have avoided most of it. Its blatant disregard to do its job can never be an excuse.
Electors are currently robbed of FAIR and PROPER elect ions and as such for this no valid
elections have n or can be claimed to have eventuated.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal
20 advice nor to refer to all issues/details.
Awaiting your response,
(Friends call me Gerrit)
25

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(

Our name is our motto!)

p19 11-7-2015
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, See
also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati