20210121-mr G. H. Schorel-hlavka O.w.b. To Donald J Trump Jr-presidential Legality, Fbi, Conspiracy, Impeachments

Donald Trump Jr Cc:

(Australia) 21-1-2021

FBI @FBI AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

20210121-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Donald J Trump Jr- Presidential legality, FBI, conspiracy, impeachments

Donald, I refer back to my previous correspondences I provided you copies of also. My writings must not be seen as to intending in any way to justify what has eventuated in the USA regarding any form of violence. I merely raise issues as I did when assisting/representing a party in legal proceedings. Oh boy, my wife Olga (88) is so to say on warpath, and well I am the one copping it. She didn’t like candidate Trump in 2016 because of what she understood to be his conduct towards women, but once your father became President Donald J Trump she turned 180 degrees and now adores him. And, as she lived through WWII and then subsequently communism in Czechoslovakia from which she escaped, she is furious how the law enforcement agencies have manipulated their powers to not stop the rot against President Donald J Trump. I keep telling her it is not over yet, but nevertheless she is furious. I had intended to merely write you some pages but the more I consider issues the more I wrote below. . I explained to Olga that she knows I used to assist/represented parties in litigation where despite the so called “evidence” I nevertheless succeed to totally turn it around. As I refer below to the case with the police, I did a counter attack about the conduct of the police and expose their unlawful conduct. In another case, Mr Colosimo was certified to be needing to be placed under Administration by 2 medical doctors, while he was represented by a barrister. Well I took over, and the appeal succeeded showing the medical doctors had been deceived by the lawyers and had based their assessment upon fruaudlent information by opponent lawyers. Also, he had already been put at least 6 CONTEMPT OF COURT hearing and informed by the judge to be prepared to go to prison, at the next hearing. Again, I took over from his barrister and turned the table against the accusers, and that was the end of the case also. I below have quoted various part of the Authority: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

I view this case is recommended for all to read in full. p1 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

This is a specific case about not just interfering with the rights of any person in elections but also to deny them their FREE EXRCISE of it. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE *548 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes here with a certificate by the judges of the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana that they were divided in opinion upon a question which occurred at the hearing. It presents for our consideration an indictment containing sixteen counts, divided into two series of eight counts each, based upon sect. 6 of the Enforcement Act of May 31, 1870. That section is as follows:— "That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court, — the fine not to exceed $5,000, and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to, and disabled from holding, any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the constitution or laws of the United States ." 16 Stat. 141. END QUOTE

It is by this clear, that where both then Senator Kamala Harris and Joe Biden self-professed to have committed conspiracies by using the term “we”; Joe Biden “we’re

in a situation where we have put together ” Senator Kamala Harris: “And they should not, and we should not. ” Both by using the word “we” which is plural underlines that either one of them were part of a conspiracy to deny citizens their FREE EXERCISE rights. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-biden-voter-protection-not-idUSKBN27E2VH QUOTE

The clip shared by Trump, McEnany and others starts around the 19:13 mark, when Biden tells Pfeiffer and Lovett, “Secondly,

we’re in a situation where we have put together—and you guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this—we have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics. ” END QUOTE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5THZGzrXmU Dan Bongino – Media Sit in Shameful Silence as Pres Sec interviewer: ...... protest still happening..

p2 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

That is right. They are not going to stop. They are not going to stop. And this is a movement they are not going to stop. And everyone be aware that they are not going to stop. They are not going to stop before election day in November. And they are not going to stop after election day. And that should be everyone taking notice of this on both levels. This is, they are not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not. Senator Kamala Harris:

Repeat:

And they should not, and we should not. Hence, those statements should have been more than sufficient for law enforcement agencies to have acted upon, however the FBI in my view was instead aiding and abetting as I view was the DOJ such as former Attorney-General William Barr as to downplay this all, and so the MSM and Big Tech. While it may be argued that law enforcement agencies unlikely are going to pursue Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for this, reality is that those who are charged with offences as to alleged criminal conduct are well entitled to use this as a ground of defense. That the law agencies themselves are political agents to select certain people who they alleged committed offences but are shielding the masterminded of serious criminal offences. . I in 2001 objected to the validity of the (Australian) federal election but this case was railroaded by the deception of the government lawyers. I did publish those details as such not create them now. I refused to vote in such unconstitutional federal election and in Australia political elections are supposed to be compulsory the Commonwealth took me on and charged me for the 2001 and later also for the 2004 alleged failure to vote. Representing myself this lasted about 5 years of litigation and in the end I succeeded in both appeals notably unchallenged. I used not only my extensive knowledge about constitutional issues, but also did a counter offence that with the unconstitutional murderous invasion into Iraq I could not be forced for that also to vote for those I held were mass murderers, committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc. If therefore anyone charged with the 6 January issue were to do a counter attack that the FBI and others were accomplices to the murderous riots and election fraud by failing to act to deal at the time with (then) Senator Kamala Harris and Joe Biden then I view this would open the floodgates for a contentious case if indeed the Failure of FBI and other law enforcement agencies who knew or should have been aware that they ought to have acted in itself makes them a party of the unlawful conduct that in the end resulted in the 6 January event. In my view, the MSM (mainstream media & Big Tech) were doing so and each and every citizen so denied free exercise of their right to make an “informed” decision who to vote for should be held against the MSM and Big Tech businesses. I understand that reportedly some 6% of voters made known they would not have voted for Joe Biden had they been aware about Hunter Biden’s issues. This the MSM and Big Tech concealed p3 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

from them, and as such, it is clearly a conspiracy to deny electors their right to obtain information relevant to make an “informed” decision whom to vote for. Likewise, the ongoing murderous riots through 2020 in a sense was to pre-condition electors to vote for a particular candidate or face further murderous riots AFTER the election. As such a form of intimidation upon those voters. There is this major obstacle that while Federal Laws may be used against any alleged offender of damaging/destroying/trespassing onto Federal Property this too needs to be qualified in that while those kind of laws may suit federal properties such as park land, reserves, etc, when it comes to “sovereign” entities like the Courts and Congress then their sovereign powers trumps any Federal law. It means the FBI or other law enforcement agency in my view cannot undermine the jurisdiction of any Court/Capitol if any offence was done within their sovereign precincts. If the Capitol is not going to pursue any charges (CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS) itself despite allegedly it was within its sovereign precinct then anyone charged may then claim that if the Capitol (Congress) neglect to uphold its own sovereign rights then why should other law enforcement agencies do so? The absurdity is that Congress seeks to invoke its political powers against President Donald J Trump so it can possibly use any majority to convict even so the real masterminds of it all are in my view Kamala Harris and Joe Biden but somehow seems to have done absolutely nothing, at least that I am aware of, against anyone who may have been alleged to unlawfully enter the Capitol. The same with the courts who have also their CONTEMPT OF COURT. If it fails to invoke those powers then why should another ordinary federal agency do so? Ordinary, at least in my view, the most serious charges are to be considered first. As such if say the FBI charges a person with alleged trespass but then later there were more serious charges available but ignored then I for one cannot see how any court can deal with a more minor charge and then later with a more severe charge. Another critical issue that should not be overlooked is, at least in my view, that there is absolutely no need to pursue an impeachment (political) of a President who allegedly already left office when the very removal of office cannot be obtained. The denial of holding a public office in the future clearly can be obtained by conviction of a felony charge. As such, impeachment is not the correct format to pursue. The Democrats cancel culture is such that on the one hand they as I understand it seek to “cancel” President Donald J Trump whereas on the other hand they have elevated President Donald J Trump to unique status of allegedly twice being impeached. While a sitting President may be held answerable before Congress I view this cannot be done with a President who already left office. Then any charges as “United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)” makes clear must be as applicable to a citizen. Instead of pursuing impeachment proceedings against Kamala Harris and Joe Biden considering the Democrats claim to have the majority of House, this regardless of the California election results not being valid, then the alternative of felony charges against either or both of them would more likely have the same end result to have them barred from holding public office. To seek to impeach them may imply to recognize they are office holders as President and Vice President, whereas to pursue felony charges would not do so. . p4 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

In my view any impeachment against President Donald J Trump is marred by that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies not only are still conducting investigations as to the 6 January event but in some way or another may be complicit to what was the result that eventuated on 6 January. While Joe Biden goes on about “UNITY” reality is that since 2016 this was not on the minds of Democrats as they did whatever to undermine the sitting President Donald J Trump. So, “UNITY” is to one become an accomplish to accept a stolen presidential election? I do not think so. There appears to be anything of “UNITY” In the conduct of the Democrats, rather more vindictiveness and other absurd conduct like the “cancel culture”. Who can forget the ongoing “impeach” cries of the Democrats even before President Donald J Trump was sworn in. And they never relented on this. Adam Schiff comments that he had seen the “evidence” and the media labelling President Donald J Trump a “TRAITOR” and “Russian agent” were in my view well outside the “First Amendment” provisions. The First Amendment never must be perceived to allow someone to make slanderous allegations against another American (regardless of the position the person may hold). As such, I view that appropriate charges should have been laid long ago against those who slandered President Donald J Trump and by combining this with others this should constitute “conspiracy” a felony charge that upon conviction should disqualify any of them to hold public office. I understand that Chief Justice John Roberts allegedly is compromised, due to alleged Lolita trips relating to pedophilia issues. I am not to be judgmental on if the allegations are or are not true, as that is not relevant to me, however as with then Governor Mike Pence, if they are used for extortion purposes then either one and both of them should speak out. In my view, American may rightly or wrongly conclude that failing to clarify matters means they cannot be trusted if they are acting under extortion. While States can determine who shall be granted franchise to vote in State elections as is made clear in “United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)” that ultimately the Congress can decide who shall or shall not be eligible to vote. As such, as is quoted below also Congress decide to not allow vagabonds, convicted criminals, others such as undocumented persons not being entitled to vote in a presidential election. Yet, the Democrats rather than to uphold their oath of office and so the Constitution have acted in my view contrary to it, because it served them better for political reasons. When it was reported that “pipe bombs” were found at the Republican organization as well as Democrats organization then it seems to me obvious that this was a preplanned event, nothing to do with a peaceful rally held by President Donald J Trump but rather masterminded to continue the 2020 murderous riots. While the 12th Amendment refers to certification by the Governor this must not be perceived that then the State legislators have no input. Rather that the combination of the constitution and any amendments means that the State Legislature determines the Electoral College electors and the Governor then is to certify for this. As such, where there were disputes of 7 states having opposing Electoral College slates then it was for the State legislatures to clarify which was the correct Electoral College slates and if the Governor failed to certified then no Electoral College electors could be accepted to be certified for this. Considering also the California ballot disaster that there was no valid election then its purported Electoral College slates of about 55 was not to be counted and hence it appears to me that President Donald J Trump had about 22 Electoral College votes and Joe Biden about (222 – 55=) 167 or thereabouts. p5 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

In my view any impeachment trial before the Senate would in fact imply that President Donald J Trump is still the sitting President. Democrats cannot have it both way to defy President Donald J Trump to be the sitting President and then pursue him as if he is still the sitting President. . https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD dissenting. I concur that the judgment in this case should be arrested, but for reasons quite different from those given by the court. *560 Power is vested in Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the prohibition contained in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution; and the fifth section of the Enforcement Act provides to the effect, that persons who prevent, hinder, control, or intimidate, or who attempt to prevent, hinder, control, or intimidate, any person to whom the right of suffrage is secured or guaranteed by that amendment, from exercising, or in exercising such right, by means of bribery or threats; of depriving such person of employment or occupation; or of ejecting such person from rented house, lands, or other property; or by threats of refusing to renew leases or contracts for labor; or by threats of violence to himself or family, — such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, as therein provided. 16 Stat. 141. Provision is also made, by sect. 6 of the same act, that, if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise, upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of that act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution and laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be deemed guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, and be further punished as therein provided. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Decided cases may doubtless be found in which it is held that an indictment for a conspiracy, at common law, may be sustained where there is an unlawful agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means; and authorities may be referred to which support the proposition, that the indictment, if the conspiracy is well pleaded, is sufficient, even though it be not alleged that any overt act had been done in pursuance of the unlawful combination. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE The right to vote in the States comes from the States; but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. The first has not been granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States; but the last has been. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? p6 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE According to the view we take of these counts, the question is not whether it is enough, in general, to describe a statutory offence in the language of the statute, but whether the offence has here been described at all. The statute provides for the punishment of those who conspire "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States." These counts in the indictment charge, in substance, that the intent in this case was to hinder and prevent these citizens in the free exercise and enjoyment of "every, each, all, and singular" the rights granted them by the Constitution, &c. There is no specification of any particular right. The language is broad enough to cover all. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens thereof; and the fourteenth amendment also provides, that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Congress may, doubtless, prohibit any violation of that provision, and may provide that any person convicted of violating the same shall be guilty of an offence, and be subject to such reasonable punishment as Congress may prescribe. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Decided cases may doubtless be found in which it is held that an indictment for a conspiracy, at common law, may be sustained where there is an unlawful agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means; and authorities may be referred to which support the proposition, that the indictment, if the conspiracy is well pleaded, is sufficient, even though it be not alleged that any overt act had been done in pursuance of the unlawful combination. END QUOTE

“NO CASE TO ANSWER”? I like to draw your attention to the following:

There are several Elephants in the room no one seem to notice. The the elephant in the room therefore was VP Mike Pence making a 12.53pm 6 January 2021 statement (prior to the joint session being held) which I understood was that he would count the certified votes of the Electoral Commission. . There were ample of posts that gave me the understanding that Mitch McConnell so to say had rolled over seeking to oppose any Senator to object against any Electoral College slates. In my view, the elephant in the room was that (then) Senator Kamala Harris as a lawmaker had been the so to say laughing assassin declaring: p7 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5THZGzrXmU Dan Bongino – Media Sit in Shameful Silence as Pres Sec interviewer: ...... protest still happening..

That is right. They are not going to stop. They are not going to stop. And this is a movement they are not going to stop. And everyone be aware that they are not going to stop. They are not going to stop before election day in November. And they are not going to stop after election day. And that should be everyone taking notice of this on both levels. This is, they are not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not. Senator Kamala Harris:

Repeat:

And they should not, and we should not. Lawmakers (Members of Congress and other lawmakers in the States) I view were induced to better follow what the Democrats demanded or the murderous riots would result and/or continue. Perhaps Mitch McConnell and others sought to avoid this prospect of further murderous riots, albeit this surely cannot be any excuse for what I consider caving in as cowards. In my view, only cowards would betray their oath of office and the constitution. . In the end while no building were torched nevertheless it ended up with violence. . I understand there were pipe bombs located at the Republican office as well as the Democrat office. This to me indicates that whomever did so was not interested about any alleged election issue but had a total different issue to cause anarchy no matter who succeeded in the election. This too can be concluded when other explosive devices apparently were located at or near the Capitol. . As such, there was at least to my understanding one group which all along intended to infiltrate any other group at the Capitol as to pursue a murderous “Reichstag Fire” kind of incident. No matter which group of peaceful citizens were to have assembled near the Capitol the violence more than likely would never have eventuated as this, I understand, was all along planned. Having President Donald J Trump supports there enabled them to prepare ahead and able to infiltrate. This is precisely how state police using drones were able to video record how certain people behind the lines were changing into black clothing and then began a violent attack upon the police surround a statute to protect it from being damaged. When you have a person named Sullivan on video even directing others to cause damage (inside the Capitol) as well as himself doing so and reportedly being part of a group “insurgencyUSA” as well as being the coordinator of BLM and Antifa activities at the very front of the breach, and yet he was later released without bail then one has to ask why is Senator Linsey Graham p8 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

reportedly pursuing the death penalty for those who entered the Capitol while one off the leaders is let off to essential continue his murderous rioting. And, I understand that Senator Kamala Harris (as she then was, a lawmaker, was bailing out murderous riots during 2020. As well as that many Democrats as well as Bernie Sanders allegedly were funding BLM this despite their murderous riots. Likewise, so many big organisations (big businesses) as I understand it were providing funding. It seems that the riots had a purpose as to cause grave devaluation of properties being not just ransacked but also burned and so those with money then could likely purchase the properties on the cheap. As such, funding murderous riots had for them a financial return worth to do so. At no time during 2020 did I wear a mask and do neither contemplate doing so in 2021. Despite the claims of about 400,000 Americans having died, I understood that reports indicated that the 2020 death rate in 2020 was about the same as in 2019. What was pointed out that basically no one died of old age, but died now of COVID-19 instead. The same with the Flu, common cold, etc. I do not doubt whatsoever that COVID-19 can have very serious consequences but reports also indicate that a child of age 4 died of pneumonia due to wearing a mask. As like with the Legionnaires Disease this COVID-19 often is found in clusters. This may indicate that some nursing homes may have a bacterium going around that takes a ride on the virus and can result to death whereas in other nursing homes the bacterium isn’t around and so the virus is there but remains harmless. As I noticed on a video in Australia a nursing home had constant turnover of staff and all residents were infected. It amounted to 300% of infections. I happen to notice that a person from the kitchen donned in PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) went to a dump master to unload a trolley of empty cartons and so lifting up the lid. Later taking the trolley back into the kitchen. And well this person wearing the same gloves, perhaps thinking to be clean, actually spread the bacterium, etc, from the dump master lift to the trolley, door handles and into the kitchen and then preparing meals that then caused all personnel as well as residents to become ill and many died. No amount of vaccination can prevent this kind of lack of housekeeping management. In my view lockdowns, face masks, curfews, social distancing, etc, are not the answer to a blatant disregard to proper housekeeping. But, as like with the murderous riots the media is covering it up and pretend otherwise so the rich can earn not just millions but billions in the process. As such, those with so to say money to burn will be in various manner financially supporting the destruction of local businesses as they stand to make a lot of money. Therefore, those who funded the murderous riots participants should be held legally accountable. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/01/actblue-june-protests-coronavirus-347492campaign finance Record cash floods Democrats, Black groups amid protests and pandemic https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/08/19/state-senator-under/ State senator under investigation for allegedly donating money for paint used in district attorney’s office protest QUOTE

p9 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

A Utah state senator and four others are being investigated for small donations they made to a protester accused of buying paint spilled outside the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office during anti-police violence demonstrations. Sen. Derek Kitchen, D-Salt Lake City, told The Salt Lake Tribune on Wednesday that he did donate to Madalena McNeil’s Venmo account, a platform used for mobile payments. McNeil has been charged with a first-degree felony in connection with the July 9 protest that ended with confrontations with police and damage to the district attorney’s office. END QUOTE

To apply this legal principle then the Democrats who were funding BLM, which was involved in destruction, and even killing of people then they too should be charges. It appears to me the Democrats desired the riots, etc, and regardless of the killing of people Kamala Harris made clear they were not going to stop. And, well funding the BLM for this I view should make them liable for criminal charges as they funding BLM are clearly inciting by this the continuation of the violence and killings, etc. Again: WeatherMen III – ALL4FLOYD – .1:25:11 ( Regarding an Email I received on 20200716) QUOTE 1 Bernie 2020 $186,780,034 2 Biden for President $119,253,857 3 Elizabeth Warren Presidential Exploratory Cmte $93,478,053 4 Pete for America $78,100,960 5 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $55,684,604 6 Amy for America $43,167,720 7 Friends of Andrew Yang $31,705,527 8 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $31,067,413 9 Democratic National Cmte $29,924,707 10 Amy McGrath for Senate $29,558,536 END QUOTE As I understand it reportedly (then) Senator Kamala Harris was having rioters bailed out. In my view, a lawmaker should never be involved in such deplorable conduct. Yet, she was not held accountable for this either. The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489: When the judicature fails to act appropriately, when there is a gross violation of the constitution, when you have a presidential candidate voluntarily admitting to have stated: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-biden-voter-protection-not-idUSKBN27E2VH QUOTE

The clip shared by Trump, McEnany and others starts around the 19:13 mark, when Biden tells Pfeiffer and Lovett, “Secondly,

we’re in a situation where we have put together—and you guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this—we have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics. ” p10 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

END QUOTE

This in my view means that when a candidate of an election self-professed to have been acting in election fraud criminal activities then such a person must be deemed automatically being disqualified as a candidate. It was not that someone may have falsely alleged that Joe Biden was a crook, he himself claimed this. . Many a person making an admission to self-incriminate have on the basis of this been convicted. https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202011281081301810-joe-biden-may-end-up-beingremoved-as-president-and-replaced-by-someone-else-political-analyst-says/ Joe Biden May End Up Being Removed as President and Replaced by Someone Else, Political Analyst Says

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-san-antonio-electionfraudster-arrested-widespread-vote-harvesting-and-fraud#.X_8ghdCay-s.twitter January 13, 2021 | Press Release | Election Integrity There is clear evidence that election fraud was committed and in my view it is totally irrelevant if this would have altered the total amount of votes for any particular candidate, as it generally will not be known the extend of which a fraud was perpetrated and so the mere fact of a selfprofessed election fraud crime and also evidence there was election fraud then that should be sufficient to disqualify the candidate who by his own claims engaged in election fraud. As such essential the presidential election became a one horse race where your father was the only legitimate candidate left. It doesn’t mean voters cannot vote for an ineligible candidate but their vote would not have any legal force. One may also consider what the Australian Framers of the Constitution debated as some guideline what it is about: Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE [start page 1012] Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[8.33]: Before the Committee proceeds to consider the amendment which has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, I would suggest that we make an alteration in the first portion of the clause by adding words to the effect that these disqualifications shall operate until the federal parliament otherwise provides. The Hon. E. BARTON: Does the hon. member contemplate the federal parliament making provision exempting a man who has taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power? Mr. GLYNN: This provision is really temporary. It is to cover the gap between the adoption of the constitution and the passing of special legislation by the federal parliament. I would ask hon. members also to consider the effect of sub-clauses II and III. For instance, the meaning of the term "bankrupt" itself may change. It may be very different twenty years hence from what it now is. Then there is the word "felony." As Sir Samuel Griffith has pointed out, the meaning of the word "felony" is changing considerably. In some colonies felony is comparatively a light offence; in other colonies it is a heavy offence. In New Zealand felony is practically unknown to the federal law. Changes similar to that which have taken place in New Zealand in regard to the meaning of the word may take place in other colonies, and if you leave the clause as it stands you will put it in the power of the states parliaments to either extend or diminish the p11 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

qualification by making a change in the meaning of "felony." I say that this is a matter for the federal parliament, and that it ought not to be fixed perpetually in the constitution. Again, as regards the construction of the clause itself, I would draw the attention of the Drafting Committee to another matter. The hon. member, Mr. Barton, has referred to the taking of an oath or declaration of allegiance. The first part of the clause, it will be seen, does not read with the latter part of it. For instance, it says, "Any person who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power." The clause then goes on to say that the person shall be incapable of being chosen or sitting as a member of the senate or of the house of representatives until the disability is removed. But, once a man takes an oath of this kind, you cannot remove the disability because a thing is done. The amendment required is purely a drafting amendment. The way in which the matter should be put would be, until the removal of the disqualification caused by the taking of the oath. That is the evident intent of the clause; but the wording of the clause is altogether different. I think this is a matter that ought to be left to the federal parliament, and I think that the words I suggest should be adopted. The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]: I am unable to see that it would be a good thing to limit this clause in the way suggested by my hon. friend, Mr. Glynn, who has said that this is a matter that should be left to the federal parliament. This happens to be just one of those matters which are included in the constitution of every one of the colonies. All the colonial constitutions provide for such matters as these, and it is perhaps right that they should provide for them, for even in the first parliament it would be rather a strange thing to find persons who had taken oaths of allegiance to foreign powers, who were undischarged bankrupts or insolvents, or who had been recently attainted of crime, or convicted of felony or infamous crime. Unless you have provisions of this kind, it is quite possible that somebody might take a violent affection for a gaol-bird, and put him into parliament. We do not want that sort of thing. It is one thing not to put limita- [start page 1013] tions on the ordinary freedom of the citizens of the commonwealth. It is another thing to provide against the defilement of parliament; and this would be the case as regards the 3rd sub-clause, whilst in the case of the 2nd sub-clause it would be the admission into parliament of persons who had not purged themselves of certain disabilities, while in the case of the first subclause it would be the entry of persons into parliament whose very conditions would suggest that their interests were quite different from those of the citizens of the country. Persons who have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be classed in the same category as citizens of the country for the purpose of joining in legislation. An HON. MEMBER: And not to be trusted? The Hon. E. BARTON: Not to be trusted, prima facie! Mr. GLYNN: That is not one of my points! The Hon. E. BARTON: If the definition of a point is a thing of no magnitude, it is not a point because it is larger. These limitations having been put in all constitutions of the Australian colonies, and having worked well, and prevented the entry of undesirable persons into parliament, they may well be continued in the constitution we are now framing. They are not limitations of the freedom of the electors. It is scarcely to be supposed that, except by inadvertence or accident, the electors would vote for such a person; but it is quite possible that the electors of the commonwealth, not knowing that certain persons had taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power or had become attainted of some crime, or become bankrupt or insolvent-it is quite on the cards that such persons would stand for election for the commonwealth parliament, and the electors might choose them, not knowing who they were. That is not at all an improbable supposition. Such a thing has happened, and it is a kind of thing which the electors are to be protected against, because it is a state of things the electors themselves could not provide against. They might be taken in warily; they might be caught in a trap. This is not merely a case of preserving the freedom of the electors, but of preventing them from being imposed upon by persons who otherwise might creep into parliament, perhaps, in some cases, persons who were insidious enemies of the commonwealth, and in other cases persons who had been attainted of crime, or who were under other conditions of which they should rid themselves before they offered themselves for election to any legislative assembly. I submit that on the whole it is very desirable to avoid making the alteration suggested by the hon. member, Mr. Glynn; and while I am speaking, I think I might say that, although it is far less objectionable, it would be desirable also not to accept the amendment that has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of this colony. END QUOTE p12 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

It is clear that the MSM (mainstream media) and Big Tech were preventing voters to make an “informed” decision (See High Court of Australia in the Albert Langer case) and by this they were in my view conspiring to undermine the presidential election process. This I view is constitutional terrorism that cannot be permitted to be left without being held accountable before the courts. I understand from polls that as much as 16% of voters may not have voted for Joe Biden had they been aware about the Hunter Biden story, etc. . One also then has to consider the Joe Biden Ukraine story as a self-professed criminal blackmailing Ukraine to sack an investigator of not getting the $ billion USA taxpayers loan. . It in my view is therefore clear that for those issues there never was a FAIR and PROPER election either. . But, there is more. Another elephant in the room. 1 . It is not uncommon, that lawyers give their views referred to “LEGAL ADVICE” but may later have a different if not altogether opposite view. And, politicians may seek “LEGAL ADVICE” of numerous lawyers and then pick out the one’s that suits their mantra. As such when VP Mike Pence refers to “LEGAL ADVICE” this may for all I know have been 3 out of 10 or more differences legal advisers. All they do is give their professional opinion which may or may not be correct in law. After all if lawyers always were rights then why is it that when 100 cases of litigation before the courts to end up decided by the judge then 100 set of lawyers are losing and so wring and 100 set of lawyers were wining and so right. Clearly on that alone one has a 50-50 chance the lawyer knows what he is talking about. While VP Mike Pence may keep in mind whatever “LEGAL ADVICE” he may have been provide it cannot and neither does mean that it overrides the constitution. VP Mike Pence was as I understand it well aware of national intelligence advice such as from Ratcliffe that Joe Biden never should be allowed to become President. While this is not in itself a final determining issue, it should in my view have been made known to the voters so they could make an “informed” decision. However, I understand that MSM and Big Tech concealed this from the voters. VP Mike Pence also as I understand it was aware of the written request not to count the Electoral College votes (slates) because Legislatures were disputing them. This I view could not have been ignored by VP Mike Pence in that he must consider all relevant issues. As such I view he should have allowed time for the =State legislatures to address such issues or where a state Legislature couldn’t do so (no sitting of the Parliament) then to place the matter before SCOTUS. VP Mike Pence also was or should have been aware of candidate Joe Biden having selfprofessed to have engaged in election fraud in the past and also in the 2020 presidential election and with President Donald J Trump lawyers pursuing this it was a life issue. And, therefore neither could be ignored. It had to be addressed and resolved before any Electoral College count could be done. . There is also the California invalid ballot issue which means none of those purportedly elected in November 2020 were validly elected. It means that Nancy Pelosi position as a Speaker was in question as one cannot be Speaker if one is not validly a Member of the House. https://uncoverdc.com/2020/12/17/california-clearly-violated-election-law-votes-are-invalid/ p13 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

California Clearly Violated Election Law— Votes are Invalid QUOTE

California violated its own election laws In California state law, the election code is titled “Division 13. BALLOTS, SAMPLE BALLOTS, AND VOTER PAMPHLETS.” In Article 1 of this code we find Election Code 13200, which reads as follows: “Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter [Chapter 3] shall not be cast nor counted at any election.” That’s straightforward English. It’s at the 9th-grade reading level, so assuming California’s election officials can understand it, here it is one more time, with emphasis: “Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter [Chapter 3] shall not be cast nor counted at any election.”

When we read a little further, we find Section 13205. Since we’re talking about the election of the President and Vice President, we’ll look at the applicable subsection: 13205 (b). In elections when electors of President and Vice President of the United States are to be chosen, there shall be placed upon the ballot, in addition to the instructions to voters as provided in this chapter, an instruction as follows: “To vote for all of the electors of a party, mark the voting target next to the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A mark of the voting target next to the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of the electors of that party, but for no other candidates.” END QUOTE

Therefore VP Mike Pence in my view was in no legal position to hold any joint session to count the Electoral college slates as he had an obligation to ensure that so to say everything was above water. . https://www.westernjournal.com/multiple-gop-senators-join-hawley-will-reject-electoral-votesdisputed-states-jan-6/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=conservative-briefWJ&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=western-journal Multiple GOP Senators Join Hawley, Will Reject Electoral Votes of Disputed States on Jan. 6 This objection I was well aware of BEFORE 6 January 2021 and as such I view that VP Mike Pence would have been well aware that not only certain Members of the House of Representatives were going to object but also at least one Senator. . As I understand it VP Mike Pence even announced (long before the joint session was held) to welcome the challenge. As such, he was well aware of the challenged to be made during the “joint session”. . Yet, PRIOR TO the joint session being held VP Mike pence announced that he would count the Electoral College slates (votes). p14 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Let place this in legal context. . A man accused of CONTEMPT OF COURT is facing a trial and while the trial is proceeding the judge in secret issue FINAL ORDERS that he sentence the person to imprisonment. This, even so the hearing is still proceedings for another 2 days. (Disclosure: I was born into a Christian family but of Jewish blood - through my mother-and nearly 100 of my Jewish family did in concentration camps. However, the picture below is not to glorify what went on but merely reproducing what is shown on the website.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court QUOTE

Kangaroo court From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search For the song by Capital Cities, see Kangaroo Court (song). For the EP by Ritual, see Kangaroo Court (EP).

A session of the People's Court in Nazi Germany, a kangaroo court that conducted show trials of political enemies[1] A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. [2] A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations. [3] A kangaroo court could also develop when the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication. A common example of this is when institutional disputants ("repeat players") have excessive and unfair structural advantages over individual disputants ("one-shot players").[4] END QUOTE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court QUOTE Examples[edit]

Some examples of adjudication venues described as kangaroo courts are the People's Court (Volksgerichtshof) of Nazi Germany[1] that convicted people who were suspected of being involved with the failed plot to assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. p15 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

In the late 1930s, Stalin used the state legal apparatus of the USSR to fabricate charges against his political rivals, and to subsequently eliminate any challenge to his absolute rule. The show trials in the Soviet Union resulted in the wrongful conviction of Stalin's former Old Bolshevik revolutionary colleagues. [15] Another example is the trial of Pol Pot and his brother Ieng San by the People's Revolutionary Tribunal in Cambodia in August 1979. After a lengthy trial with a duration of five days, both were sentenced to death in absentia on August 19, 1979.[16] Conclusive evidence showed that the verdicts and the sentencing papers had been prepared in advance of the trial.[17] Relying on this evidence, the United Nations proceeded to delegitimize the tribunal, stating that it did not comply with standards of international law. [16] During the Romanian Revolution in 1989, President and Communist Party General Secretary Nicolae Ceaușescu and his wife Elena were sentenced to death by a kangaroo court consisting of members of the military: two military judges, two colonels and three other officers of lesser ranks. The prosecutor was Dan Voinea. Two lawyers represented the defendant. All the members of the court represented the Romanian People's Army, which had recently switched to the side of the revolutionaries. END QUOTE

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1909&context=lf

How Judges Judge: Theories on Judicial Decision Making "33 This argument forwards the idea that the opinion is composed with a predetermined result and purposefully crafted to ignore conflicting precedent. Since ... https://research.monash.edu/files/260484340/260387143.pdf

interdisciplinarity in judicial decision-making - Monash University court decisions where reliance on judicial intuition has resulted in controversial ... support a judge's predetermined views about a situation requiring the use of. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2826817/Sutherland-421-Advance.pdf

interdisciplinarity in judicial decision-making: exploring the role of ... court decisions where reliance on judicial intuition has resulted in controversial ... support a judge's predetermined views about a situation requiring the use of. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2012/30.pdf

Bartie, Susan; Gava, John --- "Some Problems with Extrajudicial ... It is also argued that committed extrajudicial writing differs in its effects to ... litigators -barristers in the main -- the court will hand down a decision that is ... will be just as susceptible to the risk of bias, by favouring their predetermined views. http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLRev/2002/12.html p16 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Judicial review of immigration decision-making is not new in Australia. ... The circumstances giving rise to the invalidation of an RRT decision in Re Refugee Review ... can be made is also subtly influenced or, in the worst case, predetermined. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/3/53-3_Landau_Dixon.pdf

Abusive Judicial Review - UC Davis Law Review Venezuelan Supreme Court in a series of decisions nullified the power ... decisions invalidating the 2006 parliamentary elections, removing three ... 165 See Hannah Beech, Cambodia Re-elects its Leader, a Result Predetermined by One,. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2723&context=journal_articles The Roberts Court, Stare Decisis, and the Future of Constitutional Law

prior decision is and should be relatively unusual in our legal system, such an act when it ... of judicial review in order to invalidate laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ... series of specific and predetermined rules. "Congress shall ... Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759 QUOTE The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that "No man can be a judge in his own case". It has long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to deny justice or create the impression that justice has not been done, then that bias, or apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of those who made the decision. END QUOTE Reg v. The London County Council (1894) XI .L.R. 24 Sharp v. Carey (1897) 23 V.L.R. 248 Austin Digest 17. Reg. v. Moleswort (1893) 23 V.L.R. 582 Austin Digest 17. Black v. Black (1951) N.Z.L.R. 723 Ex Parte Blume (1958) W.N. (N.S.W.) 411Austin Digest 93,339,457,458 R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236 QUOTE However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties reasonably to think that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262). The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited with approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey the impression of "protesting to much"... END QUOTE . QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 931

p17 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

The test of judicial bias as laid down by the high court is ‘whether it has been established that it might reasonably be suspected by a fair minded person that the judge might not resolve the question before him with a fair and unprejudiced mind’ END QUOTE

And QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 931 An appellated court has to consider whether on a reading of a transcript it should conclude that a fair minded person would consider that the husband did not have a fair hearing and that the issues raised by his case were not fairly considered. END QUOTE

In this case the Objectors (Members of the House and any Senator who were objecting were faced that PRIOR TO the joint session VP Mike Pence had announced at 12.53pm 6 January 2021 statement (prior to the joint session being held) to count all certified Electoral College slates (votes) and as such appeared to make clear that regardless what “evidence” was to be presented he would nevertheless count the disputed Electoral College slates (votes). In my view, this conduct prevented him to exercise the powers of the 12th Amendment. This, as considering also the 14th Amendment, which reflects also upon the powers of 12th Amendment, VP Mike Pence only could exercise the 12th Amendment powers if he did so without bias and without predetermine decision. After all, why at all make any objection if the final decision already has been indicated to be made in disregard of any objection no matter how much evidence may support it? Official Solicitor v K. (1936) AC 201; Reynolds v Reynolds (1975) 1 ALR 318;47 ALJR 501; Corbett v Corbett (1953) 2 ALL E.R. 69 referred to

That a court of appeal in exercising its discretionary power to rectify a miscarriage of justice should not permit a conceivable miscarriage of justice to occur, particularly in relation to a custody case which is concerned with the question of the right of children. . We are dealing with a presidential election and it MUST be above suspicion that any electoral fraud could have interfered with the final electoral outcome. Clearly what I view VP Mike pence Joint session amounted to was to hold a “KANAGROO COURT” that regardless of what may transpire during the joint session the outcome was already predetermine. It was not relevant if the House or the Senate were to uphold any objection as the impression I gained from the 12.53pm Announcement was that the final decision was already concluded. And, this I understand was the trigger of if one may call it “madness” that eventuated. . In my view too many procedures were blatantly disregarded by VP Mike Pence and his final decision to announce the count cannot stand nor can be deemed having any legal validity. . The very process, including the 12th Amendment is designed to allow objections to be appropriately considered and to filter out any dubious or inappropriate Electoral College slates (votes) and this I view cannot be claimed eventuated on the 6 th of January 2021. Sitting in Australia behind my computer (and yes my wife is fed up with that as all renovations have come to a halt) I noticed from the many articles that there is a debate as to the people entering the Capitol with those claiming it was your father President Donald J Trump causing it (Hence, the purported impeachment) while others are claiming such as BLM/Antifa, etc. Yet, for weeks I was reading post on articles, where many made clear that VP Mike Pence was trustworthy to that VP Pence has some issue regarding paedophilia when he was governor and p18 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

couldn’t be trusted, the Democrats had something over him that he would roll over and betray the president. It were many postings that made known that if VP Mike Pence so to say were to roll over then citizen had no choice but to seek to prevent the unconstitutional certification. One has to consider that neither the FBI, DOJ, Courts, Electoral Commissions, etc, had appropriately in my view addressed issues and Americans simply would have no choice but to seek to prevent a known self-professed election fraud criminal to be prevented from being certified having been elected and so TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. They were to seek to uphold the rule of law, but it got mixed up with so to say anarchist who had different intentions. VP Mike Pence I view was so to say hyping up the expectations that he welcomed the objections and then I view Americans held that he betrayed them to announce he would nevertheless count the certified Electoral college votes. As for your father President Donald J Trump conduct to dispute the election results, from what I downloaded on videos and articles I do not have the slightest doubt that indeed there was as Joe Biden indicate an elaborate fraud going on. And, to hold that your father caused any problems to object to the fraudulent election results where even I in Australia was able to see how his votes went down and at the same time Joe Biden by the same amount went up, then I am well aware there is no such thing as negative voting. Election disputes are generally eventuating, irrespective if there is in the end any acceptable or sufficient evidence to prove a case, however it is ones legal right to dispute. What we now have ended up with is that Americans with all good intentions ended up in a all mighty issue on 6 january and yet this in my view could all have been avoided not just if VP Mike Pence had not made a predetermined decision, as it appears to have been, but also if the Democrats, the media and Big Tech had not concealed details from the voters, including the murderous riots that went on. Because they all pretended that it were “peaceful demonstrations” those who were part of Senator Kamala Harris “movement” by this became bolder and bolder and well we have now witnessed the end result. But, the Democrats and other Members of Congress somehow prefer to blame your father for it all instead of owning up that their irresponsible conduct during 2020 resulted to what eventuated on 6 January 2021 I for about 7 years have been dealing with persons who contemplated suicide, murder and even mass murder and too well aware that if you ignore them then you are asking for problems. But as appeared to be very clear the Democrats were determine to get the presidency for Joe Biden and as I suspected their 25th Amendment to get rid of him so Kamala Harris then could take over as President. Hence, Kamala Harris has a goal and regardless who was to die in my view she masterminded likely most of it. Any sane person watching the video cannot but deplore how Senator Kamala Harris made clear that the riots was not to stop even AFTER the election. In my view, she is the one who should be in the focus to be held legally and politically accountable for what eventuated on 6 January also. http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm QUOTE

37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. p19 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." END QUOTE

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-biden-voter-protection-not-idUSKBN27E2VH QUOTE

The clip shared by Trump, McEnany and others starts around the 19:13 mark, when Biden tells Pfeiffer and Lovett, “Secondly,

we’re in a situation where we have put together—and you guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this—we have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics. ” END QUOTE

He confessed that this was already done involving the Obama presidential election. In the circumstances I view that having a VP Mike Pence going along with a criminal conduct of election fraud then left it to the Americans to TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS as failing that nothing else could prevent the corrective action that needed to be taken, regardless if in the end it wasn’t working out. The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489: It appears to me that lawmakers in Congress were occupied how to explore their own political powers and so to say “The Hell with the Constitution” by this betraying the constitution and by it their own oath of office appears to be the least to worry about. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/mi-judge-orders-dem-sec-state-releasecommunications-dominion-facebook-apple-amazon-google/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=thegateway-pundit&ff_campaign=dailyam&ff_content=daily MI Judge Orders Dem Sec of State To Release All Communications With Dominion, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Google Just consider that if in the end the Court establish that the Secretary of State had communication with others to defraud the electors and so your father re-election then I view the most extensive punishment should be applied. Albeit I oppose violence and do not promote any death penalty. However, this is a very serious crime and cannot be let of as a warning. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE 92 U.S. 542 (____) UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. Supreme Court of United States.

p20 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

*547 This case was argued at the October Term, 1874, by Mr. Attorney-General Williams and Mr. SolicitorGeneral Phillips for the plaintiff in error; and by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Mr. David Dudley Field, Mr. Philip Phillips, and Mr. R.H. Marr for the defendants in error. *548 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes here with a certificate by the judges of the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana that they were divided in opinion upon a question which occurred at the hearing. It presents for our consideration an indictment containing sixteen counts, divided into two series of eight counts each, based upon sect. 6 of the Enforcement Act of May 31, 1870. That section is as follows:— "That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court, — the fine not to exceed $5,000, and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to, and disabled from holding, any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the constitution or laws of the United States." 16 Stat. 141. END QUOTE

This not just applies to 6th January 2021 but also to the murderous riots in 2020 that included against federal court houses, etc. Yet, somehow the FBI essentially was nowhere to be found to do what now is being done in regard of the Capitol. Surely, no one is going to argue that the violation of any federal court house is somehow not the same as other federal property like the Capitol? I refer also to: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) QUOTE A temporary restraining order was made by the Circuit Court, which only restrained the railway company from publishing the rates as provided for in the act of April 18, 1907, and from reducing its tariffs to the figures set forth in that act, the court refusing for the present to interfere by injunction with regard to the orders of the commission and the act of April 4, 1907, as the railroads had already put them in operation; but it restrained Edward T. Young, Attorney General, from taking any steps against the railroads to enforce the remedies or penalties specified in the act of April 18, 1907. Copies of the bill and the restraining order were served, among others, upon the defendant Mr. Edward T. Young, Attorney General, who appeared specially and only for the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill as to him, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over him as Attorney General; and he averred that the State of Minnesota had not consented, and did not consent, to the commencement of this suit against him as Attorney General of the State, which suit was, in truth and effect, a suit against the said State of Minnesota contrary to the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Attorney General also filed a demurrer to the bill on the same ground stated in the motion to dismiss. The motion was denied and the demurrer overruled. Thereupon, on the 23d of September, 1907, the court, after a hearing of all parties and taking proofs in regard to the issues involved, ordered a temporary injunction to issue against the railway company restraining it, pending the final hearing of the cause, from putting into effect the tariffs, rates, or charges set forth in the act approved April 18, 1907. The court also enjoined the defendant Young, as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, pending the final hearing of the cause, from taking or instituting any action or proceeding to enforce the penalties and remedies specified in the act above mentioned, or to compel obedience to that act, or compliance therewith, or any part thereof. Page 209 U. S. 133 END QUOTE

p21 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

In this matter, I understand, the Attorney-General violated a court order, and hence was deemed to be in CONTEMPT OF COURT. While the Attorney-General argued that he as an AttorneyGeneral had a legal duty, I understand the Court made clear that he was not bound to have acted as he did, etc. . With the Secretary of State when unduly obstructing the court in tactics to delay the settlement of a matter before the court relating to a presidential election perhaps merely so to seek to undermine a candidate to successfully seek to obtain relief, then I view the Secretary of State cannot seek to avoid legal accountability as he should ensure to cooperate with the court as reasonable and quick as possible, What I understand is that there has been frustration caused by this Secretary of State and also in other issues where election equipment was tampered with by removing the 2020 presidential election records but not those of previous years, and this in my view indicates a deliberate conduct to frustrate a party whom had a court order for inspection, and this also should be deemed CONTEMPT OF COURT. Likewise, where in a case the court provided for those observers to be closer than the machines were moved away. I view this too ought to have been deemed CONTEMPT OF COURT. This, as it was to specifically undermine the intentions of the court order to enable observers to have better access as to perform their assigned task. There are numerous other issues, even where there were no specific court orders, but where it was established that election counters were somehow counting to maintain the same ratio of difference between your father and Joe Biden. I view this was clearly to undermine the constitutional intention to provide for FAIR and PROPER elections and as such those involved must be held accountable for TREASON where it was to undermine the legal principles embedded in the constitution. . What we had however is the members of Congress, in particular those of the Democrat Party blatantly lied about there being any election fraud aided and abetted by the MSM and Big Tech. In my view, it was utter rubbish what former Attorney-General William Barr claimed that there was allegedly not sufficient fraud to alter the election outcome. Once an election is questionable because of the range of fraud that eventuated and notably having one candidate openly bragging about the election fraud then this is sufficient evidence to ensure that the 12 September 2018 Executive Order was fully applied with. Yet, it was not. In my view, it is a matter of law that all relevant circumstances must be taken into account why what eventuated on 6 January 2021 happened. This means that what transpired during 2020 also is relevant. And, so also the 2020 lockdowns, the destruction of many family businesses due to the lockdowns, causing more and more people to struggle to feed their families. Some may have therefore joined in on 6 January due to the conditions that were forced upon them. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE The offences provided for by the statute in question do not consist in the mere "banding" or "conspiring" of two or *549 more persons together, but in their banding or conspiring with the intent, or for any of the purposes, specified. To bring this case under the operation of the statute, therefore, it must appear that the right, the enjoyment of which the conspirators intended to hinder or prevent, was one granted or secured by the constitution or laws of the United States. If it does not so appear, the criminal matter charged has not been made indictable by any act of Congress. We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it p22 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 74. Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose. Experience made the fact known to the people of the United States that they required a national government for national purposes. The separate governments of the separate States, bound together by the articles of confederation alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or for their complete protection as citizens of the confederated States. For this reason, the people of the United States, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for *550 the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" to themselves and their posterity (Const. Preamble), ordained and established the government of the United States, and defined its powers by a constitution, which they adopted as its fundamental law, and made its rule of action. The government thus established and defined is to some extent a government of the States in their political capacity. It is also, for certain purposes, a government of the people. Its powers are limited in number, but not in degree. Within the scope of its powers, as enumerated and defined, it is supreme and above the States; but beyond, it has no existence. It was erected for special purposes, and endowed with all the powers necessary for its own preservation and the accomplishment of the ends its people had in view. It can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship *551 which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction. The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States. We now proceed to an examination of the indictment, to ascertain whether the several rights, which it is alleged the defendants intended to interfere with, are such as had been in law and in fact granted or secured by the constitution or laws of the United States. The first and ninth counts state the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named in the free exercise and enjoyment of their "lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together p23 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

with each other and with other citizens of the United States for a peaceful and lawful purpose." The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It "derives its source," to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, "from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world." It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection. As no direct power over it was granted to Congress, it remains, according to the ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden, id. 203, subject to State jurisdiction. *552 Only such existing rights were committed by the people to the protection of Congress as came within the general scope of the authority granted to the national government. The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone. Barron v. The City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 250; Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, id. 551; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 id. 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 id. 90; Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 479; Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 id. 321; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 id. 557. It is now too late to question the correctness of this construction. As was said by the late Chief Justice, in Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 325, "the scope and application of these amendments are no longer subjects of discussion here." They left the authority of the States just where they found it, and added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States. The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in *553 these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States. Such, however, is not the case. The offence, as stated in the indictment, will be made out, if it be shown that the object of the conspiracy was to prevent a meeting for any lawful purpose whatever. The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States. END QUOTE

In my view the statements made by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to restrict Americans to have weapons as it is not a guarantee by the constitution appears to be contrary to this judgment. . I as a veteran having served in NATO also at the then so called IRON CURTAIN personally do not desire to hold any firearms, as I have been trained to use it to kill and opponent. However, I always have recognised that others may desire to bear arms for self protection. And, I understand p24 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

a young lady recently elected to the House has made it abundantly clear she will care her weapon to defend herself. While there has been comments that she can be restricted in doing so, I for one Hold the view one cannot interfere with her rights. What eventuated on 6 July no matter how regrettable it shows that there are persons who will conspire to cause not just mayhem but also death (consider the pipe-bombs) and so a person should not be harassed for having a weapon for self-protection. The irony is that there are so called “sanctuary cities” which I understand violate the Federal Government to exercise its lawful powers and yet somehow they deny those owning firearms to carry them regardless if it is for lawful purposes unless so approve. This is in my view not what the judgement was indicating. I can accept that when a person has achieved some criminal conviction the courts can limit that criminal to have access to certain firearms. However, I do not accept that a law abiding citizen can be prevented from having a fire arm in his/her possession for lawful intentions, such as self-defence. The irony appears to me that on 6 January Ashli appears to have been bluntly executed, even so she was not armed with any weapon, this while those who did carry any kind of weapon seemingly are let off such as this Sullivan involved according to a video in smashing glass panels as well as encouraging and directing others. The following shows how miserably the States failed in protecting citizens where the murderous riots were going on not just for one or two days but for months on end. Yet, the instigator of the riots I view being Senator Kamala Harris was not to my knowledge even questioned, charged or whatever by the FBI or other law enforcement officers. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE The third and eleventh counts are even more objectionable. They charge the intent to have been to deprive the citizens named, they being in Louisiana, "of their respective several lives and liberty of person without due process of law." This is nothing else than alleging a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder citizens of the United States, being within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana. The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. "To secure these rights," says the Declaration of Independence, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these "unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator." Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy *554 to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself. The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. As was said by Mr. Justice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 244, it secures "the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice." END QUOTE

The following also applied to VP Mike Pence when exercising any 12th Amendment powers. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE The third and eleventh counts are even more objectionable. They charge the intent to have been to deprive the citizens named, they being in Louisiana, "of their respective several lives and liberty of person without due process of law." This is nothing else than alleging a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder citizens of the p25 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

United States, being within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana. The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. "To secure these rights," says the Declaration of Independence, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these "unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator." Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy *554 to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself. The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. As was said by Mr. Justice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 244, it secures "the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice." END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 178, we decided that the Constitution of the United States has not conferred the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the United States have no voters of their own creation in the States. In United States v. Reese et al., supra, p. 214, we hold that the fifteenth amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is, exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. From this it appears that the right of suffrage is not a necessary attribute of national citizenship; but that exemption from discrimination in the exercise of that right on *556 account of race, &c., is. The right to vote in the States comes from the States; but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. The first has not been granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States; but the last has been. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Certainly it will not be claimed that the United States have the power or are required to do mere police duty in the States. If a State cannot protect itself against domestic violence, the United States may, upon the call of the executive, when the legislature cannot be convened, lend their assistance for that purpose. This is a guaranty of the Constitution (art. 4, sect. 4); but it applies to no case like this. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE In criminal cases, prosecuted under the laws of the United States, the accused has the constitutional right "to be informed *558 of the nature and cause of the accusation." Amend. VI. In United States v. Mills, 7 Pet. 142, this was construed to mean, that the indictment must set forth the offence "with clearness and all necessary certainty, to apprise the accused of the crime with which he stands charged;" and in United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 174, that "every ingredient of which the offence is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged." It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading, that where the definition of an offence, whether it be at common law or by statute, "includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offence in the same generic terms as in the definition; but it must state the species, — it must descend to particulars. 1 Arch. Cr. Pr. and Pl., 291. The object of the indictment is, first, to furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defence, and avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and, second, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. For this, facts p26 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

are to be stated, not conclusions of law alone. A crime is made up of acts and intent; and these must be set forth in the indictment, with reasonable particularity of time, place, and circumstances. It is a crime to steal goods and chattels; but an indictment would be bad that did not specify with some degree of certainty the articles stolen. This, because the accused must be advised of the essential particulars of the charge against him, and the court must be able to decide whether the property taken was such as was the subject of larceny. So, too, it is in some States a crime for two or more persons to conspire to cheat and defraud another out of his property; but it has been held that an indictment for such an offence must contain allegations setting forth the means proposed to be used to accomplish the purpose. This, because, to make such a purpose criminal, the conspiracy must be to cheat and defraud in a mode made criminal by statute; and as all cheating and defrauding has not been made criminal, it is necessary for the indictment to state the means proposed, in order that the court *559 may see that they are in fact illegal. State v. Parker, 43 N.H. 83; State v. Keach, 40 Vt. 118; Alderman v. The People, 4 Mich. 414; State v. Roberts, 34 Me. 32. In Maine, it is an offence for two or more to conspire with the intent unlawfully and wickedly to commit any crime punishable by imprisonment in the State prison (State v. Roberts); but we think it will hardly be claimed that an indictment would be good under this statute, which charges the object of the conspiracy to have been "unlawfully and wickedly to commit each, every, all, and singular the crimes punishable by imprisonment in the State prison." All crimes are not so punishable. Whether a particular crime be such a one or not, is a question of law. The accused has, therefore, the right to have a specification of the charge against him in this respect, in order that he may decide whether he should present his defence by motion to quash, demurrer, or plea; and the court, that it may determine whether the facts will sustain the indictment. So here, the crime is made to consist in the unlawful combination with an intent to prevent the enjoyment of any right granted or secured by the Constitution, &c. All rights are not so granted or secured. Whether one is so or not is a question of law, to be decided by the court, not the prosecutor. Therefore, the indictment should state the particulars, to inform the court as well as the accused. It must be made to appear — that is to say, appear from the indictment, without going further — that the acts charged will, if proved, support a conviction for the offence alleged. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Offences created by statute, as well as offences at common law, must be accurately and clearly described in an indictment; and, if the offence cannot be so described without expanding the allegations beyond the mere words of the statute, then it is clear that the allegations of the indictment must be expanded to that extent, as it is universally true that no indictment is sufficient which does not accurately and clearly allege all the ingredients of which the offence is composed, so as to bring the accused within the true intent and meaning of the statute defining the offence. Authorities of great weight, besides those referred to by me, in the dissenting opinion just read, *563 may be found in support of that proposition. 2 East, P.C. 1124; Dord v. People, 9 Barb. 675; Ike v. State, 23 Miss. 525; State v. Eldridge, 7 Eng. 608. Every offence consists of certain acts done or omitted under certain circumstances; and, in the indictment for the offence, it is not sufficient to charge the accused generally with having committed the offence, but all the circumstances constituting the offence must be specially set forth. Arch. Cr. Pl., 15th ed., 43. Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens thereof; and the fourteenth amendment also provides, that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Congress may, doubtless, prohibit any violation of that provision, and may provide that any person convicted of violating the same shall be guilty of an offence, and be subject to such reasonable punishment as Congress may prescribe. Conspiracies of the kind described in the introductory clause of the sixth section of the Enforcement Act are explicitly forbidden by the subsequent clauses of the same section; and it may be that if the indictment was for a conspiracy at common law, and was pending in a tribunal having jurisdiction of common-law offences, the indictment in its present form might be sufficient, even though it contains no definite allegation whatever of any particular overt act committed by the defendants in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy. p27 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Decided cases may doubtless be found in which it is held that an indictment for a conspiracy, at common law, may be sustained where there is an unlawful agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means; and authorities may be referred to which support the proposition, that the indictment, if the conspiracy is well pleaded, is sufficient, even though it be not alleged that any overt act had been done in pursuance of the unlawful combination. Suffice it to say, however, that the authorities to that effect are opposed by another class of authorities equally respectable, and even more numerous, which decide that the indictment is *564 bad unless it is alleged that some overt act was committed in pursuance of the intent and purpose of the alleged conspiracy; and in all the latter class of cases it is held, that the overt act, as well as the unlawful combination, must be clearly and accurately alleged. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens thereof; and the fourteenth amendment also provides, that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Congress may, doubtless, prohibit any violation of that provision, and may provide that any person convicted of violating the same shall be guilty of an offence, and be subject to such reasonable punishment as Congress may prescribe. Conspiracies of the kind described in the introductory clause of the sixth section of the Enforcement Act are explicitly forbidden by the subsequent clauses of the same section; and it may be that if the indictment was for a conspiracy at common law, and was pending in a tribunal having jurisdiction of common-law offences, the indictment in its present form might be sufficient, even though it contains no definite allegation whatever of any particular overt act committed by the defendants in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy. Decided cases may doubtless be found in which it is held that an indictment for a conspiracy, at common law, may be sustained where there is an unlawful agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means; and authorities may be referred to which support the proposition, that the indictment, if the conspiracy is well pleaded, is sufficient, even though it be not alleged that any overt act had been done in pursuance of the unlawful combination. Suffice it to say, however, that the authorities to that effect are opposed by another class of authorities equally respectable, and even more numerous, which decide that the indictment is *564 bad unless it is alleged that some overt act was committed in pursuance of the intent and purpose of the alleged conspiracy; and in all the latter class of cases it is held, that the overt act, as well as the unlawful combination, must be clearly and accurately alleged. Two reasons of a conclusive nature, however, may be assigned which show, beyond all doubt, that it is not necessary to enter into the inquiry which class of those decisions is correct. Two offences are in fact created and defined by the sixth section of the Enforcement Act, both of which consist of a *565 conspiracy with an intent to perpetrate a forbidden act. They are alike in respect to the conspiracy; but differ very widely in respect to the act embraced in the prohibition. 1. Persons, two or more, are forbidden to band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of the Enforcement Act, which is an act of twenty-three sections. Much discussion of that clause is certainly unnecessary, as no one of the counts under consideration is founded on it, or contains any allegations describing such an offence. Such a conspiracy with intent to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person, is also forbidden by the succeeding clause of that section, if it be done with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States, or because of having exercised the same. END QUOTE p28 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Vague and indefinite allegations of the kind are not sufficient to inform the accused in a criminal prosecution of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, within the meaning of the sixth amendment of the Constitution. END QUOTE https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Judge Story says the indictment must charge the time and place and nature and circumstances of the offence with clearness and certainty, so that the party may have full notice of the charge, and be able to make his defence with all reasonable knowledge and ability. 2 Story, Const., sect. 1785. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Descriptive allegations in criminal pleading are required to be reasonably definite and certain, as a necessary safeguard *569 to the accused against surprise, misconception, and error in conducting his defence, and in order that the judgment in the case may be a bar to a second accusation for the same charge. Considerations of the kind are entitled to respect; but it is obvious, that, if such a description of the ingredient of an offence created and defined by an act of Congress is held to be sufficient, the indictment must become a snare to the accused; as it is scarcely possible that an allegation can be framed which would be less certain, or more at variance with the universal rule that every ingredient of the offence must be clearly and accurately described so as to bring the defendant within the true intent and meaning of the provision defining the offence. Such a vague and indefinite description of a material ingredient of the offence is not a compliance with the rules of pleading in framing an indictment. On the contrary, such an indictment is insufficient, and must be held bad on demurrer or in arrest of judgment. END QUOTE

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/? United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE Reasonable certainty, all will agree, is required in criminal pleading; and if so it must be conceded, we think, that the allegation in question fails to comply with that requirement. Accused persons, as matter of common justice, ought to have the charge against them set forth in such terms that they may readily understand the nature and character of the accusation, in order that they, when arraigned, may know what answer to make to it, and that they may not be embarrassed in conducting their defence; and the charge ought also to be laid in such terms that, if the party accused is put to trial, the verdict and judgment may be pleaded in bar of a second accusation for the same offence. END QUOTE

The following appears to indicate that “paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted” shall NOT be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States. Which in my view means that undocumented persons could be deemed fugitives, etc, and cannot be entitled to say to vote in a presidential or other election. I understand that the democrats obstructed your father to exclude undocumented persons from voting and clearly yet again the Democrats appears to me to be flaunting the constitution. Yet, when it came to the 6 p29 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

January event they even pursued to have the police they pursued to be defunded to protect them. They are undermining the constitution as it suits them and yet never seem to be charged for this, even so this may have accumulated the Peoples dissatisfaction resulting into the 6 January event. . ART. IV—STATES’ RELATIONS QUOTE

909

Sec. 2—Interstate Comity Cl. 1—State Citizenship: Privileges and Immunities 147 Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 395 (1948). 148THE FEDERALIST, No. 42 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 285-286 (Madison). 149 1 F. Thorpe ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, H. DOC. NO. 357, 59th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909), 10. 150 2 M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 173, 187, 443 (rev. ed. 1937). 151 ‘‘It may be esteemed the basis of the Union, that ‘the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.’ And if it be a just principle that every government ought to possess the means of executing its own provisions by its own authority, it will follow, that in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the national judiciary ought to preside in all cases in which one State or its citizens are opposed to another State or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary that its construction should be committed to that tribunal which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles on which its is founded.’’ T HE FEDERALIST, No. 80 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 537-538 (Hamilton).

SECTION 2. Clause 1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. STATE CITIZENSHIP: PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES Origin and Purpose ‘‘The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located. . .was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent sovereign States.’’ 147 Precedent for this clause was a much wordier and a somewhat unclear 148 clause of the articles of Confederation. ‘‘The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively,. . .’’ END QUOTE

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT TWELFTH AMENDMENT The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and in distinct ballots the person voted for as VicePresident, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as VicePresident, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding p30 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.—The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. ELECTION OF PRESIDENT This Amendment, 1 which supersedes clause 3 of § 1 of Article II, was adopted so as to make impossible the situation occurring after the election of 1800 in which Jefferson and Burr received tie votes in the electoral college, thus throwing the selection of a President into the House of Representatives, despite the fact that the electors had intended Jefferson to be President and Burr to be Vice-President. 2 The difference between the procedure which it defines and that which was laid down originally is in the provision it makes for a separate designation by the electors of their choices for President and Vice-President, respectively. As a consequence of the disputed election of 1870, Congress has enacted a statute providing that if the vote of a State is not certified by the governor under seal, it shall not be counted unless both Houses of Congress concur. 3 1A

number of provisions of the Amendment have been superseded by the Twentieth Amendment. 2 Cunningham, Election of 1800, in 1 HISTORY OF A MERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 101 (A. Schlesinger ed., 1971). 3 3 U.S.C. § 15. Equal Protection of the Laws ............................................................................................ 1886 Scope and Application ................................................................................................. 1886 State Action .......................................................................................................... 1886 ‘‘Person’’ ................................................................................................................. 1904 ‘‘Within Its Jurisdiction’’ ...................................................................................... 1904 Equal Protection: Judging Classifications by Law ................................................... 1905 Traditional Standard: Restrained Review .......................................................... 1906

Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliament ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say this I do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to people out of its own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a witness in any of our local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and walk away. The case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any disorder.

p31 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members. Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act of Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the Parliament of Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do so, that they immediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I think, was connected with Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the Parliament arrested him, brought him to the bar of the House, and it was declared that they had no power to do so. In all the decisions of the Privy Council in reference to the powers of Parliament, the Privy Council has invariably declared that Parliament has no power outside the very words of the Constitution Act. In the own of Hampton and Fenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to tell a great colony like Tasmania that so far as it was concerned it had no greater powers than a municipality. Mr. BARTON: The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting. Mr. DOUGLAS: Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be present when the decision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony had no power, but that any colonial Government, being under a Statute, would have no power beyond that Statute. The result was that the Tasmanian Parliament passed a law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made reference. Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I think that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed must be considered in connection with clause 8, page 4 of the Bill, which provides: The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. If the hon. member's amendment is to include the power of punishment it will scarcely be necessary. The effect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read in connection with the Constitutions of the several colonies, which were affected at the time of the pronouncement of these decisions. In New South Wales, and I think in Tasmania, what exists at the present time is a Legislature as distinct from a Parliament. A Sovereign Parliament has punishing power. A Legislature which is created by Act of Parliament, and with the equivalent powers conferred upon it, as they are conferred by section 8, has, in the case of New South Wales and Tasmania, no power except such as can be gathered from the necessary implication of the words of the Constitution. In the present instance we have passed a clause which states that the [start page 758] privileges, immunities, and powers of the Federal Parliament shall be those declared by the Parliament, and until a declaratory Act is passed the privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons will be accepted. The power of punishment exists in the House of Commons, and the same power would exist in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under clause 8. An outrage committed within the walls of the Federal Parliament could be punished in the same way as in the House of Commons. If a man ventured to throw a stone into the Imperial Parliament, though unfortunately the thrower is not always caught, it would be contempt of Parliament, and that would be a matter to be dealt with by the Commons according to the powers, privileges, and immunities it possesses. Sir GEORGE TURNER: Has not the House of Commons power to make Standing Orders? Mr. BARTON: Yes. Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then where is the necessity for this clause? Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of punishment in cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for instance, a person throws a stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before the Parliament and can be imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the p32 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

clause similar action can be taken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require Standing Orders to deal with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if you made Standing Orders you would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers, privileges, and immunities possessed by the House of Commons. Sir JOSEPH ABBOT: Then why do you want clause 49? Mr. BARTON: I have already explained that, but I will return to it if my hon. friend wishes. I say in the meantime you have already taken the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, and there is no necessity to pass Standing Orders with reference to them. They do not need definition in the Standing Orders; they are not the subject of definition in the Standing Orders; they are totally different in their whole circuit to the Standing Orders which relate to the conduct of the business of each House and its transactions with the other House. That is not a question of the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, which exist independently of the Standing Orders. They have a historical application in the House of Commons, and they can be applied to the Federal Parliament. Mr. TRENWITH: Could they not make Standing Orders? Mr. BARTON: The Federal Parliament, of course, will have power to make Standing Orders for the regulation of its internal business. Mr. TRENWITH: If we adopt clause 49 do we not restrict the power of the Federal Parliament with regard to any Standing Orders they may make? Mr. BARTON: No. You do not restrict them because you have the clause in the most general terms. My hon. friend wishes the clause to read: The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt Standing Orders as they or each may deem to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have he force of law. That is altogether too wide, as the Standing Orders would then have the effect of law outside the House. Mr. PEACOCK: Hear, hear. That is the point. Mr. BARTON: It is the point to which I think the hon. member was anxious to come. What we have done is to adopt a clause giving the Federal Parliament power to pass Standing Orders for the con- [start page 759] duct of their business, and so that there should be no doubt the power has been taken in the widest possible words. The House of Commons does not make its Standing Orders by reason of its powers, privileges, and immunities, but by virtue of its inherent powers as a sovereign Parliament. The Standing Orders are for the internal regulation of the House of Commons, but my friend would like to say that the Federal Houses may make Standing Orders for any matter it may deem necessary. This would have the effect of passing laws without the royal assent. I ask my friend if the clause as it stands is not sufficient. END QUOTE

Now there is this absurd impeachment 2.0 and what those present, including those who pursue the impeachment in the Senate should be aware of is that they themselves can be called to give evidence. S v Sadler (1830) 4 C. & P 218 In a criminal case any person who is present in Court, albeit not served with a subpoena may be obliged to give evidence. This means avoid being present in any legal proceedings if you do not desire the risk to be suddenly called as a witness. It be nice to call Kamala Harris to the witness box (stand) and cross examine her about inciting riots AFTER the election. p33 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2723&context=journal_articles The Roberts Court, Stare Decisis, and the Future of Constitutional Law

prior decision is and should be relatively unusual in our legal system, such an act when it ... of judicial review in order to invalidate laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ... series of specific and predetermined rules. "Congress shall ... I recall where an opponent barrister was making a statement from the bar table. I objected to this that one cannot give evidence from the bar table. The trial judge then invited the barrister to take a place in the witness box to formalise the statement. She did. She then wanted to leave but I indicated I was going to cross-examine her. She tried to refuse but the trial judge made clear that I was entitled to cross-examine. So, I did cross examine her.  I have no desire to attend to any impeachment trial neither to travel to the USA, and with my wife’s ill health it would not be possible anyhow, however in my view if there is an impeachment trial to eventuate then Nancy Pelosi ought to be called as a witness. After all, she presided over the impeachment in the House, while I view she was not legitimately a Member of the House and as such a “NO CASE TO ANSWER” would be the first to pursue. If it is established that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats from California were not duly elected then the House vote for the Impeachment should be adjusted accordingly and one would come to a minority having voted in favour of the Impeachment. A woman was charged with counts of criminal conduct allegedly using a motor vehicle to drive into a police officer and causing physical injuries.5 police officers, a clerk of court, a deputy clerk of court and a medical doctor were witnesses for the prosecutor. I (about 2 years before the trial) made an “NO CASE TO ANSWER” objection to the Director of Public Prosecution with the response that 2 out of 3 charges were withdrawn. While ordinary one make an objection “NO CASE TO ANSWER” after the prosecutor closes his case, I held there was no harm in doing so immediately as to try to reduce the number of charges. It worked. After the prosecutor completed a 5 day presentation of witnesses, the trial judge then directed the jury to return a verdict “NOT GUILTY” this was the prosecutor had not made out the charge. Why bother to go through a Senate impeachment trial where there are as I view it turncoats (back stabbers), when you can simply get rid of it immediately by submitting an objection “NO CASE TO ANSWER”? In my view, this entire presidential election was worse then what could be expected from some third world country Banana Republic. The egoism and self-interest of Members of Congress to me must be addressed that the ugly heads never again appears. It are the very members of Congress who diminished the standing of the Congress. Americans witness this absurdity and this while those performing their clown acts are well being paid even if not attending to the Congress for over 6 months while ordinary Americans are suffering bug time having their lifework destroyed and all so that the Democrats can perpetrate this con-job of the COVID-19 requiring this while (then) Senator Kamala Harris is condoning, approving, promoting and inciting this kind of murderous riots to continue even AFTER the election. After all COVID-19 has been programmed not to interfere with murderous rioters and respect BLM/Antifa members. As I quoted above, that the Framers of the Australian Constitution made clear that even if voters vote for a criminal then the system must be in place to prevent this person to be a Member of p34 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Parliament (Congress). This is the legal principle I view should have been applied by VP Mike Pence. In my view, he failed miserably to do so. . In my view, there was no proper exercise of the provisions of the 12th Amendment that can be relied upon and for this also Joe Biden cannot be deemed to be lawfully President and Kamala Harris neither can be deemed to be lawful Vice President. In my view Senator Kamala Harris (as she then was) likely masterminded the “Reichstag Fire” kind of incident at the Capitol with her “movement” and let no Member of parliament and r any law enforcement officer pretend to care about what eventuated on 6 January while blatantly ignoring who really master minded it all. What if anything the 2020 murderous riots appeared to result to was a racism against people of colour mainly. Ample of persons of minorities were speaking out that this BLM was harming them not protecting them. Yet Senator Kamala Harris (as she then was) as a lawmaker was supporting the murderous riots and Joe Biden appeared to me that he also was financing them. A criminal should never be permitted to benefit from his/her criminal conduct yet that somehow appears to have been ignored by many of not most members of Congress. . Who can forget the police seeking to shield federal statutes from being destroyed, and they were in the process injured, and yet I am not aware that the FBI and other law enforcement authorities pursued the charges as to damaging federal property, as they now seem to do regarding the 6 January issues. This may just underline that what eventuated on 6 January was a climax of many different issues and I view the FBI and Members of Congress much must accept responsibility for this. One need to return to the organics and legal principles embedded in of the federal constitution! This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)

p35 21-1-2021 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati