ISSUE: 20180127- Re Suing politicians, government officials and others, etc, & the constitution

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

Politicians, government officials and others ought to be well aware that no matter what
legislation might be put in place to prevent them to being sued reality is that it is an embedded
legal principle in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) that they can be
sued. The States being created within s106 of the constitution therefore likewise are subject to
this embedded legal principle. The problem is however that lawyers generally lack the
knowledge about this and may by this wrongly advise their clients and /or the courts neither
being aware of this and wrongly dismiss cases.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) Re contempt by Attorney-General
QUOTE
Attention is also directed to the case of Missouri &c. Rwy. Co. v. Missouri R.R. &c. Commissioners, 183 U. S.
53. That was a suit brought in a state court of Missouri by the railroad commissioners of the State, who had
the powers granted them by the statutes set forth in the report. Their suit was against the railway company, to
compel it to discontinue certain charges it was making for crossing the Boonville bridge over the Missouri
river. The defendant sought to remove the case to the Federal court, which the plaintiffs resisted, and the state
court refused to remove, on the ground that the real plaintiff was the State of Missouri, and it was proper to go
behind the face of the record to determine that fact. In regular manner, the case came here, and this court held
that the State was not the real party plaintiff, and the case had therefore been properly removed from the state
court, whose judgment was thereupon reversed.
Applying the same principles of construction to the removal act which had been applied to the Eleventh
Amendment, it was said by this court that the State might be the real party plaintiff when the relief sought
inures to it alone, and in whose favor the judgment or decree, if for the plaintiff, will effectively operate.
Although the case is one arising under the removal act, and does not involve the Eleventh Amendment, it
nevertheless illustrates the question now before us, and reiterates the doctrine that the State is not a party to a
suit simply because the state railroad commission is such party.
END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE

While the Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) case was well after federation the legal
principle nevertheless is the same.
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary
offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the
Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates,
and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the
Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think that
p1 27-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere. As to the word "person,"
the British Interpretation Act of 1889, which will be largely applied to the construction of this statute by
the Imperial authorities, provides that where the word "person" is used, unless the Act otherwise provides,
the word "corporation" shall be included.
END QUOTE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqm5f3ko1_c
Medical Tyranny in Australia- Family terrorised all due to a vaccine.mp4

Father sues after one-in-a million vaccine reaction | The West Australian
https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/family-seek-vaccine-compo-ng-b88344054z
Jan 3, 2017 - A man left permanently disabled after a one-in-a-million bad reaction to a whooping
cough vaccination is preparing to face off against the WA Government to claim millions of dollars in
medical negligence compensation. Ben Hammond, his wife Tanya and their five children have
been left emotionally and ...

Ben Hammond | reasonable hank

https://reasonablehank.com/tag/ben-hammond/
This news broke today: UNVACCINATED children will be banned from all childcare centres and
preschools in Australia under a hard line proposal spearheaded by the federal government. The
immunisation rates of all preschools and daycare centres will be made publicly … Continue reading
→. Posted in abuse ...

Hammond Family Terrorised By Police | Vax Info Start Here

vaxinfostarthere.com/hammond-family-terrorised-by-police/
Jan 21, 2016 - Two days after the birth of their 8-weeks-premature baby in September 2012, Ben
Hammond and his wife Tanya had to have the dTpa vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, whooping
cough), otherwise the hospital would refuse them access to their baby. Both parents had the shots
and Ben became ill soon ...

This I understand relates also to Sanofi U.S. who I understand provided false details to the U.S.
Government to obtain approval.
Still, the issue is that no matter any TPP (Trade Pacific Partnership) the Federal/State/Territory
Government cannot within the provisions of our constitution exclude a corporation from being
sued. Much was written by me during the mid of 2017 (Re the murder of Carl Williams in
prison) where the Victorian Courts upheld the State legislation that a person convicted of any
offence could not sue for the killing of a family member by the State, etc. Reality is that the State
cannot exclude itself from being sued. Neither can it prevent any corporation conducted by itself
or acting on its behalf from being sued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q3T-_esgk
Dr. Amy McGrath her latest video .... Please note she discusses "the Referendum to Ban the Communist Party in
1951 " did not succeed in the referendum - they changed their name to "leftist". For your perusal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHTfJKEZX1U
Vaccine facts, damage and angry grandmothers around

VaxXed Tour: Dr Brain Hooker on "The Phone Calls" - YouTube ▶ 22:02

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BWlvalqhI
Feb 15, 2017 - Uploaded by VAXXED TV

https://youtu.be/yfaAtdTgBGk
You Won’t Believe What They Admitted on the news in
Re 1971 vaccination knowing causing cancer
Globalist Malcolm Turnbull Pushes Mandatory Vaccination Agenda-Shares In Big Pharma-
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=B-y002aSdSI Turnbull has shares in Pfizer and cigarette companies

p2 27-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Re 1976 swine flu vaccination (6.59MB) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm_PCN08Qq4

WIDE AWAKE: The Seminar that Changed Everything

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/wideawakeseminar?autoplay=1
They told us vaccines were safe. They lied. They told us vaccines were effective. They lied.
They told us vaccines were necessary. They lied. It's time to learn the truth and see the
information they don't want you to see. Join The Drs. Wolfson for a rare full-length cinema
seminar presentation regarding the danger of vaccination why the viruses and bacteria are
beneficial and ways to boost your immune system naturally.

VACCINES - Forced Vaccinations - Duration: 48:36. StopTheCrime.net NEW5,592 views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiOenedragA

Truth About Vaccines right here!

This first episode is called: “The History of Vaccines, Smallpox, Vaccine Safety & the Current CDC Schedule”.
You absolutely don't want to miss it.
Go here to watch Episode 1:
https://go2.thetruthaboutvaccines.com/docuseries/episode-1/
There are numerous other videos available on the Internet about the harm inflicted upon mainly
children with vaccinations, etc. As such, Ministers, politicians and officials and corporations
cannot excuse themselves that they didn’t know, etc, because if they made an effort to check out
matters appropriately they could/should have understood that vaccinations can in fact be very
harmful. School principals and others who deny any child to attend for not being vaccinated
and/or otherwise cause’s enforcement of vaccinations also place themselves at risk to be
personally sued.
Politicians, officials and others including corporations should be aware that if they think they
have luck to get away they might one day just discover that they can be personally sued for their
(past) conduct and any harm that flowed from it.
And those now so to say swimming in monies might very well find that their swimming pool
sustained a crack and all their monies are evaporating into paying damages. This, as while they
might have acted as government officials to promote enforce vaccinations they always should
remain aware, as was shown in the Young 1908 Authority, that they personally take
responsibility for their own conduct.
Government bodies such as corporations by this also can discover that any legislation to prevent
them from being sued personally has no legal force, this, as no government can legislate to
override constitutional embedded legal principles.
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE

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!)
p3 27-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati