Professional Documents
Culture Documents
* Gerrit, would you mind explaining why the Federal government donates other people’s monies,
being the taxpayers to foreign countries such as for education when it demands Australians who
are paying taxes to repay any education loans?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, it really is that the politicians are too well aware that the
sheeple will go along no matter what. Well until finally they are held legally accountable. But for
that you need an impartial judiciary where the judges are sitting in judgment not as to what a
decision may benefit their future but what is right within constitutional context.
While the Letters Patent provides for the appointment of impartial judges in my experiences we
got judges who couldn’t give a darn about the rule of law but selectively use what suits them go
make predetermined rulings. In one case I listed the numerous breaches by opponent
lawyer/barrister, including violating court orders, court rules and legislative requirements and I
put it to the judge that if I even had made one such violation my appeal would have been
dismissed. He responded that indeed he would have but he wasn’t concerned about the opponent
lawyers. As such he applied DOUBLE STANDARDS.
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/why-world-jewry-and-eu-hate-polands-judicial-
reforms/ri23655?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=5a025a750d&mc_eid=2c57cd92c9
QUOTE
by Thea Arian (1,275 views) on Sat, Jun 2, 2018
The author is a recent immigrant to the UK from Poland. A wise man once said "only
two kinds of people do not care about the law, those who break the law and those who
make the law". The law is often associated with justice which, while often true, is not
always so; an important distinction that escapes many of us.
END QUOTE
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/why-world-jewry-and-eu-hate-polands-judicial-
reforms/ri23655?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=5a025a750d&mc_eid=2c57cd92c9
QUOTE
A very important point is this, judges are seldom elected, they pass a few exams, practice as
lawyers for a few years and then, based on their peers’ recommendations, they are elevated to the
position of a judge.
END QUOTE
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/why-world-jewry-and-eu-hate-polands-judicial-
reforms/ri23655?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=5a025a750d&mc_eid=2c57cd92c9
QUOTE
The judiciary is supposed to complement the government, not antagonize it. The judiciary is supposed
to interpret the law, not make it. The judiciary is supposed to know its own bounds and enforce it, as
well as make the government know its bounds as well. When a judiciary actively doles out anti-national
decisions that the government is forced to follow to the detriment of the nation, reforms are urgently
and critically needed as the judiciary is basically acting as an enemy agent enshrined in law.
END QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal
Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.
Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of
the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the
same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the
maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by
Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected
weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether
consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might
be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE
When one look upon the issue that the Commonwealth must act for “peace, order and good
government” then where in this is the funding of foreign nations in this?
Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the only laws
which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth.
END QUOTE
More over when the constitution was amended to show “benefits to students” then where in this does it
authorize the Federal Government to provide for student loans for Australia but not likewise
apply the same constitutions to those education funding to other nations?
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
(xxiii) invalid and old-age pensions;
(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness
and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students
and family allowances;
END QUOTE
Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE
https://www.facebook.com/sheaintrightmate/
Turnbull/Bishop handed out $500M overseas aid in only 8 weeks between March and April
making Rudd/Gillard look like saints
QUOTE
25 April 2017 $110M Iraq Turnbull goo.gl/u575pn
humanitarian help
8 March 2017 $65M (+$10M new) PNG and Pacific Bishop goo.gl/kbpojM
Gender Equality
* What you seem to indicate is that the Federal Government not at all is using Subsection
51(xxiiiA) as it refers to benefits and not loans?
**#** Well, look at Section 96 of the constitution.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
96 Financial assistance to States
During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the
Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such
terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
END QUOTE
This means that without Section 96 the Commonwealth couldn’t provide special loans to the
states. There is no provision in the constitution for the Commonwealth to loan monies to private
p3 4-6-2018 © 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
individuals. Actually the Universities are not owned by the Commonwealth either, and as such it
cannot be claimed to be some preposterous Debt to the Commonwealth.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
* Are you saying that all those student loans are unconstitutional and so no one has to repay
them?
**#** In my view those loans are unconstitutional as they are beyond the powers of Section 96
and I am not aware any other constitutional provision exist for the Commonwealth to act as some
loan shark against the very people who are paying the taxes.
* Well you really have let the cat loose amongst the pigeons if this is true! Imagine billions of
dollars that are claimed to be outstanding do not need to be repaid.
**#** Let us have a look at Amanda, who was a foreign Minister and later was sent to Europe to
serve as a diplomate. She was reportedly studying Chinese at taxpayers cost but somehow didn’t
have to repay a cent. Why on earth should she not have to repay this while ordinary Australians
would have to? In my view, politicians who are using up taxpayers monies for enriching
themselves with studies nothing to do with their portfolio, that is if they have any, then they
should pay themselves for their studies. What we have is that man y who so to say borrow
monies from the commonwealth after completing studies then move overseas to try to avoid to
repay the alleged study debts. Wed wreck their family life in the process also.
Let us not ignore that many if not most of the politicians in Parliament enjoyed free university
studies when Geoff Whitlam provided for this. It is just that after they themselves achieved even
to become Prime Minister they turned against the very people they were to represent. This very
much is also realized in the UK (United Kingdom).
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12435/rape-gangs-oxford
Rape Gangs: A Story Set in Leafy Oxfordshire
QUOTE
In all this at least one key element is missing. What price has been paid, is being paid, or might be paid
at some stage, by all those public officials who tacitly or otherwise allowed these modern-day atrocities
to go on, doing nothing to stop them?
END QUOTE
And this is what I have been on about to hold politicians and judges legally accountable!
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
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
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
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.
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
p8 4-6-2018 © 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
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
Do notice the statement “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.”.
What the Framers of the Constitution made clear that unless you took the oath of alliance you
could be a Member of Parliament that is if you were not residing in a foreign nation as a citizen.
Citizenship is where you reside and nationality is the country you were born or gave an oath to.
Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK:
Representative government is not an expedient or a makeshift to obviate the necessity of having every
man brought into one chamber to give his vote; but it is a substantial institution devised for the special
purpose of endeavouring, so far as possible, to get the intelligence and the judgment of the community
to decide what shall, and what shall not, be law, and not simply to count mere heads
END QUOTE
Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
The result of that was necessarily that many avenues of usefulness in political life were closed against
everybody, but those who were either wealthy themselves or who had wealthy relations who were inclined to
help them. I was surprised, indeed, when I found that with that experience staring them in the face, they had
in some colonies of Australia-certainly in one-gone back to the old system and established a property
qualification. I have no doubt that under the terms of this resolution, the recommendation of this
Convention will go in this direction, that is, that they will require no qualification at all in the member,
except to be a voter; that they will approach, in point of fact, very nearly to what is the present rule in Great
Britain, which is, or, was, regarded as a most aristocratic country. If that is done throughout Australasia, the
result will be, if the people at the same time have the power of electing their lieutenant-governors, that every
great post but one in the whole of Australasia will be open to every man of ability, or of such ability or of
such force of character, or occupying such relations of public life, as will secure him the votes of a large
constituency; and an immense amount of talent that under other circumstances would be shut out from
serving the state will have a fair opportunity open to it, and there can be no doubt that numbers of able men
will, under such a system, be found who otherwise would have remained undiscovered, useless to their
country, and probably many great measures will hereafter be carried which could not have been carried under
any other system than that which I am convinced will be recommended for adoption. I cannot help thinking
that the advantage of getting this amount of ability and energy into play is almost wholly over looked, and,
but very little conception is as yet formed of the spur that will be given to enterprise and energy, and all that
can make men happier and better off by opening all these places of great importance to every, single citizen
of each state in the confederation.
END QUOTE
Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
I have no doubt that under the terms of this resolution, the recommendation of this
Convention will go in this direction, that is, that they will require no qualification at
all in the member, except to be a voter;
END QUOTE
p9 4-6-2018 © 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
What this means to me is that any so called deposit and number of signatures is unconstitutional
as to be a candidate in a political election as it denied a voter to become a Member of Parliament
where the voter may not have the financial means to pay for the (ever increasing) deposit. Also a
person who resides in a remote country area may not be able to obtain the number of signatures
that a person would be able to obtain residing in a city and so it discriminates in that regard
against a person and yet has absolutely nothing to do with the competence of this voter to be a
Member of Parliament.
* Taking it that you have no university degrees I am astounded how you can so plainly explain it
all when those politicians in the Parliament and indeed the judges fails to understand and
comprehend it all.
**#** As I stated, it is not how much you know but you know what you need to know and
knows how to present it.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
* So, you are indicating or seem to indicate that the judges with their legalities are incorrectly
interpreting the constitution?
**#** To some extend they are making incursions in legislative powers and in other ways are
violating the separation of powers also by pretending constitutional meanings they should be
aware are not so. The constitution should be interpreted as it was for the ordinary person.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51].
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: Let this speech do for the referendum also.
Mr. TRENWITH: I say with these evidences of the desire on the part of the people for more freedom,
for greater facilities for giving effect to the popular will, we ought to make provision in this
Constitution by which the will of the people can become law. If we do that we shall be doing something
which will make it more certain that this Constitution will be adopted by the people.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
**#** In my view this and many other decision are a violation of our constitutional rights. The
judges have no power to use some backdoor manner to amend the constitution or to twist and
infringe upon the true meaning and application of the constitution!
* I think you said plenty and I cannot disagree with what you have set out. Having said so the
question will be if others will also go along with your set out.
**#** As I stated before I can implement matters if I were in power as it doesn’t require the
Parliament to correct unconstitutional matters. What is unconstitutional remains unconstitutional
and cannot be circumvented. Anyone with a law degree who cannot understand/comprehend this
better hand back his law degree.
* I think we did enough for today.
**#** I agree and well let it now be up to the reader to address matters appropriately.
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!)