100929-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - Etc

1
Premier Kristina Keneally 31-8-2010

<thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>
5 .
Cc: * Mr John Brumby, Premier, john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
* Mr Robert Pincevic
.
Re: State Land tax - etc
10 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Kristina,
I has been more then 4 weeks since I last wrote to you regarding State land taxes being
unconstitutional since the Commonwealth of Australia commenced to legislate in regard of
LAND TAX and the High Court of Australia underlined this in its judgment.
15 As I stated in my previous 31 August 2010 correspondence to you; 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
20 intention of its makers[51] .
END QUOTE
.
Within Section 51 of the constitution both the States and the Commonwealth have certain
legislative powers however as the Framers of the Constitution stated:
25 Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. REID
The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the Federal
Legislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on them-
30 the state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law is
passed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" the
federal law prevails over the state law.
END QUOTE
.
35 Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the
power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
40 .
Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points
enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
45 laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
31-8-2010 Re: State Land tax – etc Page 1

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® Our name is our motto!
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
2
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this
power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate
on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to
5 exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from
that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
10 QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised.
END QUOTE
For constitutional purposes it isn’t relevant that the Commonwealth of Australia aborted any land
15 taxes since 1952 by abolishing the legislation as it still was and remained to be an exclusive
federal legislative power
.
I thank your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response:
QUOTE
20 CMU10-16940
13 September 2010
Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
25 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.
As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon
Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.
You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.
30 Yours sincerely
David Swain
for Director General
END QUOTE
.
35 As I stated in my previous correspondence also:
QUOTE
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain
constitutional and other legal issues my issue is foremost what is constitutionally appropriate and for this
direct myself to you.
40 .
I do point out that I am not in any capacity acting for Mr Robert Pincevic but he is aware that I am writing to
you and reveals his identity.
I was contacted by Mr Robert Pincevic (NSW resident) regarding the 22 June 2010 Land Tax issue
45 correspondence from Richard Brown for Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue correctly
pointed out that within s.106 of the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK)), the States “subject to this constitution” are entitled to legislate in matters. I personally cannot see any
difficulties then with any NSW legal provisions then to legislate in 1902 (provided the NSW constitution was
validly amended) in regard of land taxes, however what Richard Brown seems to ignore is the very term
50 “subject to this constitution” meaning that s.51 only permits the States to legislate as to Land Tax until the
Commonwealth legislate for this and then the moment the Commonwealth does it no longer is a legislative
power for the States. As such where the Commonwealth commenced to legislate and in 1910 became the
dominant legislator I have the view that then the States no longer had this legislative power and the fact that
the Commonwealth in 1952 abolished land taxes cannot revert the legislative powers back to the States as the
55 constitution doesn’t allow for this.
END QUOTE
.
I am well aware that the Governments (State/Territorial/Federal) may seek to rely upon legal
advice of lawyers who may or may not claim to be constitutionalist but the fact is that since 1956
60 none of them appeared to have understood that the States/Territories couldn’t legislate as to
LAND TAXES. This is because lawyers are so to say trained to think in a certain manner and
this prohibit them to be open minded and consider all relevant issues, not just about
3
State/Territorial land Taxes as for example the commonwealth in s.388 of the CEA1918 uses
“averment” where as on 4 August 2005 I successfully defeated the commonwealth and the Court
ordered the commonwealth to file and serve all evidence it sought to rely upon this as the court
upheld my constitutional submission that the commonwealth cannot interfere in the legal
5 processes of a State Court by dictating that “AVERMENT” applies. Actually the ATO uses
“averment” in the Supreme Court of NSW even so as I stated this is unconstitutionally
interfering in State judicial matters, regardless if the State Court exercises federal jurisdiction.
.
It is my understanding that the ATO in legal proceedings relies upon the Taxation
10 Administration Act section 8ZL which is as follows:
QUOTE S.8ZL(1)
[Prima facie evidence] In a prosecution for the prescribed taxation offence, a statement or averment
contained in the information, claim or complaint is prima facie evidence of the matter so stated or averred.
END QUOTE
15 .
QUOTE S.8ZL(2)
[Application of section] This section applies in relation to any matter so stated or averred although:
(a) evidence in support or rebuttal of the matter stated or averred, or of any other matter, is given; or
(b) the matter averred is a mixed question of law and fact, but in that case, or of any other statement or
20 averment is prima facie evidence if the fact only.
END QUOTE
.
We now look brat the provision of the CEA1918;
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
25 QUOTE
388 Averments deemed to be proved
In any prosecution in a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of a contravention of the
provisions of this Act or the regulations relating to compulsory enrolment or compulsory
voting, instituted by an officer or by any person acting under the direction of an officer, the
30 averments of the prosecutor contained in the information or complaint shall be deemed to be
proved in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
END QUOTE
.
I understand that Raelene Susan Vivian Deputy Commissioner of Taxation filed a 1 May 2009
35 Affidavit (On 4 May 2009) in which she refers to:
QUOTE
The plaintiff pleads her cause of action, and avers and states
END QUOTE
.
40 These pleadings were then responded upon by the Respondents to in general deny the claims.
In point 4 of this Affidavit it was stated
QUOTE
The defendants failed to pay income tax for the years of tax ending 30 June 2002, 30 June 2003, 30 June
2004, 30 June 2006, 30 June 2007 and 30 June 2008 on or before the relevant due dates.
45 END QUOTE
.
It is in my view terrible that even the Supreme Court of NSW isn’t even aware that
Commonwealth of Australia legislative provisions cannot interfere with State jurisdictional
matters!
50 HANSARD 11-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. CLARK: What we want is a separate federal judiciary, allowing the state judiciaries to remain
under their own governments.
END QUOTE
55 .
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
Then, I think myself, some confusion may arise in consequence of the reference to the state in the words
"Proceedings to be taken against the Commonwealth or a state in all cases within the limits of the judicial

4
power." Now, it does not appear to me that we ought to interfere in any way with the functions of a state
to regulate the proceedings which it, as a quasi-independent political entity, may prescribe for the
regulation of its own legal proceedings.
END QUOTE
5 .
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I obviously have to consider the intentions of the Framers of the
Constitution where the ATO is about “Income Tax” of all sources, the same can be argued about
the issue of the word “INCOME”:
10 QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: One might depend entirely on the other.
Mr. BARTON: That would not be a case of two separable propositions.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Take the Land and Income Tax Bill.
Mr. BARTON: They are proposals which should never be in one Bill together. If there are two
15 propositions more dissimilar in their incidence than a land and an income tax they are hard to suggest.
One of them-the income tax-comes from the earnings or profits of the people, or of that portion of the
people who, I was almost guilty of saying, are to "hump the swag"-at any rate they are to bear the
burden. But the other-if a tax on the unimproved value of land-has no relation to the earnings or the
thrift or the solvency of the person owning the land, and taxes that land on its unimproved value
20 whether the owner makes a profit out of it or not. I am not attacking these forms of taxation, but I do
say this: that it is impossible to imagine two taxes more diverse their very root, and I think Sir George
Turner could not have selected a better example of two taxes which ought not to be included in one Bill.
I venture to say this is undoubtedly cutting down the right of the Senate to protect the State, and preventing
them from voting upon matters that should be put separately. I believe most of these matters have been well,
25 and fairly dealt with in the Bill of 1891.
END QUOTE
.
If therefore profits of land holdings is not an income and cannot be put in the one Bill then what
is the Tax Assessment Act 1936 about, so the unconstitutional State land tax assessments?
30 It should be noted;
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
The words "trade and intercourse" are almost unbounded in their meaning when you apply them to the
relations of trade and commerce, and, under the proper heads, Baker's Annotated Constitution is full of
35 instances showing how far-reaching these words are. Then, take the words "throughout the Commonwealth."
The meaning of those words is not restricted to between the states; they refer to every part of the
Commonwealth, and I would refer honorable members to earlier portions of the Bill where the same meaning
will have to be given to them. If honorable members will turn to clause 52, which deals with the powers of the
Parliament, they will find that in sub-section (2) the Federal Parliament is empowered to legislate in regard to
40 customs, excise, and bounties, which shall be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, within every
state and every part of a state. "Throughout the Commonwealth" is the largest expression that can be used. 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.
45 END QUOTE
.
And while on this and any attempts by the states/Territories and/or even the Commonwealth to
legislate “retrospectively” the following ought to be noted:
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship of the 1891 Bill,
there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be well to alter their order. The
Drafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end of the proceedings will ask hon. members to
55 give their attention to such alterations as they may suggest. It will be better to transpose some of the clauses.
With reference to Sir Edward Braddon's amendment, which is put in a better form than that suggested
by Mr. Symon, I do not think there is any actual necessity for it. I find in Maxwell on "Interpretation of
Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage:

5
It is where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights, or the legal character of past Acts,
that the presumption against a retrospective operation is strongest. Every Statute which takes away or
impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, or imposes a new duty,
or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be
5 presumed, out of respect to the Legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation. Thus
the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no action should be brought to charge any person on any
agreement made in consideration of marriage, unless the agreement were in writing, was held not to
apply to an agreement which had been made before the Act was passed. The Mortmain Act, in the
same way, was held not to apply to a devise made before it was enacted. So it was held that the Act of 8
10 & 9 Vict., c. 106, which made all wagers void, and enacted that no action should be brought or
maintained for a wager, applied only to wagers made after the Act was passed.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: There is no doubt about those cases, I should say.
Mr. BARTON: In subsequent editions these examples are multiplied. The principle underlying the
matter is this: that a court in construing an Act assumes that Parliament never intended to do a thing
15 which is unjust. I am quite sure that Mr. Symon will agree that the provision is not necessary.
Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear.
END QUOTE
.
20 QUOTE
Mr. HOLDER.-I have two interjections to answer. I will deal first with that of the Attorney-General of
Victoria. In reply to his statement that this makes the law altogether retrospective, I simply say that the
proposal is to make the law retrospective in this sense: That during the interval throughout which it was,
according to the judgment of the court, ultra vires, the decision of the people afterwards could make it intra
25 vires.
Mr. ISAACS.-That might make persons criminals who were not otherwise criminals. It might not
have been an offence to do a certain thing if the High Court declared the law to be ultra vires, but if that
law was made intra vires from an antecedent date, all the persons who did that thing might be subject
to punishment.
30 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
Unless the honorable member is willing to amend his clause in that respect, we should only complicate
35 matters, and if retrospective operation were given to it we should be lending ourselves to what would be,
quite unintentionally on the part of the honorable member, a gross injustice.
END QUOTE
.
40 QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-But they have already passed a law, and I take it that if you can get an absolute majority of
both Houses directing the referendum, there is no practical difference between that and an absolute majority
again passing the law. Because they virtually passed the law as far as they could. Therefore, it seems to me
there is no advantage gained from the stand-point of desiring a better means of getting an amendment of the
45 Constitution. Then, I feet that it is open to the destructive criticism that it makes the law retrospective, and
after the court, possibly the Privy Council, has decided that the law is ultra vires, and people have acted on
that decision, being compelled to, act on that decision, or being compelled to refrain from acting on the
decision of the court, as the law is positive or negative; then we should have under this referendum a law
made operative as from the time of its original passing, and penalties, both personal and pecuniary, might be
50 incurred through no fault of the individuals who had incurred them. That seems to me to be a defect to which
we cannot close our eyes.
Mr. WISE.-Besides, it would punish everybody who took the advice of a man who interpreted the law
properly.
Mr. ISAACS.-It compels everybody who has obeyed the decision of the higher courts to act, or refrain
55 from acting. That is a position which none of us would willingly get into, and the retrospective action is
wrong.
END QUOTE
.
I am concerned that despite my writing of 31 August 2010 I am given the understanding that the
60 State of NSW State land Tax office nevertheless has persisted in proceedings with its conduct

6
against the Pincevic’s even so it was also provided by Mr Robert Pincevic with a copy of my 31
August 2010 correspondence to you and the response of 13 September 2010 on your behalf.
.
I am well aware that State/Territorial land taxes involves an estimate $35 billion a year
5 throughout the Commonwealth of Australia but in all fairness I have urged for many years for all
Governments to consult the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN about constitutional matters and
where then a State/Territory failed to do so then it has inflicted any harm upon not just itself but
also to its residents. It cannot be any excuse therefore for any State/Territorial Government
having to refund all unconstitutional claimed LAND TAXES as the Framers of the Constitution
10 made clear that any unconstitutional taxes had to be refunded.
Neither can it be held that somehow the States/Territories were colleting LAND TAXES on
behalf of the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth is bound to raise any taxes for “the
whole” of the Commonwealth. As the States/Territories collected LAND TAXES in dependent
of each other and as such no LAND TAX was equal throughout the Commonwealth of Australia
15 then it cannot be deemed that the States/Territories therefore purportedly collected LAND
TAXES on behalf of the Commonwealth.
.
Neither can the Commonwealth apply “retrospective” legislation as to try to secure past land
taxes paid since 1952 as being Commonwealth land taxes.
20 .
Neither can the States/Territories invoke any kind of retrospective legislation because the states
are within s.106 “subject to this constitution” and hence the legal principles embedded in the
constitution are also binding upon the States/Territories.
.
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,
which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.
END QUOTE
30 .
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a
35 considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided
that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect
taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an
income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting
Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any
40 kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is
found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get
into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed
might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform.
END QUOTE
45 .
Where the State land tax office is assessing Mr Robert Pincevic as to his “INCOME” then again
as like Commissioner of Taxation (ATO – for the commonwealth) any income must be
understood as to the meaning of the Framers of the Constitution and not that income is what is
derived from direct and indirect taxable financial benefits, as this offend the Constitution that
50 only one subject matter can be addressed in any taxation legislation!
As such the State’s also fall foul upon how it assesses the unconstitutional State LAND TAXES
being on “INCOME” derived from different sources.
.
As you may be aware there are thousands of ratepayers in clashes with municipal and shire
55 councils as to the paying of rates, and this too is a matter then may soon so to say blow up in the
face of State and Territorial governments, as I have published articles about this in the past. It is
therefore essential that the State government reconsiders how it goes about and in particular how
7
it pursues objectors who in the end all along may be proven to be right in certain issues but
because the State/Territorial government rely upon legal advisors who may know next to nothing
about what is constitutionally applicable then the State government, other then to provide so to
say a gold mine for the lawyers to keep them in a job it doesn’t at all act appropriately for the
5 general public. Instead of having if not thousands then hundreds of court cases about rates, etc, I
view it would be far more sensible if the State/Territorial governments were to reconsider its
positions and perhaps call an inquiry to assess what is actually constitutionally appropriate. I
will not delve into all the finer details in this correspondence about it but can assure you that you
might be in the end horrified citizens have been unduly so to say crucified in courts where they
10 all along had a rightful position in regard of certain objections but even the judiciary was blind to
it because after all they were all trained in the same manner and so not open-minded to what is
constitutionally applicable and justified.
.
QUOTE R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924)
15 'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'
END QUOTE
.
TAYLOR v. TAYLOR [1979] HCA 38; (1979) 143 CLR 1 (22 August 1979)
Similarly in Commissioner of Police v. Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383, at p 395, Dixon C.J. and
20 Webb J. said that
QUOTE
it is a deep-rooted principle of the law that before anyone can be punished or prejudiced in his person or
property by any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding he must be afforded an adequate opportunity of
being heard.
25 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just
interpretation of the Constitution:
30 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
Most of us, when we were candidates for election to the Federal Convention, placed great stress upon it
35 as affording a means of bringing justice within easy reach of the poor man.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
40 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
.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
45 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
50 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
55 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
What we now have is a considerable disaster where ordinary people were dragged through the
courts, perhaps had their property garnished to pay alleged unpaid land taxes where in the end
60 the State government could have avoided all this rot to some extend if it had years ago consulted
8
the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN as to constitutional matters. Innocent people in the process

had their lively and perhaps also their lives destroyed and all because State/Territorial
governments failed to appropriately consider constitutional matters, and lawyers involved simply
look at matters from their point of view rather from a constitutional point of view what is just and
5 proper.
As an example; there was the recent Victorian Colosimo case where I (as a professional
advocate, Attorney and CONSTITUTIONALIST) took over from the lawyer and despite more
then 20 opponent lawyers being involved in the case proved to the trial judge that Mr Colosimo
10 actually all along had not at all been in breach of law, even so he was by then was on his 6th
contempt hearing. As a matter of fact, the prosecutor had instituted the legal proceedings
incorrectly as the proceedings, by legislative provisions, only could be instituted in a magistrates
court, something all those lawyers never realised over all the years of their litigation against Mr
Colosimo. Also, I got rid of the Administration orders over Mr Colosimo showing that the expert
15 witnesses simply didn’t know what they were talking about because their (medical) assessments
all had been based upon Mr Colosimo being convicted of contempt, where as in fact I proved he
had not been even formally charged with contempt let alone convicted. As such, what we saw
was with all those lawyers involved, including the Office of the Public Advocate, Victorian
Legal Aid none of the lawyers could comprehend you first needed a formally charge a person
20 before you can hold all those contempt hearings let alone tell a defendant he could be imprisoned
for up to 5 years! His case also related to taxes, FEE SIMPLE, etc. Despite that a County court
judge Her Honour Harbison was presiding over matters she was acting as a Deputy President of
VCAT (Victorian civil and Administrative Tribunal) and by this in conflict of her legal duties as
an IMPARTIAL judicial officer of the County Court of Victoria also serving a master being a
25 State government as a judge but then with the obligation to act in accordance with the
governments policy as previously VCAT member Helen Gibson made clear to Mr Colosimo.
.
QUOTE
30 Mr. O'CONNOR: You cannot ask a judge to serve two masters.
END QUOTE
In my view no judicial officer can be a judge of a Court of law and also be a judge on a Tribunal
as the Framers of the constitution referred to a retired judge to be dealing with a tribunal.
35 Likewise so with a Court of disputed Returns as judges acting on a tribunal are causing confusion
to the general community who belief to be appearing before a judge in his impartial position as a
judge of a court of law but actually ending up being before a judge of a Tribunal how is acting in
the capacity of “persona designata”
.
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
45 .
Yet we find that throughout the Commonwealth of Australia people are seeking to stand up for
their constitutional rights and Mr Robert Pincevic is one of many, and are rebuked for this and
severely castigated in the process as if they do not know what they are talking about where in
fact the courts themselves and the lawyers appearing before it generally haven’t got a clue what
50 they are talking about because their training during legal studies has prevented them to
understand and comprehend the true meaning and application of the (federal) constitution.
Hence, let the State of NSW commence to hold an inquiry so as to curtail all this litigation about
State, municipal and shire rates and for once and for all try to get some proper understanding by
all concerned what is really constitutionally applicable.
55 .
9
As I understand it there are various groups who so to say are sucking people of their hard earned
monies to protest against rates/taxes and then are no where to be found when a person ends up in
court with the objections and no matter how justified the objectionist might be the courts lack the
knowledge and the skill to appropriately consider constitutional matters because it will be
5 claimed that as there is legislation then so be it and this is precisely unconstitutional as the courts
must consider any objection to legislation as to upon constitutional basis and not merely accept
the word of the government lawyers for it.
.
I will not go into further details about this at this time but save to state that I am horrified as to
10 the numerous cases that are clogging the courts and I know very well that this got nothing to do
with JUSTICE because eventual more then likely the courts will rule against the objector, not
because the objector might be wrong but because we lack any proper system to advise the
Government, the People, the courts and the Parliament as to what is constitutionally applicable.
Hence the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN so to say has taken up the baton to do so, not for
15 individual cases but to try to stop this rot and so in the interest of all concerned. In the meantime
I view that all State/Territorial government should call a halt to all litigations and have them all
stayed pending matters to be appropriately considered. Obviously time is of an essence that such
inquiry/investigation is not unduly protracted as you cannot have State/Territorial governments
and/or municipal/shire councils running out of funds while at the same time you cannot persist in
20 litigation against any citizen who might be constitutionally be in his right!.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
25 provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
.
30 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
35 .
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T! (As you may say; We either have
a constitution or we don’t!)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYYS PREVAIL® has been operating (without government funding) as
a special lifeline service and as such I am well aware of the mental, emotional and financial
40 hardship caused upon so many to the extend that people contemplate to commit suicide and yet at
least I view it to be so, the State/Territorial government can resolve many of the issues by
holding a proper inquiry so that finally many misconceptions, etc, can be so to say laid to rest.
After all, every suicide cost the community also a lot of money and so why not spend the money
in a far better manner and hold an open and transparent inquiry and in the process serve the
45 constituents as they all along are entitled upon?
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.
Our name is our motto!

50 .
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)


100929-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - Etc

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

100929-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - Etc

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

Premier Kristina Keneally 31-8-2010

31-8-2010 Re: State Land tax – etc Page 1

31-8-2010 Re: State Land tax – etc Page 3

Mr. BARTON: That would not be a case of two separable propositions.

31-8-2010 Re: State Land tax – etc Page 4

31-8-2010 Re: State Land tax – etc Page 5

the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN as to constitutional matters. Innocent people in the process

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Our name is our motto!

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

Вам также может понравиться