Gerrit, Did You Mean NAZI Germany?: Constitutionalist

z3
ISSUE: 20181108- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 23B-NAZI Australia
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, did you mean NAZI Germany?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, no NAZI Australia. As I am Jewish in bloodline I can and
will below to some degree explain some issues. Hence this PRESS RELEASE will be of some
pages alright.
I am not particular myself a book reader but recently started to read a second book in 60 years
and well it was from Author Frank McDonough with the title THE GESTAPO. THE MYTH
AND REALITY OF HITLER’S SECRET POLICE. ISBN 978-1-473-65242-2
As page 3 it states:
QUOTE
In the immediate post-1945 period, historians viewed Nazi Germany as an all-powerful totalitarian
dictatorship. During this period, numerous studies appeared. Most were written by historians outside
Germany. Hannah Arendt, in her deeply influential book The Origins of Totalitarianism, suggested that all
totalitarian regimes rely on a secret police to instil fear into the mind of every citizen to ferociously repress all
signs of discontent. She also argued that the key task of all totalitarian secret police force was not to discover
crimes, but to arrest people categorized as ’enemies of the state’. She also highlighted that the role of the
population was crucial in denouncing opponents.2 within this totalitarian framework of analysis, Adolf Hitler
was portrayed as the all-powerful ’
Master of the Third Reich’. German people were supposedly brainwashed by Nazi propaganda.3
END QUOTE
Note the word “instil” was copied as was in the book!

* Are you seeking to indicate this kind of brainwashing is now in Australia?
**#** In my view this is what is going on. We have mountains of legislation purportedly anti-
terrorism when in fact the legislation itself is in my view a form of terrorism upon the population.
If there was any genuine intent to stop terrorism by others then the first thing that should have
been done, as I so often have requested, is a ROYAL COMMISSION into the armed
unconstitutional invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq. And then where it is concluded that those in
government violated constitutional restrictions, etc, then those persons should be put on trial to
be held legally accountable for their wrongdoings. It is in this manner that I view you combat
terrorism of others as some sort of revenge. What we have however is that the general public is
brainwashed to the need of more and more legislation which in reality does nothing to combat
terrorism. The legislation in its self is a form of terrorism upon the general community.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/27/when-to-call-a-terrorist-a-terrorist/
When to Call a Terrorist a Terrorist
The attack in Pittsburgh was an act of domestic terrorism. We should call it that.By Daniel Byman
QUOTE
Expert and legal definitions, by contrast, tend to be more precise. Bruce Hoffman, a leading scholar in
this field, defines terrorism as a sub-state group’s use of political violence (or the threat of it) in order
to create a broader psychological impact. The U.S. government similarly defines terrorism as “the
p1 8-11-2018 Part B © 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
unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government,
the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
As I’ve previously written, these definitions stress violence, politics, and the broader impact that the
terrorists want to create. Whether a person kills innocents in the name of the Islamic State or the Ku
Klux Klan—or, for that matter, mows down 10 people with a van out of allegiance to a movement that
channels male sexual frustration—it’s not the type or legitimacy of the political cause that matters.
Rather, it is simply that the attacker had one, regardless of how stupid it might be.
END QUOTE
However, we should be too well aware that terrorism is an ongoing conduct within the
Parliaments. And to my understanding this is ongoing eventuating in the Federal Parliament.
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from the time I am
taking now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in the Senate. I admit that his
surmise is quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on whom this terrorism could not be
practised, or on whom, if practised, it would probably not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of
weaker minds and wills, and I say that, as far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely
necessary to put some provision in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being
intimidated in the way indicated. We have been frittering away the first principles of the Federal
Constitution long enough.
END QUOTE
Each time the government side pursues for example a short or not at all debate on bills before the
Senate then this really is nothing less than a form of terrorism. We have bills passed by merely
reportedly 7 Senators attending (Re Bail-in bill) as a form of trickery and one has to ask why
have all those Senators in the Senate if this form of terrorism is the product. We elect Senators to
represent their constituents and clearly this is not eventuating.
In my view the Commonwealth has absolutely no legislative powers for a bill like the bail-in Bill
because it effectively means that it takes the belongings of private individuals and others and
gives it to some bank(s) who is/are wasting the monies WITHOUT APPROPRIATE
COMPENSATION.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect
of which the Parliament has power to make laws;
END QUOTE
As such, the Commonwealth must compensate private shareholders/organizations/etc where it by

legislation robs them of their financial possessions either directly or indirectly. You cannot have
that the Federal Government pays a person’s pension, etc, into a bank account and then authorize
the bank to embezzle it in some way and not have to compensate for the monies. While the
Commonwealth can legislate as to banks, other than state banks, it can however not interfere
with the legal entitlements of any person/organization of holdings into a bank.
We have ongoing more and more so called anti-terrorism legislation and yet who is the real
terrorist one has to ask? What really does it achieve?
In my view it was former Prime Minister John Howard and his fellow party members who
unconstitutionally invaded Afghanistan/Iraq. Real anti-terrorism legislation would be to place
him and others on trial for war crimes/mass murder/crimes against humanity/treason, etc. I do not
condone any form of violence but I can understand that people who have been wronged such as
for example have family members murdered in their home country then may seek to pursue a
revenge against those countries who did so. Again, by holding those politicians legally
accountable for their wrongdoings it the only way to address anti-terrorism issues.

Here we have all this costly kind of processes to use a sim card and time and time again I am
advised that I cannot activate a simcard. In the latest incident I had to deal with overseas call
centre which seems to have a problem with English. So when I spell out my Christian name
“Gerrit” and even spell it also as G for George, E for Edward (or E for Echo) R for Romeo, R for
Romeo, I for India and T for Tango then I am told that the simcard cannot be validated using my
driver’s license. I then use my Medicard and again spell it out and I am advised that this too is
rejected. In the end I ask for a manager and well the whole process starts all over. Obviously I
cannot see what the call centre operator types into his/her computer. And the last time it turned
out that the operator was typing in Garret. So much for me to repeat the spelling and the operator
still types in incorrectly my Christian name. The same with the hyphen in my surname, they at
times instead tope in the underscore. Not uncommon I am prevented to activate a simcard
because of those so to say idiots who are in the call c entre and do not know how to type in my
names correctly. Time and time again I am given the understanding that I should go to a local
centre to activate a simcard. How on earth can this kind of nonsense be anti-terrorism? Let’s be
clear about it if you happen to find some mobile you could use it for terrorism without needing to
Have the existing simcard being activated. Also, one can activate a simcard without needing to
be the person one claims to be. I was recently given the understanding by a person that he uses
all kinds of different identities such as to purchase properties so that none of them are in fact
traced to this person. It appears that if you pursue a loan to purchase something you need proper
identity documentation however if you purchase properties cash then you can use any fictitious
name to avoid detecting to your real identity.
As I understand it in South Australia a woman can have her driver’s license with her wearing a
piece of clothing in front of her face so you really identify the driver. As such, another woman
can use this driver’s license and then activate a simcard even if attending in person to a
telecommunication company store this as they are not checking the identity of the person hidden
behind the clothing covering the face. As such this entire purported anti-terrorism legislation is
totally undermined by any State that allows this kind of hidden face.
We are living in a western society and anyone who therefore seeks to reside in this society
MUST accept westerns society’s conditions. One is that we ordinary look at a person’s face. It
might be that a person states something but is smiling. Facial expressions area critical part of
communication. Also, if I were to have my driver’s license use by another person much younger
then I am then staff would be able to see that the other person may not appear to be of the age
shown on my driver’s license. However, when a woman hidden behind a piece of clothing
presents a driver’s license then how can anyone know if this is the real person of which the
details are shown on the driver’s license or some imposter?
* I can see you really made your point in regard of that.
**#** There is this debate about legislation to enable soldiers to move into the States. Well, let
us first consider what the Framers of the Constitution stated with other quotations:
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE
119 Protection of States from invasion and violence
The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the
Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence.
END QUOTE
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have

borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes
or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those
who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its
makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in
which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my
opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence

available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an
exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not
mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means
trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a
social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the
Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
(Mr. DIBBS:) We now come to a most dangerous point in connection with the proceedings of this
Convention. I hope that the 4th resolution, dealing with the question of military and naval defence, will
receive the most anxious consideration of the delegates. I hope that the words which fell last evening from the
lips of the hon. member, Sir George Grey-words which bear the weight of great experience-will be taken to
heart by those who may form the federal government. The question of creating a standing army is one
which, to my mind, is almost more repulsive than the question of readjustment of territorial
boundaries. It means the existence in our midst of a certain number of idle men-men sharpening their
knives and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of fleshing them on the people of their own
country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australia-federated Australia, I may take it, because the
matter is one which applies to the whole-have no enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute
with us the possession of the soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New
Zealand, for the territory the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves. We have no enemies within,
and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of any assault on the mother country by her
enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a standing army proves a menace to the people of
Australia by the existence of an armed force for unlawful purposes. This question of the creation of a
military force is one of the blots upon these resolutions. We want no military force within New South
Wales. All we want to do is to make every man who is either a native of the soil, or one of ourselves by
reason of his taking up his residence amongst us, prepare to resist possible invasion from without. Who
are our enemies? Who are our enemies but the enemies of England, and they, so long as we remain
under the Crown, will be dealt with by an outer barrier, an outer bulwark in the defence of Australia,
in the shape of the navy of Old England. But we have no enemies within, and there is no necessity to fasten
the curse of a standing army upon us. As was pointed out by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, yesterday,
in his interesting speech, we have no necessity to keep a large standing army at a large cost to the people of
the country, [start page 185] when we have no enemies with whom they will have to fight. Our own police
are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within. In the event of invasion from without, so long as
we remain under the Crown, our enemies, being the enemies of England, will be dealt with before ever an
attempt is made to invade these shores; and when the day of invasion comes the people of this country will
rise as one man to defend their hearths and homes from any possible aggressor. I look upon the question of
the creation of a military power within a territory under the Crown as a menace to the people who are to
continue as British subjects. We have been sent here by our various parliaments to frame a constitution
under the Crown-under the Crown, bear in mind. That is the idea which has been put forward in every speech
that has been made. I presume, then, that the members of the Convention are prepared at once to give the go-
by altogether to the idea of imperial federation. So long as we remain in our present position as individual
colonies, we are imperially federated, and we can be imperially federated in no stronger manner than
in connection with our relation to the mother country. We are as much imperially federated as the people
living in the cities of London, Liverpool, Manchester, or other large centres of population. We are a portion
of the British Crown, joined together by the most solemn ties and obligations; and we have to bear the
brunt of any misfortune which may fall upon us in connection with any attack upon our shores by
reason of our enemies being the common enemies of England. We have already made certain provision,
partially of a federal character, to assist the Imperial Government in the protection of our shores from
without; but let us set our faces as a young nation-if I may use the word "nation" in advance-against standing
armies; let us set our face once and for ever against the creation of anything like a military despotism.
We are met here under the Crown, and I must say that, as one possessing a slight tinge of republican
notions, as one who sees that the future of Australia is to be what was prophesied of it fifty years ago,
by poets who have written of what the future of Australia is to be-having a certain tinge of
republicanism in my nature, the result naturally of my being a descendant of an Englishman, I was
surprised to find a gentleman occupying a position under the Crown proposing what 100 years ago
would have been simply regarded as high treason. Why, the other day the hon. member, Mr. Munro, made
a proposal with regard to one phase of the question which made me ejaculate, "One strand of the painter has
gone."
Mr. MUNRO: What was that?
Mr. DIBBS: The hon. member proposed to take from us, as British subjects, the chartered right which we
possess of appeal to the Crown.
Mr. MUNRO: I did not. I spoke in the other direction!
Mr. DIBBS: The hon. member spoke of establishing our appeal court, and of doing away with the
necessity of appealing to the Privy Council. The hon. member suggested that we should have our appeal
court, and that there would be no necessity for sending cases to the Privy Council of England.
Mr. MUNRO: I said the reverse!
Mr. FITZGERALD: The hon. member said the opposite!
Hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
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
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-
It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be obeyed, because a
majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.
END QUOTE
Re: "Mainstream Media," "Deep State," and "What's this got to do with Con-law?"
People (29-10-2018)
 Robert Sheridan <rs@robertsheridan.com>
QUOTE
> And finally the question I see here repeatedly, “What’s this got to do with Conlaw?”
>
> “Everything,” perhaps, only some are so close to the situation that they can’t see it,
like the blind men and the elephant.
>
> Poor elephant.
>
> What did fascism have to do with Germany after WWI?
>
> Not a thing, right?
>
> Just some passing fad having nothing to do with Germany’s essence and laws.
>
> Suddenly, or not so suddenly, Germany was flattened to rubble by allied bombs
before it surrendered. Again. And Hitler was dead in a bunker, we’re told. And
Germany was carved up into pieces by the victors for generations while a lot of
Germans starved until the victors stepped up.
>
> And then fascism had everything to do with the way Germany was constituted, on
paper and in the air.
>
> Fascism is a virus that strikes at countries having fancy constitutions or no
constitutions.
>
> Asking whether fascism in America has anything to do with Con-law is like asking
what fascism had to do with Germany.
>
> Nothing, you could say, until it means everything.
>
> Some viruses you don’t want to get loose for fear of another epidemic that ends in a
mushroom cloud.

>
> Call the Center for Disease Control.
>
> ASAP
>
> -rs
END QUOTE
Re: Weimar and the US constitutions

People
 Robert Sheridan <robertsheridan625@gmail.com>

 (26-10-2018)
QUOTE
On 10/25/2018 6:52 PM, Levinson, Sanford V wrote:

> It is often said that a major reason for the German descent in 1933 was Article 48 of the Weimar
Constitution, which granted the president significant “emergency powers” that could, among other
things, allow the negation of parliamentary power. Thus even those political scientists who seemed
generally skeptical about the importance of constitutionally ordained formal structures seemed willing
to place a great deal of blame on Article 48. It didn’t “cause” Hitler, but it is thought by some to have
been a necessary condition for his rise to power, especially given the belief by a number of German
conservatives that he could in fact be controlled. In retrospect, they all seem like useful idiots, but
perhaps in 1932 their hopes were “reasonable.”
>
> So consider the fact that as part of his efforts basically to make the elections coming up an almost
Schmittian national referendum rallying his “friends” against the hated “enemies,” Trump is evoking the
American version of “emergency powers” nowhere found in the Constitution (save for insurrections and
invasions), but delegated to the president by both Democratic and Republican congresses since World War II
and elaborated by friendly lawyers in OLC and, increasingly, the Supreme Court. Does anyone believe there
is “genuine” reason to send troops to the Mexican border to defend us against the threat posed by a hoard of
pathetic refugees seeking asylum? Jules Lobel, of course, wrote a classic article on this. There have been
attempts to rein in such powers, but I think it’s fair to say to little or no avail.
>
> There are lots of relevant differences between Germany in 1933 and the US today. But should we consider
the possibility that both of the countries’ formal constitutional systems placed way too much power in the
hands of presidents with regard to declaring emergencies, which, besides triggering formal legal powers
perhaps otherwise unavailable, served also as effective tools for totally unscrupulous and lying demagogues
like Trump and the desperate GOP politicians trying to hang on to power by the demonization of “enemies”
and the mindless rallying around a would-be maximum leader? Where is Madison when we need him?
The answer was given by Pildes and Levinson. It’s the party system, not the formal separation of
powers, that explains our actual politics. And it’s the party system, including its instantiation in the
federal judiciary, that may be literally killing us.
>
> The ruthless rejection of Merrick Garland, a thoroughly centrist judge, by the GOP, was in its own
way an Ackermanian constitutional moment, announcing to one and all that judges were indeed
nothing more than politicians in robes, selected to carry out the agenda of the political party
appointing them. Why exactly should we be teaching our students to have respect for such a system?
>
> Sandy
END QUOTE
QUOTE

Re: former Bush official Bruce Bartlett: Trump not living up to Hitler's legacy -
[PEACE]
People
 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>

 (24-10-2018)
To
Attachments
 TEXT.txt
Message body
'tubes are censored in Oz again. For any fellow Aussies missing out
on the "good oil" :D , try these instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgxEGQ4DNYs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcQHFHs2V8I
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 06:00:22PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

> Did not expect this one!
>
> Former Bush senior aide, Bruce Bartlett is entirely dissatisfied with
> Trump's performance so far, clearly suggesting Trump is failing to
> live up to Hitler's standard.
>
> That's rather funny given that Trump recently said “You Know What I
> Am? I’m a Nationalist”:
> https://dailystormer.name/you-know-what-i-am-im-a-nationalist/
>
> which of course the ki^Byids^BJewish media are flipping out royally
> over:
> Yids Flip Lids Over Trump’s “I am a Nationalist” Declaration
> https://dailystormer.name/yids-flip-lids-over-trumps-i-am-a-nationalist-declaration/
>
>
>
> Bruce Bartlett's shocking tweets:
> Hitler was BETTER than Trump, ex-Reagan & Bush official hints
> in a tweet
> https://www.rt.com/usa/442082-trump-hitler-favorable-twitter/
END QUOTE
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-19/authority-creep-has-more-agencies-accessing-your-
metadata/10398348
Metadata laws under fire as 'authority creep' has more agencies accessing your
information
By political reporter Melissa Clarke
QUOTE
More government agencies are accessing people's phone and internet records than originally envisaged, in
what critics are describing as "authority creep".
Key points:
 Access to metadata was initially restricted to 22 government agencies, but state-based agencies have
blown that figure out
 Because they are accessing metadata and not content of communications, no warrant is required
 It is not known how many agencies are now able to request metadata
Controversial laws which came into force last year compel telecommunications companies to retain metadata
on their customers, including information on who you call or text, where you make calls from, and who you
send emails to.
To allay privacy concerns, access to the metadata was limited to 22 specific police and intelligence agencies,
such as the Australian Federal Police, ASIO and state police forces.
But a parliamentary hearing has been told that number has blown out.
"There are many more than 22 agencies," John Stanton from Communications Alliance, the industry peak
body, said.
"Many state-based agencies have come forward and started using their own state-based powers to request
metadata.
"Authority creep, I guess you might call it."

The Communications Alliance told the parliamentary hearing telcos are getting around 1,000 requests for
metadata each day.
It is not clear exactly how many agencies are now able to request access to stored metadata.
Because they are accessing the metadata and not the content of communications, the agencies are not required
to get a warrant.
Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus expressed concern, noting access to stored metadata was supposed
to be tightly restricted.
"It's a specified group of 22, reduced at the time of the mandatory data retention legislation going through
from the previous very wide group of around 80."
What constitutes a 'systemic weakness'?
The concerns were raised in hearings held by the powerful Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence
and Security.
The Committee is examining proposed laws about how agencies can access password-protected devices and
the content of communications, including encrypted data.
What you found in Will's metadata

(IMAGE NOT REPRODUCED)
We published ABC reporter Will Ockenden's metadata in full and hundreds of you helped analyse it. Here's
what you got right — and wrong.
Critics have described the 'Assistance and Access' bill as forcing companies to give the Government "back-
door" access to their customers' devices and data — something the Federal Government and national security
agencies refute.

The legislation explicitly prohibits companies from being compelled to build "systemic weaknesses" into
their technology for the benefit of police and intelligence agencies.
But what that means has not been defined.
"A systemic weakness means different things to different companies, and different things in different
circumstances," Mr Dreyfus said.
"Who is going to decide what the systemic weakness is? Is it going to be the agency or is it going to be the
tech company?"
Home Affairs Department secretary Michael Pezzullo told the committee hearing that authorities and
companies will work together to determine what constitutes a "systemic weakness".
He said police and intelligence agencies don't want "back doors" to be built into systems any more than the
telcos or the public.
What is metadata?
(IMAGE NOT REPRODUCED)
What is metadata and how might it impact whistleblowers in media and politics?
"A systemic weakness would be something which would be universal, and therefore subject to the technical
capacity of someone wishing to attack that weakness, [it] would be available to all attackers.
"That is the last thing we want."

Duncan Lewis, the director-general of spy agency ASIO, also sought to reassure critics, telling the
parliamentary committee his agency is only interested in a small amount of data relevant to their
investigations.
"I'll describe it as similar to using a pair of precision tweezers to extract a needle from a communication
haystack," he said.
"We're looking to communication providers to help us pick that needle out of the haystack."
END QUOTE
As I indicated in past writings I view the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to cause
peoples medical records to be on the internet without their prior permission to do so. It is not for
an opt-out system but that the Commonwealth cannot unilaterally take away a person’s right.
Many a person may not know how to go about using a computer let alone how to prevent the
commonwealth to publish their confidential details on the internet without their prior consent.
What we likely will end up is that insurance companies will use doctors to access the insured
medical records and then increase their premiums for certain persons while denying others to be
insured.

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I want to know from what point of view this can be called federal? We keep our
property; we are left to the free exercise of our brains and bodies; there is no
interference with the individual; state rights are to be preserved. Surely, collaterally
with that, state rights ought to be preserved too.
END QUOTE

When we look at Brazil with reportedly the third largest white population in the world after the
USA and Russia then we can see that if you get someone into power who may have a certain
agenda then being “Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution” or the so called Anti-Terrorism legislation
that is as some avalanche pushed through the Parliament(s) to infiltrate the privacy of ordinary
citizens.
https://dailystormer.name/memetic-election-live-bolsonaro-holocausts-the-vote-90000000-
whites-getting-military-government/
Bolsonaro Holocausts The Vote: 90,000,000 Whites Getting Nationalist Military
Government
https://dailystormer.name/bolsonaro-says-hell-put-military-on-the-streets/
Bolsonaro Says He’ll Put Military on the Streets
It also is a cover up conduct to get access to metadata, etc, where those in government can then
check who was a whistleblower and then deal with this person.
I have in the past written about ASIO being in my view a dangerous terrorist group that Robert
Menzies used to harm political adversaries, such as to prevent them from getting employment,
etc. There is to my understanding no constitutional power for the Commonwealth to use ASIO as
it does. Neither to have any person detained and deny the person to notify others his/her
whereabouts without formal procedures that allow an ordinary citizen his/her freedom and to
challenge any incursion into his/her privacy.

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
As such, no ex party court orders where a person is denied his/her legal right to challenge any
allegations against him/her. Arbitrary detention of any citizen is clearly beyond the powers of the
Commonwealth. As for detention of those who as aliens enter the country S51(xxvi) specifically
allowed for the Commonwealth to legislate against such a group of persons and to detain them
albeit without punishment where they are to be held unlawfully in the Commonwealth of
Australia

QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE
Let us now consider what Mr Brandt is recorded in the Hansard to have stated:
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/c12e83ea-26d1-4933-9867-
1f47c94a7d1c/toc_pdf/House%20of%20Representatives_2018_10_22_6627.pdf;fileType=application/pdf
QUOTE
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:24): There are a lot of freedoms and rights that we enjoy in Australia that
make us the stable, peaceful democracy that we are. Indeed, so desired are we as a place to live that so
many people around the world want to come here and live here. A big part of that is that there are,
unlike in a number of other countries, a number of basic freedoms that we can all take for granted.
When we respond to threats to Australia, we need to be careful that we don't pass legislation that
actually takes away some of those rights and freedoms. In this instance, with the Defence Amendment
(Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018, where we're dealing with a bill that brings about a
very significant shift in the role of the military in Australia, this is a time for careful and considered
discussion, for nuance and for restrictions to make sure that our freedoms are in fact defended.
In Australia, we are not used to seeing the military on our streets. We're used to seeing a police force on
our streets and we accept that as a community; but we are not used, as they are in many other countries,
to seeing the military out on the streets. That's because we have a clear understanding in this country
that the police have the role of preserving law and order domestically, whereas our military—our
defence forces—are trained to do a different job. They're trained to defend the country. They're trained
to go overseas and fight wars or they're trained to defend us should we be attacked here. They're trained
in a very different matter. Police forces will have an emphasis on keeping the peace. In the military, in a
conflict situation, it is a very, very different environment and you are trained for different things and for
different objectives.
As is the case in this bill, if we have legislation that comes to us that says, 'We now want to expand the
circumstances in which the military can be put onto the streets in Australia,' you would expect that there
would be some very significant checks and balances in there, you would expect that it would be very
highly restricted and you would expect that it was there to deal proportionately with threats that we are
facing. You might expect, given what you've heard some speakers say on this bill so far, that this bill—
which allows for the call-out of military personnel and the defence forces into the streets in Australia—
was limited to terrorism or had some role in relation to cybersecurity attacks. If that was the case, we
might be able to have a debate about it.
Given that this bill arose out of an inquiry dealing with the Lindt siege and some problems that were
found there with our laws allowing for the call-out of certain forces, is it there a definition of terrorism
or does this bill pick up existing definitions and does this bill talk about the limited instances in which
we could call personnel out? That's not what this bill does at all. Every speaker so far has used the threat
of terrorism to justify this bill. Pretty much everyone in Australia would want to make sure that we are
in a position to deal with threats of terrorism. But this bill goes much further. This bill allows the call-
out of the ADF onto our streets not when there's terrorism and not when there's even exceptional
circumstances but when there's so-called 'specified' circumstances. That is not even defined in the bill.
That should give a lot of people some great cause for concern. When all of a sudden, now at the whim of
a minister or of a government, the military can be called out onto our streets and there's virtually no
restriction—legally, in the bill—on how and when that could happen, that should give people grave
cause for concern. That's why the Law Council of Australia has said that they are very, very concerned
that, under the proposed sections 33 and 35 of the bill, it raises the risk that:
… ministers will feel it necessary to call out defence forces, on a routine basis, in order to enhance the State or
Territory's ability to protect itself or Commonwealth interests without exceptional circumstances …
Now, given everything that people have said so far in speaking to this bill—that the government and the
opposition are on another unity ticket—there should be no reason we can't amend this bill to limit the
ability to call out the Defence Force to exceptional circumstances only. That should cover all the
instances that they've raised—but no.
Allowing this wide-ranging ability to bring the Defence Force out onto our streets is something that
most people in this country would not agree with if they knew it was happening. And this is not in any
way a slight either to our police forces, who are currently doing this job, or to the defence forces who
are being referred to in the bill. It's about us as parliamentarians deciding what is the dividing line
between the two, and in what instances we think it is okay to become one of those countries where it's
the military that is on the streets doing the policing. I would argue, and I think most people in the
country would argue, that you would want that to happen in only the rarest of circumstances and you
would want there to be some significant checks and balances on ministers who do that so that the
Defence Force is not called out when there's a big disturbance that some might characterise as a protest,
that it's not called out because it's seen that there is a threat to a way a particular business is operating—
that it's only used in legitimate circumstances. But that's not what this bill does.
That is why the Law Council is ringing the alarm bells about this bill and saying, to paraphrase them,
that we're potentially about to trade off some of the rights that this bill is supposedly about defending.
And it goes further in that respect. Under this bill, when the defence forces are called out, they will have
the power to take away a number of our civil liberties. For example, you lose the right to silence in a
number of respects, and personnel who are called out are able to demand that you answer certain
questions and do certain things. Again, maybe in an emergency situation, in an exceptional situation,
that's something the Australian public would accept. But the bill isn't limited to that; it's basically
limited to whenever the minister wants, more or less. Given that huge breadth, is it right that, when that
provision is triggered by a federal government or by a state government, all of a sudden as a citizen you
lose some of your right to silence? Again, I think, if people knew that that was what is being proposed
here, they wouldn't agree with that either. But that's what we're being asked to support.
It's something that, again, the Law Council, together with Lawyers for Human Rights, have said should
be amended in this bill. It should be narrowed, given the grave threat to our civil liberties and to our
human rights that are in the bill. I stress the point: most people in this country are up for the discussion
about whether we've got the balance right. But what is really worrying is when governments use horrific
incidents to then engage in a process of overreach and say, 'The only thing that will prevent that
happening again in the future is to trade away your rights in a variety of other respects.'
Again I make the point that this bill is not limited to terrorism. This bill is not limited to terrorism. It's
expansive, and it covers a very, very broad range of situations. Not only is there the power to force
people to answer questions, the loss of the right to silence; it goes together with the power to have your
property seized and your personal liberty restricted. That's in an instance where there is a threat to a
person's health or safety—not where there's a terrorist threat to the nation but where someone could
potentially be seen as inconvenienced. It doesn't even need to be a threat to someone's life; it's a threat to
someone's safety. When that threshold is met, you lose your rights then as well.
It goes further, because it grants Defence Force personnel a much greater range of legal protections for
activities that might even be outside the purpose for which they were called out. What does that mean?
It means that, if a member of the Defence Force is called out to deal with a certain threat and they
exercise force as part of being called out, they would gain a much greater level of immunity for the
exercise of that force than, say, members of the police force, depending on which state or territory
you're in.
So that, again, has attracted the concern of the Law Council of Australia. They have made what I think
is a very sensible recommendation, which is: let's limit that to minor or technical noncompliance with
the obligations that are set out in the intent of the bill. That would seem to make a lot of sense, given
that, if you listen to some of the speeches in support of it, they're saying, 'There should be instances in
which—for example, where someone forgets to wear their name badge—even though it's something
they might be required to do, they shouldn't lose their protection just because they haven't done that.'
Well, if that's what the bill is about, let's limit it to that.
But what this does is something much, much broader. For example, there could be an exercise of
violence in this situation where someone is called out; it might be inadvertent; it could result in someone
being seriously injured or dying. You may have no recourse in that situation because of the effect of this
bill.
Again, most people would be up for a discussion about it. We understand that, in situations, for
example, where there are legitimate acts of terrorism, people are required to make decisions very
quickly, and people are doing it to protect life, limb and property. Most people in Australia are up for a
discussion of and understanding about the difficulties of acting in that situation. We just need to think
back to the Lindt siege.
But what people aren't up for is the removal of the checks and balances that allow us to have the
confidence in our institutions that we currently have. There's a simple answer to that, which is: listen to
what people like the Law Council are saying when they say that this bill trades away many of the rights
that it is supposed to defend, or it is there to allow our Defence Force defend us from attacks, and go
back and have another look at getting the
balance right, because there are a number of experts in the field who've looked at the drafting and said,
'No. This goes much, much broader than what its stated purpose is. It goes much, much broader than
terrorism.'
The reason this is so significant—and here I come back to the point that I made at the start—is that not
only do you, as an individual citizen, lose a lot of your own rights when the provisions of this bill are
triggered, but it allows a line to be crossed. This bill allows a line to be crossed, where it's not the police
on our streets who are keeping law and order but the military.
We can and we should continue to have debates in this House about when our military are deployed
overseas. I and the Greens have argued for some time that we should have a parliamentary debate before
we deploy troops overseas. It should come here, at a minimum, to parliament, and parliament should be
involved in the process, as is the case with many other democracies. And there's a lot of support for that.
I understand that there are some arguments against it, but there is a lot of public support for the idea that
we should have that debate here.
I think people would want the standard to be even higher when it comes to calling out the military on
our own streets not because we're calling them out to deal with a crisis from a natural disaster—and
those crises are going to become all the more common under climate change—but when we're calling
them out to deal with another kind of incident. I think people would want to know that we haven't
crossed the line to the point where it becomes, potentially, normal to have that happen—where, in
response to a law and order issue, it becomes normal to call out the military onto our streets. But that is
the road that this bill is taking us down, the Law Council and others are telling us.
The bill should not pass in its current form. The drafters should go back and pare it back to what they
say is its intention. Let's deal with exceptional circumstances. Let's limit the ability to remove people's
rights. If the government is serious that that's what it's all about, then they should have no objection to
doing that. So, in its current form, this bill cannot be supported.
END QUOTE
In my view any use of (armed) federal forces where there is no actual “domestic violence”
(meaning: civil unrest that includes violence) then the armed forces cannot be deployed, this
even so this eventuates time and time again when meetings and games as examples are held.
We must curtail rather expand the ADF/ASIO/AFP, etc forces.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
QUOTE
let us set our face once and for ever against the creation of anything like a military despotism.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
END QUOTE
This means the so called Australian federal Police cannot operate within state boundaries either
as it was made very clear that “Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.”.

However what has eventuated is so to say citizens have been “conditioned” (brainwashed) to
accept federal forces under whatever identity they may operate to go about within state
jurisdictions.
I have as a Professional Advocate represented parties including lawyers and on who was a
barrister for 22 years already I represented on 4coccasions. If I had to represent a party that was
subject to federal forces incursions into State jurisdictions then I would certainly so to say have
had a ball game with that. Regretfully I view we lack competent judicial officers who understand
the true meaning and application of the constitution and this means they are sidelining genuine
constitutional arguments/submissions by their brainwashed condition. By this people are
defeated in their cases not because they were legally wrong but because they happen to appear
before an incompetent judicial officer.
With Germany, as I understand it, the GESTAPO was a mere police force and when the order
went out that Jews had to declare their possessions, etc. then the leaders of the Jews synagogues I
view were collaborating with the Gestapo to give all details. This might have been so they may
themselves be allowed to stay. However, I view there can be no excuse for this conduct. As I
understand it the success of the Gestapo rested upon the assistance of the ordinary citizens. . As I
understand it some high ranking persons serving under Adolf Hitler were homosexuals and Jews.
Reportedly Adolf Hitler himself was a child of a Jewish mother and so this whole Jewish issue
was I view a cover up as to get people being Jews, homosexuals and other to the regime
undesired elements to end up in working camps referred to as concentration camps.
Some of my Jewish family members who died in Auschwitz

QUOTE
Samuel David Milhado (42) (maternal family) died at Auschwitz 28-2-1943. His wife (41)
died there also on 15-10-1942, as did on that day their children Clara Cato (7), David
Joshua (5) and Cato Rachel (2) (all also on 15-10-1942.
END QUOTE
As such I do have a personal interest to the truth rather than accepting the mantra of those who
uses the dead of many, including many of my Jewish family to extort monies from Governments.
I have collected images of newspapers as far back as in the 1800s referring to 6 million Jews in a
holocaust.
See also: 20161231-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re 6
million Jews claims, etc & the constitution
“The Open Court” a in Chicago published monthly magazine dated May, 1897 No 492 refers to
“6 million” “their lives”.
As such in the century before Adolf Hitler came to power the 6 million was already going the
rounds as was the holocaust claim.
The American Jewish Year Book 5672 (September 23, 1911 to September 11, 1912 refers to at
page 308:
QUOTE
Russia has since 1890 adopted a deliberate plan to expel or exterminate six millions of its people.
END QUOTE
The 10th Edition of the encyclopedia Britannica (1902) Entry for ‘Antisemitism‘ refers to “6
million Jews”
When one were to put together all those claims about 6 million Jews even before WWII then it
amount to hundreds of millions Jews having been exterminated.
And this is how brainwashing is conducted in a slow manner. Tell a story and well repeat the lie
time and time again and mindless people will take it for granted. I however hold that my relatives
who died during the war about 96 of them) should not be used for financial exploitation by
others.
For sure wars are horrible but generally the winner has its propaganda that it was a some
righteous cause, never mind their own human rights abuses such as the reported to starving to
death their prisoners.
We have as I understand it the AntiFa (Anti Fascist) which to me seems to be operating like
terrorist. We had the experiences how during the SSM survey those in favour were actually
attacking those who promoted to status quo.
And this is what NAZI Australia is achieving. We have legislation regardless how
unconstitutional for the Australian Federal Police and the ADF (Australian Defense Force) to as I
view it infiltrate into the States. One day citizens may wake up and find that the state government
is no more as armed troops have taken over because some State Government refused to dance to
the (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) tune of the Federal government.

QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
We must not, however, be unmindful of the fact that there can be no federal government
without, to a large extent, the sacrifice of some portion of state rights; and when the word
"provinces" is used in this debate, I ignore its existence altogether. We have been, as it
were, chaffed out of our very existence. Those of us who have spoken within the walls of
this building, or who have spoken out of doors to our constituents, and have endeavoured,
in discussing the federal question, to take a strong view of the position in regard to the
defence of the rights of New South Wales, have been pulled to pieces, and called
provincialists. I object, in connection with the independent state of New South Wales-a
state as independent as any in the world, even England itself, so far as the freedom of our
position is concerned-to the word "province." There may be something more dignified in
the use of the word "state." We are not going to become provinces. I do not think we
are going to give up the individual rights and liberties which we possess, and which
those who have gone before us have fought for, to become mere provinces under a
federal form of government. We may take the more dignified form of "states." Whilst
we have endeavoured to put before the people of New South Wales, in these resolutions, a
sort of opiate, something assuring to their minds that in joining a federal union we give up
nothing of our territorial rights, words have been inserted in them which I shall do my
utmost in Committee to strike out-
except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to
the power and authority of the national federal government.
I do not know the meaning of these words, and no hon. gentleman who has yet spoken has
given any clear interpretation of them. It is sufficient for us, in enunciating a principle
upon which the basis of a constitution shall be prepared, to see that the territorial
rights and privileges of each colony shall be preserved to each state but when you
come to consider the condition of a surrender, and the question of the power of
enforcing such surrender is placed in the hands of the federal government, then your
provinces or your states will be no party to the proceeding.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN:
We know the tendency is always towards the central authority, that the central authority constitutes
a sort of vortex to which power gradually attaches itself. Therefore, all the buttresses and all the ties
should be the other way, to assist those who uphold the rights of the states from being drawn into this
central authority, and from having their powers finally destroyed. The whole history of federation in
America, whether it be the United States or Canada, has proved this: that the tendency is towards
centralisation, and away from that local government which is inseparable from freedom. I have
heard it said that those who advocate state rights are taking a conservative view of the question. I
would like to know since what time have centralisation and democracy been associated? Those who
advocate state rights advocate local government, under whose shadow alone democracy can exist.
There is nothing in common between centralisation and democracy, and if you handicap a house,
which is erected, to preserve state rights, what have you to prevent the establishment, in this huge
island of Australia, of a strong central government which is local only to one portion of the continent,
and as far as the rest of the continent is concerned is distant and central? I maintain that a central
government, just inasmuch as it never can be associated with the power of the people, is inseparably
associated with tyranny, arising either from ignorance or design-frequently from ignorance-because
a central and distant government can never properly appreciate the local conditions for which it is to
legislate. I [start page 708] am surprised that any one in this Convention should for one moment say
that to strengthen in every way the rights of the states, as such-to protect in every way the local
institutions-is the conservative mission. The whole history of federation has proved it is otherwise. It
was in the name of state rights, when the question of the Constitution of America was being
discussed, that the most fervent appeals to liberty that ever stirred the human breast were made, and
all those opposed to state rights were the conservatives, the monarchists of that time. The strongest
upholders of state rights from time to time have been those in favour of government by the people,
and it is only when you have state rights properly guarded, and safeguard local government, that you
can have government by the people. Government at a central and distant part is never government
by the people, and may be just as crushing a tyranny under republican or commonwealth forms as
under the most absolute monarchy. I do hope that hon. members will not allow themselves to be
hoodwinked in this matter. It seems that the crushing majority in favour of the state rights that are
essential to federation, which we had at the commencement of this discussion, has dwindled away. I
maintain that unless the state rights are in every way maintained-unless buttresses are placed to
enable them to stand up against the constant drawing towards centralisation-no federation can ever
take root in Australia. It will not be a federation at all. It will be from the very start a centralisation,
a unification, which, instead of being a guardian of the liberty of the people, will be its most distinct
tyrant, and eventually will overcome it.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE
Hansard 6-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GILLIES: We are not all agreed on the question of the establishment of a republic!
Dr. COCKBURN: There is no question of that. We want to establish such a commonwealth as will exist
with the least strained relations with the mother country. Nothing gives rise to such vexation as a veto upon
questions of domestic legislation. Take the case of Canada.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
. I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic,
and to establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be
responsible, the state of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in
view the formation of true responsible government.
END QUOTE
When one consider the 1948 Act regarding being a “British subject” then it makes it very clear
that “British subject” for regarding Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc, means a
“Commonwealth citizen”. As such being a citizen of the “Commonwealth of Nations” and not at
all being a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, as this is governed by being a State citizen.
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE
It is utter and sheer nonsense that a politician who may never have ventured outside the
commonwealth of Australia then by the laws of a foreign country could be held to violate s44 of
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK)without having done anything
personally to be disqualified.
This is what the Framers of the Constitution stated:
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain
external affairs, among which would probably be the right to negotiate for
commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as Canada has
negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and
privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal
Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act
for and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned
friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution,
where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the
empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom,
and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties,
but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they
neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think,
ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the
common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
END QUOTE

It is and would be utterly and totally absurd if the Government of the Day could willy nilly enter
in some treaty with any foreign state as to circumvent the constitutional limitations of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
As the Framers of the Constitution made very clear that treaties cannot be enforced unless they
fall within specific legislative powers provided to the Commonwealth. As such, a treaty
governing trade and commerce may be entered into and within the provisions of the constitution
applied within the Commonwealth of Australia provided it doesn’t in any shape or form conflict
with constitutional provisions. For example any treaty regarding trade and commerce that were to
violate the provisions of s116 would be null and void for so far it conflicts with the constitution.
What we seem to me to have however is the Commonwealth of Australia so to say having been
given a black cheque by the High Court of Australia to manipulate its powers regardless of
constitutional prohibitions/limitations.
KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia MURPHY J.
QUOTE
3. The Australian States have no international personality; unlike the
Commonwealth, they are not nation-states. Any purported treaty or agreement
between any or all the Australian States and a foreign country is a nullity.
States have entered into arrangements with other countries either in the
belief they could do so or because of the neglect of the Commonwealth to make
arrangements which were thought to be practically necessary (for example
overseas enforcement of maintenance for deserted wives and children,
interchange of information about criminals). All such arrangements are within
the exclusive authority of the Commonwealth. (at p237)
4. The executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government are
all concerned with Australia's external affairs.
The Executive Power with Respect to External Affairs. (at p237)
5. Constitutionally, the executive power over Australia's external affairs

comes within Ch.III - Eexecutive Government. It is part of the executive power
of the Commonwealth nominally vested in the Queen exercisable by the
Governor-General (s.61). The power is exercised on the advice of the Federal
Executive Council (s.62) and administered (pursuant to s.64 ) by the Minister

in charge of the Department now known as the Department of Foreign Affairs.
(at p237)
6. The executive power over external affairs is not unlimited. It is subject
to constitutional limitations, whether expressed, as in s.116 (freedom of

religion) or implied (for example separation of powers). Otherwise the
executive power in relation to external affairs, unless confined by
Parliament, is unconfined. (at p238)
7. For some few years after 1901 the Executive Government mostly failed to
exercise directly its authority in Australia's external affairs, perhaps
because of distraction in more pressing tasks of administering the domestic
affairs of the new Commonwealth or because of lack of expertise and the

geographical remoteness from the areas of presumed importance or because of
persistence of colonial mentality. It allowed Australia's external affairs to
be largely conducted through the United Kingdom Government. By the end of the
First World War however, Prime Minister Hughes was vigorously asserting
Australia's independence in external affairs (see Booker, The Great
Professional (1980)). Whatever the explanation for the early failure to
exercise the power directly, this does not affect the constitutional position
that the conduct of Australia's external affairs was from 1901 vested in
Australia's Executive Government. (at p238)
8. The subjects coming within the scope of external affairs as contemplated

in 1901 included all aspects of the relations between Australia and other
countries. The Constitution itself evidences that these extended to
treaty-making and the exchange of consuls and other representatives. By s.75 ,

the High Court was given original jurisdiction in all matters (i) arising
under any treaty, and (ii) affecting consuls or other representatives of other
countries. The position of these aspects of external affairs as the first two
subject-matters of the Court's original jurisdiction underlines the importance
of external affairs in the constitutional scheme. The treaties referred to in
s.75 must include treaties entered into by Australia. (at p238)

END QUOTE
It is hereafter that i view Murphy J went wrong to argue as a politician rather than as a impartial
judge. The commonwealth was in no position to be a member of the league of nations nor being
a member of the United nations that somehow dictates the commonwealth of Australia what it
can or cannot do as this violated the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900(UK) which provides
that We, the people elect our legislators and not some bunch of representatives of whatever
nation. Also, when one fast forwards to the massacre and destruction the Commonwealth of
Australia became involved with in Iraq then this so called UN resolutions are totally
meaningless. As I understand from reports that the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made
clear that only when the UN endorsed its intentions it would go to the UN but otherwise it would
be ignored.
At no time, at least to my knowledge did the Governor-General at the time publish in the Gazette
a DECLARATION OF WAR naming Iraq and as such I view that John Howard and others
violated the provisions of the Crimes Act (CTH) to attack and invade Iraq without approval by
the Governor-General. The mantra about international law to protect human rights clearly was
blatantly and unconstitutionally/illegally ignored by the Government of the day.
Also, Subsection 51(xxvi) was specifically included to avoid international law in any way
interfering with the Commonwealth of Australia to deport aliens, etc. it was never a provision to
aid races rather to the contrary to deprive aliens of equality. Hence the 1967 referendum to
include Aboriginals was in fact to rob Aboriginals of their equality of citizenship and so
constitutionally they are no longer entitled to vote in federal elections neither entitled to sit as a
Member of Parliament in the federal Parliament.
I have written extensively in the past about these issues and so will not now go into all details but
let me give an example.
THE SO CALLED stolen generation issue.
Thnosde ofAboriginal descent are claiming there was a stiolen generation, but leaders (elders) as
I uunderstand it were making false claims. As I understand iot friom various reports many
claiming to be of the SOTKLEN GENERATION ac tually had been handed over byone or more

parents and others due to welfare concerns. I understand 1 case was found that the then social
worker involved had failed to consider family placement but the court held this was not
government policy. Surely, one such cased where a social worker made errors cannot be deemed
to include a GENERATION? After all one of my daughters was removed from her mother with
her half siblings due to sexual abuse issues. Human Services then simply refused to place my
daughter with me and I took it (successfully) to the Supreme Court of Victoria and had an
Ombudsman report also that Human Services had failed to follow proper procedure, etc.
One hardly would then hold that because Human Services acted wrongly concerning my
daughter that then it is a STOLEN GENERATION of all Caucasian children.
http://theconversation.com/why-dna-tests-for-indigenous-heritage-mean-different-things-in-australia-and-the-us-
105367?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%2025
%202018%20-
%201144310317&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%2025%202018%20-
%201144310317+CID_b090d454274ed141b598ce5f1cef4c11&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Why%
20DNA%20tests%20for%20Indigenous%20heritage%20mean%20different%20things%20in%20Australia%20and
%20the%20US
Why DNA tests for Indigenous heritage mean different things in Australia and the US
October 25, 2018 6.05am AEDT
QUOTE
Last week, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren released a video strongly suggesting
two things: she is running for US president in 2020, and she has Native American ancestry.
The second claim was apparently confirmed by the results of a DNA test, which compared
genetic data from Warren’s whole genome with that from people of known Central and
South American ancestry.
Warren has come under fire from both sides of US politics for releasing her genomic
information. Many have questioned the veracity of the test. Others have said that even if
Warren does have Native American ancestry, that doesn’t make her Native American.
END QUOTE
http://theconversation.com/why-dna-tests-for-indigenous-heritage-mean-different-things-in-australia-and-the-us-
105367?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%2025
%202018%20-
%201144310317&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%2025%202018%20-
%201144310317+CID_b090d454274ed141b598ce5f1cef4c11&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Why%
20DNA%20tests%20for%20Indigenous%20heritage%20mean%20different%20things%20in%20Australia%20and
%20the%20US
Why DNA tests for Indigenous heritage mean different things in Australia and the US
October 25, 2018 6.05am AEDT
QUOTE
Indigenous recognition in the United States
In the United States, Indigenous-specific rights are reserved for members of the 573 federally recognised
tribes. As Cherokee Nation’s Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin junior noted in his response to Warren’s
announcement, admixture tests can’t distinguish between North and South American ancestry, let alone
between tribal groups.
Even if the resolution of these tests increased, the Cherokee and other tribes have made it clear they won’t
provide an avenue to membership. Most have minimum “blood quantum” requirements - a complicated
calculation of one’s ancestry determined by the number of documented ancestors in tribal censuses from the
late 19th century.

Within this “tribal roll” system, Hoskin pointed out, DNA testing has only one, very specific use:
to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual.
While blood quantums are controversial, many Native Americans defend them on the grounds that they
provide a “stand-in for cultural affiliation”. They argue that strict membership rules protect tribes against the
increasing number of so-called “ethnic frauds”, “fake Indians”, “New Age poseurs” and “wannabes”
identifying as Native American.
The genetic testing boom has added to this apparent “onslaught”, which is one of the reasons Warren’s use of
DNA testing has angered so many tribal citizens.
END QUOTE
Let us be careful to make claims such as we all are originating from Africa when many claim
Crete was the seat of human civilization. Reality is we are still guessing as more discoveries are
to be made. As I understand it there never was a single Aboriginal tribe but rather many who
came from different areas to settle in what is now known as the Commonwealth of Australia
albeit they disposed of the inhabitants then already living in Australia. I have written about this
in the past so no need to quote it all again.
Let us consider the following also:
https://dailyarchives.org/index.php/14-study/203-differences-between-human-races-100-
facts?utm_source=The+Daily+Archive&utm_campaign=301c3ecfa8-
Newsletter+from+The+Daily+Archive&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5d5146944-301c3ecfa8-41941613
Differences Between Human Races: 100 Facts

QUOTE
FACT #1: The White race has crossed seas, harnessed rivers, carved mountains, tamed deserts, and colonized
the most barren icefields. It has been responsible for the invention of the printing press, cement, the
harnessing of electricity, flight, rocketry, astronomy, the telescope, space travel, firearms, the transistor,
radio, television, the telephone, the lightbulb, photography, motion pictures, the phonograph, the electric
battery, the automobile, the steam engine, railroad transportation, the microscope, computers, and millions of
other technological miracles. It has discovered countless medical advances, incredible applications, scientific
progress, etc. Its members have included such greats as Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Tacitus, Julius
Ceaser, Napoleon, William the Conqueror, Marco Polo, Washington, Jefferson, Hitler, Bach, Beethoven,
Mozart, Magellan, Columbus, Cabot, Edison, GrahamBell, Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, Mendel, Darwin, Newton,
Galileo, Watt, Ford, Luther, Devinci, Poe, Tennyson, and thousands upon thousands of other notable
achievers. (37) (39)
FACT #2: Throughout 6,000 years of recorded history, the Black African Negro has invented nothing. Not a
written language, weaved cloth, a calendar, a plow, a road, a bridge, a railway, a ship, a system of
measurement, or even the wheel. (Note: This is in reference to the pure-blooded Negro.) He is not known to
have ever cultivated a single crop or domesticated a single animal for his own use (although many powerful
and docile beasts abounded around him.) His only known means of transporting goods was on the top of his
hard burry head. For shelter he never progressed beyond the common mud hut, the construction of which a
beaver or muskrat is capable. (21) (39)
INTELLIGENCE
FACT #3: The I.Q.'s of American Negroes are from 15 to 20 points, on average, below those of American
Whites. (26) (16) (18) (22)
FACT #4: These Black\White differences have been demonstrated repeatedly by every test ever conducted by
every branch of the U.S. Military, every state, county, and local school board, the U.S. Dept. of Education,
etc. The same ratio of difference has held true over a 40 year period. (18) (26) (24)
FACT #5: With an average I.Q. of 85, only 16% of Blacks score over 100, while half the White population
does. The Negro overlap of White median I.Q.'s ranges from 10 to 25 percent-- equality would require 50
percent. (31) (27) (16)
FACT #6: Blacks are 6 times as likely to have I.Q.'s of 50 to 70 which put them in the slow learner (retarded)
category, while Whites are ten times more likely to score 130 or over. (15) (16) (18) (23)
FACT # 7: The U.S. government's PACE examination, given to 100,000 university graduates who are
prospective professional or administrative civil-service employees each year, is passed with a score of 70 or
above by 58% of the whites who take it but by only 12% of the Negroes. Among top scorers the difference
between Negro and White performance is even more striking: 16% of the white applicants make scores of 90
or above, while only one-fifth of one percent of a Negro applicants score as high as 90--a White/Black
success ration of 80/1. (27)
FACT #8: Differences between Negro and White children increase with chronological age, the gap in
performance being largest at the high school and college levels. (31) (26)
FACT #9: White/Negro I.Q. differences are constantly excused as results of environmental variations. but at
least five studies that have attempted to equate socio-economic backgrounds of the two races indicate no
significant change in relative results. As environment improves, the Negro does better but so does the White.
The gap is not decreased. (26) In fact, extensive research by DR. G.J. McGurk, associate Professor of
Psychology at Villanove University, reveals that the gap in intelligence between Blacks and Whites
INCREASES where socio-economic levels of both races are raised to the middle classes. (18)
FACT #10: In 1915, Dr. G.W. Ferfuson took 1000 school children in Virginia, divided them into 5 racial
categories, and tested them for mental aptitude. On average. full-blooded Negroes scored 69.2% as high as
Whites. Three-quarter Negroes scored 73.0% as high as Whites. One-half Negroes scored 81.2% as high as
Whites. One-quarter Negroes scored 91.8% as high as Whites. All of these Blacks lived as and considered
themselves "Negroes." Their environments and "advantages" or disadvantages were exactly the same. (14)
Also see (26) pg 452.
FACT #11: Results of the Army Beta test given by the U.S. Army to over 386,000 illiterate soldiers in WWI
showed Negro draftees to be "inferior to the Whites on all types of tests used in the Army." Additionally,
tests were conducted upon pure Negroes, Mulattoes, and Quadroons. It was found that "the lighter groups
made better scores." (14)
FACT #12: Studies conducted with identical twins raised apart in radically different environments provide
conclusive evidence that over-all influence of heredity exceeds that of environment in a ratio of about 3 to 1.
(41)
FACT #13: Even when Blacks and Whites have the same backgrounds, in terms of family income and
childhood advantages, Blacks still have average I.Q. scores 12 to 15 points lower than comparable Whites.
This includes cases where Black children have been adopted by White parents. Their I.Q.s may be improved
by environment, but they are still closer to their biological parents than their adoptive parents. (3) (15) (26)
FACT #14: Equalitarian ideologists often discount I.Q. test results with the excuse that they are culturally
biased. Nonetheless, NO ONE, not the NAACP nor the United Negro College Fund, nor NEA had been able
to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally. (15) (42) (3)
FACT # 15: American Indians, who often live in conditions far worse than American Blacks during their
entire lives, still consistently outscore them on I.Q. tests. (3) (27)
FACT #16: The offspring of interracial marriages tend to have lower I.Q.s than the white parent. (11) (26)
END QUOTE
Just consider the former Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) where since the blacks took over the country
became a basket case. Remember the APARTHEID in South Africa? Well since it was changed
to a black government horror stories are ample of torture, rape and killings. Just that those in the
forefront protesting against the apartheid now are nowhere to be seen when it comes to white
farmers being slaughtered.
With the so called would be Aboriginals we now have that many claim to be of Aboriginal
descent but are they really?
As far as I understand it the Dutch arrived in the 1600s and commenced to cultivate the land but
somehow the Aboriginals were unable to continue to do so. Like in Europe where the land was
being used for farming, etc, in Australia there appears to me no such development. Then with
captain Cooke arrival things started to change. As I understand it some Aboriginals were not
thing less then criminals who murdered those who had settled in what is now known as New
South Wales, and some were tried and convicted. But somehow I understand those of Aboriginal
descent seem to claim they were freedom fighters. Well to me it comes across as to claim that
notorious bushranger Ned Kelly was a saint.
Because the Dutch were in Australia way back in 1600s I hardly can claim now as a Dutch born
person that therefore I have rights because of this. Yet, it appears to me that the Aboriginals do
so that because their ancestors were warring against other tribes and succeeded then they
somehow own the land.
In my view the original inhabitants in Australia were those before the Aboriginals different parts
of the world in Australia.
Aboriginals pursued an APOLOGY but since this was done somehow this is not enough. I will
not repeat the issue ab out treaty because again I wrote plenty about this in the past, safe to say to
me it is utter and sheer nonsense.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear they desired Aboriginals to be equally to other
Australians and not be regarded as some inferior race. Well the 1967 Subsection 51(xxvi)
referendum changed this alright b ut not in the way it is claimed to be. Aboriginals no longer can
be deemed to be equally to other Australians as by the referendum having succeeded they now
are part of an inferior raced provision.
Whereas the GESTAPO at the time relied upon the cooperation of leaders of synagogues to let
them know who were Jews, etc, in Australia many if not most Aboriginal’s are lured into a false
sense of security to be registered as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. So, any person who
desires to deal with Aboriginals merely can have them ordered into work camps (concentration
camps) and so they could be put to work on farms, etc.
No need to confiscate their properties as regulations can be put in place that all their belongings
are sold off and the monies received are put in a consolidated fund to provide monies for the
work camp inmates. Yes, the very legal provisions the Aboriginal’s pursued actually can achieve
a better outcomes for any leader in Australia then the Gestapo could have achieved under the
German Reich.
The Australian government made clear that unless you opt out (reportedly 1 million did) citizens
will have their medical records on the internet never mind that the Federal Parliament has no
such legislative powers, as after all get everything on the internet and some leader may just want
to get rid (dispose) of those people who are too expensive to keep alive an d the medical records
may serve a purpose for this.
With the legislation to allow the military to operate in the states and arbitrary detention of law
abiding citizens can then eventuate and the secrecy not to communicate this to others means that
this is a simple way to detain and dispose of political opponents, then what is the use of having a
constitution that those in power can willy nilly ignore?

Let us not forget that subsection 51(xxvi) was designed to make special laws against a particular
race and then it would apply to all of that race. As such lawyers/doctors and other professionals
of that race equally can be placed in such working camps.
The ABS survey regarding religion I view is unconstitutional as it violates the provisions of
Section 116 of the constitution but do you really think the politicians could care? They have
every election year the same mantra health, education, etc, but then when the subsequent election
comes around it is the same again as nothing gets attended to in reality.
So now we can use the ABS records to trace any person of a certain religious or non-religious
custom and well arbitrary arrest and disposal would be simple.
electronic GPS bands will the instead of the Jewish Star so that the population can be monitored
where they are.
.
And any known dissent will have their electronic records updated that prevents any usage of
monies, etc, and if attending to any doctor, hospital, etc, then automatically the persons
whereabouts is notified for an arbitrary arrest and detention (and possibly disposal).
* What about homosexuals are they a race within the meaning of Subsection 51(xxvi)?
**#** There was a ruling in KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High
Court of Australia where the court held that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 fell within the
powers of EXTERNAL AFFIARS. I dispute this. However there has for several years litigation
going on by a “Burns” against various people including John Murray Abbott and Bernard Gaynor
about their comments. I understand more than $500,000.00 of cost was ordered against “Burns”
but somehow he claimed that it was in the “public interest” and should not have to pay. Yet, how
can it be in the “public interest” when he seeks personal damages? Also reading the email from
Bernard Gaynor this hardly appears at least to me to indicate a “public interest” issue rather a
personal crusade, where Bernard Gaynor stated “If I lose, it will be a doorway to disaster.
Burns has stated that he is intent on litigating me into the ground.”
QUOTE 7-11-2018 email

Free speech: critical court hearing tomorrow
 Bernard Gaynor <personal@bernardgaynor.com.au>

 Today at 12:19
To
 Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B.
Message body
Dear Gerrit,
I NEED YOUR HELP - PLEASE CLICK HERE TO DONATE
Tomorrow will be a critical day.

The New South Wales District Court will hear argument as to whether Gary
Burns’ defamation action against me is an abuse of process.
I believe I have a very strong case. I am just not sure that the system works
anymore.
If I win, I hope it will be the victory that leads to the end of the systemic attack on
me and my family. But even if I do, I can’t be sure. I’ve won unanimously in the
High Court of Australia yet the assault on us continues stronger than ever.
If I lose, it will be a doorway to disaster. Burns has stated that he is intent on

litigating me into the ground.
To harass me. To humiliate me. To bankrupt me. To destroy me.
He has stated that he wants to take my assets. He has stated that he does not
care if he forces my wife and children into the gutter.
He can no longer do the former. But he can still do the latter.
A loss will give him and other activists a green light to ramp up their attacks.
In the last six years I have been subjected to more than 80 taxpayer-funded
investigations, inquiries and court cases about my views on marriage, family
and morality.
That really is quite incredible.
It has also taken a toll.
The apparatus of state is being mercilessly geared up to silence and destroy

those prepared to express any support for a concept of natural law and natural
family.
I am just an early target. If I am destroyed there will no doubt be others thrust

down this torturous path. When they start working on ‘high profile’ targets –
those who have refused to get involved in these matters – any case law
generated against me will be used to tear them down.
But we are not there yet. And we may never reach that point if we continue to
battle and win.
The reality, at the moment, is that I have won every battle bar one. And not a
single specific complaint against me has been substantiated.
The Full Court of the Federal Court did rule against me in 2017, overturning an
earlier judgement by the Federal Court in my favour.
It found that I had ‘disobeyed’ orders – a military offence – by expressing views

about the morality of homosexuality as a private citizen. It found this despite no
specific charges being laid against me. No witnesses were called. No evidence
was presented to support the case. I was not given a chance to defend myself
because I had no concrete allegations to respond to.
The court itself found that I received no order that I could be compelled by the
Army to obey.
And this ruling was made despite the fact that the Full Court of the Federal Court
has no power whatsoever to determine military disciplinary offences.
Even the former Chief of Defence Force admitted that I had not disobeyed
orders. And the system established by law to determine such allegations under
the Defence Force Discipline Act cleared me.
Yet the Full Court of the Federal Court’s ruling was still made.
It’s akin to being declared guilty of murder even though there is no missing
person, motive, murder scene or weapon and despite the fact that the proper
criminal court threw the case out as baseless before it even commenced.

In all the other matters I have successfully defended myself.
However, I have almost been finished off in the process. Because that process
is the punishment.
I estimate that more than $5 million of taxpayers’ money – your money – has
been used in the attempt to destroy me. I have seen some of the bills floating
around. It is certain that millions have been spent.
Twelve months ago more than 40 of the most senior barristers and lawyers in
Australia – sent by every state apart from South Australia – gathered in the High
Court to argue against me. The cost for those two days alone would be close to
$500,000.
Yet they had been working on that case for approximately six months before the
hearing. Some had beavered away on it for a year and a half.
I am tired. I am frustrated. Truth be told, I am also scared of what may come and
what it will mean for my family.
When the first investigations against me began in early 2013 my wife and I
owned two houses.
When I get my next legal bill we will have nothing left at all.
I have had no time to write for my webpage since June. My life is entirely tied up
with affidavits and submissions and directions hearings. It is debilitating.
I also feel abandoned by the major conservative institutions – especially by the

hierarchy of my beloved Catholic Church. With a small number of exceptions,
none of those who lead these organisations have shown any interest in this
fight.
I think their reputations with the enemies of sanity in this world are too
important to them. I hope I am wrong and that the fault lies with me. Maybe I’m

imprudently blunt. Maybe I just can’t ‘sell the story’.
Two things have sustained me.
Firstly, your generosity and support which I will forever be grateful for. So many
of you have sacrificed to assist me, my wife and our children.
It is not the big conservative institutions that have obtained the victories in this
matter. It is individual Australians willing to step up and help.
The direct legal costs incurred since mid-2014 are now more than $360,000.
I could not have met these costs without your assistance. Nor could I have
managed to run my webpage and feed my family over that time without your
generosity.
Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
The second is God. He has known about this battle throughout eternity. He has
known every frustration I would face and sent me the means necessary to face
them. So often I have done so imperfectly.
Please pray for me that I maintain my faith and hope in God. He will have His
victory. I must simply have the courage to play the role He has for me in it.
As always, I encourage you to pray the prayer for the conversion of Australia:
O God, who has appointed Mary, Help of Christians; St Francis Xavier, and St
Teresa of the Infant Jesus Patrons of Australia; grant that, through their
intercession, our brethren outside the Church may receive the light of faith, so
that Australia may become one in faith under one shepherd, through Christ our
Lord. Amen.
 Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.

 St Francis Xavier, pray for us.

 St Teresa of the Infant Jesus, pray for us.
I am not sure if any decision will be made tomorrow but I will let you know the
results when they are handed down.
I will return to Sydney next Tuesday as well.
A directions hearing will be held in my matter against the New South Wales Anti-
Discrimination Board, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal,
the New South Wales Local Court and Gary Burns. I am seeking orders, in line
with the ruling of the High Court of Australia earlier this year, prohibiting them
from continuing to process anti-discrimination complaints against me.
Kind regards,
Bernard Gaynor
Christus Rex!
END QUOTE 7-11-2018 email
There is so to say a sweat lining to this all. After all, if it is deemed that homosexuals and others
like them are falling within the provisions of racial discrimination, then consider you cannot have
a positive and as negative against each other in a constitution. Hence, the provisions of
Subsection 512(xxvi) that one can discriminate against a race cannot be thwarted by a purported
legislation within external affairs. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that they
specific ally provided for the racial discrimination to avoid any international laws claims to be
made. As such, the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 cannot co-exist with Subsection
51(xxvi). As homosexuals identify themselves as a race and Subsection 51(xxvi) was actually
intended that a race was not just a person of colour of a skin but a group of people such as by
nationality, then I view that homosexual’s fall within the provisions of subsection 51(xxvi). As
such any legislation enacted regarding homo9sexuials would automatically remove their
citizenship rights. This means the ABS (Australia Bureau of Statistic) 2017 survey including
homosexuals to cast their views about SSM (Same Sex Marriage) was in violation to Subsection
51(xxvi). But by homosexuals claiming to be a race then any “Leader” in power could actually
roundup all homosexuals and have them interned in so to say working camps, etc, for some re-
education!

As such what Nazi Germany never had such as the formal records of who claims to be
homosexuals now is available on government records by their purported marriages and other
statements on the internet, etc.
We have a separation of powers but (now) Premier Daniel Andrews of Victoria claimed that the
convictions will be expunged relation to homosexual convictions. Well the Government of the
Day cannot interfere with past judicial decisions. Is he next going to expunge rape and murder
convictions? Only the court could permit to reopen a case and only by certain formal legal
procedures. It would be utterly absurd if the government of the day could circumvent the courts
and override its judicial decisions that were legally appropriate at the time they were made. In
my view it is nothing less than CONTEMPT OF COURT to claim that he as Premier can
override the courts and their recorded convictions. It would make a total mockery of litigation
and what would stop the government when it has an adverse finding against it then to simply
overrule the court?
I will below give an example about the dangers of UNTREATED WATER involving what I
understand its own entity GWMWater.
QUOTE 7-11-2018 email
Mike and Jen,
Olga, my wife, mentioned that she heard Jennifer on Wedensday morning 7 November 2018
mentioning something about water not being suitable for drinking. This happens to be an issue
important to me. Can Jennifer perhaps recall what it was about and write it tome?
The radio is the whole day on 91.5FM smooth and she does listen to you breakfast show.
See also
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-06-vast-array-of-breakfast-cereals-
contain-glyphosate.html
I have been campaigning about the denial of Safe Drinking Water for decades that it poison also
breakfast cereals, where farmers use untreated water in the Mallee to grow crops. Yes your child
could also be eating the roundup kind of poison cereal!
03-046a-Safe Drinking Water Act 2003
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSEMBL
Y&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&date2=May&date3
=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+%29
QUOTE
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill.
This bill forms part of the government's strategic approach to water management, with specific
attention being paid to water quality and risk management as matters of public health. It is

worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure that each
community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that
this bill has been introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.
The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by
the Liberal and National parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as
much information as possible.
END QUOTE
See attachments
For the record large parts of the Mallee has no Safe drinking Water being supplied band and any
schoolbus with small children stopping at a petrol station or elsewhere may have children falling
ill unaware that they are drinking untreated water.
While I fitted special taps on my property to prevent anyone to use the untreated water on my
Berriwillock property I am unaware anyone else did so and GWMWater (a State government
entity) failed/refused to do so despite my past expressed concerns.
By the way I am not permitted to state my wife's age but she is born 18 November 1932 and
her favourite singer is Billy Joel. (Any song)
END QUOTE 7-11-2018 email

I have little doubt that the issue will be heading to the courts because when GWMWater
recommended to take the matter to the Water Ombudsman he responded it is a legal issue.
So imagine it goes to the courts and then there is an adverse finding against GWMWater and
then the State Goverment will simply expunged any court decision against it. How absurd.
For clarification I will below include the USA findings about it. Do keep in mind that I have
been writing about this for years and documents about it can be downloaded from my blog at
www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
Consider the rural fire brigade crews who are using this untreated water for firefighting. They
poison themselves. Their partners with washing their contaminated clothing, their children with
access to the UNTREATED WATER in various ways.
QUOTE 20161124-GWMWater (Charman Peter Vogel) and ors - Re 2305224 creditcollect 369335
While I also changed all taps on Lot 12 none of them however appeared to be connected to
the water mains inlet of Lot 10 because despite having the mains tap open no water flowed
from any of the taps on Lot 12. In fact there is as such no water supply at all to Lot 12 (the
residential property) unless I use the tank water as it has no mains tap connection to water
supply for about 25 years.
With the Fiskeville cancer danger to fire fighters and now the suspected Campbellfield site and
considering that GWMWater in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 provides
“untreated water” it means firefighters are ongoing subjected to possible dangers from using this
“untreated water” as well as causing this harm to properties they spray using this “untreated
water” with. My properties had all taps changed as shown below but it means that firecrew must be
equipped with the stand recycling key required to operate such as tap for certain purposes. Non-
human affected usage of “untreated water” can still then be used. This I view is essential to any
Fire Management Plan.
END QUOTE 20161124-GWMWater (Charman Peter Vogel) and ors - Re 2305224 creditcollect 369335
SO, THE FIRE BRIGADE IS ATTENDING TO A HOUSE FIRE USING UNTREATED

WATER AND BY IT AS I VIEW IT POISONING THE PLACE TO MAKE IT UNSUITABLE
FOR HUMAN ACCOMODATION. Well that is if they have water at all because I understand
recently in Melbourne with a population of estimated over 5 million citizens the fire brigade
ended up unable to deal with a house fire due to lack of water. Yet, property holders are forced to
pay a yearly fire brigade levy!
GWMWater-water quality notice July 2013
https://www.google.com.au/search?source=hp&ei=N73iW9zIKdP8rQHw7oLICA&q=victoria+u
ntreated+water+poison&oq=victoria+untreated+water+poison&gs_l=psy-
ab.12..33i21k1.1920.10084.0.12934.34.30.0.1.1.0.607.5112.2-4j3j2j4.14.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-
ab..19.13.4901.0..0j38j0i131k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.230.E4TxzE7apDQ
About 462,000 results (0.51 seconds)

Search Results
Web results
Airport's toxic runoff leaves farmers unable to use water they bought
https://www.theage.com.au › National › Victoria › Water
Oct 1, 2018 - Airport's toxic runoff leaves farmers unable to use water they bought.
Debbie Cuthbertson ... tip of an iceberg? PFAS detected across Victoria ...
People also ask
What is the safest source of drinking water?
Bottlers can only claim spring water if their product is verified to be from a spring.
(Other bottles will say things like “purified” and “distilled.”) Like tap water, bottled
water is generally safe to drink, although perceptions of it as “safer” than tap water
are unfounded.Jul 7, 2009
Best Sources of Drinking Water: Water Filters and Purified Water vs. Tap
https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/best-sources-drinking-water
Search for: What is the safest source of drinking water?
Is green algae in drinking water harmful?
Very few species of algae are toxic, so most of the algae are not harmful. There
would be very little nutrients in drinking water tanks, so algae growth too would
be very low, so even if the algae is toxic, the amount of toxins would be very low.
Is algae present in drinking water tanks harmful to humans? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/Is-algae-present-in-drinking-water-tanks-harmful-
to-humans
Search for: Is green algae in drinking water harmful?
Is natural water safe to drink?
You should use natural water sources for drinking and food preparation with
caution and, where possible, treat the water to make it safe to drink. ... Boiling or
disinfecting the water may not make the water safe if it is contaminated with
harmful chemicals, including natural metals such as arsenic or lead.
Water from natural resources - Better Health Channel
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/water-from-
natural-resources
Search for: Is natural water safe to drink?
Is bore water good for drinking?
Depending on local characteristics, bore water may be suitable for uses including
stock watering, irrigation, flushing toilets and washing clothes or cars. It may also

be suitable for showering, food preparation and drinking. However, bore water
can become contaminated by natural processes and human activities.
Bore water - Healthy WA
healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/A_E/Bore-water
Search for: Is bore water good for drinking?

Feedback
Web results
[PDF]
Annual report on drinking water quality in Victoria 2015–16 - health.vic
https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/.../%7B3FEFFF10-3653-4C19-8723-
2BACE95F591C...
Three of these water storage managers supply untreated water to water ...... the
residents include health issues caused by lead poisoning from drinking the
water ...
Concerns about lead in drinking water - health.vic
https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/.../concerns-about-lead-in-drinking-water-
may-2018
Oct 15, 2018 - In March, the City of Greater Geelong tested a random sample of its
public drinking fountains following an alert from Barwon Water regarding ...
Missing: untreated poison
Water from natural resources - Better Health Channel
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/water-from-
natural-resources
Drinking untreated water, such as creek water, bore water and sometimes even
rainwater can lead to illnesses including gastroenteritis.
Harmful algal blooms - Better Health Channel
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/Harmful-algal-
blooms
Is it safe to use untreated algae-affected water from a lake, dam or stream? ...
Pets can be poisoned from contact with or ingestion of harmful algae. ... on private
drinking water supplies can be found on the Victorian Department of Health and ...
Water quality in tanks, bores and dams - Better Health Channel
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/.../water-quality-in-tanks-bores-
and-dams
Contaminated water can cause severe gastrointestinal illnesses. ... tanks; Algae –
including toxic blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), which are not destroyed by ... In
most rural areas of Victoria, rainwater collected from a clean roof and securely ...
Parks Victoria - Water - make it safe to drink
https://parkweb.vic.gov.au/safety/be-safe-plan-ahead/drinking-water
Drinking untreated water such as creek water, bore water, or sometimes even
rainwater, can lead to illnesses including gastroenteritis. Natural water sources ...
Missing: poison | Must include: poison
[PDF]
Annual report on drinking water quality in Victoria - Westernport Water
www.westernportwater.com.au/wp.../2008-
09_drinking_water_annual_report_all.pdf
Sep 19, 2008 - Section 1: Victoria's drinking water quality regulatory ...... Lake
Mountain resort management provides untreated water to the Lake Mountain ......
To address the toxic blue-green algae bloom present in the Murray River earlier.
Water for horses following fires - Agriculture Victoria
agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/horses/water-for-horses-
following-fires
Nov 9, 2017 - Horses would rather go thirsty than drink water contaminated by
chemicals, ... It is believed the water is not poisonous to livestock, but it may be ...
Tank water: How to protect yourself from gastro, toxic metals and more ...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2017-11-30/rainwater-tank-
safety/9157240
Nov 29, 2017 - Many experts say untreated rainwater may not be safe for human
... The bacteria that can thrive in water tanks and the toxic metal traces that ...
Then also consider:
https://www.ses.vic.gov.au/documents/112015/134818/Manningham+Local+Flood+Guide
-pdf/9913c9f2-6cb1-43a6-9d3d-296405988610
[PDF]
Manningham - Victoria State Emergency Service
https://www.ses.vic.gov.au/...Local.../9913c9f2-6cb1-43a6-9d3d-
296405988610
adcasters. ABC Local R adio. 91.1 FM. Star FM. 91.5FM. Easymix Ten. 71 A. M ...
The City of Manningham is located 12 kilometres east of the Melbourne Central
Business ... Manningham is defined by natural water boundaries: the Yarra to the
north and west, and .... Move rubbish bins, chemicals and poisons to the highest.

Airport's toxic runoff leaves farmers unable to use water they bought
https://www.theage.com.au › National › Victoria › Water

Oct 1, 2018 - Airport's toxic runoff leaves farmers unable to use water they bought.
Debbie Cuthbertson ... tip of an iceberg? PFAS detected across Victoria ...
Anyhow, it seems to be clear to me that there is a lack of proper governance on State and Federal
level. With the Burns cases (see above) he as I understand it seems to be supported by the NSW
government.
QUOTE 7-11-2018 EMAIL
Fwd: Fwd: Fw: Consider this....IMPORTANT

 RAY PLATT <rayplatt@iinet.net.au>

 Today at 14:59
Message body
----- Original Message -----

From:
"Tony Rigg" <tonyrigg252@gmail.com>
To:
Sent:
Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:03:11 +1100
Subject:
Fwd: Fw: Consider this....
Hi All, great point, what do you think ? Tony
Subject: FW: Consider this....
Consider this.....
No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women who
serve in the Australian Armed Forces for up to 20 years, risking their
lives and limbs, protecting our freedom, only get a percentage of their
pay on retirement:
While politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the
Nation's Capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive
a substantial pension for life after a tenure of risk-free public service. It
just doesn't make any sense!
If each person who receives this, will forward it on to 20 people, in 3
days most of Australia will have gotten the message........ Including the

politicians!!!
This is one message that really should be passed around. I just passed
it on.... Will you?
If you choose not to pass this on then you have still made a choice.
END QUOTE 7-11-2018 EMAIL
In my view any politician who is not a Minister or Speaker/President of a House of the

parliament cannot have superannuation as it would violate s44 of the constitution. This as I wrote
previously about they cannot have any financial gains from the Commonwealth/State.
As such, technically those who nevertheless have superannuation schemes will be ineligible to sit
in the Parliament as they hold an office of profit.
We have a constitution but generally it is totally worthless because I view we lack the proper
impartial administration of justice to ensure that no incursions into constitutional provisions are
made by any government.
Let us not forget my attempts in February/March 2003 to head of the invasion into Iraq where
the High Court of Australia refused to accept my application on 4 occasions, being 18 February
2003, 19 February 2003, 18 March 23003 and on 19 March 2003. The latter being the date of the
invasion. What is the use to set up a legal case when judges can unilaterally deny to file the case
by refusing to accept the applications in violation of Section 75(v) of the constitution?
In my view General Peter Cosgrove cannot excuse himself to have as I view it committed war
crimes, crimes against humanity, etc.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-19/cosgrove-admits-mistakes-in-iraq-war/4581120
Cosgrove admits mistakes made in Iraq war
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Lt Gen Peter Cosgrove 16-7-2002
R1-5-B CDF Suit
Department of Defence
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone; 02 626 52976
Fax; 02 626 51228 Re; FULL INVESTIGATION
COURT MARTIAL?
Sir,
QUOTE
Didn’t we have this fellow running around in the USA, declaring that Australia would joint
them in the war against terrorism? Again, we ought to get him to read the transcripts of
what the framers really intended!
Gosh, the Defence Force might even become aware, that not the Prime Minister, but the
Governor-General (for the Monarch) can only declare war! And, that we don’t make
declarations from the steps of Parliament House, as was done on 11 November 1975, or
while visiting the USA, but it is required to be done by the actual publication of the
Proclamation of Declaration of War!

So, now we have the Defence Force, invading some sovereign country, upon the political
motivated demands of a Government of the Day, and I wonder upon legal basis?
No matter what one might think about Afghanistan, it was a foreign power, a sovereign
nation, in which I view, the Defence Force had no business to go there, and be involved
perhaps with the deaths of many innocent civilians, without there being a formal
Declaration of War being Gazetted!
If Australia can do so to another sovereign nation, then why shouldn’t another nation do
the same to Australia? Have we become some war mongering nation, that the Defence
Force is willing to go anywhere, regardless of what is constitutional/legally just and
proper?
So, now we are having the Defence Force involved in a “War against Terrorism”? Well,
who is the terrorist invading another sovereign country without a formal Declaration of
War actually published in the Gazette?
I think, we ought to have our own War Tribunal, and deal with those, who have been part
of an invasion force, without any proper and actual published Declaration of War!
The Defence Force isn’t there to nilly willy do whatever a Government of the Day
demands! The Defence Force, in my view, must always be guarded that it acts in
accordance to international and Australian laws, and if there is a conflict, then it simply
REFUSES to act contrary to legal provisions! No Government of the Day has the power to
force a Defence Force to act unlawful! If the Government of the Day pursues the Defence
Force to act in a manner which is unlawful, then, where it is within the competence of the
parliament, it must have laws first amended by the Parliament, so that the Defence Force
can proceed but remains to act according to law!
In case you like my slogan; MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®, it is not permitted
to be used without my consent (for that also my wife’s).
END QUOTE
Again, in my view my 16-7-2002 writing to General Peter Cosgrove ( about 8 months prior to the
unconstitutional invasion into Iraq) ought to have been sufficient to alarm him that considering
also the Neurenburg trails that following orders is no excuse then he better first ensures the (then
Governor-General has published a DECLARATION OF WAS naming the country (in this case
Iraq) as to legally authorise an armed invasion. Without the DECLARATION OF WAR Iraq was
and remained a FRIENDLY country.
We can so to say sit on our hands and do nothing and face the consequences of a second
WMD scenario with Skripal or we hold politicians legally accountable. It is your choice!
This document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/375513297/20180404-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
ISSUE-Re-Why-a-Royal-Commission-Into-the-Iraq-Invasion-is-Badly-Overdue-Re-Skripal
ISSUE: 20180404- Re: Why a Royal Commission into the Iraq invasion is badly overdue - Re Skripal, etc
& the constitution
QUOTE
It must be clear that the then General Cosgrove was made well aware by my 16-7-2002
correspondence that he needed the Governor-General to publish in the Gazette a
DECLARATION OF WAR naming Iraq. Such DECLARATION OF WAR to my

understanding was never published. In my view the Nürnberg Trials made clear that
following orders is no excuse to committing any heinous crimes.
In my view the then General Cosgrove was appointed Governor-General as to silence him
about Iraq. Just that I view there is a conflict of interest with the now Governor-General
Cosgrove and he should stand aside and allow a Governor acting as Governor-General to
authorise a ROYAL COMMISSION which also investigate the then conduct of General
Peter Cosgrove and other military leaders as well as all those who were in government at
the time or purported to be so and those who were the opposition or purporting to be the
opposition.
In my view Mr John Howard and his fellow purported Members of Government are mass-
murderers, committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, treason, bombed Iraq back into
the Stone Age, etc, and should be standing trial. None of them should be allowed to be or
remain to be a Minister in any position or occupy any political or other government
position unless and until they are, if at all, cleared of any involvement in criminal conduct.
Those who are convicted I view should be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour and
all their worldly possessions to be confiscated.
Only when we deal with warmongering persons severely may we possibly avoid a
repeat of the same.
END QUOTE
As indicated above the Framers of the Constitution made clear that external affairs treaties
couldn’t be enforced against citizens. Then consider how in my view appalling the court
reasoned.
KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia STEPHEN J.
QUOTE At 33
33. In the course of argument it was submitted that if s. 51 (xxix) was
understood to have the effect which I have suggested, the Commonwealth
Parliament would lack the power to give effect to treaties which, for example,
were vital to the preservation of peace or the maintenance of trade. However,
it is hardly necessary to point out that there are other powers conferred by
s. 51 which would support legislation carrying international agreements into
effect within Australia. The widest of such powers are probably those
conferred by pars. (i) and (vi) of s. 51, but there are many others. In the
present case no power conferred by any other paragraph of s. 51 would support
the Act, although, as I have said, s. 51(xxvi) would have supported a special
law for the prevention of discrimination against people of the Aboriginal
race. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the manner in which
the power given by par. (xxix) interacts with those given by other paragraphs
of s. 51. (at p202)
34. In support of the argument that the Act is within the power conferred by
s. 51(xxix), the learned Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth naturally
placed considerable reliance on the circumstance that the protection of human
rights against racial discrimination had, by the time that the Act was passed,
become a topic which was the subject of much international debate. There is no
doubt that many countries of the world have, or profess, a deep concern that
human rights and fundamental freedoms should be observed, and that racial
discrimination should be eliminated, throughout the world. There is no need
for me to refer to the international conventions and declarations in which
that concern has been expressed. The fact that many nations are concerned that
other nations should eliminate racial discrimination within their own
boundaries does not mean that the domestic or internal affairs of any one
country thereby become converted into international affairs. There may be
legitimate international concern as to the domestic affairs of a nation. An
Australian law which is designed to forbid racial discrimination by
Australians against Australians within the territory of Australia does not
become international in character, or a law with respect to external affairs,
simply because other nations are interested in Australia's policies and
practices with regard to racial discrimination. It follows that I respectfully
disagree with the suggestion by Murphy J. in Dowal v. Murray (1978) 143 CLR
410, at pp 429-430 that the power given by s. 51(xxix) enables the Parliament
to legislate with respect to any subject of international concern. The
examples given by Murphy J. show that the acceptance of such a view would
render the detailed specification of Commonwealth powers in s. 51 almost
completely irrelevant. (at p203)
END QUOTE
KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia STEPHEN J.
QUOTE At 19
9. To be within power under par. (xxvi) a law must be special in the sense
that it is the particular race, or races, for whom it legislates that gives
rise to the occasion for its enactment. The Racial Discrimination Act is not
such a law. True, it legislates about race and proscribes discrimination upon
the basis of race. But it is a perfectly general law, addressed to all persons
regardless of their race and requiring that the members of all races shall be
free from discrimination on account of race. It protects no particular race or
races. As its recitals attest, its purpose is to give effect to the
International Convention, a copy of which is scheduled to the Act. That
Convention, in its opening recitals, stresses the promotion of universal
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction;
universality of application lies very much at its heart. The Act takes from
the Convention this quality, thereby denying to it the character of a special
law to which par. (xxvi) refers. (at p210)
END QUOTE
KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia GIBBS C.J.
QUOTE At 19
19. Since the very inception of the Constitution it has been recognized that
s. 51(xxix) - that "somewhat dark" power, as Professor Harrison Moore called
it (see Law Quarterly Review, vol. 16(1900), at p. 39) - creates grave
difficulties of interpretation. Quick and Garran in their Annotated
Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth were not wrong when they said (at
p. 631) that it "may hereafter prove to be a great constitutional
battle-ground". The expression "external affairs" is imprecise and indeed
ambiguous. It might in one sense be understood as referring to matters or
things geographically situated outside Australia. The meanings of the words
"external" and "affairs", considered separately, are wide enough to support
that interpretation. However, if the phrase is considered as a whole, its
natural meaning is matters concerning other countries. When the word "affairs"
is used in the phrase "foreign affairs" it has the sense of "public business,
transactions or matters concerning men or nations collectively" (see Oxford
English Dictionary), and the word "foreign" indicates that such business,
transactions or matters take place in or with other countries, or concern
other countries. In the first case in which the nature of the power was
considered at length, R. v. Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CLR 608 , it was
held by all members of the Court that the words of s. 51(xxix) are used in
that sense. Latham C.J. said (1936) 55 CLR, at p 643 :
"The regulation of relations between Australia and other countries,

including other countries within the Empire, is the substantial subject
matter of external affairs."
He could see no distinction between "external affairs" and "foreign relations"

(1936) 55 CLR, at p 643 . Starke J. said (1936) 55 CLR, at p 658 :
"But what else are external affairs of a State - or, to use the more
common expression, the foreign affairs or foreign relations of a State -
but matters which concern its relations and intercourse with other Powers
or States and the consequent rights and obligations?"
Dixon J. said (1936) 55 CLR, at p 669 :
"I think it is evident that its purpose (i.e. the purpose of s. 51

(xxix)) was to authorize the Parliament to make laws governing the conduct
of Australians in and perhaps out of the Commonwealth in reference to
matters affecting the external relations of the Commonwealth."
Evatt and McTiernan JJ. said (1936) 55 CLR, at p 684 :
"Therefore the real question is - what is comprehended by the expression

'external affairs'. It is an expression of wide import. It is frequently
used to denote the whole series of relationships which may exist between
States in times of peace or war. It may also include measures designed to
promote friendly relations with all or any of the nations . . . It would
seem that, in sec. 51 of the Constitution, the phrase 'external affairs'
was adopted in preference to 'foreign affairs', so as to make it clear
that the relationship between the Commonwealth and other parts of the
British Empire, as well as the relationship between the Commonwealth and
foreign countries, was to be comprehended." (at p189)
END QUOTE
QUOTE At 20
20. It has never been doubted that the words of s. 51(xxix) are wide enough
to empower the Parliament, in some circumstances at least, to pass a law which
carries into effect within Australia the provisions of an international
agreement to which Australia is a party. Indeed, Professor Harrison Moore
regarded the enactment of laws for the execution of treaties made by or
otherwise affecting the Commonwealth as "perhaps the most obvious subject for
the operation of the power": The Commonwealth of Australia, 2nd ed., (1910),
p. 461. In Roche v. Kronheimer (1921) 29 CLR 329 , Higgins J. considered that
a statute passed to provide machinery within Australia for enforcing certain
provisions of the Treaty of Peace which affected the property, rights and
interests of enemy aliens could be upheld under s. 51(xxix) as well as under
s. 51(vi). In R. v. Burgess; Ex parte Henry, the Court upheld the validity
under s. 51(xxix) of so much of a section of a Commonwealth statute as
authorized the making of regulations for carrying out and giving effect to an
international convention for the regulation of aerial navigation (the Paris
Convention) to which Australia was a party. The majority of the Court however
held that the regulations did not carry out and give effect to the convention,
and were invalid. New regulations made to carry out and give effect to the
Paris Convention were upheld in R. v. Poole; Ex parte Henry (No. 2) (1939) 61
CLR 634 . In Airlines of N.S.W. Pty. Ltd. v. New South Wales (No. 2) (1965)
113 CLR 54 the Court held that certain regulations which gave effect to the
Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation were validly made -

according to three members of the Court, under both s. 51(xxix) and the trade
and commerce power, and, in the view of one justice, under s. 51(xxix) alone.
END QUOTE
QUOTE At 26
Accordingly, they concluded (1936) 55 CLR, at p 687 :
"It would seem clear, therefore, that the legislative power of the
Commonwealth over 'external affairs' certainly includes the power to
execute within the Commonwealth treaties and conventions entered into with
foreign powers."
END QUOTE
QUOTE 20180927 email

https://russia-insider.us9.list-
manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=4986fae96c&e=5110f4b440
------------------------------------------------------------
by Ron Unz The Unz Review (3,091 views) on Tue, Sep 25, 2018
The author spends a few weeks perusing the literature, which he

summarizes in this 18,000 word article, and concludes that the
Holocaust story relentlessly hammered into the public consciousness
by Jewish-owned Hollywood and media is a load of baloney. He suspects
that when the lie comes crashing down, a political earthquake will
ensue.
"I wouldn’t be surprised if our current Holocaust narrative

eventually suffers that same fate (total collapse), perhaps with
unfortunate consequences for those too closely associated with having
maintained it."
"Once I realized to my dismay that I couldn’t believe a word of what

our media and political leaders said about major events in the here
and now, their credibility on controversial happenings so long ago
and far away entirely disappeared."
END QUOTE 20180927 email
http://www.renegadetribune.com/international-red-cross-report-confirms-holocaust-six-million-
jews-hoax/
QUOTE
International Red Cross Report Confirms the Holocaust of Six Million Jews is a Hoax
August 6, 2015July 9, 2017 Teena Gee 241 Comments 6 million, confirms the myth,
holocaust hoax, International Red Cross, Report
RED CROSS EXPOSES “JEWISH” HOLOCAUST HOAX: INTERNATIONAL RED

CROSS (IRC) DOCUMENT CONFIRMS 271 THOUSAND NOT 6 MILLION DIED IN
CONCENTRATION CAMPS
TG: “This appeared in Ireland in the Kilkenny Journal and was sent to me by a friend. Here
is the link to the original article which I have pasted in full here below:”

http://www.kilkennyjournal.ie/index.php/politics/item/1484-international-red-cross-report-
confirms-the-myth-of-the-six-million
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2012/06/red-cross-expose-jewish-holocaust-hoax/
OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS RECORDS RELEASED
Sealed and guarded since the end of WWII at Arolsen, Germany, the Official IRC
records reveal the actual Concentration Camp total death toll was 271,301
For years, people around the world – “the West” in particular – have been told that “six
million Jews were systematically murdered by Germans in ‘Concentration Camps’ during
World War 2.”
Thousands of honest people disputing this claim have been viciously smeared as a hateful
anti-Semite. Several countries around the world have jailed and heavily fined people for
disputing the claim that “6 Million” Jews were killed.
Provided here is a scanned image of an Official International Red Cross document, proving
the so-called “Holocaust” [the long-and-often-claimed-6-million Jews] is just plain wrong.
Jews around the world have intentionally exaggerated and perpetually lied for the purpose
of gaining political, emotional and business advantages for themselves.
They committed willful, criminal FRAUD upon millions of trusting people around the
world!
Please NOTE that the truth has been known since long before 1979!!! The above compiler,
replying to a letter, had to rely on information that was already in existence!!!
Tax-payers of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Latvia, Poland and other nations have had
multiple millions of dollars taken from their wages to be paid out to “holocaust survivors”
and their descendants for something that DID NOT HAPPEN.
The tax-payers of these United States of America spend Billion$ each year in direct,
indirect and military support of the State of Israel (which is not Biblical Israel).
This is intentional, criminal fraud on a scale so massive as to be almost incomprehensible.
Red Cross and East German government figures put the total deaths at every camp as
272.000, and 282,000 respectively which includes homosexuals, communists, gypsies,
murderers, paedophiles etc. The 6 Million figure is a Kabbalist number, a magickal figure
which featured in newspapers in the early 1900’s
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
http://monamontgomery.com/products/271304.htm
271,304
Published on July 17, 1990, The Washington Times{PUBLICATION2}

Poland reduces Auschwitz death toll estimate to 1 million
LONDON - Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the Nazis in the
Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1 million.
The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews, despite claims by the
former Polish communist government that as many Poles perished in Hitler's largest
concentration camp. The revised Polish figures support claims by Israeli researchers that
Poland's former communist government exaggerated the
(Image not reproduced)
OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL RED

CROSS RECORDS RELEASED
Sealed and guarded since the end of WWII at Arolsen, Germany, the
Official IRC records reveal the actual Concentration Camp total death
toll was 271,301
For years, people around the world - "the West" in particular - have been told
that "six million Jews were systematically murdered by Germans in
'Concentration Camps' during World War 2." Thousands of
honest people disputing this claim has been viciously smeared as a hateful
anti-Semite. Several countries around the world have jailed and heavily fined
people for disputing the claim that "6 Million" Jews were killed.
Provided here is a scanned image of an Official International Red Cross
document, proving the so-called "Holocaust" [the long-and-often-claimed-6-
million Jews] is just plain wrong. Jews around the world have intentionally
exaggerated and perpetually lied for the purpose of gaining political,
emotional and business advantages for themselves. They committed willful,
criminal FRAUD upon millions of trusting people around the world!
Please NOTE that the truth has been known since long before 1979!!!
The above compiler, replying to a letter, had to rely on information
that was already in existence!!!
Tax-payers of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Latvia, Poland and other

nations have had multiple Millions of dollars taken from their wages to be
paid out to "holocaust survivors" and their descendants for something that
DID NOT HAPPEN. The tax-payers of these United States of America spend
Billion$ each year in direct, indirect and military support of the State of
Israel (which is not Biblical Israel). This is intentional, criminal fraud on a
scale so massive as to be almost incomprehensible.
Where do the innocent Germans, Americans and others go to get a

refund?

I call for criminal prosecution of individuals and groups who filed false
lawsuits to obtain holocaust reparations and financial damage awards
and perpetrating deliberate fraud upon Courts.
I call for the removal of Holocaust references in History books and

educational materials.
I call for the removal of Holocaust Memorials worldwide.
It is long overdue that this intentional fraud be halted and those who
perpetrated it be brought to justice for over 60 years of National Blood Libel
against Germany and other nations through vicious lies and financial fraud.
Two of the most important surveys of the Jewish question in Europe

during World War II are David Irvings examination of the Russian archives
after the wall came down. Irving published his findings in his book, "Hitler's
War" and said not one word about gas chambers. When question about this
omission he said that there was no reference to gas chambers in the archives
and therefore he did not discuss the question of gas chambers. Irving was
arrested in several countries for hate speech for his scholarly omission.
The International Red Cross published their analysis in a three volume

"Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities
during the Second World War" published in Geneva in 1948. This analysis
expanded findings of two previous publications: "Sur L'activite' du CICR en
faveur des civils detencus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne
1939-1945 (Geneva, 1946) and "Inter Arma Caritas: The Work of the ICRF
during the Second World War" (Geneva, 1947).
In 1929 the International Red Cross interviewed prisoners in the German

camps. They were not allowed to interview prisoners in the Russian camps
which were far more harsh. The German camps held both political prisoners
(Schutzhaflinge) and those convicted of crimes. The Germans allowed the
Red Cross to distribute food, medicine and clothing to the prisoners. Grateful
prisoners sent letters of thanks from Dachau, Buchenwalk, Sangerhausen,
Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Landsberg-am-Lech, Fibha,
Ravensbruck, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt,
Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and others. "The principal recipients were
Belgians, Dutch, French, Greeks, Italians, Norwegians, Poles and stateless
Jews" (Vol. III, p. 83).
Regarding Theresienstadt, the Red Cross said, ""where there were about
40,000 Jews deported from various countries, was a relatively privileged ghetto" (Vol.
III, p. 75). "The Committee's delegates were able to visit the camp at Theresienstadt
(Terezin) which was used exclusively for Jews and was governed by special conditions
... From information gathered by the Commmee, this camp had been started as an
experiment by certain leaders of the Reich ... These men wished to give the Jews the
means of setting up a communal life in a town under their own administration and
possessing almost complete autonomy ... two delegates were able to visit the camp on
April 6, 1945. They confirmed the favourable impression gained on the first visit"
(Vol. I, p. 642).
The ICRC also had praise for the regime of Ion Antonescu of Fascist Rumania
where the Committee was able to extend special relief to 183,000 Rumanian Jews
until the time of the Soviet occupation. The aid then ceased and the ICRC complained
bitterly that it never succeeded "in sending anything whatsoever to Russia" (Vol. II,
p. 62). The same situation applied to many of the German camps after their
"liberation" by
the Russians. The ICRC received a voluminous flow of mail from Auschwitz until the
period of the Soviet occupation, when many of the internees were evacuated
westward. But the efforts of the Red Cross to send relief to internees remaining at
Auschwitz under Soviet control were futile. However. food parcels continued to be
sent to former Auschwitz inmates transferred west to such camps as Buchenwald and
Oranienburg.
NO MENTION OF GAS CHAMBERS

One of the most important aspects of the Report of the ICRC is that it clarifies the
true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the
camps towards the end of the war. Says the Report: "in the chaotic condition of
Germany after the invasion during the final months of the
war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing
number of victims. Itself alarmed by this situation, the
German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1, 1945 ... In March
1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S.
Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed
by the ICRC and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp .I." (Vol. III,
p.83).
Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as
they were able. The Red Cross are quite explicit in
stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German
transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had
protested on March 15, 1944 against "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies''
(Inter Armet Caritns, p. 78). By October 2, 1944, the ICRC had warned the German
Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system,
declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming
inevitable.
In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress
that the delegates of the International Red Cross
found no evidence whatsoever of 'gas chambers'. The original 1946 edition did not
even talk of 'extermination' or 'death camps' but after the
emotional impact of the Nuremberg trials the Red Cross felt compelled to introduce
into the expanded 1948 Report several, very cursory references to 'death camps' (Vol.
1 p. 641) and 'extermination camps' (Vol. I p. 645).
However, no means of'extermination' is indicated. In all its 1,600 pages the three-
volume Report does not even mention such a thing as a
'gas chamber'. It acknowledges that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities,
suffered rigours and privations, but' its complete silence
on the subject of 'gassings' is ample refutation of the 'Holocaust' legend.
NOT ALL WERE INTERNED

Volume III of the Report of the ICRC, Chapter 3 (I. Jewish Civilian Population)
deals with the "aid given to the Jewish section of the free
population" and this chapter makes it quite plain that by no means all of the
European Jews were placed in internment camps but remained, subject to certain
restrictions, as part of the free civilian population. This conflicts directly with the
"thoroughness" of the supposed "extermination programme", and with the claim in
the forged Hoess memoirs that Eichmann was obsessed with seizing every single Jew
he could lay his hands on," In Slovakia, for example, where Eichmann's assistant
Dieter Wisliceny was in charge, the Report states that "A large proportian of the
Jewish minority had permission to stay in the country, and at certain periods
Slovakia was looked upon as a comparative haven of refuge for Jews, especially for
those coming from Poland. Those who remained in Slovakia seem to have been in
comparative safety until the end of August 1944, when a rising against the German
forces took place. While it is true that the law of May 15, 1942 had brought about the
internment of several thousand Jews, these people were held in camps where the
conditions of food and lodging were tolerable, and where the internees were allowed
to do paid work on terms almost equal to those of the free labour market" (Vol. I, p.
646).
Not only did large numbers of the three million or so European Jews avoid
internment altogether, but the emigration of Jews continued throughout the war,
generally by way of Hungary, Rumania and Turkey. Ironically, post-war Jewish
emigration from German-occupied territories was also facilitated by the Reich, as in
the case of the Polish Jews who had escaped to France before its occupation. "The
Jews from Poland who, whilst in France, had obtained entrance permits to the United
States were held to be American citizens by the German occupying authorities, who
further agreed to recognise the validity of about three thousand passports issued to
Jews by the consulates of South American countries" (Vol. 1, p. 645).
As future U.S. citizens, these Jews were held at the Vittel camp in southern France
for American aliens. The emigration of European Jews from Hungary in particular
proceeded during the war unhindered by the German authorities. "Until March
1944," says the Red Cross Report, "Jews who had the privilege of visas for Palestine
were free to leave Hungary" (Vol. 1, p. 648). Even after the replacement of the Horthy
Government in 1944 (following its attempted armistice with the Soviet Union) with a
government more dependent on German authority, the emigration of Jews continued.
The Committee secured the pledges of both Britain and the United States "to give
support by every means to the emigration of Jews from Hungary, " and from the U.S.
Government the ICRC received a message stating that "The Government of the
United States... now specifically repeats its assurance that arrangements will be made
by it for the care of all Jews who in the present circumstances are allowed to leave"
(Vol. 1, p. 649).
http://christianparty.net/holocaustredcross.htm
END QUOTE
The image appeared to me to show the following:
The recording indicates:

Auschwitz 31.12.1977 52-389
Bergen-Belsen 30.09.1973 6-507
Buchenwald 30.09.1973 20-501
Dacbau 30.09.1973 17-501
Floesenburg 30.09.1973 18-259
Cross Bosen 30.09.1973 7-925
Bzb Heuengamns 30.09.1973 5-570
Mzuthausen 30.09.1973 77.727
Mejanek 30.09.1973 6-920
Mittelbau 30.09.1973 7-187
Zatzaeiler 30.09.1973 3-944
Sachsechausen 30.09.1973 4-795
Abteilung I 31.12.1978 14-748
______
GESAMT 31.12.1978 271.301
I understand the website https://www.scribd.com/document/358238050/100-Press-reoccurrence-

of-Six-Million-number list the ongoing reference to 6 million Jews at least since 1900.
That was decades before Adolf Hitler even became German chancellor.
For example:
https://www.scribd.com/document/358238050/100-Press-reoccurrence-of-Six-Million-number
QUOTE
1915
Originally Posted by
The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), June 25th, 1915
The annihilation of the
six million
Jews now congregated in the Russian domains goes on in a well deﬁned and
systematic manner.
END QUOTE
1919
The American Hebrew, October 31st, 1919, page 582
QUOTE
holocaust
of human life [...] in the name of the humanity of Moses to
six million
famished men and women.
Six million
men and women are dying [...]
END QUOTE
Yes, the word “holocaust” Was used way back in 1919 regarding the dying of 6 million
Jews.
The American Hebrew, October 31st, 1919, page 582

QUOTE
Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life [...]
bigoted lust for Jewish blood. In this threatened holocaust of human life [...]
in the name of the humanity of Moses to
six million famished men and women.
Six million men and women are dying [...]
six million Jewish men and women are starring across the seas [...]
END QUOTE
New York Times, June 1st, 1933, page 6

QUOTE
Dr. Margoshes said he had received a letter from the poet at Zurich a few days
ago, statig that she had "run away from the holocaust" [...]
END QUOTE
The Jewish Western Bulletin, September 21st, 1933

QUOTE
At this period of human persecution and of human destruction, when
life, especially Jewish life has ceased to be of any value in the cruel land of
bloody Germany, when the lives of hundreds of thousands are tortured and hang
in the balance - during this holocaust [...]
END QUOTE
New York Times, May 31st, 1936, page 14

QUOTE
AMERICANS APPEAL FOR JEWISH REFUGE. The petition, in expressing the opinion
of enlightened Christian leadership in the United States, favoring a larger Jewish
immigration into Palestine, stressed the intolerable sufferings of the millions of
Jews in "the European holocaust ." [...] to save these unfortunate millions
from total annihilation [...]
END QUOTE
The Jewish Western Bulletin, June 12nd, 1936, page 3

QUOTE
Great Britain has it within her power to throw open the gates of Palestine and let
in the victimized and persecuted Jews escaping from the European holocaust
END QUOTE
New York Times, October 2nd, 1941

QUOTE
[...] as to avoid the likelihood of another holocaust
END QUOTE
The usage of the statement “of another holocaust” implies the holocauust alreadY
eventuated long before then!
QUOTE
New York Times, December 13th, 1942, page 21
Rabbi Israel Goldstein in Temple B'nai Jeshurun, Eighty-eighth Street, near
Broadway, declared: "Authenticated reports point to 2,000,000 Jews who have
already been slain by all manner of satanic barbarism, and plans for the total
extermination of all Jews upon whom the Nazis can lay their hands. The slaughter
of a third of the Jewish population in Hitler's domain and the threatened slaughter
of all is a holocaust without parallel.
1942
The Courier-Mail (Brisbane), December 19th, 1942
GERMAN HORROR CRIMES; ALLIES PROMISE JUSTICE. Statements issued
simultaneously in London, Washington and Moscow, told at German barbarity and
of proof of the Nazi determination to exterminate Jews. [...] Hitler's decision to
exterminate the Jews [...] It is estimated that there are between ﬁve and

six million Jews in Occupied Europe [...] Nazi Slaughter House. [...]
Hitler's oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe.
END QUOTE
http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Auschwitz.htm
QUOTE
* Auschwitz crematoria - These structures were hastily built by inmate labor after the
first typhus epidemic caused thousands of deaths. (Burial of epidemic victims had caused
the ground water to be contaminated causing infections among the German staff. Amongst
the victims was an early camp commandant's wife. Polish peasants from the surrounding
district were also cremated here.)
END QUOTE
What we really have is NAZI Australia where the groundwork is laid for a kind of NAZI
takeover at anytime. Too late when this were to eventuate as we in my view have too many
traitors in the parliament who are willing so to say to sell their mothers grave for any possible
benefits to get votes in political elections and disregard they are by this also sacrificing their own
descendants constitutional rights in the process.
* I gather from this you do not accept that the Federal Parliament can so to say hand itself
legislative powers in violation of what the constitution actually stands for, is that correct?
**#** That is correct. Parliamentarians are far too often warmongers coming with all kinds of
claims to terrorize citizens. We had this with selling public utilities because allegedly it would
mean cheaper electricity and fuel when the opposite eventuated. We had parliamentarians
claiming the world would be a safer place to invade Iraq when the opposite eventuated. No kind
of mantras can excused this kind of conduct.
Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate
change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong". This was
the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates.
I would like to see those I view traitors to the constituents to be put on trial. Those politicians are
elected to serve the constituents and not their own kind of goals. In this cased I must say I find
the statement of Mr Brandt very positive but the other major parties obviously couldn’t care less.
* Isn’t he of the Australian Greens?
**#** Indeed, he is and when I heard him speaking over the radio I was pleasantly surprised
about what he stated. My respect to him in that regard. Regretfully he in my view lost the plot
with corporations such as Officeworks and other stores charging for bags, whereas previously
they gave free paper bags, as a way to make monies out of this environment mantra. Why indeed
purchase a plastic bag that can cause more environment harm then paper bags? If corporations
really mean to pursue environment issues that all monies received for purchase of plastic bags
should be donated to environmental causes.
* You did mention earlier to quote about the findings of poision in drinkwater and how it affects
cereals, etc. didn’t you?
**#** I did indeed and will below quote it now.

Glyphosate in breakfast cereals, plus chance to defeat California
vaccine zealot
 NaturalNews <insider@naturalnews.com>

 Today at 5:51
To
 inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Message body
Glyphosate in breakfast cereals, plus chance to

defeat California vaccine zealot
A consumer group has released test results for glyphosate in breakfast
cereals, and the results show daily exposure to a cancer-causing
herbicide at levels that have some experts very concerned.
Are you eating glyphosate herbicide in your cereals? (Hint: Oat-based

cereals showed the highest levels.)
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-06-vast-array-of-breakfast-cereals-contain-
glyphosate.html
Vast array of breakfast cereals contain worrying levels of glyphosate

Tuesday, November 06, 2018 by: Isabelle Z.
Tags: badfood, badhealth, cancer, cereal, food supply, glyphosate, grocery, herbicide, non-Hodgkin lymphoma,
oatmeal, oats, pesticides, processed food, Roundup, toxic ingredients, toxins
4,900VIEWS
(Natural News) Would you like some weed killer with your breakfast? No one in their right mind would answer this
question affirmatively, yet if you happen to eat one of 26 popular cereals, that’s exactly how you’ve been starting out
your mornings.

A new report released by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) shows that 26 out of 28 breakfast products tested
contain higher levels of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, than their scientists feel
is safe for children to consume. These products included several varieties of granola, oat breakfast cereal, instant
oats, overnight oat products, and snack bars from Quaker, as well as popular cereals like Cheerios. One product,
Quaker Oatmeal Squares cereal, had glyphosate levels that were almost 18 times higher than the EWG benchmark
for children.
Glyphosate exposure is risky for everyone, but it’s particularly dangerous for children as it can impact their
development. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has listed glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,”
much to the dismay of Monsanto, which has gone out of its way to try to discredit the respected agency to protect its
profits. The World Health Organization said in a 2015 report that the chemical has been linked to non-Hodgkin
lymphoma and prostate cancer. It is also listed by the state of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment as being a known carcinogen.
In fact, Monsanto was ordered by a San Francisco jury to pay a school groundskeeper $289 million in damages after
exposure to the weed killer caused him to develop cancer; the payout was later reduced but the decision was upheld.
The company is now facing several class-action lawsuits over its cancer-causing products.
The power of the elements: Discover Colloidal Silver Mouthwash with quality, natural
ingredients like Sangre de Drago sap, black walnut hulls, menthol crystals and more.
Zero artificial sweeteners, colors or alcohol. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store and
help support this news site.
Some of the manufacturers in the study, like Quaker, argue that the EWG’s benchmark levels of 160 PPB are too low,
but the official legal levels are notoriously outdated and well above the limits many experts believe are safe. The
EWG pointed out that in addition to not being based on current science, “The EPA’s standards for pesticides and
other chemicals are also heavily influenced by lobbying from industry.”
The manufacturers claim that the glyphosate is not added during the milling process but is routinely used by farmers
before harvesting the oat crops. One way or another, it’s in the food, which means it is going to make its way into your
body if you consume it.
While experts don’t think the public should be hysterical, they do point out that people need to be aware of what is in
their food that doesn’t make it onto the label.
A previous report from the same group reached a similarly concerning conclusion about more than 39 oat-based
foods. On that occasion, a third of 16 products tested that were made with organic oats had glyphosate, while two
thirds of conventional foods also had levels above the health benchmark set by the group.
Study shows people who eat organic have lower cancer risk
The news comes shortly the JAMA Internal Medicine journal published a study that noted a significantly lower cancer
risk for people who eat a lot of organic food. In that study, French researchers found that those who eat the most
organic food have a 25 percent lower likelihood of developing cancer than people who do not eat organic food. Their
risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was 73 percent lower, while they were also 21 percent less likely to develop
postmenopausal breast cancer.
Shopping for food can be a stressful task for health-conscious individuals, but when your health – and that of your
children – is on the line, it’s always worth making the extra effort, whether that means getting to the bottom of the
sources of the food you buy or growing it yourself.
Sources for this article include:
EWG.org
FoxNews.com

NaturalNews.com
https://www.ewg.org/release/roundup-breakfast-part-2-new-tests-weed-killer-found-all-kids-
cereals-sampled
Roundup for Breakfast, Part 2: In New Tests, Weed Killer Found in All Kids’ Cereals
Sampled
Findings Released as Major Scientific Study Shows Eating Organic Lowers Cancer Risk
Contact:
Alex Formuzis
(202) 667-6982
alex@ewg.org
For Immediate Release:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2018
WASHINGTON – A second round of tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group

found the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer in every sample of popular oat-based
cereal and other oat-based food marketed to children. These test results fly in the face of claims by
two companies, Quaker and General Mills, which have said there is no reason for concern. This is
because, they say, their products meet the legal standards.
Yet almost all of the samples tested by EWG had residues of glyphosate at levels higher than what
EWG scientists consider protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety. The EWG
findings of a chemical identified as probably carcinogenic by the World Health Organization
come on the heels of a major study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that found a significant
reduction in cancer risk for individuals who ate a lot of organic food.
The tests detected glyphosate in all 28 samples of products made with conventionally grown oats. All
but two of the 28 samples had levels of glyphosate above EWG’s health benchmark of 160 parts per
billion, or ppb.
Products tested by Anresco Laboratories in San Francisco included 10 samples of different types of
General Mills’ Cheerios and 18 samples of different Quaker brand products from PepsiCo, including
instant oatmeal, breakfast cereal and snack bars. The highest level of glyphosate found by the lab was
2,837 ppb in Quaker Oatmeal Squares breakfast cereal, nearly 18 times higher than EWG’s
children’s health benchmark.
New EWG Tests Find Glyphosate in All Cheerios and Quaker Oats Cereals Sampled
Type of Food Product Name Glyphosate (ppb) Lab
Sample 1 Sample 2
Granola Quaker Simply 625 862 Anresco
Granola Oats,
Honey & Almonds
Instant oats Quaker Instant 128 45 Anresco
Oatmeal
Cinnamon & Spice
Instant oats Quaker Instant 543 248 Anresco
Oatmeal Apples &
Cinnamon
Instant oats Quaker Real 608 Anresco
Medleys Super
Grains Banana
Walnut
Overnight oats Quaker Overnight 1029 Anresco
Oats Raisin
Walnut & Honey
Heaven
Overnight oats Quaker Overnight 1799 Anresco
Oats
Unsweetened with
Chia Seeds
Oat breakfast Quaker Oatmeal 2746 Anresco
cereal Squares Brown
Sugar
Oat breakfast Quaker Oatmeal 2837 Anresco
cereal Squares Honey
Nut
Oat breakfast Apple Cinnamon 868 Anresco
cereal Cheerios
Oat breakfast Very Berry 810 Anresco
cereal Cheerios
Oat breakfast Chocolate 826 Anresco
cereal Cheerios
Oat breakfast Frosted Cheerios 756 893 Anresco

cereal
Oat breakfast Fruity Cheerios 618 Anresco
cereal
Oat breakfast Honey Nut 833 894 Anresco
cereal Cheerios
Oat breakfast Cheerios Oat 1171 541 Anresco
cereal Crunch Cinnamon
Snack bar Quaker Chewy 260 572 Anresco
S’mores
Snack bar Quaker Chewy 625 275 Anresco
Peanut Butter
Chocolate Chip
Snack bar Quaker Breakfast 1014 713 Anresco
Squares Soft
Baked Bars
Peanut Butter
Snack bar Quaker Breakfast 894 Anresco
Flats Crispy
Snack Bars
Cranberry Almond
Test information: EWG scientists purchased products in grocery stores in the San Francisco Bay area and Washington, DC, area. Either
one or two different samples were purchased for testing, depending on the type of product. Approximately 300 grams of each product
were packaged and shipped to Anresco Laboratories, in San Francisco. Glyphosate levels were analyzed by liquid chromatography
tandem mass spectrometry method, with the limit of quantification of 10 ppb. Testing methodology is described here. A PDF of the
testing results is available here.
Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, is classified by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic” to people. The IARC has steadfastly defended that
decision despite ongoing attacks by Monsanto.
In 2017, glyphosate was also listed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer.
“How many bowls of cereal and oatmeal have American kids eaten that came with a dose of weed
killer? That’s a question only General Mills, PepsiCo and other food companies can answer,” said
EWG President Ken Cook. “But if those companies would just switch to oats that aren’t sprayed with
glyphosate, parents wouldn’t have to wonder if their kids’ breakfasts contained a chemical linked to
cancer. Glyphosate and other cancer-causing chemicals simply don’t belong in children’s food,
period.”
Results of the new tests come two months after EWG’s first series of tests found glyphosate in all but
two of 45 samples of foods made with conventionally grown oats, and in about one-third of the 16
products made with organic oats. About two-thirds of the samples of conventional foods had levels of
glyphosate above EWG’s health benchmark.
Following release of the first batch of tests, General Mills and the Quaker Oats Company went on the
defensive, noting that glyphosate levels found were within regulatory limits set by the Environmental
Protection Agency.

But just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s safe. Federal government standards for
pesticides in food are often outdated, not based on the best and most current science. The EPA’s
standards for pesticides and other chemicals are also heavily influenced by lobbying from industry.
Studies regularly find that the legal limits on contaminants in food, air, drinking water and consumer
products fall short of fully protecting public health, particularly for children and other people more
sensitive to the effects of toxic chemicals. The EPA’s legal limit for glyphosate on oats, 30 parts per
million, was set in 2008, well before the cancer findings of the IARC and California state scientists.
EWG does not believe chemicals linked to cancer belong in children’s food. Our recommended
maximum daily intake of glyphosate in food is 0.01 milligrams. For a 60-gram portion of food, this
daily intake limit translates to a safety standard of 160 ppb of glyphosate. This health benchmark is
based on the risks of lifetime exposure, because small, repeated exposures can add up if someone eats
food containing glyphosate every day.
After sitting on data from its own glyphosate tests for more than a year, the Food and Drug
Administration finally made the results public last month. The FDA found glyphosate on about two-
thirds of corn and soybean samples. But it did not test any oats or wheat, the two main crops on
which glyphosate is used as a pre-harvest drying agent.
More than 156,000 people have signed a petition from EWG and Just Label It calling on General
Mills, Quaker and Kellogg’s to get glyphosate out of their products. Last month EWG – joined by
companies including MegaFood, Ben & Jerry’s, Stonyfield Farm, MOM’s Organic Market, Nature’s
Path, One Degree Organic Foods, Happy Family Organics, Patagonia, PCC Community Markets and
Amy’s Kitchen – petitioned the EPA to sharply limit glyphosate residues allowed on oats and
prohibit its use as a pre-harvest drying agent.

GET GLYPHOSATE OUT OF OUR FOOD!
Stand with EWG and tell food companies like General Mills, Quaker and Kellogg’s to get glyphosate
out of our food!
“Once again, our message to General Mills, Quaker and other food companies is that you can take the
simple step of telling your oat farmers to stop using glyphosate,” said Cook. “You can hide behind an
outdated federal standard, or you can listen to your customers and take responsibility for cleaning up
your supply chain. It’s your choice.”
EWG sent letters today to General Mills and PepsiCo asking each company if it had conducted
similar analyses for the presence of glyphosate. And, if any tests have been done, we asked if the
companies to inform the public when the testing began and what they found.
http://glyphosate.news/
10/31/2018 / Tracey Watson

Peer-reviewed study looks at the differences between GMO corn and its natural, non-GMO counterpart
10/28/2018 / S.D. Wells

Weed-killing wheat and cancer-causing oats for breakfast, anyone? FDA suspiciously turns blind eye to
glyphosate testing of U.S. grains

Judge affirms “guilty” verdict against Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide, reduces punitive damages to $39
million
10/24/2018 / Vicki Batts

Recent lawsuit says the chemical cocktail comprising Roundup is more toxic than just glyphosate on its own
Modern wheat, sprayed with toxic chemicals, may be one of the worst foods to eat for gut health
09/25/2018 / Ethan Huff

Killing grass instead of cutting it: America’s toxic laziness – Watch at Brighteon.com
09/18/2018 / Isabelle Z.
Seeds of deception: Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds have given them power over life
on our planet, and cultivated farmer suicides
09/18/2018 / S.D. Wells

$50-Billion mega-corporation Monsanto LOSES in court while millions of activists and organic consumers
win big
08/30/2018 / Rhonda Johansson

Pesticide residues still prevalent in honey: Recent review of samples from around the world reveals danger to
bees

08/19/2018 / Edsel Cook
The link between glyphosate exposure and autism
08/11/2018 / Mike Adams

Monsanto hit with $290 million cancer liability ruling in Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide trial
08/07/2018 / S.D. Wells

Dangerous gene-edited “Crispr” crops classified as GMO by EU – has all the U.S. biotech shills squirming like
worms coated in pesticide

Organic Trade Association member revealed to be … guess who? … BASF, one of the leading GMO
producers in the world
07/25/2018 / S.D. Wells

Where in the world are your sugar, coffee and soybeans coming from? Hopefully not
pesticide-saturated Brazil

CONFIRMED: Chemical giants have been colluding with regulators to suppress information on the deadly
effects of pesticides

GMO.news brings you the truth about GMOs, genetic engineering and more
07/16/2018 / JD Heyes
Robert Kennedy Jr. launches first lawsuit of thousands against Monsanto alleging herbicide Roundup causes
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

Monsanto bullies “fought science” to hide cancer risks, lawyer charges
07/12/2018 / Isabelle Z.
Flawed testing and compromised regulatory agencies have conspired to keep harmful pesticides on the market
http://glyphosate.news/2018-10-25-list-of-foods-that-have-tested-positive-for-glyphosate-
contamination.html
From your favorite breakfast cereals to your orange juice, here is a list of
foods that have “tested positive” for glyphosate contamination – (with
editor’s note)
10/25/2018 / By Isabelle Z.

As the world’s most widely used agricultural chemical, glyphosate is everywhere. In recent
years, the dangers of this chemical have been gaining publicity, despite the best efforts of biotech
companies that manufacture it, like Monsanto. Not only has it been linked to cancer, but it’s also
an endocrine disruptor that can cause birth defects. While many of us wouldn’t dream of buying
fruits and vegetables that aren’t organic these days, the sad truth is that glyphosate is making its
way into all sorts of foods that you might not suspect.
Although it could be argued that some of these foods don’t contain high enough levels to cause
concern, all those trace amounts of glyphosate you consume here and there can build up to create
a risky accumulations in your body. The chemical bioaccumulates in your organs as well as your
bones, which is why it’s best to do all you can to avoid it.
The Waking Times recently posted a comprehensive list of all the foods and other products, such
as personal hygiene products, they have tested positive for glyphosate contamination. They
compiled results shared by various groups that have carried out such testing, and it’s a real eye-
opener.
You can view the complete list here.
[Editor’s note from Adams: As I have discussed in several podcasts, testing “positive” for
glyphosate is scientifically meaningless. It simply means that at least one molecule of glyphosate
was found in the sample. One molecule of glyphosate presents no risk of harm to anyone. The
real issue here is the concentration of glyphosate in products, as well as the total daily intake.
California is about to adopt a new daily intake limit of 1100 micrograms of glyphosate. The EU,
meanwhile, considering lowering glyphosate limits in most common groceries to 50 ppb. The
only meaningful discussion of glyphosate or other herbicides must be centered around
concentration levels, not “testing positive.” I am working to educate people about this scientific
reality, but sadly the scientifically illiterate media has no understanding of real science,
concentration levels of even the concept of daily exposure. So when you read that some
organization is reporting food products as “testing positive” for glyphosate, understand that such
claims are not rooted in real science. Such claims are meaningless, since everything in the
grocery store contains at least one molecule of glyphosate, sadly.]
Your breakfast isn’t as clean as you think
While entries like Kellogg’s Corn Flakes aren’t that surprising considering the widespread use of
glyphosate on corn crops, there are also some more health-conscious food items on the list. For
example, tests carried out by the Environmental Working Group found glyphosate in foods like
Bob’s Red Mill Organic old-fashioned rolled oats and steel cut oats, the conventional rolled oats
from the bulk bin at Whole Foods, Nature’s Path Organic old-fashioned organic oats, and several
Quaker oat products.
This could be due in part to the fact that crops like oats are often treated with glyphosate prior to
harvest to dry them out faster and facilitate the harvesting process.
Breakfast cereals like Kashi’s Heart to Heart Organic Honey Toasted Cereal, Back to Nature
Classic Granola, Nature’s Path Organic Honey Almond Granola, and Kashi Organic Promise
also tested positive.
Another breakfast staple, orange juice, also fared very poorly. Tests carried out by Moms Across
America found glyphosate in orange juice from brands like Signature Farms, Kirkland, Minute
Maid, Tropicana and Stater Bros.
Snack foods
As if junk food weren’t already bad enough with all of its preservatives and high sugar content,
many of them also have cancer-causing glyphosate in them. Cheez-Its, Triscuits, Goldfish
crackers, Oreos, Doritos, Fritos, and Little Debbie products all tested positive for glyphosate in
tests carried out by the DetoxProject in 2016.
However, like we saw with cereal, some of the seemingly healthier choices are also guilty of
containing glyphosate. Products like Annie’s Gluten-Free Bunny Cookies, Stacy’s Simply Naked
Pita Chips, Kashi Soft Baked Cookies, and 365 Organic Golden Round Crackers all made the
list.
You should also take a closer look at your snack bars; tests carried out by the Environmental
Working Group found glyphosate in bars from Nature Valley, Quaker, Kellogg’s, KIND, and
Cascadian Farm.
Meanwhile, the list of staple crops that tested positive for glyphosate according to Friends of the
Earth Europe include soybeans, corn, cotton, wheat and sugar beets.
As you can see, this carcinogenic chemical has found its way into a disheartening number of
foods. Perhaps even more disturbing is the number of “organic” foods that, in fact, contain

glyphosate – many of which people are paying a higher price for with the expectation of getting
something that is free of chemicals.
Head over to the Waking Times and take a close look at the list. Is anything that you regularly eat
listed? If so, it’s time to seek alternatives and contact the manufacturer to let them know that this
is unacceptable.
Sources for this article include:
WakingTimes.com
EcoWatch.com
* That is a lot of information!
**#** Well, this is why I made it part B because to forward it in an email wouldn’t be what
everyone would appreciate. However, the issues are of vital important. Those politicians are
perhaps holding that they do not care less as long as they make the monies while in reality
placing not only themselves but also their own children at risk (such as with the breakfast
cereals), due to their ignorance and apathy to be concerned where they should be. And why
would they really want to stop violent terrorism when it serves their purposes to get alleged
reasons to legislate more and more and rob lawful citizens of their constitutional and other legal;
rights? And the above is so to say merely the tip of the iceberg.
In my view what has been created is the NAZI Germany kind of conditions for a NAZI Australia
creation where any group of people that are considered to be a race can be interred into a
concentration camp (work camp) and re-educated, etc. Also with the ability of the Australian
federal Police to unconstitutionally invade the states and so the armed forces and with their legal
liability being eroded and other so called anti-terrorism legislation allowing for arbitrary arrest,
etc, then any political dissent can also be swiftly disposed of. I can only applaud Adam Brandt
of the Australian greens for speaking out in the Parliament about the dangers of the kind of
legislation that was then before the Parliament.
There are a lot of other issues that I could refer to but for the moment it should be clear hat with
electronics being used extensively then soon those so called anti-terrorism laws are nothing less
then an invasion into the freedoms of citizens.
QUOTE Mr. WISE:
. They forget that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted to
its jurisdiction; and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil rights, all matters
that affect property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great objects which stir the passions and
affect the interests of mankind.
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!)

Gerrit, Did You Mean NAZI Germany?: Constitutionalist

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Gerrit, Did You Mean NAZI Germany?: Constitutionalist

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

z3

* Gerrit, did you mean NAZI Germany?

Note the word “instil” was copied as was in the book!

p1 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

As such, the Commonwealth must compensate private shareholders/organizations/etc where it by

p2 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

p3 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence

Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. MUNRO: What was that?

Mr. MUNRO: I did not. I spoke in the other direction!

Mr. MUNRO: I said the reverse!

Mr. FITZGERALD: The hon. member said the opposite!

Hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p5 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

 Robert Sheridan <rs@robertsheridan.com>

p6 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Re: Weimar and the US constitutions

 Robert Sheridan <robertsheridan625@gmail.com>

On 10/25/2018 6:52 PM, Levinson, Sanford V wrote:

p7 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 06:00:22PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

"Authority creep, I guess you might call it."

What constitutes a 'systemic weakness'?

What you found in Will's metadata

p9 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

But what that means has not been defined.

"That is the last thing we want."

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p10 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p14 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Some of my Jewish family members who died in Auschwitz

Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

p16 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

p18 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

This is what the Framers of the Constitution stated:

Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

p19 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

The Executive Power with Respect to External Affairs. (at p237)

5. Constitutionally, the executive power over Australia's external affairs

Executive Council (s.62) and administered (pursuant to s.64 ) by the Minister

6. The executive power over external affairs is not unlimited. It is subject

to constitutional limitations, whether expressed, as in s.116 (freedom of

p20 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8. The subjects coming within the scope of external affairs as contemplated

countries. The Constitution itself evidences that these extended to

treaty-making and the exchange of consuls and other representatives. By s.75 ,

s.75 must include treaties entered into by Australia. (at p238)

p21 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p22 8-11-2018 Part B © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual.

Let us consider the following also: