110424 office of the guardian supplement

8/7/2019 110424 Office of the Guardian Supplement

1/21

24-4-2011 Page 1PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. [email protected]

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN (Thats you!) 24-4-2011.The OFFICE-OF THE-GUARDIAN seeks to facilitate a better understanding regardingconstitutional powers and its application and limitations. For this it presents and insight to a5forthcoming book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1

stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

.QUOTE Chapter 0015b OOTG- supplement-0110

Chapter 0015b OOTG- supplement-01

.* Gerrit, can you explain to me why the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the

Hyphens!) would be mmmmmmmmmm?.15**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI, can you just stop fooling around and just refer to the OOTGso you wont have a mouthful to say it all?.* Oops I think I got caught out! Anyhow about the OOTG can you prove to me that the cost ofrunning this OOTG would actually be worthwhile to afford?20.**#** Well, lets us have a look about the spending drifts of former and current Prime Ministersfirst of all, but let make it very clear DEMOCRACY & JUSTICE are not issues that you cannail down on what might be a cheaper alternative and in the process vandalize what areconstitutional rights and privileges. We must never go down that path.25.* I didnt mean it that way, after all as honourable Chief-Inspector with the Empire City Police Iam too well aware that we never should dispense with JUSTICE for the sake of saving somepennies..30**#** Ok, at least we got this out of the way. Now lets for example look at the reported past$400 million the Office of the Prime Minister is spending. The OOTG would hardly cost that

much and so we already can save there..* How do you manage that?35.**#** Well, lets us first consider what the Framers of the constitution stated:.Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)40QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-Yes, since then, as is pointed out in a little handbook which my honorable friend lent me.

But the question for us to consider is whether a court like the Federal High Court or the Privy Council wouldever come to such a conclusion. One would think it highly improbable. The real question that may arise under

this Constitution is whether the Commonwealth can make a law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise45 of any religion. I take it that in the absence of a provision in the Constitution conferring that powerupon the Commonwealth it will be impossible for the Commonwealth to do so. For this reason I think


2/21



we need scarcely trouble ourselves to impose any restrictions. Under a Constitution like this, thewithholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.

END QUOTE

.Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Re as is now Section 96 of the Constitution)5QUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.-It is nicely wrapped up. Any one who reflects upon the conditions which must exist

before this provision can be brought into operation will see that it assumes that the states must be reduced to acondition of pauperism before they can take advantage of it.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-What would you do if they were?10

Mr. OCONNOR.-I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some power

implied in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been

able to give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such powerimplied. The Constitution is formed for certain definite purposes. There are definite powers of legislation anddefinite powers of administration, and the clause that the Right Hon. Sir John Forrest called attention to15

just now-clause 81-expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form oneconsolidated fund, to be appropriated for the public services of the Commonwealth in the manner and

subject to the charges provided in this Constitution.

Mr. WISE-The order and good government of the Commonwealth would come under the term "public

services of the Commonwealth."20Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not agree with the honorable member in his interpretation of the powers of the

Commonwealth, especially when dealing with the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. In such acase there will be a great deal of care taken to keep the nose of the Federal Parliament to the grindstone in the

matter of this expenditure. I do not think any expenditure will be constitutional which travels outsidethese limits. We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the25Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitutionwill be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. If any Act were carried giving

monetary assistance to any state it would be unconstitutional, and the object sought would not beattained. That brings me to the question of whether it is desirable that there should be any such power either

expressed or implied. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a disastrous thing for the future of the30[start page 1109] Commonwealth if there was any such power given.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE35

Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal Parliament thoughtfit.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates40QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from theCommonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.

END QUOTE.45Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give tothe Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that

we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power50over us.

END QUOTE.

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. GORDON.-55

The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on

the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."END QUOTEAnd


3/21



HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative

power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is

necessary or incidental to a power given.5END QUOTE.

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Clause 52, sub-section (2).-Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the10Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this sub-section, whichputs the matter into a form which would express the intention of the Convention, whilst avoiding a difficulty.

Honorable members will recollect the difficulty that arose over the construction of words equivalent to"uniform throughout the Commonwealth" in the United States of America. Although no actual decision has15been given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word "uniform." The celebrated income tax casewent off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongst the people according to numbers, and this point

was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has been thrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment ofMr. Justice Field. I think that although the word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in

form" throughout the Commonwealth-still there might be a difficulty, and litigation might arise about it, and20prolonged trouble might be occasioned with regard to the provision in case, for instance, an income tax or a

land tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to prevent a discrimination between citizens of theCommonwealth in the same circumstances. I beg to move-

That all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that the following wordsbe substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between goods passing from25one state to another."

I conceive it to be quite unnecessary to retain these words in view of clause 89, prescribing free-trade among

the several states, under which any duty or tax on goods passing from one state to another would be clearlyinvalid, and could not possibly be allowed by the operation of the preference clauses. I propose not to say

anything about goods in this connexion passing from one state to another, as that is sufficiently provided for,30and I put in this provision, which prevents discrimination or any form of tax which would make a

difference between the citizen of one state and the citizen of another state, and to prevent anything

which would place a tax upon a person going from one state to another. I beg to move-

That all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted, with a view toinserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between35persons or things passing from one state to another. "

The amendment was agreed to.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 11-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates40QUOTE

Dr. QUICK.-Certainly, with regard to constitutional questions. I am prepared, if necessary, to give up thesubject's right of appeal; but I emphatically assert that there should be a right of appeal from the decision of

the High Court in regard to this Constitution, a Constitution embodying novel provisions and givingimportant powers, including the power of the Federal Court to review the procedure of Parliament. The45Federal High Court is empowered to-declare a law passed by both Houses and assented to by theCrown ultra vires, not because the Legislature has exceeded its jurisdiction, but because of some fault

of procedure. Appeals would be made only when there was a reasonable doubt in the minds of theresponsible advisers of the Commonwealth that the decisions of the High Court were open to question. The

knowledge of this right of appeal would be an incentive to the High Court to be most careful in its decisions,50and especially in its early decisions. I need not enumerate the cases in which, if the amendment is carried,

there will be no right of appeal. There will be no right of appeal in regard to the letter of the Constitutionitself. There will be no opportunity to review a decision, for instance, in regard to legislation under clause 52,

sub-section (1)-"The regulation of trade and commerce." Then, again, it is provided that all taxation is tobe uniform, and all legislation under this provision will be taken out of the purview of the Privy Council.55

END QUOTE

Hansard 12-4-1897Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE


4/21



Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?

Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!

Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the

expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powersgiven by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the Commonwealth.5

Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?

Mr. BARTON: Yes.END QUOTE.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates10QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing crime to theCommonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make special laws as to alien races; and the

moment you do that the power of making such laws does not remain in the hands of the states; and if youplace in the hands of the Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should15not defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth . I do not think that that applies at all, however, toany power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we do not give any such power to

the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having

given that power, we should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary forthe Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this matter, but I think I20shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing any religion, that is so absolutely out of

the question, so entirely not to be expected-

Mr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established.

END QUOTE.25Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?

Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the

funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.30

[start page 1773]

END QUOTE

.* Moment, can I just stop you there before you are going to continue quoting thousands of otherstatements, as I do want to cuddle up with my wife tonight and not sit with you for the next few35years just listening to you going on and on about quotations and then perhaps get an answer..**#** Dont panic as I was about going to explain it. Anyhow, if you look at the provisions ofthe constitution then you find no such thing as the Office of the Prime Minister & Cabinet in it.

As such, it cannot have then either for the Prime Minister some slush funds to unrestricted give40away our money for pork barreling..* Excuse me what is the meaning of pork barreling, as I havent got a clue what it stands for?.**#** It is a common term used to indicate that taxpayers monies are misused to give a certain45group or a certain area financial benefits others are without, such as for example to try to shoreup political benefits in an election, etc. Actually the same can be held about some minister ofimmigration having political donations accepted towards his political party and thenmysteriously people connected with such donations are then granted citizenship. The same alsoabout large companies who give political donations and then in return are getting government50

contracts that ensures their political donations are indirectly refunded to them by say overchargeof what the job normally would involve.


5/21


6/21



* Why do you use all the time (Dont forget the hyphens!)?.**#** That is to accentuate the hyphens and to make clear it is not to be confused with theOFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN a State may have in place that may or may not properly applylegal provisions.5.* What is going on with you? I have never know you to use the word accentuate in the past areyou getting some English lessons to improve your self acclaimed crummy English?.**#** I wouldnt want to do so as quite frankly I am darn proud upon my crummy English.10Let no one ever be afraid to express himself in the manner best available to him/her as there areample of people who made their life very successful even so they never had a proper commandof the English language. If the competence of the command of the English language was soimportant then why is it that so many lawyers are nevertheless loosing cases day in and day out?It is simply that it is not about how well you command the English language but how good you15are able to use what you know in how you need it. That is why you can have a barrister withmany years of experiences being so to say wiped from the floor by a person who never had anyeducation in law but knows enough to suit his case opposite of the barrister to defeat his so called

learned opponent..20* How come I did think I should have asked the question knowing you generally have an ironclad response that you cannot argue with?.**#** Never fear to ask a question because only those who fear are ignoring reality. Whenpeople are in the courts they generally fear the judge and yet the judge is there not to sow fear but25to actually get the defendant or applicant to be at peace so he can provide JUSTICE!.* O yes, next you will tell me he is going to have a chat and why not have a cup of coffee and acake also?

.30**#** My position is that a judicial officer who causes fear into an accused/applicant is notsuitable to be a judicial officer because it undermines the whole notion of JUSTICE..* Well, I wouldnt be all smiling facing a judge who could sentence me to say 10 years ofimprisonment.35.**#** I think you get the wrong idea about the function of a judicial officer. His job is to provideJUSTICE and if this happens to include a 10 year or whatever sentence then so be it because ifthis is what is appropriate in the circumstances then the judicial officer is entitled and indeedobligated to do so. If the judicial officer decides to NULLIFY the law then he as like a jury can40

do so..* I thought they deny a jury to nullify the law?.**#** Well, that is why I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and again the OOTG would be the45perfect vehicle to deal with this..HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences50committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to

which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was inconflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity tochange the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in


7/21



modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by

an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I donot at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs

in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive.It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular5state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to

exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offencesagainst it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting itscondemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was

originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which10 should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent thecitizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it bythis Constitution.

END QUOTE

.15* Here we go again, I ask a question and you quote the Framers of the Constitution. Cant youjust make up whatever?.**#** Look, my credibility lies in quoting the intentions of the Framers of the constitution as wehave enough lawyer who are claiming to be constitutional lawyers but basically do not20

understand let alone comprehend the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and then weend up in a lot of rot as we have from the Constitutional Policy Unit that is advising the Federalgovernment..* Prove it!25.**#** what is on with you today wanting me to prove everything?.* Aha, I got you no quoting of the Framers of the Constitution this time, so you got caught out,didnt you?30.

**#** No not at all. Take for example the cross Vesting Act that was struck down by the HighCourt of australia as being unconstitutional. Now, if the Constitutional Policy Unit had beenmore alert to what was constitutionally permissible without so to say blinkers over their eyes onpolitical or other ulterior purposes then it would have been aware of this and the Cross Vesting35Act never in the first place would have seen the light of day. As such, I do not need to quote theFramers of the Constitution as they hardly could foresee the existence of an unconstitutionallegislation like the now defunct Cross Vesting Act as they specifically provided for the HighCourt of Australia to adjudicate upon such matters and If you desire I can quote ample of theirstatement such as:40.HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEDr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary

sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw45parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are

not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the powerof amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary

sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have thepower of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the50parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested inone body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed

with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciarywhich towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter

of the constitution.55

END QUOTE


8/21



.* How come you know all this stuff?.**#** Well a judge asked me this way back in 1985 and I told him that when I was little mymother always told me to put the book under my pillow and the next morning I would know it5all. The judge then as I recall responded: I asked for this. Obviously you had to learn it all..* Ok, you got me, lets get back to the unconstitutional spending versus the cost of the OOTG.**#** Well before I do I should clarify that I pursue an OOTG also for each State and Territory10because they too are wasting huge amounts of monies indeed on non public spending and so thattoo needs to be curtailed..* Such as?.15**#** here we go again. Well take Victoria claiming that the Albert park races are justified. Inmy view it is unconstitutional for the State of Victoria to waste about $75 million and so on arace that is not at all for peace, order and good government as to argue that one could use any

excuse to justify expenditure. The Albert Park race is a private issue and never should be fundedby any public monies.20.* But doesnt the government get a lot of money when visitors pay their taxes with purchases andisnt it good for the economy?.**#** This has nothing to do with it. Is that meaning that the Government is going to fund the25sale of cigarettes because so many people are smoking and by this paying a lot of taxes?.* I get the drift. But didnt the High Court of Australia claim that the parliaments are not boundby peace, order and good government as a legislative limitation for the Commonwealth and

neither the States?30.**#** Well lets see what the Framers of the constitution had to say about this;.HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:35

I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of theevils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as

they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of thecommonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any

powers beyond the ambit of those specified.40

The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the

Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit mightnot raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,

order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not becontended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the45commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to theparliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their

legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that issufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good

government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full50consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had

better not be left out of the bill altogether.

END QUOTE

.


9/21



Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local

Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government

of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the5Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their

own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, exceptthat which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.

END QUOTE

.10 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-theliberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter ofliberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good15government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTE

.* Well the judges of the High Court of Australia obviously didnt see it that way, did they?.20**#** Thats the problem with them that I view we need the OOTG because then judges unable

or incompetent to properly research the subject can fall back upon the advice of the OOTG..HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE25

Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,END QUOTE

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I take the time to research numerous issues and explore themand this a judge would hardly have the time for. They rely upon their assistance who themselves30may lack the time to properly research matters. That is why the OOTG would be in the rightposition to clarify it all and then the judges and their assistance can take it from there.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE35

Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter ofthe Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under

it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-

the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to theConstitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of40this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions , then by slow

degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that theguarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the

court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as

will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of45constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere

of the Commonwealth.END QUOTE

.Hansard 9-9-1897Constitution Convention Debates50QUOTE Mr. SYMON:

It cannot possibly extend the operation of our laws generally one atom further than the constitutional

law will permit.END QUOTE

.55The problem we are currently faced with is that judges are elaborating on what is constitutionallypermissible or not upon their personal views and not separate their personal views from being ainterpretation of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution and as such they are not at all

then interpreting the intention of the Framers of the Constitution but rather are twisting themeaning and application of the constitution to often suit their own views and ideals.60


10/21



.* What is wrong with a contemporary point of view?.**#** Well, then you have no purpose of a constitutional at all but rather are in a dictatorshipbecause no person could rely upon the constitution if the rights and privileges contained in the5constitution can be denied or granted pending the personal views of the judges..Hansard 17-9-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEThe Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[4.10]: I have none of the fears of my colleague, who has just10

resumed his seat. The safety-valves he spoke about are created in the governments which we know as

constitutional governments by providing judicious checks on hasty legislation. My hon. friend has just

been arguing that these most necessary and legitimate checks are in themselves dangerous to society,likely to produce rebellion, and to land us in civil war.

END QUOTE15.Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-

We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the justinterpretation of the Constitution:20

END QUOTE.

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-

Most of us, when we were candidates for election to the Federal Convention, placed great stress upon it25as affording a means of bringing justice within easy reach of the poor man.

END QUOTE

Hansard 20-4-1897Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:30

I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having importantquestions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.

END QUOTE

.Hansard 19-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates35QUOTE

Mr. CARRUTHERS:This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.

END QUOTE.40Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton hasdescribed, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This

Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to45

this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance orrejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, andit is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to

understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the wholetime of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot h ave on the platform, when this Constitution is50commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not beappreciated by the people.

END QUOTE

.Hansard 20-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates55QUOTE

Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal

Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.


11/21



Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter ofthe laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, thesame circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the

maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it byParliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected5weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether

consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which mightbe dangerous to the Constitution itself.

END QUOTE

.10And besides the Framers of the Constitution we also can consider:QUOTE Thomas Jefferson:

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - workinglike gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless

step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over15the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.".

END QUOTE.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Serratore Nos. Ca 40642/95 and Crd 72680/95 Criminal Law and Procedure -Statutes - Human Rights - Telecommunications - Law Reform [1995] NSWSC 154 (14 November 1995)20QUOTE

"It is well established that the Court should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with

fundamental rights, freedoms or immunities; such an intention must be clearly manifested by clear andunmistakable language: Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 436-437. ... The close

link between the fundamental right to be secure against trespass and the right to privacy is illustrated by the25observations by Lord Scarman in Morris v Beardmore (1981) AC 446 ... Parliament itself has ... recognised,

in the context of telecommunications, the fundamental importance of protecting individual privacy, althoughalso recognising that the value of privacy can be over-ridden where it conflicts with other significant

community values, provided that detailed safeguards are observed. The recognition and protection of privacyin the Intercept Act, in my view, justifies a restrictive approach to the construction of the statutory exceptions30to the prohibitions on interception. ... where there is a genuine doubt as to whether the statutory languageauthorises the use of intercept information for a particular purpose, that doubt should be resolved in favour of

a narrow, rather than a broad construction of the statutory authorisation."END QUOTE

.35* Stop, stop, stop, please have mercy on my poor brain as with all those quotations my mind ifabout to blow up. Can you just for an enie bitty tiny bitsy reduce your quotations as you may nothave noticed it but the steam is coming out of my ears because you are frying my brain with allyour quotations..40**#** I was only starting! Looks like we better have a break as I wouldnt want to have thattiny brain of yours being compromised as then you are left with none at all!.* Hey, take it easy you are talking about my brain and we are not all like you enjoying theconstitution I wonder how on earth you ever could enjoy the constitution where most people45

wouldnt like it in the first place as it seems to them being very boring stuff..**#** You know what,, I will take a break as I have to go and collect a pergola as my wife Olgawants me to place it on the back patio I build for the spa bath. So, you just relax and have a nicesnooze and I will wake up later. Perhaps you like a bottle and a teething ring and perhaps a50dummy to spit, oops you already did..* Could you please, pretty please go for the pergola so I can have some time to relax and not as ababy but as an adult..55**#** I am not even attempting what you as a man like to dream about, should I? Well I better

go as I do not want to miss out on getting the pergola after I got the manager to agree to a hugediscount.


12/21



.* Dont tell me you scored another discount, did you?.**#** You ask me not to tell you and then ask me to confirm it that I did. You see how yourbrain is fried already? Well I got about 50% off so I think I better not waste my time on your5fried brain or what is left of it and better go see you later!.* Gosh, finally some peace to relax. Yes well see you later and have a safe trip! Dont you hurryback, will you?.10**#** See you later.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAUSE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.15* There YOU are after a nine hour break and you call this just going to get a gazebo?.**#** It wasnt a 9 hours break at all.

.* Well from 10 am till after 7 pm I call this a 9 hours break!20

.**#** It may have been more then 9 hours but it wasnt a break because I was working hard ongetting stuff and then going through stores and then unloading it all..* And that took you 9 hours, you got to be kidding?25.**#** Actually Olga also had a problem accepting this but I didnt neither the cash registerswhich were busy clicking over the dollars I had to pay. Anyhow at least your brain or the littlethat is there had some rest as after all a pea brain needs to be carefully managed as otherwise it

overloads again.30.* Can we just leave this crap and get back to the real issues will you?.**#** Well, take the OOTG how it could for example hold State Governments accountable.Here I had an alleged infringement of speeding by 5 kilometres and that incurs 1 demerit point35but now they made clear I better pay up or the wheel clamp my vehicle and they will suspend mydrivers license..* Well that is what you get for not paying a court find!.40

**#** Actually it never went to court..* Come on, this would be terrorism if they were to do this without a coutrt first havingadjudicated on the case and found you guilty..45**#** Well we had this bloke Ted Baillieu who was campaigning about LAW AND ORDERand since he got elected it seems to me the is governing a mob of terrorist rather then pursuingLAW AND ORDER because now that the election is over he is as much after the money then therot before him. That is why we need the OOTG in every state because her we have in clearviolation of the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 that prohibits any fines before conviction50we have now that the police simply claims (alleges) there was a speeding incident and I madeclear take me to court if you desire to do so but instead the mob rule mentality now prevail thatthey will simply suspend my drivers license instead.


13/21



.* You want to say that while you only are allegedly having 1 demerit point, if the offence were tobe upheld nevertheless they will instead avoid a court hearing and just suspend your driverslicense as if you had more then 12 points?.5**#** that is how the creeps on Parliament are dealing with it all and the police happilyparticipate with this and so also the government. Now, a drivers license is supposed to be aboutthe ability of a person to drive and not being some terrorist kind of manipulation for peoplehaving to forgo their day in court and instead just pay any alleged offence regardless beinginnocent or not.10.* Is it perhaps because they fear to take you to court?.**#** I think it is their modus operandi and this on the watch of Ted Baillieu who so muchpursued LAW AND ORDER, well he better learns the meaning of what LAW AND ORDER15stands for as it certainly does mean government sponsored terrorism. As to me this is terrorismwhere a person is denied his rightful day in court..

* Are you going to give in?.20**#** Absolutely not. If they attempt to suspend my drivers license then they have somethingcoming because I very much pursue the rule of law and my right is that if they claim I wasspeeding by 5 kilometres then let them take me to court and I take it from there but unless anduntil a court adjudicate upon the matter after hearing both parties the suspension of my driverslicense would be without legal force.25.* You would keep driving?.**#** As I stated there would be no legal force to suspend my drivers license because no court

has sanctioned it. We do have separation of powers and we cannot stand by having the30government sidestepping the judiciary and enforce its own laws irrespective if an accused ininnocent. Again the OOTG could challenge the validity of such unconstitutional conduct withoutany citizen being harmed in the process because the moment a legal challenge is made then therelevant legislation is not enforceable against anyone as it will then be ULTRA VIRES unlessand until a court pronounces it to be INTRA VIRES.35.* Lately you had a spade of problems didnt you? For example Customs and the councils withyour election campaigns and other issues, didnt you?.**#** Well, you see I am not a person who seeks problems but neither willing to go on the run if40

someone causes problems. Customs quick smart decided not to take me on and as for thecouncils well consider how I did hit back to Hume City Council with its nonsense and restassured this isnt as yet over. Again if there was an OOTG in Victoria dealing withconstitutional matters then all that rot could have been avoided because all this rot is happeningwhen public servants and others are getting to big ideas in their minds and big-noting45themselves and in the process screw the community with their nonsense..* Oei, that was something!.**#** Well, the truth is that if I had to fight every unconstitutional conduct then I could be every50day in court with various new issues because those idiots, well perhaps that is too complimentaryto them as they might be more like brain dead people are screwing around with peoples lives fartoo often. We need to stop this nonsense.


14/21



.* But dont you realize that the governments need more money?.**#** I do not accept what4soever this to be accomplished by using government sponsoredterrorism upon anyone. Also, we should curtail the perks of the politicians. It is really totally5absurd that after more then 110 years of federation there still is no proper check and balancesupon the politicians and this is why it is long overdue to have the OOTG. Then it can checkgovernments for blatant abuse of taxpayers monies on non public issues, as I mentioned beforelike the Albert Park races. And lets look at the issue of water and then using this to levy a chargefor Parks and gardens that they then buy up multimillion dollars building and lease them against10$1 a year rent to Scientology..* You mean surely $1 million a year, dont you?.**#** I mean 100 cents that is $1.00!15.* How can that be?.

**#** That is the question because Victoria abandoned any interference with religion makingthem independent and yet are now nevertheless using government sponsored terrorism to rob20those using water for charges nothing to do with water. In fact I view the whole sell off the waterto private companies is unconstitutional as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that waterbelongs to the landholder that falls on his land and further no one owns water otherwise. As sucha State doesnt own the water either..25* What about the federal government?.**#** Constitutionally it has no legislative powers to purchase water or to purchase land for thispurpose, as at most it can regulate water as to maintain navigation of rivers where they are

navigational rivers and no further. As the Framers of the Constitution stated;30.HANSARD 24-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.-It would be the same as federalizing our lands.

Mr. OCONNOR .-It would, because the value of the land is inextricably mixed up with the value of35the water supply to it.Mr. HIGGINS.-All conditions would apply to lands; all circumstances affect their value.

END QUOTE

.* I should have known it that you would somehow have a quotation you could use to underline40what you are saying

.**#** Excuse me but that is why I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST as to present maters to theintentions of the Framers of the Constitution..45* Ok something else then, I heard about the Family Court of Australia having made an order thata 10 year old boy can go on hormones or something like that as they are going to let him later tohave a sex change, now what have you got to say about that? I mean on a constitutional basis isthis permissible or not?.50**#** First of all the Commonwealth has legislative powers as to marriages and divorce and inrelation to this custody and guardianship. What this means is that only if there is a divorce in

process can the Familoy court of Australia deal with matters and I view then it must be anappelated court as the initial hearing must be conducted in a State Court exercising federal


15/21



jurisdiction. You cannot have a Federal Court dealing with the same as a State Court exercisingfederal jurisdiction as Section 76 simply wasnt intended as such. And the Framers of theconstitution made clear that nullification could be applied by a State Court and if you thereforeprevent a state court to hear the matter then you prevent nullification to be applied and thereforethis would be unconstitutional. Hence any Family law case must initially be heard in a state5court..* What about the transfer of powers in 1986 from the states regarding children of non-marriages(de facto relationships)?.10**#** As I have set out in previous published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series thiswas never validly transferred and so has no legal force. But getting back to this 10 year old boy,it appeared to me that the media didnt at all present that the parents were in a divorce situationand so there was no jurisdiction in the first place for the Family Court of Australia to hear anddetermine matters and so its orders are ULTRA VIRES or without jurisdiction.15.* What if the parents agreed to the Family Court of Australia to have jurisdiction, it is then allright?

.**#** Makes not one of iota difference:20

.

.The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does tofederal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm25QUOTE

37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, theprinciple is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into

which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."END QUOTE30

AndQUOTE

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutesthe law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be

in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.35This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is inreality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from

the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. Anunconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a40statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no

rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies

no acts performed under it. . .A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede45any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is

superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.END QUOTESixteenth American Jurisprudence50Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256).

QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)

The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the partiesconsent to it..55

END QUOTE

.


16/21



* You are really a spoil sport, arent you? Here I am trying to corner you that you may not havean answer for it and you again have all quotations at hand..**#** Well, I thought you wanted to know the truth, didnt you?.5* I was just joking. You sure you never studied law by way of legal studies?.**#** I just read up all the appeal cases where lawyers had made themselves bloody idiots andthat certainly then will remain with me. Indeed, I would at times read up about a certain judge Iwould have to appear before as to his past cases and then so to say needle the judge about any10errors of judgment he had in the past. For example with Guess in peruse merely referring to thecase got his response as I recall it Yes, it was my worse nightmare...* It is fair to refer to a case he made a blunder in?.15**#** Actually I was referring to something that was relevant to the case I was presenting and soit was appropriate but he just made the quick response being well aware that I knew about howthe three judges had severely criticized him when he was the barrister in that case.

.* Seems to me you had fun in referring to that case, didnt you?20

.**#** Quite frankly I didnt expect his reaction as such as obviously it turned out a considerableembarrassment for him that I knew about the case..* And how does this relate to the OOTG if I ma humbly inquire?25.**#** Actually, a lot because it was a child support case and I view that the child SupportAgency is acting unconstitutionally to use the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) records andfacilities to asses child support. To give you an example, John Murray Abbott was deemed to

own more then $36,000.00 child support, way back in 1996 and the Family Court of Australia30(Kay J) even ordered his car to be impounded pending him paying the child support of $2,000plus $2,000 cost..* Didnt you state it was more then $36,000?.35**#** Well that was their calculations but then they recalculated it to be $2,000.00.* Come on surely such a difference cant be so simple?.**#** Well, let me explain, they succeeded in the Family Court of Australia and the High Court40

of Australia then subsequently dismissed John Murray Abbott his appeal on the ground that hehad to pay the $2,000.00 and the $2,000.00cost (which in the meantime he already had paid toget his car back) and after this judgment the Child Support Agency forwarded Mr John Abbott acheque of more then $,000 as it included parking fees, as they afterwards discovered that heactually didnt own any child support monies at all.45.* come on, surely the High Court of Australia judges are not complete idiots that they enforce anorder if there was no debt at all?.**#** Well if they are idiots is for the readers to assesses if they desire to do so but sufficient to50say that I published in my previous books a copy of the refund cheque issued by the child supportAgency and so here we had all this litigation about a non existing debt to the Commonwealthwhich I view also in itself is unconstitutional.


17/21



.* How it that?.**#** Well, the principal can never authorize the agent more powers then the principal has..5* That is very obvious. I cannot give a person more authority then what I have and that surelyeveryone knows..**#** Well, if then a custodian parents cannot access the ATO files to check of the non-custodian parents how much taxation he paid and what his/her earnings were then how can then10the Child Support Registrar do so on behalf of the custodian parent?.* I think you got something there. Obviously if the Child Support Agency acts as an agent for theparent then surely it cannot exercise any powers the custodian parents doesnt have and as acustodian parent cannot access the non-custodian tax files then surely the Child Support Agency15cannot do so on behalf of this custodian parent as its agent..**#** Well the issue is also that all monies must go into consolidated revenue and clearly this is

not happening either..20Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention) (Re Section 96 of the Constitution)QUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.-I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some powerimplied in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been25able to give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such powerimplied. The Constitution is formed for certain definite purposes. There are definite powers of legislation and

definite powers of administration, and the clause that the Right Hon. Sir John Forrest called attention to

just now-clause 81-expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form oneconsolidated fund, to be appropriated for the public services of the Commonwealth in the manner and30subject to the charges provided in this Constitution.

Mr. WISE-The order and good government of the Commonwealth would come under the term "publicservices of the Commonwealth."

END QUOTE

.35Again it states to form one consolidated funds.But there is more to this..* What do you mean?.40**#** Well, you may be aware that the Commonwealth has legislated that child support becomes

a debt to the Commonwealth?.* Well everyone knows that dont they?.45**#** Well, if it is a Debt to the Commonwealth then who has the say over this debt to theCommonwealth you may ask?.* Obviously only the Commonwealth..50**#** So, you do not think the custodian parent?.* Moment I am supposed to ask the questions and you are to give the answers, dont you?.


18/21



**#** Well, in general yes but lets go on..* Well, obviously if it is a Debt to the Commonwealth then the custodian parent has no say inthe matter as he isnt the Commonwealth as such..5**#** This is what I am getting to. Still according to the Child Support Agency the custodianparent still remains in charge and can cancel the debt if he/she wishes to do so..* How can that be if it is a Debt to the Commonwealth.10**#** that is the point. You see I was a custodian parent long ago but didnt get child supportregardless of the orders and then when my daughter was already an adult the Child SupportAgency asked me to agree to cancel the child support debt against the mother, this I refused andso long after my daughter already was an adult now in drips child support payments are finallybeing made.15.* Are you saying that after your daughter now being 26 you are receiving child support thatshould have been paid some 20 years or so ago?

.**#** Yes. And then to consider that when it comes to a non-custodian father then they make all20this fuss about deadbeat fathers that they ignore their childs needs, and yet when it comes to awoman then clearly the Child Support Agency had double standards. Anyhow, I view that theOOTG would be a perfect vehicle to challenge all this unconstitutional conduct..* What about Julia Gillard and her partner Tim?25.**#** In my view we should charge her for every cent that is spend on Tim as he is not marriedto her. The Commonwealth has no legislative powers as to non-marriages and so cannottherefore fund Tims expenses. Also, I noticed he was present at the security meeting at Korea

(they showed a North Korea soldier to make a photo through a window) and again where on30earth is her sense of responsibility to have Tim who is neither elected nor may have any securityclearance being present as such security briefing? One has to ask what else is he allowed by JuliaGillard to be present to that he shouldnt be? In my view this conduct is unconstitutional as he isnot an elected official and the mere fact that he shares her bed doesnt override constitutionalprovisions!35.* What about Refugees?.**#** As was shown in the Ah Toy case the Privy Council held that any nation has the right todeny entry to an alien. Therefore if an alien access the country unlawfully then the nation has40

every right to expel this alien.Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

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."45

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 everycitizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have powerto 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 the50

decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.


19/21



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.

[start page 1786]

Mr. WISE.-In our case he was within our limits, but he was not allowed to sue in our courts.5

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If it is a fact that citizens, as they are called, of each state are alsocitizens of the Commonwealth, there may be some little doubt as to whether this is not providing forpractically the same thing.

Mr. WISE.-No, there may be territories that is what I want to provide for.

Mr. BARTON.-In other portions of the Bill we use the words "parts of the Commonwealth" as10including territories, so that the object of Mr. Wise would be met by using the words "citizens of every

part of the Commonwealth" or "each part of the Commonwealth."END QUOTE

.Again:15Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. WISE.-In our case he was within our limits, but he was not allowed to sue in our courts.

END QUOTE

.20As such, the recent High Court of Australia decision about the rights of refugees was in my viewill conceived because people who arrive without prior permission can be denied access to thecourts..Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates25QUOTE Mr. SYMON:

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

END QUOTE.30Therefore it is not relevant what the United Nations or other countries may say because in theend this is about the national security of Australians in general..* You know I recall that you were very much criticizing the Commonwealth for its conductregarding the Tampa incident have you changed your position?35.**#** Not at all. With the Tampa is was a rescue incident like that of the Titanic and the Boardof Inquiry then made clear what should be done when people are at the perils of the sea.However, where people are paying people smugglers and can somehow fore themselves into the

Commonwealth of Australia then we may get convicted criminals into the Commonwealth of40Australia who through normal channels never may be permitted to enter the Commonwealth ofAustralia. You cannot on the one hand give the Commonwealth the powers to legislate as to theinflux of criminals and then on the other hand deny it to exercise this power. We must protectourselves of unwanted aliens and the East Timor solution Julia Gillard came up with actually wasin my view plagiarized of what I had written to Kevin Rudd when he still was Prime Minister.45Again the OOTG could deal with this also..* What about Julia Gillards Prime Minister ship since the federal election?.**#** that too was unconstitutional as here we had the nonsense of bribery of a $100 million50dollar payment highly unconstitutional extracted by Andrew Wilkies for supporting Julia Gillardeven so at the time he wasnt actually chosen by the Governor-General to take up a seat in the


20/21



Parliament. As such he was a Member of Parliament elect but had no more powers then you andI and the same with the other so called INDEPENDENT members. It simply was nonsense oftheir business who the Governor-General should appoint as her advisors and commission to forma Government. After all Edmund Barton was commissioned on 26 December 1900, before thefederation existed and as such never then had the majority in either Houses of Parliament5because none then existed. Therefore the OOTG could take this up also that Julia Gillard wasnot properly appointed as the Governor-General cannot be forced to appoint an advisor becausesome persons who are not even then Members of Parliament may happen to make some cozydeals..10* It is obvious as to what we discussed today that you have an extensive knowledge of mattersand also competent in presenting matters but what is to happen if you die?.**#** That is why the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN ( Dont forget the hyphens!) is soimportant as then my work can be continuing by others as what I am on about is to built the15platform for it..* For all the years that you have been doing this so far who funded it all?

.**#** The truth is my wife and myself. A lot of people benefit of my work but when it comes to20contributing monies they simply are no where to be seen. People often demand that I answertheir emails, etc, but they seem to take it that they can command me as they may do a lawyer,albeit they do pay their lawyer for any work whereas with me they obviously never did.Obviously I am not obligated to follow their demands as I do this voluntarily and while may saythey like to support the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!) the truth25is none so far really provided any financial support and so it seems to me more talk then action..* Surely not everyone can afford to financial assist in that regard?.

**#** When people smoke, gamble or whatever then obviously it is their priorities that may be30in question rather then their financial ability to contribute. The seem to ignore that I run a bank ofcomputers to do the kind of work I am doing to deal with the numerous issues and yes they douse a lot of electricity also and when I sit up during the night it cost a lot of electricity and gasbecause I need to keep the area warm. Then the cost of software, postal charges, printing,telephone calls, etc. My computers are used day after day and wearing out and I have to do with35old programs because to purchase new software simply would add further cost. From where I amsitting I am looking at 9 computers and none are updated and so it is always a struggle to getprograms running. Actually my wife is fed up with how much I have spent on it all. Herargument is people are ungrateful to provide any financial support with the OOTG even so theyalways are on the phone about it. And while most people are enjoying their free time and special40

days I am basically always on the (unpaid) job to assist people..* What about government funding?.**#** Never ever as yet received a single cent from any government to assist in that regard.45.* Surely they should recognize the importance of the work you are doing? After all what you docan save a lot of taxpayers monies..**#** That is precisely why they do not want it because their own pork barreling then comes to50an end and so their perks, etc..* What can I do?


21/21

24-4-2011 Page 21PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www office-of-the-guardian com has been set up to operate the website

.**#** Well seek to provide support for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the

hyphens!) the government will finally provide financial support and also accept the concept sothat in future less people suffer injustices and the politicians are held more accountable..5* No worries I will pass on the message..**#** Thanks.As I stated previously also;QUOTE10

The need for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN cannot be disputed when for more then 110-years thisnonsense has been going on. After all one cannot expect people to conduct themselves as law abiding citizens

when the politicians and judges show such contempt for constitutional provisions and limitations! Rob aperson of his/her identity and you are bound to invite problems!

END QUOTE15.END QUOTE Chapter 0015b OOTG- supplement-01.Now people can show if they really see the benefit of the OOTG or not.

.20

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

110424 office of the guardian supplement

Documents