20150211-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Trans-Pacific Partnership-Etc

1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM
Cc:
10
11-2-2015
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
James Campbell james.campbell@news.com.au
Ref; 20150211-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re Trans-Pacific Partnership-etc
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Tony,
one of the problems so many politicians are ending up in strife is that they pursue their
political ideology and their self-interest above what is for the peace, order and good
government for the general community. Ministers are often appointed without any training let
alone experience fields they are responsible for.
Section 101 of the constitution provides that there shall be and Inter-State Commission but
politicians of all colour prefer to use pork barrelling and vote buying then to adhere to the
constitution. And that is why so to say they get themselves often in to a lot of hot water.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
An agent, such as a lawyer can only act for the grantor (the client) as instructed and the client is
entitled to know what the agent does. And negotiate. Likewise so with a government. A
government acting with secrecy is no government at all!
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081015&filename=led&sec_id=3&sid=1
QUOTE
Travesty of public purpose
p1
11-2-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
2
State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata
IN THE last few days Maharashtra and West Bengal witnessed two diametrically opposite developments. In
Maharashtra, for the first time in the history of this country, affected farmers voted in a referendum on the
upcoming Reliance special economic zone (SEZ). Initial results suggest that the majority voted against the
SEZ. In Singur, Tatas plans kept slipping into a deeper imbroglio by the day. Several state governments
lined up to lure the company as Tata seriously considered moving outeach one trying to outdo each other in
terms of offering incentives and freebies. Soon as West Bengal made some parts of the secret deal between
the state and the company public, Tata Motors moved the High Court obtaining a restraining order.
10
15
Tatas lawyers argued that basically the agreement between them and the state government was a trade secret.
This means that the Nano project is private commercial venture. Ironically the state government had acquired
land for the project invoking the public purpose law. The state government and company will have to come
clean about what exactly is the Nano project. If it is a commercial venture the company must directly need
deal with the farmers. And if it is indeed a project meant to serve the public purpose, details of the
agreement must be immediately made public.
END QUOTE
Again:
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
QUOTE
And if it is indeed a project meant to serve the public purpose, details of the agreement must be
immediately made public.
END QUOTE
As such the very discussions must include the ability of stakeholders, such as myself when it
comes to trademarks, to provide an informed submission as to any proposal. Failing to provide
for this the TPP may be found to be beyond constitutional powers and the relevant responsible
Minister may find not just that any agreement entered into will be null and void but that he/she
and the officials can be held personally liable. The Government of the Day albeit members of the
executives may have their own political philosophy, cannot dictated their philosophies upon
future governments or indeed future Parliaments. Therefore any Trans-Pacific partnership
conducted in secrecy without any informed public knowledge then the TPP cannot stand.
We have seen how the former Denis Napthine Government in the state of Victoria secretly
provided an assurance for compensation payout were the contract be cancelled. Clearly the secret
arrangement was outside the powers of the State government for the peace, order and good
government as after all it was heading for an election and was aware the then leader of the
op[position Mr Daniel Andrews (subsequently Premier) had made known to scrap the contracts.
As such the criteria must be considered if this special agreement by the former government was
for the peace, order and good government or the cancellation (by the new Victorian
government lead by Mr Daniel Andrews) of the contract was for the peace, order and good
government.
What should have been done by the former Victorian State Government is to provide for
Appropriation Bills to be passed by the Parliament that in the event the contract(s) was/were
cancelled the Parliament would approve a compensation, this didnt eventuate and hence the
Minister(s) involved can in my view be held personally liable for the payment of any
compensation. It is absurd to hold citizens financially liable for something that was done without
their knowledge and/or consent.
The Victorian East West road link is a clear example that the secret of awarding contracts is
unacceptable. It basically was done for political purposes just before an election was due, which I
view was not within peace, order and good government. Minister may have their political
philosophies, but are commissioned by the Governor-General/Governor to act as constitutional
advisers and to manage Department for the peace, order and good government, and not
merely for their own political party membership.
p2
11-2-2015
3
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
(2.) A judiciary, consisting of a federal supreme court, which shall constitute a high court of appeal
for Australia, under the direct authority of the Sovereign, whose decisions, as such, shall be final.
10
(3.) An executive, consisting of a governor-general and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives, expressed by the support of the
majority.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
15
20
25
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE
As the States are created within s106 of the constitution subject to this constitution then this
is also subject to all legal principles embedded in the constitution.
.
30
35
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
40
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
45
50
55
END QUOTE
Politicians will always seek to twist and infringe upon the constitution as they may deem it suit
their own purposes, and the Iraq invasion regarding the fictitious WMD (Weapons of Mass
Destruction) and the regime change had absolutely nothing to do with making the world a
safer place because if anything the demise of the late President Saddam Hussein has eventually
resulted to ISIS, the Sydney Caf Lindt and other atrocities which ever unlikely would have
eventuated had the late President Saddam Hussein remain in power. What we had was politicians
disregarding constitutional constraints and for the sake of self-indulgence of dictating their
powers upon others went into an unconstitutional war and now Australians continue to pay for
this. Politicians can continue until they are disposed of by a VELVET REVOLUTION or they
get to their senses and recognise that as agents they must act appropriately with informed
p3
11-2-2015
4
consent of the electors. A person like Julian Assange is doing no more but to act as a sentry to
expose unconstitutional secrecy!
5

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
10
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
15
It is not good enough if the Minister concerned thinks it is alright to enter in a TPP or even
his/her advisers may recommend this because ultimately what is important is if it is appropriate
within the context of the constitution and so its embedded legal principles.
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House
of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)
Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking
consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was
sufficient in law.
END QUOTE
Therefore, the advisers may for whatever have a polarised view wanting to trade off some rights
of some citizens to gain rights for other citizens but they may be completely mistaken in their
approach and may fail to understand the constitutional compact between the Colonies to create
the Commonwealth of Australia. The advisers may be experts in their respective fields but dumb
than dumber in constitutional matters and so in the end their expert advice may amount to
absolutely nothing when it comes to constitutional permitted conduct.
For example: The experts may recommend that a TPP should include a towing of the North Pole
ice to the South Police so more ice will be down under and perhaps shift the balance of the earth
to provide certain benefits such as creating perhaps more climate change. But reality would be
that the Commonwealth would have no legislative powers for this kind of absurdity.
If the aforementioned example seems to be absolutely crazy , well so are numerous other issues
the Commonwealth gets involved in as to my views as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, but the
politicians simply do not get it, because they lack any proper training in constitutional
matters and yet Minister are appointed/commissioned to be constitutional advisers.
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
Where the Government of the Day (State/Territory/Commonwealth) engages in a treaty with

anyone that is adverse to the citizens of this entity then it cannot be deemed to be for public
purposes nor enforceable against the relevant citizens unless a court would pronounce against
it, that it is for public purposes and within peace, order and good government.
It means that for example if the trade negotiations were to be adverse to say trademark holders
without any benefits to them (I am a trademark holder, such as with MAY JUSTICVE
ALWAYS PREVAIL and with INSPECTOR-RIKATI) then it cannot be held that the TPP
in that regard would be for the peace, order and good government of the entity (its citizens)
p4
11-2-2015
5
for which the Government of the Day acts. Nor can it bind subsequent Parliaments to be denied
to legislate as it desires to what for contemporary purposes may be deemed appropriate.
As such, any TPP would be limited to the sphere of time of the existing Government of the Day
and only for its life and no further.
The rule of law is no Parliament can prevent a sub sequent parliament to legislate as it
seems appropriate at that time and as such no TPP can interfere or otherwise obstruct a
subsequent parliament to legislate as it desires.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
There can therefore be no secrecy and any Government of the Day involved in dirty business will
claim it is for the best interest of the general community that matters remain secret, but it
undermines the very constitutional principles of being able to hold a Government of the Day
accountable. Indeed, how can an elector pursue the local Member of Parliament to pursue
something when the Government of the Day conceals relevant details?
As such, any notion of confidentiality of commercial dealing also is utter and sheer nonsense
because any contracts that involved the spending of public monies must be open for scrutiny. If a
business doesnt like to deal with the Government of the Day because it seeks to avoid scrutiny
then so be it and it stays out of being awarded any contracts but if it desires to gain contracts then
there is no such as commercial confidentiality as that can never exist when it involved public
monies.
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Bassat, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's Warehouse Sales Pty
Ltd, [2012] HCA 7, 8 March 2012, M128/2010, M129/2010, M130/2010, M131/2010 & M132/2010
QUOTE
1. More recently, in Yaxley v Gotts[182] the English Court of Appeal considered the requirement now made in
absolute terms by s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (UK) that a contract for
sale of land can only be made in writing which incorporates all the terms the parties have expressly agreed.
It was held that an oral agreement nevertheless might give rise to a constructive trust because such trusts
were saved by s 2(5) of that Act. But the Court of Appeal saw no scope for the doctrine of proprietary
estoppel. Robert Walker LJ said[183]:
"Parliament's requirement that any contract for the disposition of an interest in land must be made in a
particular documentary form, and will otherwise be void, does not have such an obviously social aim as
statutory provisions relating to contracts by or with moneylenders, infants, or protected tenants.
Nevertheless it can be seen as embodying Parliament's conclusion, in the general public interest,
that the need for certainty as to the formation of contracts of this type must in general outweigh
the disappointment of those who make informal bargains in ignorance of the statutory
requirement. If an estoppel would have the effect of enforcing a void contract and subverting
Parliament's purpose it may have to yield to the statutory law which confronts it, except so far as the
statute's saving for a constructive trust provides a means of reconciliation of the apparent conflict."
END QUOTE
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
45
50
1. The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate
information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair
presentation of relevant information.
2. The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public
agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and
impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.
3. To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both
sides of the issue.
55
END QUOTE
p5
11-2-2015
6
The government of the Day is not committing/spending its own monies but that of taxpayers and
as agents must be held accountable. Citizen s/taxpayers may organise a protest if they do not
desire what a Government of the Day may contemplate and this is what a democracy is about.
Secrecy cannot serve the public good but only is for those wanting to act like dictators and
exercise terrorism.
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
Ethics Orientation for State Officials
Misuse of Public Funds
10
15
20
25
30
Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public
funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when
its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses
only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be
expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are
they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may
result from an expenditure of public funds.
For example, the payment of a public employees salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is
an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public
purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely
incidental. The term public funds is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a
public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and
fax machines and other equipment and resources.
Examples of Misuse of Public Funds
1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase items for himself
and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those receiving the discount paid for the
items with personal funds.
35
2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to transport a
political candidate, his staff and family.
3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on his political
campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection with official
business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and back.
40
45
Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections
There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds.
This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of what
well cover in this section.
Stanson v. Mott
Endorsements and Informational Materials
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines
50
Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns

The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public
funds in election campaigns.
p6
11-2-2015
10
15
20
25
In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
challenging the directors expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a
statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that in
the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a
partisan position in an election campaign.
Stanson v. Mott
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: A fundamental precept of this nations democratic electoral process is that
the government may not take sides in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing
factions. A principal danger feared by our countrys founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental
authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson ...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course,
raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency may
endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not
promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure
elections.
4. The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate
information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair
presentation of relevant information.
5. The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public
agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and
impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.
6. To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both
sides of the issue.
30
35
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the
Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a
$10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several
ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a
neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Let's Review
TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
40
Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls
before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governors campaign fundraising
dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues,
may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.
45
Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes rather
than for a public purpose.
Let's Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about
the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
b. The materials do not make false statements.
50
c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.
Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of
the measure.
p7
11-2-2015
8
Remember These Points
Expenditures must be for a public purpose
Expenditures must be authorized
Public funds may not be expended for personal use
Information must be fairly presented

Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions
END QUOTE
10
QUOTE
Travesty of public purpose
State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata
15
20
25
IN THE last few days Maharashtra and West Bengal witnessed two diametrically opposite developments. In
Maharashtra, for the first time in the history of this country, affected farmers voted in a referendum on the
upcoming Reliance special economic zone (SEZ). Initial results suggest that the majority voted against the
SEZ. In Singur, Tatas plans kept slipping into a deeper imbroglio by the day. Several state governments
lined up to lure the company as Tata seriously considered moving outeach one trying to outdo each other in
terms of offering incentives and freebies. Soon as West Bengal made some parts of the secret deal between
the state and the company public, Tata Motors moved the High Court obtaining a restraining order.
Tatas lawyers argued that basically the agreement between them and the state government was a trade secret.
This means that the Nano project is private commercial venture. Ironically the state government had acquired
land for the project invoking the public purpose law. The state government and company will have to come
clean about what exactly is the Nano project. If it is a commercial venture the company must directly need
deal with the farmers. And if it is indeed a project meant to serve the public purpose, details of the
agreement must be immediately made public.
30
35
40
45
What is clear from the deal between the West Bengal government and Tata motors is that state government
are trying to outdo each other to attract investments. This is a race right to the bottom. The moment Tata
Motors threatened to walk away from Singur, several state governments came forward. The lure of big-ticket
project is such that governments are willing to forgo taxes, forcibly acquire land, give subsidized water and
electricity, give capital subsidies and put thousands of security personnel to man the project. In all this,
industries are having free ride on public money. This is cheap industrialization. Where not only states are
giving fiscal subsidies, they are subsidizing the natural resourcesland, water, and energy. In a single
economic entity that India is, competition between states, by the way of subsidizing industrialization, is
neither good for economy nor is it good for environment. And it surely is not for public purpose.
END QUOTE
I may add that I view toll roads that are for private gain but using public build roads must be
deemed unconstitutional. The same with a TPP that serves for Prive corporations to unduly deny
Australians of certain benefits.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
50
55
Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678
(1872) Olcott v. The Supervisors 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 678
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
QUOTE
What was considered was the uses for which taxation generally, taxation by any government, might
be authorized, and particularly whether the construction and maintenance of a railroad, owned by a
corporation, is a matter of public concern. It was asserted (what nobody doubts), that the taxing
power of a state extends no farther than to raise money for a public use, as distinguished from
private, or to accomplish some end public in its nature, and it was decided that building a railroad, if
it be constructed and owned by a corporation, though built by authority of the state, is not a matter
in which the public has any interest, of such a nature as to warrant taxation in its aid.
p8
11-2-2015
10
15
20
25
30
Page 83 U. S. 690
For this reason it was held that the state had no power to authorize the imposition of taxes to aid in the
construction of such a railroad, and therefore that the statute giving Fond du Lac County power to
extend such aid was invalid.
END QUOTE
U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
QUOTE
In 1870, that is to say, subsequent to the issue of these orders, though prior to the trial of this case in
the court below, the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, in the
Page 83 U. S. 680
case of Whiting v. Fond du Lac County, [Footnote 1] held this act to be void, upon the ground that the
building of a railroad, to be owned and worked by a corporation in the usual way, was not an object
in which the public were interested, and therefore that the act in question was void, for the reason
that it authorized the levy of a tax for a private and not a public purpose. The court there said:
"The question is as to the power of the legislature to raise money or to authorize it to be raised, by
taxation, for the purpose of donating it to a private corporation. We held, in Curtis v. Whipple, [Footnote
2] that the legislature possessed no such power, and the conclusion in that case we think follows inevitably in
this, from the principles stated in the opinion.
END QUOTE
The TPP couldnt result in monies being raised through taxation or otherwise merely to suit some
foreign companies. As such if Australians were to be forced to pay a higher price for the sake of
foreign companies for medicines then I view the Government of the day has no powers to enter
in such a TPP.
QUOTE
Page 83 U. S. 693
35
"The legislature cannot create a public debt, or levy a tax, or authorize a municipal corporation to do
so, in order to raise funds for a mere private purpose.
END QUOTE
40
Again the Victorian East West road link compensation agreement precisely was to create a debt
where the contact(s) were cancelled which didnt serve for public purposes but for public
companies benefits. Hence I view the State Government cannot pay out any compensation as it
was without authorisation and without legal justification for public purposes.
45
50
55
60
QUOTE
Page 83 U. S. 693
"The legislature cannot create a public debt, or levy a tax, or authorize a municipal corporation to
do so, in order to raise funds for a mere private purpose. It cannot, in the form of a tax, take the
money of the citizen and give it to an individual, the public interest or welfare being in no way
connected with the transaction. The objects for which the money is raised by taxation must be public,
and such as subserve the common interest and wellbeing of the community required to contribute. . .
. To justify the court in arresting the proceedings and declaring the tax void, the absence of all
possible public interest in the purposes for which the funds are raised must be clear and palpable; so
clear and palpable as to be perceptible by every mind AT THE FIRST BLUSH."
All these expositions of the law of the state were made by its highest court before the county orders now in
suit were issued. They certainly did assert that building a railroad, whether built by the state or by a
corporation created by the state for the purpose, was a matter of public concern, and that because it was a
public use, the right of eminent domain might be exerted or delegated for it, and taxation might be
authorized for its aid. It was the declared law of the state, therefore, when the bonds now in suit were
issued, that the uses of railroads, though built by private corporations, were public uses, such as warranted
the exercise of the public right of eminent domain in their aid, and also the power of taxation.
p9
11-2-2015
10
10
We are not, then, concluded by a decision, made in 1870, that such public uses are not of a nature to
justify the imposition of taxes. We are at liberty to inquire what are public uses, and what
restrictions, if any, are imposed upon the state's taxing power.
It is not claimed that the Constitution of Wisconsin contains any express denial of power in the legislature
to authorize municipal corporations to aid in the construction of railroads, or to impose taxes for that
purpose. The entire legislative power of the state is confessedly vested in the General Assembly. An
implied inhibition only is asserted.
Page 83 U. S. 694
It is insisted that, as the state cannot itself impose taxes for any other than a public use, so the
legislature cannot empower a municipal division of the state to levy and collect taxes for any other than
such a use,
END QUOTE
I will now quote statements downloaded from the Internet:

15
QUOTE 11-2-2015
New Zealand vs TPP
20
Jon Lloyd, SumOfUs.org
Today at 6:11 AM
me
To
Friend,
A group of activists and members of parliament in New
Zealand are on the cusp of introducing a piece of
legislation that has the potential to stop the TPP once
and for all.
The proposed bill would finally allow everyday people a
voice on trade deals. The main issue with the TPP is the
Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision -allowing corporations to sue governments for passing laws
that threaten their profits. Simply put, ISDS would give
corporations free reign to bypass democracy and
essentally write the laws on everything from food safety to
affordable medicine to environmental regulations.
New Zealand could be

about to introduce a new
law that would finally give
citizens a voice on trade
deals -- and could stop the
TPP for good.
We need to lend our
support to Kiwi activists to
make sure the legislation
gets to parliament.
Can you chip in AU$1 to
help supercharge the
campaign?
If New Zealand passes the law, other TPP countries could

Donate AU$1 now
use this example and ditch this controversial component
of the TPP. And if we're lucky, that could scuttle the whole deal.
We're teaming up with local Kiwi organisations to make sure the legislation makes it to the
parliament floor -- and making sure the public knows all about the bill.
Will you chip in AU$1 to help us get the ISDS law into parliament in New Zealand?
The last round of TPP negotiations just concluded in New York City last week, and experts
are saying it was the last round of negotiations ever. Now just a few details remain to be
ironed out before were locked into the deal forever with no escape clause. We need to do
whatever it takes to stop this deal now.
Politicians and corporate lobbying know wed never agree to the TPP if we actually knew
what was in the deal -- thats why theyve been pulling out all the stops to keep us in the
p10
11-2-2015
11
dark.
Last year, the government in New Zealand defeated a motion in parliament to release the
texts of the TPP -- and one year on were just as in the dark about whats actually inside this
devastating deal.
Don't underestimate the influence of New Zealand -- Prime Minister John Key has strong
relationships with leaders in other very influential TPP countries like Australia, the US, and
Canada.
Thats why getting a select committee on ISDS is so important right now: shining a light
on this dirty deal will raise the stakes of the deal, and could help stop it for good.
Will you chip in AU$1 or whatever you can afford now to make sure New Zealands consultation on
ISDS becomes a reality?
The fight against the TPP is at a critical moment: the negotiations are nearing completion and
ministers could have the deal finalized by March. In the US, Republican and Democrat
Senators could introduce a bill to fast track trade deals by February 23 -- making stopping
the TPP even harder. While we continue our fight to stop Fast Track and the TPP, we need a
diversity of tactics to stop this deal.
This could be our best shot at shopping TPP.
Thanks for all you do,
Jon, Emma, and the team at SumOfUs
SumOfUs is a worldwide movement of people like you, working together to hold

corporations accountable for their actions and forge a new, sustainable path for our global
economy.
END QUOTE 11-2-2015
http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/money/shopping-and-legal/legal/trans-pacificpartnership-secretly-trading-away-rights.aspx
5
QUOTE
Trans-Pacific Partnership secretly trading

away rights
The federal government should encourage open and honest debate on the TransPacific Partnership.
10
Read more: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/money/shopping-and-legal/legal/Trans-pacificPartnership-secretly-trading-away-rights.aspx#ixzz3ROQS2nLt
15
Updated:24 Oct 2014
p11
11-2-2015
12
Author:Zoya Sheftalovich
320
01.CHOICE calls for fair trade
5
Are you concerned about increasing cost of medicines? Would you worry if Australians could be jailed for
illegally downloading an episode of Game of Thrones? Do you want to know if your muesli bar contains palm
oil?
Then you really should care about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement being negotiated
in secret between Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore,
10
the United States and Vietnam. In this report you will find information on:
The secrecy surrounding the TPP and details of how the media is being locked out of briefings
How the Australian government could become more vulnerable to lawsuits from multinational
corporations
15
Why food labelling in Australia is in danger
How draconian copyright provisions could significantly curb our freedom online
How new patent provisions could make medication costs skyrocket
CHOICEs campaign on the TPP

CHOICE is calling for the TPP text to be released before a final agreement is signed.
20
Video: TPP
CHOICE investigates the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the impact it will have on your consumer rights
and privacy. Why all the secrecy?
p12
11-2-2015
13
What CHOICE wants

The TPP negotiations are drawing to a close, and are likely to be finalised by November. However, it is not
too late to release the drafts of the TPP so that they can be debated in civil society and so the TPP can be
made fairer for consumers.
CHOICE is currently campaigning against the secrecy surrounding the TPP. We have now lodged our petition,
signed by over 14,000 Australians, calling on the government to release the contents of the TPP. We believe
such an important and binding trade agreement must be open for public scrutiny and oversight. The signed
petition has been presented to the government to send the message that Australian consumers deserve to
have a say on the TPP.
10
And our campaign doesn't stop there. To find out how you can get further involved with our TPP campaign,
check out our #ReleaseTheText campaigners information kit.
Why havent you heard more about it?

The TPP has been shrouded in secrecy, with negotiations happening behind closed doors and non-disclosure
agreements securing the negotiators silence. And while CHOICE has met with several of those involved in
15
drafting the agreement and even attended meetings with negotiators at a round of negotiations held in
Malaysia in 2013 (we were permitted to have our say, but could only guess at the contents of the agreement
in order to raise our objections), we still dont know what the final agreement will contain. Because of the
secrecy, which began under the previous Labor government and has continued last year's election of the
Coalition, any public knowledge about the TPP is based on leaked drafts and statements made by those
20
involved.
The kicker? Hundreds of cleared advisors - a group comprising industry lobbyists from the US - have had
access to the full drafts of the TPP, while public interest groups like CHOICE have been kept in the dark.
WikiLeaks recently published a draft of the intellectual property chapter of the agreement, which they say
was distributed among the chief negotiators of the TPP in May 2014. While several rounds of talks have been
25
held since the leaked chapter was authored, it appears that the chapter is largely settled. This leaked draft
indicates that consumer rights could be significantly eroded if Australia signs and ratifies the TPP.
When speaking of a previous Wikileaks leak of the chapter, Dr Matthew Rimmer, Associate Professor at the
ANU College of Law, said: Australian consumers have been betrayed. The intellectual property chapter of
the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a monster. The proposals in respect of copyright law, trademark law, patent
30
law, and data protection would hit Australian consumers hard.
p13
11-2-2015
14
The Trans-Pacific Partnership undermines Australian efforts to take substantive policy action in respect of
IT pricing. The agreement does nothing to further efforts to reform copyright exceptions in Australia. The
agreement threatens consumer rights, privacy, and internet freedom.
DFAT to media: youre ineligible to attend TPP briefings

5
The Australian government seems like it isnt too keen on TPP negotiations hitting the headlines. In late
October 2013, technology journalist Josh Taylor of ZDNet told CHOICE he was barred from attending a
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) briefing on the TPP negotiations, despite the fact that his
RSVP had previously been confirmed.
According to the invitation, the briefing was open to members of the public, and business and civil society
10
stakeholders; no mention was made of journalists being excluded. But in revoking his invitation, Taylor
says DFAT told him that TPP briefings are off the record. In a backflip, DFAT later reportedly told the
journalist he could attend in a private capacity, but couldnt record or attribute any of the briefing
material.
15
Read more: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/money/shopping-and-legal/legal/Trans-pacificPartnership-secretly-trading-away-rights.aspx#ixzz3ROQceCgP
END QUOTE
20
25
30
35
40
45
In my view it would be advisable that the Parliament within the state provides for an Intra-State
Commission as like the s101 Inter-State Commission in the federal constitution. I view that any
Parliament should leave major projects that requires billions of dollars to be considered by the
relevant INTRA-STATE COMMISSION/INTER-STATE COMMISSION. As the Framers of
the Constitution made clear Parliament can provide additional powers to the Inter-State
Commission other than Trade and Commerce, and as such there is no bar to the Inter-State
Commission dealing with any proposed TPP.
As I am unaware to the precise content of the proposed TPP I am limited in my presentation but
safe to say that Politicians who are indeed acting in the interest of Australians will make sure that
there is an informed debate before any TPP is entered into. Failing to do so may in fact result that
they may be personally liable for damages if a court were to rule that certain parts of the TPP
were to have been beyond the powers of the Government of the Day to engage in. Which
politicians would want to end up as a pauper for having blatantly disregarded to act
appropriately, I may well ask?
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
p14
11-2-2015
15
10
15
20
25
30
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
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 the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this 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 the
guarantees 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 of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
Will we finally see that Ministers will abide by the true meaning and application of the
constitution and this including its embedded legal principles?
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
35
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p15
11-2-2015

20150211-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Trans-Pacific Partnership-Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20150211-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Trans-Pacific Partnership-Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Where the Government of the Day (State/Territory/Commonwealth) engages in a treaty with

Misuse of Public Funds

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns

Information must be fairly presented

I will now quote statements downloaded from the Internet:

New Zealand vs TPP

Jon Lloyd, SumOfUs.org

New Zealand could be

If New Zealand passes the law, other TPP countries could

SumOfUs is a worldwide movement of people like you, working together to hold

END QUOTE 11-2-2015

Trans-Pacific Partnership secretly trading

Read more: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/money/shopping-and-legal/legal/Trans-pacificPartnership-secretly-trading-away-rights.aspx#ixzz3ROQS2nLt

Updated:24 Oct 2014

01.CHOICE calls for fair trade

Why food labelling in Australia is in danger

How new patent provisions could make medication costs skyrocket

CHOICEs campaign on the TPP

What CHOICE wants

Why havent you heard more about it?

law, and data protection would hit Australian consumers hard.

DFAT to media: youre ineligible to attend TPP briefings

Read more: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/money/shopping-and-legal/legal/Trans-pacificPartnership-secretly-trading-away-rights.aspx#ixzz3ROQceCgP

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

You might also like