ISSUE: 20180902- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 3-TAXATION

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, Did you notice that new treasurer Josh F was claiming that Peter Costello was the best
treasurer they had?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, surely you would know better than that from my past
writings?
If Scott Morrison as Treasurer didn’t appear to be concerned about violating the
constitution then what can we expect from him as Prime Minister I wonder. I now urge
the banks to take action to expose his unconstitutional conduct and reclaim monies.
This document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/386949024/20180824-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Commonwealth-
Bank-of-Australia-COMPLAINT
Let me quote something of my recent correspondence to the CBA as stated in 20180824-Mr G.
H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Commonwealth Bank of Australia-COMPLAINT:
.
Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a
considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided
that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect
taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an
income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting
Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any
kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property,
wherever it is found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very
careful, we shall get into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax
sought to be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not
absolutely uniform.
END QUOTE

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the
subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken
into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the
law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a
common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically
infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains

p1 2-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack
each other's laws.
END QUOTE

This in my view means that any so called NOT-FOR-PROFIT (NON PROFIT) tax exemptions
are unconstitutional. All corporations/businesses should be taxed equally. The NOT-FOR –
PROFIT registration has resulted to a giant rip off that corporation are using up about everything
themselves rather than to charity purposes. Then you got political parties likewise using this. It is
in my view unconstitutional.
* Your solution is?
**#** Scrap the unconstitutional NOT-FOR-PROFIT taxation system!
* What about the charities?
**#** Hold them legally accountable. Anyone who donates to a registered charity may be able to
claim a tax deduction. But religious organization cannot have a special privileged position either.
As such they shall declare each and every cent they claim as having been donated to charity as
actually having done so and not use the cover of donating to a charity as a way to avoid paying
applicable taxation. Let me give you an example ab out unfairness in taxation. Say I were to
finally publish my book:
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
I would incur printing and publication cost, etc. Not to ignore other overhead cost and then pay
any applicable taxation. If however some NOT-FOR-PROFIT organisation were to sell my
books then it would avoid the cost of taxation, etc. it discriminates against me. Likewise
similarly the same with other businesses. If however we all together scrap the NOT-FOR-
PROFIT taxation status then everyone is charged the same taxation in a UNIFORM manner. And
then anyone who can prove to have provided to a charity a donation, etc, then can have this
deducted from taxable income. But there is more to it all. Here we have charities operating to
purportedly assist the needy. What needy? If those people are receiving a welfare payment use it
upon drugs, alcohol, gambling or whatever then there must be a system in place that those kind
of people cannot continue to do so. As such charities are bound to report who they provide
assistance for and then the Government may perhaps organise to quarantine payments to those
people as to have it made payable in a particular manner that the monies end up for the purposes
it is to be used for. The wrong usage of charities is rather ensuring people will continue to rely
upon drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. That is not what taxpayers are paying taxes for. They are
entitled to expect that a person who relies upon welfare payments is using these payments for the
correct purposes. As such, if they cannot manage to appropriately use the monies then they
should be placed under administration so it will be done for them.
* Like they do with Aboriginals?
**#** I have always held that this was an unconstitutional system. While within s51(xxvi) the
Commonwealth could do so but then it must relate to all persons of that race and not just some of
them. That is the legal principle embedded in the constitution. As such, it would be justified
without invoking s51(xxvi) that the Commonwealth can legislate as to anyone who is destitute
but is receiving welfare payments then is placed under administration. In this manner you might
get a lot of people of the streets. Letting them to use their welfare payments for illicit drug use,
alcohol, gambling, etc is a misuse of the monies that cannot be justified. Let us have cheap
accommodation places where persons placed under administration can have cheap rental
accommodation. Then it is up to them to work themselves into a better financial position.
* It sounds great but why are political parties not waking up to this kind of solution?

p2 2-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
**#** As I indicated with Jenny Macklin retiring the ALP could use this opportunity to get me
aboard as a constitutionalist to actually get things appropriately addressed but they simply to me
do not appear to be interested in doing so. And this to me underlines they are only seeking to be
in power without any alternative solutions to the benefit of the taxpayers.
*. Stopping the NOT-FOR-PROFIT exclusions would this not cause financial harm to charities?
**#** I do not accept this to be so. Charities that are specifically for assisting the needy will be
able to be taxed while being able to deduct any cost it incurs for the needy. As such, the tax
deduction they could apply, is available to all in similar circumstances. The difference is that you
not going to have some religious entity claiming to be some charity and avoid paying taxation
and then after a few years sell the business worth millions of dollars. Actually, in our street we
had a religious entity who didn’t have to pay land taxes, etc, and not sold the property for
millions of dollars.
*. Aren’t there banks who donate to charities, etc?
**#** While no doubt much is about the banking (financial) sector before the Royal Commission
but let us be clear about it the same or similar rot is going on with municipal/shire councils and
other business entities. A lot of banks are doing a lot of good and without seeking to be
apologetic for the banking industry we need to understand that ultimately the directors should be
held accountable and not merely punish the shareholders who have next to no influence upon
director’s decisions. When I was a registered insurance agent I exposed the rot that goes on
regarding selling people insurance policies that were totally unsuitable to them but were
financially more profitable to the agent. I resigned out of disgust. I did some of it set out in one
of my submissions to the FSRC.
*.As to the change of portfolios isn’t that an excessive expenditure?
**#** There is this article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-31/government-staffers-collateral-damage-of-leadership-contests/10181988
Government staffers are often among the collateral damage of leadership contests
It doesn’t however appear to me to consider the printing cost associated with every portfolio
change. It ruins in the millions. In my view it is a gross absurdity that you have a PM who has 50
staffers and yet in my view doesn’t even know the basics of taxation that is what is
constitutionally permissible having been treasurer also. I see no need for this gigantic cost blow
out to taxpayers cost. We need to marginalize the offices to reduce them starkly and get more
competent politicians into Ministerial offices. The problem is they are commencing their position
after an election to seek to win the next election rather than to pursue appropriate governance. If
their governance was appropriate then I view more than likely people will vote them back into
the Parliament.
*. If the bank was to take up the taxation issue upon constitutional grounds do you expect them
to thank you for your assistance?
**#** If I had to get everyone to thank me for the decades of assistance I have so far provided
then we could have kilometres long queues. Seldom does people bother to thank me, albeit some
do contact me even decades later to thank me.
*.Didn’t you desire to work for a bank as a teenager?
**#** Actually, I did, but never then got the opportunity. Now being a (retired) senior citizen I
no longer aspire to become some banking clerk. Still, I could always be a director! :)
*. Would you accept to be legally accountable as such?

p3 2-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
**#** I have promoted this because directors of numerous companies, not just banks, have
misused and abused their positions, have ignored appropriate conduct, etc. We need to shake up
what directors are about. If they fail they can cause considerable harm to stakeholders (such as
shareholders& employees) and so let’s turn directorship in a real profession where those who
desire to do the right thing are entitled to be respected for that.
*.Just before we go, what about farmers aid?
**#** I own a property in the Mallee and have some understanding about what goes on. I view
however that s96 is not to provide aid to Farmers but to the States themselves. It should be
understood that there has to be assistance to farmers/growers but there has to be a return. Saying
this I like to point out that farmers/growers who expect assistance must show to be responsible in
their farming/growers practices. You cannot for argument sake assist a farmer who couldn’t care
less to poison grain with using UNTREATED water so that people have their morning breakfast
table with unhealthy cereals. As such, if you expect assistance then your obligation is to prove
you follow appropriate farming/growers practices and for example do not use UNTREATED
water to grow grain, etc.
*.I understand that over the decades in your own way you have been very benevolent towards
others, often or generally refusing to charge for services rendered, and yet you seem to be happy
go lucky and very upbeat despite your writings regarding politicians in general, government and
governance, or the lack thereof.
**#** I saw this man at a McDonalds who was watching television and I suggested he toned
down his excitement or stress because boy this he get upset on what he was watching on
television. No use to get upset as that isn’t going to improve governance. Remain calm and try to
present alternatives as solutions. That is what I also used to do at the bar table. It is better to
remain calm no matter what idiotic decision may be handed down. Actually I commented to Olga
only hours ago she shouldn’t get upset about news bulletins because it is bad for her health and
not going to resolve anything. In my view Joan Kirner was utterly stupid to get rid of technical
schools, as I understand she did. I as from teenager years being a Turner and Fitter found this
makes a massive difference in understanding and resolving issues. Also financially I would be
far worse off was it not that I wasn’t able to do the repairs, innovations, etc, as I do. It also gave
me a lot of pleasure as a Professional Advocate to cross-examine witnesses who thought to get
the better over me with their technical nonsense for them to discover I knew precisely the
technicalities they were talking about in a twisted manner. If you can find peace with yourself
then the rest will follow. I never desired what my neighbor might possess rather they often were
jalousie as to my skills.
https://russia-insider.com/en/german-city-erupts-spontaneous-protest-against-migrant-violence/ri24612?ct=t
German City Erupts in Spontaneous Protest Against Migrant Violence
This is what we are likely heading towards in Australia if we continue to lack proper governance.
We need politicians in government who care about the general community more than how many
millions they will retire with. My aim is to try to get better governance and the taxation issue is a
very relevant issue to this all. After all, the more you tax the less the general community can
spend. The more businesses have to charge to remain viable. All businesses and so corporations
regardless of their classifications should all be taxed in the same manner. Likewise so regarding
tax deductions. No more political parties excluded as some fake NOT-FOR-PROFIT
organization as it must be subjected to the same tax regime as any other organization. Indeed,
why should apolitical party peddling all kinds of distorted claims and lies and deception be given
special treatment when I as an INDEPENDENT candidate was excluded from this regardless
promoting the true meaning and application of the constitution?

p4 2-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Let’s be clear about it, I did not have any input as to the framing of the constitution at the time is
was drafted. As such I do no more but to explain and expose the true meaning and application of
the constitution.
When you have a treasurer who in my view lacks any competence in constitutional powers as to
taxation then we do have a major problem, in particular where this treasurer then is
commissioned to become a Prime Minister. Why indeed did Malcolm Turnbull as PM have a
reported staff of about 50 when in the end it appears to me he didn’t even
understand/comprehend the basics of the constitution? Surely that is why I view he went crazy
about taxation issues. Let’s stop this rot and address the real issues. And I view Bill Shorten is no
better than those we have now in government. We should stop this infight and also this party
politics and get down to the real issues to resolve them.
And anyone who dislike the banks for whatever reason ought to be aware that for example
municipal/shire councils are no better than the banks at least in my view, but somehow are not
held accountable. It is not to excuse banks but they are an organization as like any other business
to try to make money for their shareholders.
Let us stop the moneys drain by the so called NOT-FOR-PROFIT entities who are in my view
generally merely ripping of the taxpayers. I understand that some provide less then 5cents in the
dollar they receive to charities and so this gigantic rip off is only serving those crooks.
Make some hard decisions and stick to the constitution and we are all better off.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)

p5 2-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati