130928-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott-Re Bail In
6
p1 28-9-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Mr Tony Abbott 28-9-2013 [email protected]5 Ref: 130928- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hl avka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re “Bail in” Tony, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST , I express my concerns as to the bail in matter. The Framers of the Co ns ti tu ti on he ld that ba nking, ot he r then stat e ba nking wa s a 10 Commonwealth legislative power. And while the State of Victoria sold off its State Bank, I view that no matter what conditions were set the State of Victoria can again create a State Bank if it desires to do so. This, as the parties State and Commonwealth) cannot mutual agree to violate constituti onal provision s. . 15 The Commonwealth can only provide uniform legislation for the Commonwealth, and as such bail in would be limited to onl y ban ks fallin g under its aut hor ity , not any State Bank, irrespective if they exist or not at this time, nor other companies which hold deposits. The issue obviously is that the Commonwealth cannot confiscate any property at will, nor allow 20 the banks to do so on its terms. As I recall it, the Commonwealth insisted that people on pensions and welfare benefits would take a bank account. Well, I view the Commonwealth cannot then provide for legislation that may jeopardise the bank holding of pensioners and other welfare recipients. Further, the Framers of the Constitution embedded legal principles in the constitution and one is 25 tha t a jud ici al dec ision is requi red after heari ng bot h par tie s. There for e, for any bail in a uni lat era l decision by a ban k, can not be validated, bec ause it would contr adi ct the legal principles embedded in the constitution. As the High Court of Australia made clear: . 30 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNall y; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall ; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [199 9] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) Last Updated: 22 September 2000 QUOTE Constitutional interpretation 1. The s tarting point for a princi pled interpr etatio n ofthe Constitution is the search for the intent ion of its 35 makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved orenacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, c orrectly in my opinion [53]: 40 " We mu st be gi n, in my v ie w, by as ki n g wha t - on the be st evid en c e av ai la bl e - t he autho rs of the text in quest ion intende d to say. That is an exerci se in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peekin g inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a 45 particular way on a particular occasion." 2. The app lication whic h this Co urt has gi ven to so me word s and phra ses ofthe Constitution would almost certainly have surprised most of those who participated in the making of the Constitution. Most of them could not have foreseen the extent to which the application of those words and phrases would enable the
130928-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott-Re Bail In
