APRadio podcast 30 August 2018
Harry and Mike continue their “OZ-CHAT” weekly podcast that opens the Pandora’s box our establishment thought was nail shut. They discuss a series of videos called-“War Castles” exposing how parliament engineered control, how they use those created tools to manipulate Australian’s unchallenged. A brief mention of the pantomime in Canberra we the voters had no say with or control over that disgraceful display of combine arrogance without accountability….
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Gentlemen,we have this instead the constitution. Explains a lot.
https://youtu.be/ZVWdYTUtFcI
Chris~Thank you for the link its says a lot …Harry
Wakey wakey guys
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FTEF1vZ2om_wochxuE5efBIuSKsppcTL
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jnVQRb9Syjy4ijmKSHzMdXG9Z1TQWHJT
This quote of Gerrit Schorel-Hlavke may be of interest
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 48
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.- 49
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the 50 substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that 51 there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and 52 their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private 53 person would be. 54
Page 5
8-9-2018 Page 5 © 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 making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
END QUOTE 1
2
As such, where a Minister makes a decision adverse to a citizen then that citizen has rights in 3 certain circumstances. I state certain circumstances as a Minister may exercise his power in an 4 appropriate manner and may not be sued for this. However, if say a person is given the 5 understanding land will be rezoned and purchased the property and then it is reversed back that the 6 purchases loses monies then having purchased it in good faith the purchaser may be able to sue for 7 damages. Each case will rest upon the merits. 8
9
As such, without knowing the finer details and perhaps not needed to be known the issue would be 10 that a person/business sued the State of Victoria of which then I understand Matthew Guy was the 11 planning Minister and so litigation eventuated. As a Minister Matthew Guy in my view made a 12 strict Ministerial decision within his portfolio and so entitled that the State provide the necessary 13 funding in regard of any litigation and compensation, if there is any. A Minister may have legal 14 advisers but at times they can be wrong and the courts then can make orders adverse to the state. As 15 such, Matthew Guy as I view it as Planning Minister had a duty and obligation to assess if he 16 would follow any advice, if any, from legal adviser or he simply held that the litigation could blow 17 out and in the end may become more expensive to the State as such the tax payers. And hence it 18 might be better to settle. The limited information I heard over the media is that Matthew Guy as 19 Minister for Planning decided to settle the case against legal advice. Nothing can come from this, in 20 my view, as this is why we appoint Ministers to make decisions as they deem fit and proper in the 21 relevant circumstances. Most people make decisions in their lives that by hindsight had they know 22 certain things they may not have made such a decision and we cannot haunt a former minister to 23 have made a decision within his portfolio. 24
25
There is more to this saga now. This is because I understand that Premier Daniel Andrews released 26 confidential details and unless he is the Minister for Planning I view he had no position to do so. If 27 it was the Minister for Planning who released those documents then he might be the fall guy for 28 Daniel Andrews. 29
30
* But as the premier doesn’t he have the ultimate power to make any decision?
Laurence~ This is how the duopoly establishment work without consequence YET we the people keep them in office every polling day… Harry