Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED

* Gary, what is your view about McHugh’s statement ?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, how can anyone put the Court in disrepute when you have such
idiotic statement of a judge. Well, I have put my bit on the Internet about it.
In my view considering that statement the parliament should have moved to have him removed
from the bench as soon as he made that statement.
If this is the kind of mentality and intelligence that we can expect from judges of the High Court of
Australia then I think we might as well appoint one of my grandchildren to the bench and at least
they be rather playing with toys and crayons and say nothing sensible then the utter rubbish that we
now had. And this kind of intelligence, or the lack thereof, is used to deal with constitutional
matters, no wonder wee are going downhill!
index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635
QUOTE 070520 posting
I am very disturbed to find the following of a quotation to have found this discussion;

QUOTE
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and
the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said,
some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE

As a "constitutionalist" (not some lawyer who is brainwashed) I condemn any one, in particularly judges, to
undermine the constitutional system that exist in the POLITICAL UNION BEING THE Commonwealth of
Australia.

The Commonwealth of Australia, as like the European Union, is created by Statue and itself has no common law.
Hence, any jury that were to be involved in federal hearings must be drawn from a State.

As author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books in regard of constitutional and other matters I have set out
extensively how I succeeded and defeated Federal Government lawyers after a 5-year legal battle on all
constitutional issues I raised!

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was an act to create a "APOLITICAL UNION"
and the States who partly federated retaining all legislative powers regarding "CIVIL RIGHTS" as it was their
constitutions that were based upon the provisions of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Habeas corpus, etc.

In the Commonwealth of Australia, judges are appointed to the High Court of Australia regardless lacking any
competence in constitutional matters, in fact they may never have practiced in constitutional matters, and in one
incident a judge actually refused to hand down a judgment other then to state he didn't have any knowledge in the
constitutional matter before the court and for this would abstain from handing down a judgment.

You find it as a matter of record that where the Governor -General was Defendant in a case before the High Court
of Australia then all 7 judges subsequently fraternised with the governor-General, and no one has to be surprised
the Court subsequently refused to allow the case to be heard upon its MERITS.

In the Commonwealth of Australia judges are purportedly appointed by the Governor-General but he merely
appoints those who the Government provides to be appointed. Hence a political stacking occurs.

The High Court of Australia in 1996 using their powers as a "persona designata" to make decisions for the
parliament, approved of the entire constitution to be replaced by the Australia act 1986 (forget about it being
constitutionally valid) so that there no longer is a "constitutional Parliament" but the parliament now is above the
constitution. As it now legislated the (purported) constitution.

But, I successfully challenged this validity of this De Facto Constitution in Court.

Page 1 of Chapter 000D INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 1
A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0 -9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may order, any of the published books, by facsimile 0011-61-3-94577209 E-mail
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
 Having myself served in the NATO at the then IRON CURAIN having been trained as a sharpshooter, I
personally deplore the usage of weapons, as I am trained to use it to kill. However, I recognise the right of others
to bear arms, for defending their rights, and even the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) indicated that militia
could be drawn from civilians of a State after the federation was created. This to me implied that the
commonwealth of Australia would have been able to enlist armed civilians to serve at that time to protect the
shores of the Commonwealth of Australia until it could set up its own defence force.

There are always terrible incidents involving firearms that stand out. Likewise there are also terrible incidents
where motor vehicles are standing out in having resulted to mass killings.

Personally, I would prefer not a single person to have a firearm, but then I have to recognise that others may
desire that everyone should have a weapon to defend himself/herself.

My wife, opposed me to even fit a knife sharpers on the kitchen wall, but wanted me to hide it in a pantry, as she
fears that someone might come in the residence and see the knives and use it wrongly.

Surely, we are not going to ban all knives in the world?

When anyone desires to exercise a right then the person must also accept there are obligations.

Hence regulations as to the storage, handling and usage of a firearm should be deemed to be appropriate where it
provides for what is locally required.

Therefore, while a person may have the right to own a firearm, the Parliament rightfully could legislate to have
the usage, carrying, etc made subject to conditions.

Where there is a constitutional right, implied or otherwise, that a person may bear arms to defend himself then I
view one cannot limit the usage of a weapon to be some small handgun, a tank, or a warplane, as depending what
your personal conditions are you may need one or another, without having any intention to use it against other
civilians.

The Supreme Court (USA) has extensively decided cases regarding infringements of RELIGION and I for one
admire the Courts numerous judgments I read. If the same kind of logic was used regarding the right to bear
arms, then I view likewise both parliamentarians and civilians should accept this kind of reasoning.

I for one do not desire to use a weapon, do not like them being used, but that are my personal views, and I
recognise others have total opposite views. They have their right on their opinion as much as I have and as such I
view that the concentration should not be as to how to make inroads to the rights of others, but rather how can we
facilitate the rights of others without that our own rights (including that of personal safety, as not to be held up by
some crazy gunman) jeopardised needlessly.

In particular those of the law enforcement who are risking their lives daily to protect innocent citizens of harm
they must not unduly be jeopardised in their law enforcement positions because inappropriate regulations allow
anyone to obtain a weapon.

While many people argue about the right of freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, few do actually
concentrate on the issue of right of freedom of travel, even so this likewise was protected by old English law.

Not to many people argue that their right to travel is denied where they must first have a driving licence to drive
a motor vehicle, where as no kind of driving licence existed to drive a cart-and-wagon. As such, somehow we
have accepted inroads to our guaranteed freedoms because society allowed for this where as in regard of
weapons we may have different positions pending the local society we reside in.

In my view, the right to legislate that a person should not be allowed to bear arms cannot be justified on a court
decision, as if the freedom to bear arms is guaranteed then I view not a court in the land could possible make an
order contrary to it.

We therefore may have to look at the constitutional framework as to what was existing at the time each
constitution was created and if the conditions then existed that a Court could actually have denied a person to
bear arms. If in history it can be shown that certain persons were denied by the local authorities to bear arms,
then it must be accepted that the Constitution albeit if it provides for the right to bear arms then was created upon
the understanding that such implied freedom was at all times deemed to be subject to court judicial decisions and
Page 2 of Chapter 000D INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 2
A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0 -9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may order, any of the published books, by facsimile 0011-61-3-94577209 E-mail
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
 or legislative powers.

As a "constitutionalist" I find it laughable how judges, despite their extensive legal training, can come up with
such utter and sheer nonsense such as McHugh J did with his statement ;

QUOTE

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some
authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE

As no such constitutional system operates that would allow the parliament to enact such laws.

And there I have to come back upon the other quotation;

QUOTE
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and
the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not.
END QUOTE

Lawyers are being trained in legal studies by other lawyers and as such are brainwashed far to often that some
LEGAL FICTION is FLEGAL REALITY>

As I exposed in my book published on 30 September 2003

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP

A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

ISBN 0-9580569-6-X (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0

There is no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare "citizenship" as

Australians are constitutionally "subjects of the British Crown". Citizenship is a "POLITICAL POSITION" of
rights, including franchise, and has absolutely nothing to do with "nationality" yet the High Court of Australia
goes on as if it is a nationality.

In court, on 19 July 2006, I defeated the Federal Government lawyers also on this matter.

Hence, having has a legal study and having obtained law degrees in itself will not prove you are not brainwashed
by LEGAL FICTION but more then likely you are.

Hence, the work as a constitutionalist is to expose this.

Only when we are dealing with LEGAL REALITY and have appropriately explored the constitutional basis
upon which constitutional rights, implied or otherwise, were provided for in the constitution can we commence to
address the issues such as the right to bear arms, etc.

And to make clear, no Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia has any legislative powers to allow the
killing of blue-eyed babies or for such kind of nonsense, as none of the State constitutions could allow for such
legislative nonsense as they are all bound to make laws for "the peace, order, and good government", even so
judges likewise fails to recognise this constitutional limitation.

As the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) made clear the Constitution was the "new Magna Carta".
END QUOTE 070520 posting

The danger is that if some fanatical religion were to come to power in Australia it could in fact rely
upon these and other stupid and irresponsible statements of the High Court of Australia and turn
this Commonwealth of Australia into some murderous regime, to pursue “ethnic cleansing” and
fund their religious schools at taxpayers expenses. Whatever may suit to today for the so-called
Judeo-Christians may tomorrow suit a other fanatical religion to achieve precisely the opposite!
This is what we should keep in mind, and why the Framers of the Constitution so much sought to
prevent this kind of religious war to exist in the Commonwealth of Australia.
Page 3 of Chapter 000D INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 3
A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0 -9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may order, any of the published books, by facsimile 0011-61-3-94577209 E-mail
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au