1

p1 19-9-2014
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati


Financial System Inquiry 19-9-2014
fsi@fsi.gov.au
20140919-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Submissions to the Financial System Inquiry-SUPPLEMENT 8 5

NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
Submission Stability - Addressing too-big-to-fail
Sir,
as my previous submission supplement indicated I lodges a formal complaint against 10
Westpac. I then followed this up recently with a formal complaint to the ACCC as to
false/misleading advertising by the banks to cause PINwise to be perceived as some organisation
that can direct the banks, etc. I forwarded a copy to Westpac, who had just previously made clear
I was not entitled to a signature card, and well following Westpac receiving a copy of my
complaint to the ACCC it then provided me with a notification that I could be issued with a 15
signature card if I signed the application and that this would conclude the matters.
Well, I wrote back that it make no sensed to have a signature card where the merchants/traders
are instructed to only accept pin numbers. After all, merchants who were forced to change their
terminals now might be faced to change it back and surely they wouldnt want to pay for the
change back, indeed may want to have the original cost to change refunded. And if the banks had 20
to pay then this comes as a burden upon customers and shareholders rather that the directors who
colluded themselves have to pay for that cost. If banks are too big too fail, then why not address
the irresponsible conduct of the banks rather than to give them so to say a sweet ride home, do
whatever, and well if they go broke then let them.
Responsibility doesnt come unless there are sanctions/punishment in place. 25
Now, merchants/traders were forced to upgrade their terminals to allow pin only card, even so
the banks were issuing, a limited signature cards, well aware that those issued card were an
elaborate" con job. Indeed, many merchants now show pin only cards).
Meaning that the age and disability legal provisions are railroaded. And are the banks to be
rewarded for what I view collusion to seek to undermine legal provisions? Come on! 30
If customers eventually may suddenly leave the banks then it would be absurd that then the
Banks are too big to fail motto is enforce, where the banks were causing it to themselves.
We will have rogue traders within the bank knowing that they can continue to rob monies from
customers, etc, as no matter what the bank is too big to fail.
In my view the banks have engaged in an elaborate swindle, and if then customers leaves in 35
droves to deal with alternative sources of finances then so be it. Let the banks then fail as it is the
product of their own deceptive conduct.
It seems to me clear that the banks were colluding to deprive the aged, the disabled and others in
an elaborate swindle to force people onto pin and so abolish signature cards. By doing so causing
cost upon merchants to change terminals to pin only. By this they set up an advertising gimmick 40
of PINwise purporting that this was providing a mandate to change. By this many understood
that this mandate related to a government direction and not a self-deceptive created advertising
gimmick. And the banks then went on that people with medical grounds could apply for
exemption to still have a signature card, albeit having already demanded merchants to alter their



2
p2 19-9-2014
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
terminals to pin only. Ass such this medical grounds for a signature card was all along intended
to be a deception, as to try to avoid immediate backlash, both legal and otherwise. But I didnt
give in and then this medical certificate issue seems to disappear. It was just a gimmick as to try
to swindle people that unless they could get a medical certificate they couldnt get a signature
card. As I already used a pin number the banks refused me to have a signature card. But my wife 5
using the same joint account could get a signature card. This obviously doesnt make sense!
But wait, I filed a complaint with the ACCC about deceptive and misleading conduct by Westpac
and well suddenly the bank was willing for me to have a signature card to resolve matters. Well
my ACCC complaint is not the same as my complaint against the bank and I see no reason why
my ACCC complaint should somehow then be at an end. The false and misleading conduct by 10
the banks exist and continue to exist. Also, with all merchants forced by the banks to accept pin
only card then any signature card is so to say a sickening hoax. The banks will later likely try to
blame the merchants for refusing to accept signature cards, even so the merchants did no more
but follow the directive of the banks. They concocted an elaborate swindle upon customers of the
banks and were to get away with it all was it not that I am no fool and expose this all.What we 15
have is that basically the banks would have to reverse back to signature terminals by the
merchants and the banks nevertheless won in forcing numerous people onto pin cards, without it
having incurred any cost on terminal changes. When banks engage in such deliberate deceptive
conduct then what else might they be up to one has to ask? And then regardless of unscrupulous
conduct to undermine legal provisions to protect the age and the disabled and others the banks 20
nevertheless must be protected so they can delve into unchartered waters to swindle whomever
and gamble away monies as after all the too big too fail will rescue them no matter what?
Well, as a CONSTITUTIONALUIST I have news for you. The commonwealth cannot come to
the aid of private banks as it can only fund matters for public purposes. As such any bank
guarantee by the former prime minister Kevin Rudd was unconstitutional. And the 25
commonwealth cannot play scratch my back and I scratch your back with the banks, as any
legislation must be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. Meaning that if the Commonwealth
were to legislate for the banks to be ab le to take the monies of customers/shareholders then it
must likewise do so for any other business if its fail. Not that I concede the Commonwealth has
such legislative powers but it must provide for uniform legislation. It cannot make legislation for 30
banks but not for other credit unions, etc. In short it is utter and sheer nonsense on a
constitutional basis to pursue that the banks are too big to fail!
In my view the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to garnish anyones property
without proper compensation and as such neither has the legislative powers for the banks
to garnish anyones account holdings without due and proper compensation. 35
The constitution is the principle law of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth has no
legislative powers to override the constitution, and any legislation purporting to do so is ULTRA
VIRES, and without legal force. Deal with the reckless conduct of the banks to avoid a too big
too fail incident, as prevention is better than any cure.
40
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(Our name is our motto!) 45
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)