Can SCAMMS come from on high

The millions of monies lost through Internet SCAMS are unfortunately the result of trusting some one you think you know who tells you to direct your money to the wrong entity namely a SCAMMER or put more simply when your TRUST overcame the need to do "DUE DILLIGENCE"

So what If the "DEAL" comes from HIGH PLACES??.

My only fall to SCAMMING so far, occurred when I received a letter labelled "THE ARGUMENTS" The Case for YES" in the mail in 1967.Which was propounded by and signed by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition of the day, whom I thought I COULD TRUST, that asked me to Vote YES to a Referendum Question seeking the approval of the voters to do a relatively SIMPLE THING WHICH WAS TO REMOVE A COUPLE OF BITS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH THEY SAID WAS IMPEDING THEM IN THEIR POLITICAL EFFORTS TO DO "GOOD THINGS" FOR "Aboriginal natives".

One part to be removed entirely was Section 127 which the founding fathers included because of the difficulties involved in 1901 to simply "COUNT" these far flung people, and by 1967 that was no longer a problem and the clear intention was TO BRING THESE PEOPLE INTO THE NATIONAL POPULATION and I got that.

The Major "Simple" question however which was to remove the words "other than the Aboriginal race " from Sec.51(xxvi) was never explained in any detail beyond the following words.

"The Commonwealth's Object will be to co-operate with the States TO ENSURE THAT TOGETHER ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA ( their emphasis) now I could get that. It was IN THOSE WORDS however. that I, AS A VOTER, GOT SCAMMED AND I don't want it to happen again.

Because I owned property and wished to accumulate more I was at the time SECURE IN THE KNOWLEGE THAT MY PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE PROTECTED BY MY STATE GOVERNMENT AND MY STATE MPs whom occasionally even dropped in for a drink in my Hotel. But then they too HAD BEEN SCAMMED BY SOME OTHER WORDS IN THAT YES Case LETTER WHICH SAID--

This (a YES VOTE) "WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE STATES WOULD AUTOMATICALLY LOSE THEIR EXISTING POWERS". (my emphasis ) which in fact was a bloody lie, (from the Parliament) because there also existed another Section in the CONSTITUTION Sec.109 which said under the Heading "Inconsistency of laws" that "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth the latter shall prevail" which was later proven by a decision of the High Court in 1992 that I discovered I had been Scammed in 1967 out of my State Backed Property rights whenever CANBERRA CHOSE TO DO SO and as time proceeded were I to go out prospecting and found a valuable mineral deposit IT MIGHT TAKE ME YEARS to get through the implications of the new COMMONWEALTH LAWS RELATED TO "ABORIGINAL" LAND TENURE and in fact it need not be the Local Aboriginals that had me in Court as it might be some activist group who just opposed MINING or and heaven forbid, some other mining interest who had more money than me to fight the case.

The SCAM was perpetuated in 1967 because of a the negating of a decision of the founding fathers to give me and other voters "a go" by way of a rule that required that this YES Argument, from which I have quoted, be accompanied by a "NO" Argument which at least would have told me that Sec.109 existed AND THAT MY YES VOTE WAS PERPETUATING A SECTION IN THE 1901 Constitution Sec.51 (xxvi) better known as The White Australia policy.

Further more it could have explained to all voters that ALL THAT WAS NEEDED WAS TO GET RID OF THESE TWO OBJECTIONABLE CLAUSES AND FOR A SIMPLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN the States and the Commonwealth to act together, particularly with Commonwealth funding, for which the Constitution provides, to do "THE GOOD" required and proceed to address the problems utilising existing LAW and shared responsibility.

. As managers of LAND TITLE there never has been an inhibition upon the STATES to make land grants to Aboriginal Groups where that "DID GOOD" but not as some form of tokenism.

If history can be a teacher why do we need to entrench a Sinecure called a "Voice" IN Canberra which has proven over the 50 years to be totally incapable of CLOSING THE GAP and that the assistance required must move closer to the problems.

ABOVE ALL HOWEVER WHY SCAMM THE VOTER WITH A PROMISE OF SIMPLICITY WHICH LEAVES THE MATTER WIDE OPEN TO LEGAL BATTLES INTO THE FUTURE.

OR CONSIDERING SUCH CAMPAIGNS AS #PayTheRent that seeks COMPENSATION "for living on stolen land" ARE YOU PREPARED TO BET YOUR HOUSE ON THE OUTCOME OF ANY "SIMPLE" and UNECESSARY REFERENDUM QUESTION ??