Anant Jawahar Raina

We found a crazy voodoo witch doctor lady running a government funded NDIS business on the Gold Coast. She’s still operating an NDIS despite being under investigation for the unnatural death of one of her disabled clients. HOW IS THIS HAPPENING? Even putting aside the crazy voodoo stuff and the DEATH of one of her clients, we collected evidence showing she stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from NDIS participants. In a secretly recorded phone call, Marcia admitted she stole money from disabled client Rick - deliberately draining his disability funds so that she could demand more money from the government. When confronted, she abused Rick, screaming at him to “fuck off.” Seriously, is the Australian NDIS program the worst run government program in modern world history? This is just an absolute catastrophe.

IA Cheetah crashed in Tangste region near Leh on 20 May. 3 officers including a Maj Gen lucky to survive. 1960s platforms still being used, as our Maharatna PSU can’t keep timelines on LUH. Are they installing GE-404 on LUH too? 🤔

From a reader... Dear Sir Under current legislation, all trusts (not just discretionary trusts) are taxed on accumulated income to which no beneficiary is presently entitled. Such income tax is assessed to the trustee under section 99A of the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1936 (“the Act”). The tax rate assessed to the trustee is at the highest marginal rate, plus Medicare. That imposition amounts to 47% of the accumulated income. The Commissioner retains a discretion to assess such income under section 99 of the Act, (which applies personal rates of taxation) but that discretion is exercised sparingly and only in limited cases, such as deceased estates and bankruptcies. Again, under current legislation, a share of trust income – to which a minor or a non-resident beneficiary is presently entitled to – is assessed to the trustee under section 98 of the Act and assessed again to the beneficiary with a full credit given to the beneficiary for the tax assessed to the trustee. The 2026 Federal Budget proposals change the concept of the taxation of beneficiaries of trust estates that has applied since the Federal Government introduced income tax. That is done by treating the trustee as a separate taxpayer on income to which beneficiaries of a discretionary trust are presently entitled to. Now, a beneficiary is said to be presently entitled only on the after-tax net income of a discretionary trust estate. Any credit for tax paid by the trustee, under these new proposals: is not fully credited to the beneficiary if it produces a cash tax refund to the beneficiary, and in the case of a corporate beneficiary the tax paid by the trustee is not credited at all. With all due respect to Treasury officials and the Treasurer, who devised this new arrangement, there is a complete misconception on who is being assessed on income to which a beneficiary is presently entitled to. Unlike companies, where the taxable income of a company is legally and beneficially derived by the company, in the case of trusts, including discretionary trusts, any net income of a trust estate to which a beneficiary is presently entitled to is income of the beneficiary, not the trustee. By taxing the trustee on income to which the trustee is not beneficially entitled to, and not passing the tax paid by the trustee to the beneficiary who is entitled to that income from the trust estate is not a tax, but – in my opinion – an illegal penal confiscation. Allow me to explain: The Core Problem: When a trustee is assessed on income to which a beneficiary is already beneficially entitled, without any credit (or a full credit) being passed to the beneficiary, two (2) serious legal problems arise with regard to the Constitutional validity of the legislation purporting to assess: 1. Section 51(ii) — Is it a Valid "Tax" or a Penalty/Forfeiture? The High Court in Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 263 confirmed that a tax is "a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, enforceable by law, and... not a payment for services rendered." A "tax" – in the constitutional sense – requires it to be imposed for revenue-raising purposes, not as a punishment or confiscation. See Woodhams v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1997) VSC 59 on what constitutes a penalty (and not a tax). The key issue is whether imposing the full tax burden on a trustee — without any (full) credit mechanism for the beneficial owner — crosses the line from taxation into something more like a forfeiture or a penalty. In these circumstances, I submit the trustee’s right to exoneration and indemnity are in jeopardy and a beneficiary would be entitled to restrain the trustee from using trust funds to discharge a personal obligation, that is not a fiduciary obligation, even if the obligation was imposed by flawed legislation. 2. Section 51(xxxi) — Acquisition on Just Terms If the Commonwealth imposes a liability on a trustee with respect to property or income beneficially owned by another, and the trustee cannot recover that tax from the trust estate or beneficiary through the tax legislation itself or under the terms of the relevant trust deed, this could constitute an acquisition of property (money) from the trustee without just terms, contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution. The High Court has ruled in Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel (1944) 68 CLR 261 and most recently in Government of the Russian Federation v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] HCA 44 that section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution will protect a party whose property is assumed by the Commonwealth without compensation. The term “property” is widely characterised to give the affected party full constitutional protection. In my view, the proposed arrangements don’t fall into the unintended consequences camp, as is often claimed when some controversy is later discovered after a proper and considered analysis. In this case, the proposed arrangements are fundamental misconceptions, that fail to recognise basic constitutional protections.

🚨 BIG ANNOUNCEMENT by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh “Our target is to take private sector role in defence production to 50 per cent.”

This is why you cannot compare Korean chaebols with Indian dhandho-lala monopolists. Samsung chip workers help create one of the most valuable industrial machines on earth, and the company ends up sharing a serious part of the upside with them. In Vishwaguru, the same promoter class would spend billions on a wedding circus with imported celebrities and atrocious Bollywood performances before giving its wage slaves one extra meaningful bonus.

🚨 ORANGE is the new BLUE Prediction poll shows One Nation would wipe out COALITION if election were held today, with Labor holding onto majority government. New seat by seat modelling by RedBridge and Accent Research indicates a dramatic realignment in federal politics. The MRP, covering all 150 electorates, projects Labor would win 76 seats on 31 per cent primary if an election were held now. One Nation would jump to 53 seats on 28 per cent and form the official Opposition. The Coalition would be reduced to 12 seats on 21 per cent, with 62 seats changing hands overall. The model shows the Coalition losing 37 seats to One Nation and winning none in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia or Tasmania. Independents hold eight seats, while the Greens would hold 0.

Did Pakistan trick India or Pakistanis in Op Sindoor? Pak army's former corps commander, Mangla punctures Asim Munir's victory claims.

Dr Arthur Guyton had 10 children including a professor of ophthalmology, a professor of surgery, a professor of medicine, a cardiothoracic surgeon, a rheumatologist, two anaesthesiologists and two orthopaedic surgeons. What a man.

Endurance athletes are building the very disease they think they're outrunning. Distance runners and cyclists accumulate visceral fat, heart fat, and muscle fat while believing their exercise protects them. Their cortisol remains too high for too long and contributes to all sorts of dysfunction.