Thursday, 18 September 2014

The blog that doesnt open, about Abbott

If you want to keep me out of poverty, please send a penny or two.  I am one of those pov-liners who can't afford to drive a car and for who a cup of coffee or a glass of beer is out of the question.


I have sent the following to the Australian Federal Police report a Commonwealth crime web page, to the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for their advice and action.
Anthony John Abbott was born in London on 4/11/57 to a British father.
He used his British citizenship to come to Australia on an assisted passage and again to enter Oxford as a British citizen.
He applied for Australian citizenship in 1981.
He entered parliament in 1994.
The British Home Office have been conducting an FOI request looking for a copy of Mr Abbotts form RN, that is the form used to renounce British citizenship, being granted Australian citizenship does not automatically get rid of the British citizenship he used on at least two occasions for official British business. (assisted passage to leave the country and matriculation to Oxford University).   The Home Office have been looking unsuccessfully for about 6 weeks, their official legal time frame is I believe 20 days.  They have not yet found a form RN for him.
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Australia has been looking for his form RN for a similar amount of time.  I believe the search has stopped without finding the form and the FOI application given to Mr Abbotts chief of staff Peta Credlin to delay the process further.
Without a form RN Mr Abbott entered parliament in 1994 illegally.  The Australian constitution section 44 says “  44. Any person who -
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: “
Dual nationality is considered an acknowledgement of allegiance and entitled to the privileges of citizenship of a foreign power disqualifies people from standing for parliament.
Mr Abbott stood for parliament knowing he still had dual nationality, Australian gained in 1981 and British from birth.  The Australian Electoral Commission advised me Mr Abbott was considered appropriate to run for parliament because he was on the electoral roll and they do not check nationalities of candidates.
Will you please investigate and see if a crime has been committed?
Will you please investigate and dismiss Mr Abbott from parliament and recover all monies paid to him as salaries, superannuation, travel allowance, meal allowances, staff allowances, electorate office expenses, ministerial office expenses.  The Attorney Generals office need to be contacted to see if any ministerial decisions made by Mr Abbott are legal and if not they must be overturned as soon as possible.
There is no FOI proof that Mr Abbott has renounced his British citizenship.  It seems he has stood for parliament on 8 occasions as a dual national, well aware that doing so is in contravention of the constitution.  This goes beyond forgetfulness into the realms of possibly intent to defraud the Commonwealth.
The response from the Home Office.
And the Peta Credlin letter, and here.
Channel 9 News is also covering the story and have started to ask questions, but still no one can find out the WHEN that the British citizenship was renounced.
My local newspaper the Sunshine Coast Daily is also covering the story here.
A petition is up and running to ask Mr Abbott to show his renunciation papers here.  Please sign the petition, the more people we get to sign, the bigger chance we have of getting the Prime Minister to show he is legitimate or not.
For the trolls trying to taker over discussion of this, the blog is written sequentially.  What is at the top happened when I started writing, if there are changes or additions they are shown down lower.  So to the comic loving fat boy from Victoria who has resorted to calling me a birther and a liar, read the blog before you put your fingers into gear.  And being called a birther has been dealt with here. Birther is rather a stupid thing to call someone who actually does have access to the facts and does know who was born when and where.  But facts and blue ties have always been a problem for me, I mention facts to someone wearing a blue tie and the people seem to choke as the tie gets tighter.  The one truism to come out of our current government is that if you see blue ties, prepare for lies.
Some more blogs discussing the lack of a date are:  Channel 9, the Sunshine Coast Daily and all of the associated APN papers, Independent Australia, oecmuse a very very good read, North  Coast voices.  If you read or know of other blogs and news stories, please add them to the comment.
Another good read.
@rrobbymiller has started a petition to have the Ombudsman examine the facts and to determine if there is anything untoward or illegal.  its here.
 The ABC show The Drum is calling for old laws to be ignored when it comes to Tony Abbott and his citizenship.This is extremely dangerous and something that should not be considered or condoned.  According to them I am holding back parliament with my call for the law to be followed.
And the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, both Fairfax papers have also called this a birther rant.  Strangely the Canberra Times hasn't run with the story. And in that story a labour politician Tim Watts calls for the birthers to stop.  Mr Watts used to work for King Wood & Mallesons one of the top dozen or so law firms in the world. I would have thought a lawyer from a company like that would know how to check facts, look for the truth and ask questions. He is protecting the Prime Minster for some reason and I can only blindly stab as to why he might be doing that.
When I was looking in the National Archives of Australia at Mr Abbotts citizenship file it disappeared. It went secret and I don't really know why.  I did get a screen capture of the file cover and that's about it.
And the screen capture of the assisted passage. 
The fun thing about the  assisted passage is that Mrs Abbott had to renounce her Australian citizenship to get the ten pound pom boat trip.  And Tony Abbott claims citizenship by descent from a woman who renounced her citizenship,that may be legal I don't know. But it sure doesn't sound good. OR. She kept quiet and came across as Mrs Abbott on Mr Abbotts passport, as an Australian getting assisted passage she would be considered an illegal boat person and that would be deliciously ironic considering the almost racist policies Tony Abbott has brought in and condones.

The letters below are from Peta Credlin.  The first one  details her intention to refuse any FOI application. The second is the actual FOI refusal.  Very strange that the Prime Ministers Chief of Staff would become a clerk class 5 or 6 for just my FOI applications. The copies are poor because my scanner isn't working.  The originals are not kept at my home, they are in a safe place.  Copies are on multiple sites online.

For those who doubt that it might be fraud to enter parliament by signing the paperwork when not eligible, check this out.
Thanks to Jan Olson from Twitter who got this other FOI request, which seems to indicate the documents are missing or dont exist. 
I have passed this blog on to Pravda which ran a story on our beloved PM. Their President is coming to Australia and our budgie smuggler has promised to shirt front him.  For me a shirt front is where you grab a collar in each hand and pull quickly to head butt.

I contacted the Australian Public Service Commission to ask if Mr Abbott's Chief of Staff, who I believe is employed as a Public Servant, has complied with all regulations in refusing to advise the Australian Federal Police of the possible fraud in Mr Abbott signing statutory declarations for the AEC on 8 occasions.

I tried to contact the AFP yesterday,the @afpmedia team on twitter gave me the phone number of Queensland state police.  Not quite the right police department let alone police force.  The Queenslanders put me through to Canberra for the AFP and after about 8 different transfers I gave up. I tried ringing their direct line but got the same run around. So I sent off the 5th or 6th online report to the AFP.  I also sent off the third online report to the Governor General asking he investigate.  The AFP have a problem because the Prime Minister sleeps in their dormitory instead of the official residence and the Governor General recently got a knighthood.

The NSW Police have informed me on twitter that it is a crime not to report an indictable offence.  I wrote to Hon Bronwyn Bishop several months ago telling her of the possible crime of fraud and asking her to do all she could with regards to the crime.  I have written again today, 21/10/14 reminding her of my letter and the NSW law.  She did a 5 year course in law at University of Sydney and got her professional qualification  from  the Solicitors Admission Board after marriage so has no excuse for not knowing the law.  Here's the letter.

The Attorney Generals Department have advised that they can not investigate alleged crimes by ministers of the government.  Personally I think that is just a lie and obviously party political.  I contacted the AFP and they have advised now that the Department of Justice is the only one who can prosecute politicians.  Justice is part of the Attorney Generals Department so back to them.  A letter to the Secretary And Deputy Secretary of the AG department and to the minister for Justice Mr Keenan. The letter to David Frederic and Chris Moraitis was to complain about the public service run around and the blatantly political decision to not process my original letters and in the hope they would monitor what was happening with the letter to Mr Keenan.

This blog is a sequential record of how things happen, or when I remember to write about how things happen. Thats why early on I say the Home Office cant find the forms and then I say I received a refusal to answer.  I also found out form speaking with a British Civil Servant that Mr William Hague, then head of the Foreign Office  jumped over to the Home Office to block my request.  Very observant of him or asked to by political buddies in Australia?  I will never know for sure.  I do know Mr Hague is no longer in the Foreign Office.

The first FOI to me from Peta Credlin was a flat refusal to answer. The second one for Jan Olson was a " we cant find it " the second one they followed the FOI rules and looked in all the proper places and the paperwork isn't there. I have complained to the Australian Public Service Commission about Peta Credlin. If she is a public servant she was wrong to block the FOI request and wrong to become FOI officer for the day. If she is political she is covering up a crime and probably committed a crime in doing the job of a public servant in blocking the FOI request, and I have asked the APSC to check on that. The second FOI for Jan was done after my complaint about Credlin so everything had to be done legally as far as the FOI laws are concerned.

A Farcebooker Adriaan de Leeuw advised I contact the British courts to get a writ of mandamus.  I have and thank you for the advice Adriaan.  I sent this to the clerk of the courts this morning :- 
I have been advised to apply for a writ of mandamus ordering the Permanent secretary of the British Home Office to present it to a Judge, on the basis that a person born in Great Britain  will not show his Form RN, proof of his renunciation of British citizenship and he  may be holding a position he is not entitled to under a law of Her Majesty Queen Victoria's Government, the constitution of Australia Act 1900.  Please note that as the original constitution act was an act of British Parliament a court in Britain has the right to demand his Form RN, also note that if there is no form RN to be found then he is by definition still a British Citizen! For Citizenship to be extinguished there is the absolute need and requirement for that act to have been a free and provable! If the Home office cannot produce the document, a ruling on his Citizenship should be made in relation to current precedents.

So how do I go about this? Is writing to the clerk of the courts sufficient and if so, could you please forward this email.  If not, what is the procedure?  My blog on the matter covers all documentation we can find"   

I have re-emailed Mr Heerey, the commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission asking him to investigate the possible crime of fraud.  He has just returned from leave so I emailed his QC chambers and asked them to forward to him.

Unfortunately the AFP and myself are at odds, I assumed they would be as interested as I am in the crime of fraud perpetrated by the Prime Minister. Sadly no.  The latest from them is this:- 

They seem to have not bothered asking Mr Abbott to look at his renunciation papers.They have seen election, constitution and citizenship and said, 'Allo 'Allo, he's been an Australian all along. I have asked them to reconsider and if they think I am vexatious please charge me so I can  subpoena the documents as evidence in a court case.

Jan Olson who got the FOI report stating there is no renunciation paperwork in the PMs office was arrested in Parliament House for daring to ask the PM if he had indeed renounced his British citizenship. Jan was carted off and had wrists severely slapped.  The story is here.

I have been phoning politicians offices here and in the UK to try and get someone to take notice.  I have come to the conclusion the only way to get in touch with an MP is to hand write a letter and post it in an envelope, Bic and Lick.  Emails,twitters,facebook posts are all secreted and segregated by staffers and probably censored and binned too.  Not much gets through to them except the Bic and Lick letters.

To those sending pennies, thank you, very much appreciated and very humbling.

I am missing something very basic about how to report crimes,that can be the only reason our Federal Police and Attorney Generals Department refuse to even look at the British citizenship side of things.  AG doesnt bother responding,I am still waiting on letters to the actual heads of the department to be replied to.  As for the police?  They have said on several occassions there is no problem, Mr Abbott is an Australian citizen. HELLO! The whole problem is that he is still British or was when he entered parliament.  There are no British citizenship renunciation papers, the FOI from Jan Olson show that.

Tangent time.  I have lodged a crime stoppers report with the Tasmanian police. One of their senators has a well known run in with the constitution, the High Court and the dates of his renunciation. The only thing that didn't happen in 2010 were charges pressed for fraud.  I guess fatigue had set in with John Hawkins.  John if you read this can you email me or message me on twitter or facebook to see if you considered fraud please.  The Abetz wiki says very clearly he renounced his German nationality on 9/3/2010 and that was confirmed to the Hobart Mercury.  I asked his office to confirm the dates are correct, no reply.  Might have to try a Bic an Lick for him and ask again? Unsurprisingly the Mercury story is not online, or I couldn't find it. I did write to them, but they too ignore me.  If the Taswegian police do look at fraud then that might be the way to go with Ol'Blue Ties.

I queried earlier if Ms Credlin was a public servant or not and could she act as a FOI clerk if she wasn't a public servant.  I got this reply this morning, from Robert McMahon.  Wonder if that's Billy's boy? Anyway, the response says she is not a public servant but has been given special permission to do FOIs. 

I have asked the police in Queensland if Senator Brandis' reluctance to pass details of the fraud crime on to the authorities is itself a crime under our law.  Google tells me it might be under the Criminal Code 132 it might be, or indeed under 133.

I should point out at this time I am not a lawyer and the only legal training was a law 101 unit at the University of New England.  Most laws are written in plain English and I use plain English comprehension when reading them.  If a law relies on my being an ordinary or reasonable person,I like to think I qualify for that too.

The NSW Minister for Police a Mr Ayres, was asked via twitter if Mr Baird, the NSW Premier, had relayed to him details of the Abbott fraud given to Mr Baird by myself.

And just in this morning, the AFP have advised they will not be taking any new evidence in the Abbott fraud case.  The case is closed permanently. 

The new evidence was the FOI from Jan - the one where Assistant Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet confirms the renunciation papers DO NOT EXIST. Imagine an American cop show or movie where the coppers refused to accept further evidence, they would last minutes. Imagine the back packer murders case, someone went missing and the file was closed, not further evidence was allowed. Guess who runs the AFP - politically, George Brandis.

Robert McMahon Assistant Secretary of the Parliament and Government Branch of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet declared "I have decided to refuse the request under section 24A(1)(b)(ii) of the FOI Act" and that says quite simply and succinctly does not exist

We are now in a frightening stage of Australia heading towards political danger, our police force is now beholden to the government.  Did Brandis stop the AFP accepting new evidence/ Was Commissioner Colvin made aware of the evidence, the email was addressed to him and if he did see it did he stop accepting further evidence as payback for being promised the new homeland security gig?  I am now afraid as an Australian and as someone writing this blog.  If you can, please copy the blog and keep in as many places as possible.

When I write to MPs I now ask if they will be allowed to read the email or letter or do staff censor and segregate letters.  Got this from Senator Milne the Greens leader and senator in Tasmania.  Senator Milne is not blocked by her staff from reading e-mails from constituents. You must understand that the very large number of e-mails she receives each day [upwards of 400 items per day] makes it impossible for her to attend to each item individually. Hence, like most prominent MPs, and all Party Leaders, she relies on someone like myself to deal with them on her behalf. Please be assured however that she is always interested to hear of the matters raised by constituents and is kept very well briefed on their views.
Senator Milne is aware of the allegations regarding the Prime Minister's citizenship and subsequent eligibility to sit in the Australian Parliament. She is currently seeking advice regarding the situation with a view to determining what, if any, action it may be appropriate to initiate in response to it.

Pleasing to know she does get interested in what is sent to her and is looking at this problem.

Paul Pirani, the chief legal officer at the Australian Electoral Commission has replied to me stating that the AEC does not recognise fraud under the crimes act. That a candidate can do and say anything to the AEC and it doesn't matter.  Very surprising considering the Commissioner is Hon Peter Heerey QC. Yes a Queens council, barrister, law officer of the highest standing.  But fraud doesn't matter.  If I committed fraud I would be in court straight away,but because someone has said they are a candidate for parliament, the place where laws are written, they can lie and scheme and commit fraud to get into the place.  Here's the reply -  
Dear Mr Magrathea

I refer to your email of 4 November 2014 addressed to the Chairman of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), the Hon Peter Heerey AM QC, in which you have raised a concern about the qualifications of the Prime Minister, the Hon Tony Abbott MP, to stand as a candidate for a federal election.  I have been asked to reply to your email on behalf of Mr Heerey.

The issue raised in your email relates to the disqualification of candidates under section 44 of the Constitution.  Section 44(i) of the Constitution provides, in part, that:

“Any person who:

(i) is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power;

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.”

The AEC administers the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) in relation to the conduct of federal elections.  The AEC does not administer the Constitution as is made clear by the Administrative Arrangements Order made by the Governor-General.  The administration of the Constitution is the responsibility of the Attorney-General’s Department.  Accordingly, the AEC is not in a position to disqualify any candidates due to the operation of section 44 of the Constitution.

The AEC is subject to the requirements of the Electoral Act.  Section 172 of the Electoral Act sets out the only grounds upon which the AEC is able to reject a nomination of a candidate.  Those grounds do not include any possible disqualification of a candidate under the Constitution.

I note that the candidate nomination form that is required to be lodged with the AEC prior to the close of nominations for a Member of the House of Representatives includes a declaration that must be completed and includes the following:

“I, the candidate named above, state that:                                                                                                                   
·         I am an Australian citizen                                                      Yes [  ]               No [  ]
·         I am at least 18 years of age                                                  Yes [  ]               No [  ]
·         I am an elector or qualified to be an elector                       Yes [  ]               No [  ]
·         I am not, by virtue of section 44 of the Constitution,       Yes [  ]               No [  ]
incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Member of the House of Representatives
and I declare that:
·         I am qualified under the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth to be elected as a Member of the House of Representatives;
·         I am not, and do not intend to be, a candidate in any other election to be held on the same day as the election to which the above nomination relates;
·         I consent to act as a Member of the House of Representatives for the above Division if elected.”

A similar declaration is contained in the nomination form for Senate candidates.

The making of a false declaration is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995.  However, there is no legal requirement that a candidate is to provide the AEC with evidence of their citizenship status to support their nomination.  There is also a further offence contained in the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975 which imposes a $200 per day penalty for a Member of Parliament who sits in the Parliament while they are disqualified.

The issue of any disqualification of a candidate due to the operation of section 44 of the Constitution is a matter that can only be determined by the Court of Disputed Returns after the conduct of any election. 

The AEC has produced a publication entitled Constitutional Disqualification and Intending Candidates which can be accessed at:

I specifically draw your attention to paragraph 39 of this publication which states that:

“In 1997, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs considered the role of the AEC in advising intending candidates on s. 44 of the Constitution, and concluded that:

The Committee agrees that the AEC should have no role in giving legal advice to candidates. The Committee recognises that the AEC’s role in running elections must be protected from any criticism that it has given wrong advice. The Committee appreciates that AEC officials have no role in going behind a candidate’s declaration that he or she is eligible to stand.”

Further, the AEC notes that the mere fact that a person was born overseas does not mean that they hold dual citizenship or will be in breach of section 44 of the Constitution.  This is made clear by the comments of the High Court in Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30.  As the matters raised in your letter involve allegations of criminal conduct, the onus of proof would rest on the prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.  Mr Abbott would not be required to prove that he was so eligible or that he was required to take some action to renounce United Kingdom citizenship.  Accordingly, the argument raised in your email is inherently flawed.  The inability of the UK government to locate a form RN does not provide any evidence that could be used as the basis to mount criminal action.  

Accordingly, the AEC is unable to take action in this matter as requested in your email.  

I trust that the above information clearly explains the position of the AEC on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Paul Pirani | Chief Legal Officer
I did ask he review his decision because the Prime Ministers own Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have confirmed he is still a dual national and hasn't renounced his British citizenship. How far does this cover up and corruption go?

Email discussion ongoing.

I repeat the contents from my earlier email.
“Further, the AEC notes that the mere fact that a person was born overseas does not mean that they hold dual citizenship or will be in breach of section 44 of the Constitution.  This is made clear by the comments of the High Court in Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30.  As the matters raised in your letter involve allegations of criminal conduct, the onus of proof would rest on the prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.  Mr Abbott would not be required to prove that he was so eligible or that he was required to take some action to renounce United Kingdom citizenship.  Accordingly, the argument raised in your email is inherently flawed.  The inability of the UK government to locate a form RN does not provide any evidence that could be used as the basis to mount criminal action.”  

 Accordingly, the AEC is unable to take action in this matter as requested in your email.  

Yours sincerely

Paul Pirani | Chief Legal Officer

My response:-
Proof he has British citizenship is in the letter from Oxford University in that he matriculated there as a British citizen. Add that to the fact the FOI from the PM&C states that the renunciation papers do not exist and he is still a British citizen.
You have proof he was born in England and that at the age of 23 or so when he entered Oxford that he was still a British citizen, the facts seem pretty conclusive

Ongoing saga.  

Another reply
Mr Magrathea

Your assertions as to what was said in the FOI response does not match with what I have seen in the public domain. 

The letter to you from Ms Credlin apparently stated that the document “was not an official document of a Minister” and as such it was not subject to the application of the FOI Act.  If this is the case then of course the Department would not have a copy in their possession and would therefore refuse a request under section 24A of the FOI Act.

To mount any criminal action you will need to provide positive evidence that Mr Abbott is and was a UK citizen at the time he signed each candidate declaration.  Nothing in the material that you have provided contains any prima facie evidence to support your allegations.

Yours sincerely 

Paul Pirani | Chief Legal Officer

My response yet again

The FOI that was in the email to you on 4/11/2014. the one you responded to -  The Credlin FOI was purely a political decoy by his pet Chief of Staff.  The real FOI and the proof that the renunciation documents do not exist come from Robert McMahan.  I complained to the department of PM&C about Ms Credlin becoming an FOI clerk whenever I contacted them, during the investigation into if she could act, Jan Olson lodged an FOI request, the link to uit is here and was in the email of 4/11/14. 
The Credlin foi response may yet get her in court and are meaningless drivel to act as a poltical decoy. It seems to have worked with you. The real FOI signed by Mr McMahon is the only FOI worth anything at all. and the one that proves the renunciation papers dont exist.I have been at this long enough to know never believe anything Credlin says.


Public domain
Mr Abbott was born in England to a British father which under their law is automatic British citizenship.
Oxford university have written explaining he matriculated there as a British citizen.
He got Australian citizenship in 1981 to get the dollars for Rhodes.
His public service staff at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet completed an FOI request declaring that the renunciation paperwork for his British citizenship do not exist. 
Born British,still British at Oxford in 1981 and in 2014 his Assistant Secretary of Parliament and Government branch of PM&C states unequivocally that the renunciation paperwork does not exist.  Perhaps you can run it past the Commissioner of the AEC who is an actual barrister and see what he thinks? 

My original blog was a subject of a denial of service attack, no one could access it to read it so I moved the blog here. And in the moving it seems the letter from Oxford confirming his British Citizenship when he matriculated there seems to have gone missing.  

Here it is :-  

I have lodged a Crime Stoppers report with the ACT police, the report says this:-   Mr Abbott was born in the UK to a British father.Under British law this gives him automatic British citizenship.

In 1981 he matriculated to Oxford university as a British citizen. In 1981 he applied for and got Australian citizenship to comply with the Rhodes Trust and to get the dollars from the scholarship.
In 1994 and on 7 subsequent occasions he signed a false declaration for the Australian electoral commission stating he complied with the laws of the land with regard to dual nationality. In 2014 his Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet confirmed he has not renounced his British citizenship through an FOI request. 

FOI request is at

letter from Oxford is attached

He is a dual national on every occasion he stood for parliament, he signed false declarations for the AEC on each occasion. Elections in March 1994, March 1996,October 1998, November 2001,October 2004, November 2007, August 2010, September 2013. 

Ross Jones from Independent Australia Media has come up with another beauty about the Abbott saga.  What exactly did Jan Olson say in parliament house?   Why were they so quick to evict her? Was it really because of her FOI?  The one that proves the renunciation papers do not exist.  I think I mentioned earlier that I lodged a complaint with the Australian Public Service Commissioner asking if Peta Credlin was a public servant or political appointment, and if she was political could she become FOI clerk for a day when she knocked back my request.  While that was in the process of being adjudicated Jan Olson lodged her FOI, totally unknown to each other, the request was a pure coincidence and at the very exactly right time to get a real public servant to do the job properly.  Again goodonya Jan and sorry about your eviction.  You join a pretty select list of people who have been thrown out of parliament.

Pravda, that famous Russian newspaper has published a story about Tony Abbott. It's here.  

The silence has been deafening.Every labour MP clammed up yesterday,normally chatty they just stopped.Seems its party policy to keep Abbott in government, defintiely better for their (labour) polls to have an idiot in charge, but he is also a criminal. Parliament House in Canberra lists all MPs and shows if they have a twitter account or not. I twittered every labour MP asking why they are keeping a criminal in the job of Prime Minister.

Letters to the editor for the Herald Sun and The Age, both Melbourne papers, advising labour voters to ask why their party wants to protect Abbott. I doubt they will publish, but you never know. 

Illegal boat people.  Or not.  I wrote to the Department of Immigration and concentration camps asking if Mrs Abbott came to Australia on the Oronsay as an Australian citizen or a British citizen.  The answer was they couldn't say a thing because of privacy concerns.  Fair enough, so I asked them to provide information about the laws back then, I have been unable to find anything relating to if an Australian citizen could come back to Australia on an assisted  passage migration scheme.  Just more interest for the whole gamut of Abbottisms.  They will get back to me.

3 December 2014, about 10am. Rang Senator Ian Macdonalds office and was told they know Mr Abbott has dual nationality but didn't think it was illegal.  Isn't that interesting.

They know he is a dual national and does nothing about it.
Matthew from Senator Macdonalds Office rang me and accused me of lying. I have been working on this for 14 months, why on earth would I lie just  to get a bite from a second rate senators staffer somewhere in Queensland?  Matthew, I am not a liar.  


  1. Headlines around the country should be 'show us your papers Tony'...this has to be the biggest story of the last 2 centuries. Here we have a PM who seriously may not be legally entitled to the position?

    Selective blindness by MSM?

    We will keep this running thanks to social media of Twitter and Facebook!

    Australia has the right to know if we are being fooled by a cheat!

    great work guys xox

  2. It's an easy slip to make and can have serious consequences. The high profile gay activist Peter Tatchell in the UK was elected as an MP for a South London constituency and it was discovered he had not renounced his Australian citizenship leading to his dismissal and a fresh election which he lost.

    The claim of 'birther' is ridiculous. In Obama's case he provided his birth certificate which confirmed his stated details but the Birthers simply ignored it and claimed it was a fraud despite the Republican governor of Hawaii confirming authenticity,

  3. Hardly an easy slip.20 years of fraud.8 false declarations.He does have an Australian law degree and was adviser to many high profile politicans before signing his first false declaration

  4. Hi Tony,
    Thank you for all the work you have done.
    I have also done some research and believe we need to apply to The Court of Disputed returns who, under the Act, can determine the matter in question. ...."and The court of disputed returns shall thereupon have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question".
    This is under The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 sections 163, 376 and 378, 385. Individuals can set the question before the court, therefore we can bypass all the current blockers. There are more sections in the Act that apply.

  5. Ok, I am but a humble law student. I am by no means qualified to advise or comment on law or legal avenues of constitutional or electoral or criminal matters.. However, I might draw your attention to the following, where it seems to me you are being misled and distracted...
    a) In order to successfully bring Abbott to account for these allegations the following must be obtained (or reasonably attempted and evidence of knowing/ wilful obstruction or maladministration obtained): Mr Abbotts false declarations. Mr Abbott or any other statements confirming such fraud or ineligibility. Any other conflict of interest/ aiding or abetting for conflict of interest by other parties involved. b) refusals of minister/department officials to conduct their duties accordingly.
    If this is obtained, then the following paths could be taken as an eligible plaintiff sui juris:
    a)An application directly to the High Court (Court of Disputed Returns) regarding the parliamentarian/minister eligibility and allegation of fraudulent/ deceitful application.
    b) An Application to the Federal Court regarding allegations of electoral fraud.
    c) an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the refusals/ silences/ incorrect responses/ personnel handling regarding your enquiries.
    d) a direct demand to the Queen/ Gov Gen (accompanied by a petition of the Australian Voting Public) to suspend the Cabinet and the PM pending investigation/ by-election.
    As for sue v hill, upon my brief review of the relative case line I must correct comments in the responses you have received. The Electoral Commission has inho misinterpreted this as the case identified that the eligibility for dual citizenship was NOT a disqualifier, and neither was previous foreign allegiance, however it reconfirmed that OUTSTANDING allegiances are, and declarations made which reflect information that would contradict such facts of allegiance would be an issue, however, dual citizenship must not be confirmed by the HOME OFFICE to be valid, but MR Abbott must have made all active an reasonable attempts to validly and publicly renounce any foreign allegiance PRIOR to completing the required declaration and being accepted by AEC as candidate (in each successive case- but one renunciation might do for all future applications, unless foreign allegiance was re-attempted or readopted by implication/action/ or application by the candidate after renunciation made)
    Further to this, any acceptance by AEC of Abbots application, where reasonably should have been aware of foreign allegiance may be an issue that could be raised with an ICAC under a mal-administration if he was not an incumbent perhaps??
    Mr Brandis might have issue with this.. He can’t look into it! He would definitely be up for an accessory to the crimes of fraud, as he well knew! He was Abbott’s oxford buddy and colleague! AND where were he and his parent’s allegiances? By my reading of constitution s.44 it requires a renunciation of all foreign allegiances, obedience of such, or acknowledgment of such... wouldn’t that include his pro-Britain speeches/ oath of allegiance to the Queen (not Australia) recently if he hadn’t completed his RN?
    Finally, why are others such as labour etc. silent? Julia was (welsh) Dual eligible too, and so was half the parliamentarians I would guess.. And you don’t have to be confirmed holder of dual.. you just have to have a conflict of interest and then not renounce (or fail to acknowledge/refuse option of dual) to be in breach...
    See, is it a little clearer??
    Wish I had the cash to go to HCA!
    Kind Regards,
    Interested Voter....

  6. Seems to the average Australian that those in the right places, with the right support (financial, legal and other) can do whatever they want supposedly representing the peoples of this country. It appears that lies, lies and more lies supports these alleged corruptions of the Law to continue in a protected environment. Doesn't that mean the Law is an Ass?

  7. When presented with what seems a clear case of fraud by our prime minister and the determined blindness of police and other politicians why would anybody wonder why the Australian people have such a low level of respect for politicians and a falling respect for the police? They do our society a grave disservice. Laws are not supposed to be selectively enforced. But they are. Politicians in office are not supposed to be above the law. But they are.

    Corruption and secrecy encourage further corruption. Tony Abbot is a known liar who has indulged in fraud before. Allowing him to get away with this will only further embolden him and future political criminals.

    1. we're starting to think the selective blindness being shown to this subject from all sides of politics & the main stream media is it's too hot to handle! There is NOBODY in power who is willing to take this on and the reason being, my belief is, that he's not the only one who hasn't renounced. We should now start to focus on who else hasn't renounced another country's citizenship who holds office as a MP! even past MP's should not be exempt from investigation.

      They're hiding something so deep and so explosive but it will all come out in the future If's making an absolute joke out of our 'selective laws'. As if any MP doesn't know they have to renounce their other citizenship...THEY KNOW - isn't this blatant fraud?

  8. In 1994 when elected to the Parliament Abbott was eligible and remained so until 1998 when the courts declared the United Kingdom to be a foreign power. At that time he should have taken steps to renounce his British Citizenship and if he didn't that is when he became ineligible. The ruling of the United Kingdom being a foreign power came about when the election of Heather Hill as a senator for Qld and One nation was challenged.