Monday, 1 December 2014

The constitution and economic chaos

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.

A rough reading of the constitution basically says  all laws are put to the Governor by the Executive for his signature.

My argument is that Mr Abbott is a dual national and has signed 8 false declarations to enter parliaments.  Jan's  FOI shows he has not renounced his British citizenship, the documents do not exist.

As he has signed false declarations to get into parliament that is fraud a criminal matter.  He should not be in parliament.  He has been a part of Executives in the Howard government and in the past 14 months or so and has passed many laws and decrees and decisions up to the Governor to sign.  Each one of those has been passed to the Governor by an Executive branch of government made up of people including someone who should not be there, someone who was there illegally, fraudulently. The executive decisions and laws are made invalid because a criminal fraud has been amongst the people who passed them to be signed by the Governor.  All tax cuts, tax increases, knighthoods, promotions, postings, decrees, decisions are invalid.

The parts of the constitution dealing with the executive are here or here

My bush lawyer skills are just that, a bush lawyer. Someone who can read, understand English pretty well and knows how to google.  Legally I wouldnt have a leg to stand on in a court, but it seems that Mr Abbott can't risk a gag order because that would allow me to call the documents in a corut of law and prove they don't exist and then show I am entitled to say what I want because ht has indeed signed false declarations to get into parliament.

Of course my bush lawyer skills might do massive poos on me from a great height, but if I don't ask it seems no one else will.

As an extra to this, the legal officer of the AEC has said that Mr Heerey QC, the Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission, has the matter before him at the moment and will make a decision soon as to the false declarations made by Mr Abbott.  But I have little confidence, the AEC has relied on their woos ideals that they can't investigate someones citizenship.  Makes them rather pointless in securing eligible candidates for parliament.  And the legal officer of the AEC assures me he is not a member of the liberal party.

The main blog is here

This is interesting. Definitely need legal help with it.  Anyone want to come in and do it do it doit?

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/ willful 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment