Doc Jensen Matty Cormann. who does what

I wrote to the Attorney General Senator Brandis asking him to ask Mr Abbott to produce his renunciation of British citizenship papers.

I explained it in bogan English because all of the emails sent to Mr Brandis aren't usually answered, they tend to go missing which was proven in an FOI around about Christmas.

No answer about getting Abbott to show the forms so I asked him quite simply and specifically "who is responsible for monitoring, politician and prosecuting Section 44 of the constitution after the 40 day period when two voters can send an elected MP to the court of Disputed Returns".

He replied that the AEC does not monitor Section 44 of the Constitution.

No real reply from the chief legal officer in the country, the one who said the law was paramount.  So I lodged a petition asking Abbott to show the form and asking parliament "who is responsible for monitoring, politician and prosecuting Section 44 of the constitution after the 40 day period when two voters can send an elected MP to the court of Disputed Returns".

Doc Jensen the self proclaimed genius of parliament is the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions sent the petitions to Mal Brough then Special Minister of State.  Mal's office rang me saying pretty much nothing and that they wouldn't be asking Abbott to show his renunciation papers and they wouldn't be saying who is responsible for S44 because Senator Brandis is responsible.

I wish they would use lube.

If the genius of parliament can't figure out WTF is going on what hope is there for the rest of us?

Mat Cormann is the new Special Minister of State.  The petitions don't belong to you Matty, will you please send them to Senator Brandis and ask Doc Jensen to do the same.

How does anything happen in parliament if the MPs don't know who actually does what?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doc Jensens wiki no longer mentions he is a self proclaimed genius, sorry if you aren't a genius any more Doc for some of us the status stays the same.  The wikie also has some intersting information about the Doc.
Dr Jensen is a denier concerning human-induced global warming and, on behalf of the Lavoisier Group, organised the release of a book entitled Nine Facts About Climate Change by former mining CEO Ray Evans. In February 2007 during a Parliamentary sitting, Jensen quoted the then IPCC vice chairman Yuri Izrael, who had stated that "there is no proven link between human activity and global warming" 
His reputation as a climate change denier became national when he and four government colleagues disagreed with others of their party in a dissenting committee report regarding climate change.
Dr Jensen boycotted Parliament on the day that the formal apology to the Stolen Generations was made by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. He further courted controversy by telling Australian Indigenous people affected by European colonisation to "get over it."
He is opposed to same-sex marriage in Australia.
^{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~}

The bit at the bottom asking for a donation, thanks to all of you who have clicked the button.

Dougie,Stevie & Timmy

Why do so many in the Labour party protect Tony Abbott from JSCEM and the courts?

It has come to the stage where the people are crowd funding to put Abbott in court because you our elected and highly paid representatives are too terrified of putting him in court for lying to get into parliament.

Or is the problem that you two are criminals too?  Many people have asked you to show your renunciation papers and you refuse, you even block the poor people on social media for daring to ask.

Thankfully the courts will listen and Abbott will be done for criminal fraud.

Thankfully parliament is not just run by politicians, we the people have a tiny say in what is going on.  The criminals may not be caught today or tomorrow,but maybe next week and definitely in the future when researchers ask why politicians refused to comply with our constitution.

Abbott is a criminal, the proof is here.   http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/plan-of-attack.html

Do you comply with our constitution?  Care to show your renunciation papers or do we have to wait for the petition to be presented to parliament asking every foreign born MP to prove they are legitimate.

It is hard for some, Mr Nikolic can't renounce his Serbian citizenship because he has not done their national service, but our constitution is law.

If you have renounced your citizenship and are just terrified of your party or Abbott, why not donate to the crowd funding to prove that you consider the law is paramount and all must obey it.  Show that you don't think the elite should get away with crimes just because they are elites.  https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/tony-abbott-must-front-the-courts

Are you just Australian?  Do you comply with section 44 of the constitution?

Senator Conroy's office promised me before Christmas that they would show his renunciation papers, Senator Cameron's office said it was party policy that criminal fraud of signign false declarations for the AEC was an irrelevance.  It is our constitution, our law, not an irrelevance.

Are you two the reason for T.WATTS coming out so openly in favour of protecting Abbott or are there others that are criminals in the houses of parliament? http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-mp-tim-watts-defends-tony-abbott-against-online-birthers-20140917-10hy1m.html

First day of parliament should be good for all.

Yours

Tony Magrathea

And so endeth the lesson.  Now the bit at the end asking for a donation, I am a pauper.  Email is cheap and slow off the NBN and on it I guess, so if you can drop a penny or two in my cup I can buy more stamps and envelopes for the next petition.

Have a good one

plan of attack

Australian Electoral Commission hand book
 Page 17 details the Constitutional obligations

The documents at AEC Abbott signed

Offences listed by AEC Criminal Code Act 1995, 7.4 false or misleading statements

Part 7.4—False or misleading statements

Division 136—False or misleading statements in applications

136.1  False or misleading statements in applications

Knowledge

             (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                     (a)  the person makes a statement (whether orally, in a document or in any other way); and

                     (b)  the person does so knowing that the statement:

                              (i)  is false or misleading; or

                             (ii)  omits any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading; and

                     (c)  the statement is made in, or in connection with:

                              (i)  an application for a licence, permit or authority; or

                             (ii)  an application for registration; or

                            (iii)  an application or claim for a benefit; and

                     (d)  any of the following subparagraphs applies:

                              (i)  the statement is made to a Commonwealth entity;

                             (ii)  the statement is made to a person who is exercising powers or performing functions under, or in connection with, a law of the Commonwealth;

                            (iii)  the statement is made in compliance or purported compliance with a law of the Commonwealth.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 12 months.

          (1A)  Absolute liability applies to each of the subparagraph (1)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii) elements of the offence.

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (1)(b)(i) if the statement is not false or misleading in a material particular.

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2). See subsection 13.3(3).

             (3)  Subsection (1) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) if the statement did not omit any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading in a material particular.

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3).

Recklessness

             (4)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                     (a)  the person makes a statement (whether orally, in a document or in any other way); and

                     (b)  the person does so reckless as to whether the statement:

                              (i)  is false or misleading; or

                             (ii)  omits any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading; and

                     (c)  the statement is made in, or in connection with:

                              (i)  an application for a licence, permit or authority; or

                             (ii)  an application for registration; or

                            (iii)  an application or claim for a benefit; and

                     (d)  any of the following subparagraphs applies:

                              (i)  the statement is made to a Commonwealth entity;

                             (ii)  the statement is made to a person who is exercising powers or performing functions under, or in connection with, a law of the Commonwealth;

                            (iii)  the statement is made in compliance or purported compliance with a law of the Commonwealth.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 6 months.

          (4A)  Absolute liability applies to each of the subparagraph (4)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii) elements of the offence.

             (5)  Subsection (4) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (4)(b)(i) if the statement is not false or misleading in a material particular.

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (5). See subsection 13.3(3).

             (6)  Subsection (4) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (4)(b)(ii) if the statement did not omit any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading in a material particular.

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (6). See subsection 13.3(3).

Alternative verdicts

             (7)  If, in a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), the trier of fact is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the offence, but is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offence against subsection (4), the trier of fact may find the defendant not guilty of the offence against subsection (1) but guilty of the offence against subsection (4), so long as the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.

Geographical jurisdiction

             (8)  Section 15.4 (extended geographical jurisdiction—category D) applies to an offence against subsection (1) or (4).

Definition

             (9)  In this section:

benefit includes any advantage and is not limited to property.

Division 137—False or misleading information or documents

137.1  False or misleading information

             (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                     (a)  the person gives information to another person; and

                     (b)  the person does so knowing that the information:

                              (i)  is false or misleading; or

                             (ii)  omits any matter or thing without which the information is misleading; and

                     (c)  any of the following subparagraphs applies:

                              (i)  the information is given to a Commonwealth entity;

                             (ii)  the information is given to a person who is exercising powers or performing functions under, or in connection with, a law of the Commonwealth;

                            (iii)  the information is given in compliance or purported compliance with a law of the Commonwealth.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 12 months.

          (1A)  Absolute liability applies to each of the subparagraph (1)(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) elements of the offence.

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (1)(b)(i) if the information is not false or misleading in a material particular.

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2). See subsection 13.3(3).

             (3)  Subsection (1) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) if the information did not omit any matter or thing without which the information is misleading in a material particular.

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3).

             (4)  Subsection (1) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (1)(c)(i) if, before the information was given by a person to the Commonwealth entity, the Commonwealth entity did not take reasonable steps to inform the person of the existence of the offence against subsection (1).

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3).

             (5)  Subsection (1) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) if, before the information was given by a person (the first person) to the person mentioned in that subparagraph (the second person), the second person did not take reasonable steps to inform the first person of the existence of the offence against subsection (1).

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (5). See subsection 13.3(3).

             (6)  For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), it is sufficient if the following form of words is used:

“Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence”.

137.2  False or misleading documents

             (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                     (a)  the person produces a document to another person; and

                     (b)  the person does so knowing that the document is false or misleading; and

                     (c)  the document is produced in compliance or purported compliance with a law of the Commonwealth.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 12 months.

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply if the document is not false or misleading in a material particular.

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2). See subsection 13.3(3).

             (3)  Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who produces a document if the document is accompanied by a written statement signed by the person or, in the case of a body corporate, by a competent officer of the body corporate:

                     (a)  stating that the document is, to the knowledge of the first-mentioned person, false or misleading in a material particular; and

                     (b)  setting out, or referring to, the material particular in which the document is, to the knowledge of the first-mentioned person, false or misleading.

Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3).

Documents about Abbott, the birth certificate,Australian citizenship,FOI from Oxford

Shows he was born British, got Australian citizenship in June 1981 without signing anything, entered Oxford as a British citizen in October 1981

The immigration law referred to in one of the citizenship documents is Section 11 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948

It states "4)  The applicant, and any natural child of the applicant included in the application, becomes an Australian citizen on the day on which the applicant is registered as an Australian citizen." ie when the application is approved by the minister,not at birth.

Section 44 of the Australian Constitution which says basically MPs can only be Australian and not multiple nationalities.

The FOI from Prime Minister and Cabinet 

Shows the renunciation documents do not exist

The FOI from the UK Home Office 

The relevant laws quoted in the FOI from the Home Office 

That part of the act refers to M1 a marginal citation referring to the data Protection Act (UK) section 29

Seems courts can force the release of the information but public servants are reluctant to.

The Home office can neither confirm nor deny the existence of renunciation papers, Mr Abbott's office say he has never renounced his British citizenship because he is only Australian.

And the ironic bit, should Mr Abbott be found guilty of breaching Section 44 of the constitution then every other member of parliament who has refused to advise the police or to ask him about his possible criminality faces charges under another section 44, of the Crimes Act 1914. 

And so endeth the lesson.  Now the bit at the end asking for a donation, I am a pauper.  Email is cheap and slow off the NBN and on it I guess, so if you can drop a penny or two in my cup I can buy more stamps and envelopes for the next petition.

Have a good one

Naughty Naughty, you've been caught Senator Brandis

AND THE PRIME MINISTER

I have written to Senator Brandis and the Prime Minister via their contact links in the Austrlaian Parliament House profile pages for each MP.

Both refuse to reply to my informing them of a possible crime committed by one of their back bench MPs, Brandis Office even went so far as to gloat that they would never respond to my emails.

I can write English and there was a time I wrote COBOL and data definitions but journalism?  I am not in the same league as the talented writers that attack the pixels you see regularly on Independent Australia or any other news source for that matter.

I do ask questions and get riled by people who refuse to answer what should be simple questions, such as where is your renunciation paperwork Mr Abbott. Or when I wrote to Senator Brandis asking him who was responsible for monitoring, policing and prosecuting breaches of Section 44 of the constitution, that’s the bit that says all federal MPs must be just Australian.  He actually answered that question by saying the Australian Electoral Commission does not monitor S44.  I did know they can’t do that because the Constitution isn’t a Commonwealth law and that’s why I asked the senator who does.

After that bit of fluff from the senator’s office I lodged a petition in parliament asking the House of Parliament who was responsible for monitoring, policing and prosecuting S44 of the Constitution.  

Mr Brough was Special Minister of State at the time and one of his staffers phoned me and told me they would never respond to the petition because that would incriminate Mr Abbott, but the person responsible for monitoring S44 of the Constitution was indeed Senator Brandis.

With this information I wrote to the Senator using the email address provided in his Parliament House profile not realising that was his personal office email and nothing to do with him being the Attorney General and working in Parliament House.  The email ended up in Queensland.  I rang his office a few days later to remind them what Mr Brough’s office had said about him being responsible and they laughed me off and told me they would never answer that email.

The COBOLogist and data definitionist in me got a bit upset about this and sent of an FOI to the department of the Attorney General asking who had seen the email, where it had gone and who was responsible for actioning it.  The FOI came back saying the email did not exist in the department, it had not gone from the senator’s office for action by a public servant.

The senator and his staff had covered up a crime.  Another Section 44, this time in the Crimes Act 1914 says that if a person for any sort of benefit, e.g. being appointed Attorney General and the pay rate commensurate with that job, was to compound or conceal an offence;  then they might face three years in jail.

Mr Abbott has committed the offence of being in parliament as a Briton and in filling in 8 false declarations for the AEC to get to stand for election and as such Mr Brandis should have forwarded the complaint by me to his department and to the Australian Federal Police.

I advised Commissioner Colvin of the AFP on 14 January 2016 that Mr Brandis seems to have committed a crime under S44 of the Crimes Act 1914 and would he investigate and prosecute. We wait with baited breath to see if Commissioner Colvin, now he can no longer get a knighthood will be a copper again.

As a sort of none journalistic PS, my writing this could be very dangerous for me.  The new citizenship laws put me at risk because just like Tony Abbott I am a British and Australian citizen, but writing this could be construed as trying to overthrow the government. And that may put me in breach of those obnoxious new citizenship laws. 

After writing this little bit I got another FOI this time from the Prime Ministers Office and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet saying the information I sent otthe Prime Minister was never forwarded to his public servant run departments for action and passing on to the police and AGs.

Why do elected politicians think they are above the law?  Why do they act like they are immune form prosecution?  

And so endeth the lesson.  Now the bit at the end asking for a donation, I am a pauper.  Email is cheap and slow off the NBN and on it I guess, so if you can drop a penny or two in my cup I can buy more stamps and envelopes for the next petition.

Have a good one

Petition to parliament re S44 Audit

This petition has been posted to parliament in the old fashioned lick and Bic way and hopefully will be presented on 4th of February 2016, I think that's the first sitting day.

To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives.

This petition of a concerned citizen of Australia requests the House to instruct the Attorney General’s department and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to conduct an audit of compliance with Section 44 of the Constitution for all members of parliament who were born overseas. 

As things stand at the moment the Australian Electoral Commission cannot ask a candidate or member of parliament if they comply with S44 of the Constitution, the AEC must take a candidate or MP on trust rather than being able to confirm they comply with the Constitution.

The Special Minister of State has advised me by telephone that he has refused to respond to a petition to the House presented 23 November 2015 asking who is responsible for monitoring and policing S44 of the Constitution.

There may be up to three members of parliament who do not comply with the constitution and because of the way the various laws operate and because the Special Minister of State refuses to respond to a petition about the matter, a private individual has no way of getting an answer from a member of parliament about their compliance.  This petition is the only way outside the 40 day period after an election is declared that the Australian Constitution can be monitored and policed.

Principal petitioner:-

And so endeth the lesson.  Now the bit at the end asking for a donation, I am a pauper.  Email is cheap and slow off the NBN and on it I guess, so if you can drop a penny or two in my cup I can buy more stamps and envelopes for the next petition.
Have a good one