Did you know about the massive ‘Poll Tax’ on 1st preference voting?
As the Australian Electoral Commission data below reveals, we voters are paying a massive ‘Poll Tax’ when we give our 1st preference votes to the major political parties. Unless we demand that this tax on 1st Preference votes be scrapped immediately, the Federal election Poll tax will cost us round $3.5 – $4 BILLION by the end of the century!
Note- the short link URL for this posting is https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1dr
NO FREE LUNCH – VOTING ABOVE THE LINE:
In the 2013 and 2016 federal elections, we voters paid the Liberal-National Coalition, the Labour Party, and the Greens, the bulk of a staggering $120,854,731 for the so-called ‘privilege’ of giving these parties our 1st preference votes.
Voting ‘1’ Above the Line is literally a license to print money for mainstream political parties as the 2013 ‘lottery results’ also reveal:
The “1st Preference Bonanza Lottery” Prize Winners List – 2013
Liberal Party of Australia $23,884,672.94 (41.12% of the prize pool.)
Australian Labor Party $20,774,690.55 (35.77% of the prize pool.)
National Party $ 3,111,072.51 ( 5.35% of the prize pool.)
TOTAL: $47,770,436.oo ( 82.24% of the prize pool.)
Again, these figures reveal that almost $6 in every $7 taxpayers’ dollars were paid to the Liberal-National coalition and the Australian Labour Party.
In all, in the 2013 and 2016 federal elections, the Coalition and the Australian Labour Party received $98,426,866 of taxpayers’ money out of a total ‘prize pool’ of $120,854,731 or 81.44%.
The winnings of the next major prize poll winner, the Australia Greens, i.e. $6,717,055.98 + $5,531,871.45, totals a very substantial $12,248,927.43 or 10.13% of the prize pool.
In all, in the 2013, and 2016 federal elections, the Liberal-National Coalition, the Australian Labour Party and the Australian Greens received a massive $110,775,793 of taxpayer’s money , i.e. 91.57% of the 1st Preference Bonanza Lottery prize pool.
How to reduce this massive ‘Poll Tax’
Whilst this poll tax can’t be shut down without the political parties passing a law to revoke this tax, (a fantasy dream), the amount paid to the mainstream parties can be slashed very easily. the solution is relatively simple:
On the huge WHITE ballot paper, vote BELOW the line in every election, federal, state or territory.
If you want the Liberal-national Coalition, Labour or the Greens to win, give them your 2nd Preference vote.
Your 1st Preference vote should go to some one who is totally unknown, i.e. a 1st Timer INDEPENDENT candidate, or alternately, the person who has come either last or 2nd last in a previous election.
By giving your 1st preference vote to some one who will be unlikely to pick up the minimum 4% of 1st preference votes, that person receives no payments, i.e. no ‘Poll Tax’ on 1st Preference votes is paid.
Voting below the line on the WHITE ballot paper may give you between 30 – 150 candidates to pick from and if enough people vote below the line, your mainstream preferred candidate may win on 2nd or 3rd preferences, or even on 23rd preferences, but they loose out on the 1st Preference Poll Tax payments.
So, to reduce the Poll Tax on 1st preference votes, just don’t give this vote to mainstream party candidates.
On Saturday 17th March 2018, when South Australians vote for new state government, in my electorate I have 4 mainstream candidates and 1 newcomer.
In next Saturday’s election in South Australia, my 1st preference vote will go to the-new-kid-on-the-block, whilst my 2nd preference will go to the candidate that I hope wins the election.
In the Upper House – the big WHITE ballot paper, there are 22 mainstream (Liberal-National, ALP & Greens) candidates and 20 minor party and un-grouped Independent candidates vying for 11 seats.
By voting below the line, I can randomly give votes to 5 Independent or minor party candidates and the next 6 votes to the candidates that I want to win.
My preferred winners may be spread across the 4 mainstream parties with 1 each from the 2 minor parties, or visa versa.
The end result is that I vote as I want and not as the money grubbing mainstream parties want me to vote.
By having a diverse range of groups in the Upper house, no party dominates and extremist policies have little chance of being railroaded through the Upper House, regardless of who wins in the Lower House and forms government.
Vote smart and you not only reduce the massive, taxpayer funded, Poll Tax on 1st Preference “Above the Line” votes that funnels money in the coffers of political parties, you also deprive them of the ability to make stupid laws.
That is called a WIN-WIN result for voters.
Ron Medlicott – A Taxpayer and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate
Posted in abuse of power, election, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized
Tagged 1st preference, above the line, independent, mainstream parties, poll tax, vote below the line, vote smart
Burt versus Titlow is a US Supreme Court case that provides some insight into Australia’s “Burking” policies and practices.
The short list URL is https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1cv
Over time words change or grown broader in meaning: ‘Surfing’ isn’t just surfing and ‘Burking’ isn’t just burking.
For example, the word “Surfing” originally meant the recreational sport of ‘surfing the waves’ but today people ‘surf’ the Internet or surf’ radio and television broadcasts. We may also ‘surf the shops’ when looking for a bargain whilst some people “crowd surf” for the purpose of making a casual acquaintance .
In a similar manner, “Burking originally meant the crime of murdering a person, ordinarily by smothering, for the purpose of selling the corpse. The term originally derived its name from the method William Burke and William Hare, the Scottish murder team of the 18th century, used to kill their victims during the West Port murders. They realized that they could provide fresher bodies to medical schools for research by taking people who were intoxicated and suffocating them because they could not resist.”
On 24th December, 1828, the High Court of Justiciary, sitting at Edinburgh in Scotland, heard a case brought by the Crown Prosecutor against William Burke for the alleged murder of Margery Campbell. William Burke was found guilty of this murder charge and just 5 weeks later on 28th January 1829, he was executed by hanging. The text of the 1828 trial of William Burke can be found at this URL:
Fast forward in time to November 5th 2013 and another burking murder trial, i.e. the United States Supreme Court sat in judgement in Burt v. Titlov:
Supreme Court of the United States No. 12–414 [November 5, 2013] Sherry L. Burt, Warden Petitioner v. Vonlee Nicole Titlow. [An appeal of Titlow v. Burt, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111459 (D. Mich. 2010)]
Basic facts of this case:
“A Michigan state court jury convicted Titlow of second degree murder for assisting his aunt, Billie Rogers, in killing his uncle, Donald Rogers, in August 2000. Titlow had been living with Billie and Donald Rogers at the time of Donald’s death. On August 12, 2000, police officers arrived at Donald’s house and found him dead on his kitchen floor with a drinking glass in his hand. The medical examiner never performed an autopsy the body, and the cause of death was initially determined to be a heart attack.”
“Shortly after Donald’s death, signs began to emerge that foul play may have been involved in the death. Such signs included: (1) the unnatural position of Donald’s body at the crime scene; (2) small scrapes found on Donald’s nose consistent with impressions made by a pillow; (3) reports from Titlow’s boyfriend that Titlow admitted to killing Donald; and (4) shortly after Donald’s death, Titlow received $100,000 and a new car from Billie, the sole beneficiary of Donald’s estate.” Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-414
The key to understanding the core characteristics of burking fatalities is found in two of the above statements:
“…they could not resist”
“The medical examiner never performed an autopsy [on] the body, and the cause of death was initially determined to be a heart attack.”
Core characteristic #1:
Burking victims of are people who are “unable to resist” what is being done to them, i.e. they lack to means to defend themselves, are overwhelmed and they die.
Core characteristic #2:
The initial, false assumption that the death was not unlawful as it appeared to be from natural causes, i.e. a heart attack. Since it was not considered to be a homicide and an autopsy to determine the MANNER OF DEATH is not initially required.
Just as the word “surfing” has now evolved to include ‘surfing the net’ and ‘crowd surfing’, the crime of ‘burking’ has also evolved to encompass more than murders that just involve asphyxiating drunken victims who are physically unable to defend themselves against this lethal form of attack.
It is my contention that Burking is an appropriate term to describe crimes that involve unlawful abuses of power that target vulnerable people who are unable to defend themselves against this criminal activity and as a consequence are so physically or emotionally overwhelmed that the victim(s) die of natural causes.
Like the asphyxiation technique originally used by William Burke, and as was the case in the Titlov hearings, these deaths do not appear to be the consequences of a crime and are therefore not treated as a homicide by coroners or by law enforcement agencies.
Burking homicides’ are therefore 19th century examples of ‘the perfect murder’, at least until the precipitating cause of the death was identified and the murders brought to justice
Australia’s Dangerous and Unconstitutional Burking Laws.
In Australia, there are a number of federal laws that collective constitute ‘Murder by federal legislation’, e.g. Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act, an unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous death penalty laws that supposedly ‘legitimizes’ depriving impoverished welfare recipients of their constitutional right to a welfare payment that may be their sole means of meeting their most “basic costs of living.” Whilst it should be self-evident that deliberately depriving millions of people of what may be their sole means to survive is going to result in fatalities, this has not been an issue for the Australian federal politicians who have created these manifestly unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous federal laws.
On February 20th 2017, Senator Brandis made this statement,
”… we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system.”
Note the following points in that statement:
There had been “mistakes” that have resulted in “terrible human consequences”, i.e. the deaths of welfare recipients.
Despite these fatalities, which at the very least are culpable homicides under state and territory occupational health & safety laws, Senator Brandis stated that the automated processing of debt recovery claims was “not a bad system.”
The rationale used by Senator Brandis to justify this lethal automated system of ALLEGED DEBT recovery was ,”… we do have to have appropriate compliance measures.”
The very clear message that Senator Brandis delivered to the national community was that “appropriate compliance measures” were of higher importance than the lives of vulnerable welfare recipients. These comments were made in the context of prior admissions by the Human Services Minister, Alan Tudge, and the Social Services Minister, Christian Porter, that some 20% of 170,000 claims made “since June”  were “mistakes.”
Further insight into the extent of systemic mistakes by the Department of Human Services, a.k.a. Centrelink, is the following statement from a 2014 federal Administrative Tribunal finding:
<The applicant’s> contention that (s)he acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.
[The case file details are withheld to protect the victim of this blatant miscarriage of justice.]
With Centrelink, Commonwealth error mistakes are so common that, although paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act requires that these alleged debts be waived, they were not deemed by the presiding AAT conference registrar to be worthy of being waived despite s 1237A requiring that this occur. What is manifestly evident is that an errors that can prove fatal are not uncommon and with the Commonwealth, through the Department of Social Services, seeking to recover alleged debts, that are either totally spurious or are debts that must be waived due to Commonwealth error, criminal abuses of power that result in fatalities are occurring.
The “terrible human consequences’ of these mistakes raises four critical questions of law:
What is the specific legal status of the deaths, which are almost certainly burking fatalities, i.e. what criminal laws apply to these fatalities?
How many deaths have occurred?
Who is responsible for investigating ‘Robo-Debt’ triggered fatalities?
Why have these investigations either not occurred or if undertaken, have failed to identify the underlying criminal abuses of power that are the reaction trigger for these fatalities?
QUESTION 1; THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE “TERRIBLE HUMAN CONSEQUENCES”, a.k.a. BURKING FATALITIES.
Australia’s 6 states and 2 territories do have homicide laws in which Burking is an implied crime rather than being an explicitly stated crime. The following statutes are from the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act and although they do not mention ‘Burking’ specifically, this crime is covered by these statutes:
13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide
(7) A person who, by fraud, duress or undue influence, procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide shall (whether or not he was a party to a suicide pact with the other person) be guilty of murder or attempted murder, as the case may require.
Division 1A—Criminal neglect
14—Criminal liability for neglect where death or serious harm results from unlawful act
(1) A person (the defendant) is guilty of the offence of criminal neglect if—
(a) a child or a vulnerable adult (the victim) dies or suffers serious harm as a result of an unlawful act; and
(b) the defendant had, at the time of the act, a duty of care to the victim; and
(c) the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk that serious harm would be caused to the victim by the unlawful act; and
(d) the defendant failed to take steps that he or she could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect the victim from harm and the defendant’s failure to do so was, in the circumstances, so serious that a criminal penalty is warranted.
In 13 (7) above, killing a person by so emotionally traumatizing them that they commit suicide is a culpable homicide, i.e. murder. In section 14, a person who has a duty of care towards another person and violates that duty with fatal consequences is also guilty of a culpable homicide.
Burking is about deliberately causing harm with reckless indifference or deliberate disregard for the harmful consequences to the victim and that violates the following South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) statutes:
Division 7A—Causing physical or mental harm
21—Interpretation: In this Division—
cause—a person causes harm if the person’s conduct is the sole cause of the harm or substantially contributes to the harm;
If a victim suffers serious harm as a result of multiple acts of harm and those acts occur in the course of the same incident, or together constitute a single course of conduct, a person who commits any of the acts causing harm is taken to cause serious harm even though the harm caused by the act might not, if considered in isolation, amount to serious harm.
harm means physical or mental harm (whether temporary or permanent);
lesser offence, in relation to an offence against this Division, means—
(a) in relation to an aggravated offence—the basic offence or another offence against this Division, Division 7AB or section 32A, for which a lesser maximum penalty is prescribed;
(b) in any other case—another offence against this Division, Division 7AB or section 32A for which a lesser maximum penalty is prescribed;
mental harm means psychological harm and does not include emotional reactions such as distress, grief, fear or anger unless they result in psychological harm; [Causing such distress that people commit suicide qualifies un section 13 (7)]
physical harm includes—
(d) infection with a disease;
recklessly—a person is reckless in causing harm or serious harm to another if the person—
(a) is aware of a substantial risk that his or her conduct could result in harm or serious harm (as the case requires); and
(b) engages in the conduct despite the risk and without adequate justification;
serious harm means—
(a) harm that endangers a person’s life; or
(b) harm that consists of, or results in, serious and protracted impairment of a physical or mental function; or
(c) harm that consists of, or results in, serious disfigurement.
Queensland’s criminal code contains the following statutes, which are also identically worded in the Western Australian criminal code under different statute numbers:
Queensland CRIMINAL CODE s295, 296, 297
(Western Australia sections have identical wording.)
295 Causing death by threats
A person who, by threats or intimidation of any kind, or by deceit, causes another person to do an act or make an omission which results in the death of that other person, is deemed to have killed the other person.
296 Acceleration of death
A person who does any act or makes any omission which hastens the death of another person who, when the act is done or the omission is made, is labouring under some disorder or disease arising from another cause, is deemed to have killed that other person.
297 When injury or death might be prevented by proper precaution
When a person causes a bodily injury to another from which death results, it is immaterial that the injury might have been avoided by proper precaution on the part of the person injured, or that the injured person’s death from that injury might have been prevented by proper care or treatment.
Section 302: The Definition of Murder (Western Australia: Section 279)
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c) is guilty of murder.
(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.
No matter how ‘convenient’ the automated ‘Robo-Debt’ recovery measures may be, the use of recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional measures that skip Due Process of Law for the purpose of recovering ALLEGED DEBTS, that may or may not be real, in law, constitutes “… an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose” and the “terrible human consequences” mentioned by Senator Brandis are, in law, murders under this Queensland statute and similar state and territory laws.
QUESTION 2: HOW MANY DEATHS HAVE OCCURRED?
The day after Senator Brandis made is “terrible human consequences” statement, via I submitted a Statement of Facts & Issues for federal Administrative Appeals tribunal case 2016/5334. This set of documents contained the following statement:
“If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed,100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.”
This Statement of Facts also contained the following “Awesome Foursome” questions that would have had to be answered by March 3rd 2017:
What is the total number of [unconstitutional] Breaching penalties that have been issued to-date?
How many [fraudulent] ‘Account payable’ demands have been made to welfare recipients?
How many people with disabilities have been denied a pension?
How many people never survived the above abuses of power, i.e. how many people has the Federal Parliament murdered?
On February 22nd 2017, i.e. the next day, an Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services wrote a “Without prejudice” letter to the welfare recipient that I was representing that withdrew the Secretary’s claim, re-instated the withheld benefit and agreed to make restitution of all monies withheld. The welfare recipient accepted this offer not knowing that it relieved the Secretary of the obligation to disclose the answers to the “Awesome Foursome” questions.
QUESTION 3: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING THESE BURKING FATALITIES?
The following federal, state or territory agencies or entities are responsible for investigating deaths precipitated by unconstitutional, unlawful abuses of power by the Australian Federal Parliament or agencies acting on behalf of the parliament under unconstitutional statute laws:
Police – Federal, State and Territory;
The Australian Human Rights Commission;
State and Territory Human Rights Commissions;
Federal, State and Territory Office of the Ombudsman;
Federal, State and Territory Independent Commissioner against Corruption.
QUESTION #4: WHY HAVE THESE DEATHS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BURKING MURDERS?
The answer to this question is complex and may have as much to do with Milgram’s Syndrome, i.e. a sub-conscious willingness to recklessly endanger the lives of others, and possibly the evidence of unlawful ‘Data Trimming’ by altering or not collecting data on the numbers of “terrible human consequences.” The non-collection of mission-critical data concerning the foreseeably adverse consequences of unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, actions by Department of Human Services officials may have been for the express purpose of concealing the real-world impact of government policies and practices. That this could occur for decades despite senate oversight committee questions and questions raised by members of the public, e.g. myself, is beyond inexcusable.
I am not authorized to conduct an investigation; however as a member of the community I do have the right to seek transparency regarding the human impact of unconstitutional laws, policies and practices and the failure of government officials, including Governor-generals, politicians, public servants, police officers, coroners, judges AAT conference registrars and even High Court registrars, to address the issue of publicly acknowledged but unnumbered fatalities is a question that every person in the nation needs to consider.
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay-advocate for justice in Australia.
Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, crimes against humanity, Human Rights violations, murder, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime
Tagged body snatching, burking, burt v titlov, definition of murder, fraud, margery campbell, queeensland criminal code, reckless endangerment, recklessly, south australian criminal code, state sanctioned murder, suirf the airwaves, surf the internet, surf the waves, surfing, tasmanian criminal code, titlov v burt, westeren australian criminal code, william burke, william hare
Was Malcolm Turnbull’s “storm in a teacup” over Josh Freydenberg a very clever distraction that concealed the frightening fact the the 2016 election results are not legally valid?
On Friday 3rd November 2017, Malcolm Turnbull held a press conference and let fly with a very clever load of emotion-charged stuff about Josh Freydenberg and his mother that I believe was probably intended to distract listeners from the real issue, i.e. the 2016 federal election results are not legally valid. A short video of Malcolm Turnbull making a huge fuss over almost nothing, other than not mentioning Australia’s current politically driven holocaust, can be seen at:
Check out the facts, not the emotionally charged self-interest hype that Mr. Turnbull churned out:
Josh Freydenberg was a constitutionally valid candidate who received 58.22% of the crucial 1st Preference vote, i.e. he won the Kooyong seat by a clear margin of almost 25% of the vote more than the ALP candidate and there was no real question as to the validity of his election to the federal seat of Kooyong. So why the big fuss by Malcolm Turnbull?
Check this out
There were (theoretically) more than 24 billion preference voting options that could have been cast in the 2016 federal election and literally billions of preference votes may actually be invalid.
Check this out:
ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE BUT ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
Approximately 14,890,000 voters cast votes for 1,625 candidates. Since Australia uses a preference voting system, that represents potentially 24 BILLION votes that had to counted, not once, but hundreds of times.
Check this out:
This is a huge amount of preference votes, i.e. over 606,000 2nd to 7th preference votes compared to the 101,043 1st preference votes. This pattern hold good for AL of the 150 House of Representatives seats, i.e. if there were 10 candidates in a seat with 100,000 voters, there would have been 100,000 1st preference votes and 900,000 2nd to 10th preference votes. the potential for invalid votes and the downstream flow-on starts with the 1st candidate who was not eligible to stand in the election, e.g. Barnaby Joyce in Windsor. This is why a By-election is necessary instead of just electing the runner-up. In the Senate, this is an absolute nightmare!
Check this out:
In South Australia, the votes for 64 Senate candidates had to be counted 465 times to determine the 12 winners, one of whom was not eligible to stand, i.e. Robert Day!
If you think that was a huge count, check this out:
4,492,197 voters, 151 Senate candidates and 1,065 counts required to determine the 12 winners from a potential Preference Votes Pool of 687,321,747 votes ranging from 1st preference to 151st preference.
It is an unfunny joke on voters for the High Court to order a re-count when the pool of invalid candidates and their preference votes have not been identified by the Australian Electoral commission or the High Court.
The mission critical question in all of this is just how many people in the pool of 1,625 candidates were not eligible to stand as candidates?
Here are the time bomb facts about how the Australian Electoral Commission stuffed the nomination process and thereby stuffed up the July 2nd 2016 federal election:
Nominations closed at 12 noon on 9th June 2016.
The Australian Electoral Commission published a list of candidates on 10th June 2016.
There was no audit checking by Australian Electoral Commission officials to determine if people named on the nominations list were eligible to be nominated and as a direct consequence, an unknown number of people who were not eligible to be elected to the parliament were able to contest the federal election on 2nd July 2016.
On July 2nd 2016, after the close of polls at 6.00PM, Australian Electoral Commission officials supervised the tallying of votes, including the tallying and distribution of preference votes that had been given by unsuspecting voters to ineligible candidates.
In the period from 14th July to the 5th August 2016, Australian Electoral Commission issued official election results based upon both valid and invalid preference votes.
THE HIGH COURT DECISIONS
Since the the official declarations of results by the Australian Electoral Commission, the Australian High Court has made 3 rulings that have seen 7 senator declarations and 1 House of Representative declaration declared “Void ab initio”, i.e. legally invalid.
Re Culleton [No 2]  HCA 4 (3 February 2017)
Re Day [No 2]  HCA 14 (5 April
Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts [No 2]; Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon  HCA 45 (27 October 2017)
So far this year, the High Court has ruled in 7 of 9 challenges to the validity of the 2016 federal election results that the election results were invalid.
Malcolm Turnbull’s speech occurred on the same day that Senator Parry, the President of the Australian Senate, resigned because it was confirmed that, like myself, he holds both Australian and British citizenship and was therefore not eligible to stand for election in the 2016 federal election.
RUN THE NUMBERS
7 out of 9 High Court challenges have seen 2016 election declared-results over-turned. Add in the resignation of Stephen Parry and that is 8 out 10 people who were not eligible for election, i.e. an 80% rate for invalid elections! At that rate of error, 170 – 171 of the remaining 216 members of the Federal parliament may have been ineligible to stand in the 2016 federal election!
In reality, the precise number of ineligible candidates who were nominated is still unknown as is the precise number who were elected.
The only certainty about the 2016 federal election is that constitutionally people who are not eligible to stand for election to the Federal Parliament are also not eligible to vote on legislation before the parliament.
Since the election results are based upon an unknown number of constitutionally invalid preferences, the election result is constitutionally invalid and therefore;
All votes on legislation made by this parliament are constitutionally invalid, i.e. this parliament has not passed any constitutionally valid laws.
The problem with that constitutional reality is that it applies backwards to all previous votes by people who were not eligible to be in the Federal Parliament, e.g. Senator Parry and Barnaby Joyce.
- This also applies to any legislation that was voted into law on the votes of people who had no constitutional right to be in parliament.
OOPS! THE AWKWARD PROBLEM OF AUSTRALIA’S HOLOCAUST.
In seeking to stir up an emotional response rather than a rational, logical response to the constitutional crisis, Malcolm Turnbull stated:
“I wish that those who made these allegations about Josh Frydenberg think a little deeper about the history of the Holocaust,”
“Has this witch hunt become so absurd that people are seriously claiming that Josh Frydenberg is a citizen of a country which stripped his mother and family of their citizenship and would’ve put them into the gas chambers?”
The first problem with the “witch hunt” statement is that any person in the Federal parliament who has no constitutional right to be in the Parliament has to be identified and expelled in order to have a constitutionally valid parliament that can create constitutionally valid laws. What is required is not a “witch hunt” but the upholding of section 44 of the constitution.
The 2nd problem is that comment is the following February 20 2017 statement by Senator George Brandis and my statement in an AAT appeal submission on 21st February 2017. Senator Brandis said:
“Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”
Senator George Brandis: ABC – QandA program, 20th February 2017.
The next day, in a Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT case 2016/5334, I wrote:
“If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed, 100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.
AAT Case file 2016/5334: Statement of Facts & Issues, 21st February 2017.
The flow-on problem with that estimated death toll was the official response by the Australian Government Service lawyer(s) representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. It was a ‘Nolle contendere’ [No contest] response in the form of a “Without prejudice” proffer to withdraw the DSS tort action and reinstate a welfare benefit and to pay benefits that had been withdrawn. The offer was accepted and “perfected”, i.e. finalized, on 6th March 2017.
AAT2016/5334 has exposed a horrific truth that the mass media and the police choose not to see. people who live in Australia’s “Ghetto of Poverty” are the victims of a politically driven humanitarian disaster that is literally of holocaust proportions. It is not just the Hungarian Fascists and Nazis who have denied people their citizenship rights; as Senator Brandis made quite clear, it has been happening in Australia since Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister!
If media reports are true and the Turnbull Government has been hitting unsuspecting welfare recipients with [brazenly fraudulent] ‘Robo-Debt’ claims at the rate of up to 20,000 people per week , then Malcolm Turnbull has “put the pedal to the metal” on the worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.
If I am correct the Australian Federal Parliament and a number of federal government agencies have beengetting away with ‘Bilking and Burking’ welfare recipients for decades, i.e. defrauding and murdering unsuspecting victims, for decades.
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS SUMMARY
Over a period of decades, the Australian Electoral Commission has allowed people who were not eligible to do so to stand for election to the Australian Federal Parliament.
Over a period of decades, people who were not eligible to do so to serve as members of the House of representatives or serve as Senators have done so.
When legislation has been brought before the Australian Federal Parliament, people who had no right to do so,have voted on legislation.
Some of this legislation, e.g. Work for the Dole and No Show, No pay laws, is unconstitutional and represents a criminal act of recklessness.
The death toll from these dangerous, unconstitutional laws is unknown because because those responsible for these deaths have classified them as both “irrelevant” and “confidential”.
The solution to the constitutional crisis caused by the invalid 2016 election is simple,, i.e. a new election must be held in which the leigibility of candidates is confirmed BEFORE nominations are announced.
The solution to the problem of unconstitutional, legally in valid legislation is also simple, i.e. it must be rescinded by the next parliament.
The solution to the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients is also simple, i.e. across the nation, police must investigate these crimes and where appropriate, charge and prosecute the offenders.
Please, put all things to the test and check out the claims made in this posting for accuracy before spreading the news.
For details of “Burking” check this out:
“Burking means the crime of murdering a person, ordinarily by smothering, for the purpose of selling the corpse. The term derives its name from the method William Burke and William Hare, the Scottish murder team of the 18th century, used to kill their victims during the West Port murders. They realized that they could provide fresher bodies to medical schools for research by taking people who were intoxicated and suffocating them because they could not resist. That became known as burking. [Titlow v. Burt, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111459 (D. Mich. 2010)].”
Please note that I use “burking” in the sense that helpless, hapless welfare recipients, i.e. people who are unable to resist, are murdered by using ‘natural causes’ such as heart attacks, strokes, suicides and misadventure. A welfare recipient may have Hypertension, Myocardia and Depression and a recklessly dangerous, fraudulent Robo-Debt claim or an unconstitutional “No show, no pay” penalty may trigger, a stroke, a heart attack or a suicide. Since heart attacks and strokes are natural causes, many doctors and/or coroners sign off on the ‘Manner of Death’ not realizing that the death is a culpable negligence homicide.
Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.
Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime
Tagged 2016 Federal Election, 2016 federal lection invalid, 80% invalid candidates, aat 2016/5334, australian constitutional crisis, burking, burking law, constitutional crisis, erica, erica strauss, functus officio, holocaust, josh freydenberg, lexis 111459, malcolm turnbull, nolle contendere, perfected claim, senator bob day, senator stephen parry, titlow v. burt, unable to resist, void ab initio
Below is the text of an emailed public submission to the High Court “In the matter of questions referred to the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) concerning The Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP”
NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-17D
Case No. C15/2017
[My email to the High Court – to be re-submitted as a formal document, with appropriate evidence, for consideration by the High Court.]
Re: MP dual citizenship hearings before the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns.
A naturalized Australian citizen born in the United Kingdom of 17th May 1948, I am not eligible to stand for Parliament as I am officially a British Overseas Citizen under British nationality laws, policies and principles. On 20th May 1992, I married a 3rd generation Australian citizen, Leonie Jean Whitford. On 25th February 1997, our son Daniel Thane Medlicott was born in Adelaide. Approximately 6 years ago, my son Daniel used a certified copy of my birth certificate and applied for a British passport. Once the appropriate fees and security checks were completed, Daniel was issued with a British passport and subsequently toured Europe and Britain using that passport.
At this point in time, neither Daniel nor myself are eligible to stand for the Federal Parliament. The fact that the Australian Electorate Commission failed to verify the eligibility of candidates for previous federal elections, including the last election, which was held on 2nd July 2017, does not validate candidates who, by birth and right of heritage, do not qualify for election to the Federal Parliament. It would be Manifest Ostensible Bias for the High Court to validate the election of sitting Members, e.g. Barnaby Joyce, whilst people of British heritage, e.g. my son Daniel and myself, across Australia cannot stand as a candidate for the Federal Parliament until such time as we decide to formally revoke our British citizenship, pay the appropriate fees and due process of law occurs in Britain and the British Government achieves ‘Functus Officio” on the application to have British citizenship cancelled.
Williams & Ors v Spautz is a July 1992 High Court decision that made it quite clear that when an abuse of process occurs, the Court has both a responsibility to protect its powers and to ensure justice is done by issuing a stay of proceedings. At paragraph 15 of the majority decision the High Court stated: “As Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest observed in Connelly v. D.P.P. (7) (1964) AC, at p 1301. “(A) court which is endowed with a particular jurisdiction has powers which are necessary to enable it to act effectively within such jurisdiction. … A court must enjoy such powers in order to enforce its rules of practice and to suppress any abuses of its process and to defeat any attempted thwarting of its process.”
Due process in a person surrendering citizenship requires that Functus Officio be performed in accordance with Crown Law, whether that be in Great Britain or in Australia, and until that happens, regardless of the actions of individuals who wish to stand for the Australian Federal Parliament, until the Australian Electoral Commission has empirical evidence in the form of Functus Officio documents that prove that a person has renounced their citizenship rights to another nation, any applications received by the Australian Electoral Commission are, in law, void ab initio.
It would be unconstitutional for the High Court, acting as a Court of Disputed Returns, to hand down a politically expedient finding for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in the Federal Parliament.
On 31st August 1920, the High handed down its findings in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”)  HCA 54. At paragraph 4 the Majority ruling included the statement, ” It is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed.” As their Honours would be fully aware, paragraph 5 of the Constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people. Consequently, the High Court has no option but to uphold the Constitution and the Law. To do otherwise would be render a Broad Ultra Vires decisions that brings the Australian Justice System into disrepute, a scenario that Justice Rares was not prepared to tolerate in Ashby v Commonwealth & Slipper (no. 4)  FCA 1411.
The issue of manifest Ostensible Bias also applied in relation to the Void ab initio decisions handed down by the High Court in the following 2017 Court of Disputed Returns decisions:
Re Culleton [No 2]  HCA 4 (3 February 2017)
Re Day [No 2]  HCA 14 (5 April 2017)
As the High Court made quite clear in the previously mentioned Engineers’ case, expediency from the Bench is not acceptable. To take the politically expedient route and prop up the Turnbull Government, or any other government, by handing down findings that are unconstitutional and politically biased is not acceptable.
Ronald Medlicott – Naturalized Australian Citizen
NOTE TO ADVERTISER EDITOR: In 1920, the High Court handed down its findings in The Amalgamated engineers Society v Adelaide Steamship Pty Ltd; HCA 54 – 31st August 1920.
The High Court’s findings included the following:
“It is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed.”
“The grounds upon which the Privy Council came to that conclusion we refer to, but need not repeat, adding, however, that as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.”
Justice Higgins added this finding:
“Moreover, it is evident, as I have stated, from the form of the placita in sec. 51 of the Federal Constitution, that the Federal Parliament was to have power to bind the State Crown except so far as the power to bind it is expressly negatived, as in pl. XIII. and pl. XIV. The power to legislate is plenary, for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, within the limits of the subjects mentioned in sec. 51. The Federal Parliament, “when acting within those limits … is not in any sense an agent or delegate of the Imperial Parliament, but has, and was intended to have, plenary powers of legislation, as large, and of the same nature, as those of Parliament” (i.e., the Imperial Parliament) “itself.”
“In connection with this subject, much argument has been addressed to sec. V. of the Constitution Act—what we call the “covering sections” of the Constitution. It provides that that Act and all laws made under the Constitution “shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State … notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.” I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation. Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary.”
MY COMMENT: If the High Court upholds both the Australian constitution and its own rulings dating back to 1920, then those people who applied to the Australian Electoral commission before their citizenship status was formally determined, or before FUNCTUS OFFICIO on the rescinding of citizenship rights in another country had occurred, then it is likely that the July 2016 election results will be declared “VOID AB INITIO as happened to Rod culleton in February and Bob Day in April.
Ron Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.
Posted in abuse of power, Case law, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime
Tagged /2017, barnaby joyce, case 15, cconnelly v dpp at p 1301, connelly v p.p.p, constitution, constitution binding on courts, emngineers case, functus officio, haca 15/2017, justice higgins, paragraph 5 constitution, rob day, rod culleton, void ab initio, williams v spautz