Part 45: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. High Court case 15/2017: Barnaby Joyce.

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”) [1920] 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) [2012] 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] [2017] HCA 4 (3 February 2017)

 Re Day [No 2] [2017] 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.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in abuse of power, Case law, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Part 45: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. High Court case 15/2017: Barnaby Joyce.

  1. leslie3319@aol.com says:

    Dear Ronald,

    I admire your erudition and knowledge, and passion for justice.

    I’ll write to you again, hopefully when you have some spare time.

    My point is, that laws are fine, but what to do if they are broken and nobody cares. As was my case with the Center which … … …. (put an adjective of your choice) I was robbed legally of about $A3,000. My wife simply does not submit financial information requested by the the Center, thus the Center punishes ME for NOT submitting information ion her finances. And she is entitled to Confidentiality and Privacy. By the way she works as a Nurse Aid for some old people home, so for sure she is not getting Post Master”s salary. Now, I am not getting concession card or any money if due for me. What are assets allowed to have a pension. Probably the calculate the common assets? My assets I gave to Australian Literature and Cukture.My thanks is being treated like dirt by Centerlink. I appealed. They ignored it instead sending me questionnaire on my ASSETS which has to be signed by my wife ! The Center can get this information themselves but tries to force me to force her; ergo they make a problem where there is a little problem for her which a telephone call from them or a phone to TAX office would solve. Of course I could ask the Court to issue MANDAMUS against the Center, but you can imagine the trouble and costs.

    As I have written Ombudsman, the Tribunal and Legal Aid were of no use to me. A stupid intervention by office of my local M.P.only increased my “debt”. regards, les

    P>S> In all my experience which includes living under Soviet Dictatorship in Poland I never met with a government organisation specifically aimed (though officially for people – Orwell”s new speak) against people it should support in this case the stupidest and poorest. Of course Labour could control Center which … … … …..but I doubt they would do it. They had had plenty of opportunities to reform that organisation.

    Les-zek Shyman-Szymanski, Ph.D. Author, historian, journalist, editor Ph.D. History (PUNO=London), M. Political Science (California State University), B.A. General (London University)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s