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?
Note:- The short link URL for this page is; https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1ca
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.