iN THEORY – THIS WEBSITE SHOULD PROVIDE ALL CONTACT DETAILS FOR FEDERAL POLITICIANS
Did you know that in law, if it is approved by the national electorate, “The Voice Referendum” will constitutionally silence the voices of 96.8% of voters.
Posting short link: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3im
THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THIS FACT : The benefit to politicians is that they will only have the constitutional obligation to listen to 3.2% of voters.
WHAT WILL 96.8% OF VOTERS LOOSE?
Even then, they will have the constitutional right to totally ignore what they are told by this minority cohort of indigenous federal voters.
Contacting members of Parliament is very hard, and after the Voice Referendum doing so will become a complete waste of time as politicians will no longer have to listen to voters.
Case law precedent Coco v R. HCA 15, 1994
POLITICIANS ARE ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE THE COURTS
On the 13th April 1994, the Full Bench of the Australian High Court made the following ruling at paragraph 9:
In England, Lord Browne-Wilkinson has expressed the view that the presence of general words in a statute is insufficient to authorize interference with the basic immunities which are the foundation of our freedom;
to constitute such authorization express words are required
KEY POINTS TO NOTE:
[1] “interference with the basic immunities which are the foundation of our freedom.”
The Voice Referendum is all about the Federal Parliament attempting to interfer with the most basic of immunities that we have that was set up to protectsour freedom – THE CONSTITUTION.
We should always be extremely careful when politicians want to change the Constitution, because the real reason for the proposed change may have absolutely nothing to do with what the politicians claim is the reason for the change.
POLITICANS MAY HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE IN A REFERENDUM
Unless it can be proven that a law is being broken, politicians can have hidden reasons for proposing a change in the Constitution:
[At 35] And the existence of the ultimate purpose cannot constitute an abuse of process when that purpose is to bring about a result for which the law provides in the event that the proceedings terminate in the prosecutor’s favour.
Like it or lump it, politicians can have an ulterior motive for changing the Constitution, which why voters must be very careful when considering the proposed change. Once a change has been made it is very hard to reverse as the High Court’s decision at paragraph 38 reveals:
“Neither the authorities in Australia nor those in England insist on the need for an improper act as an essential ingredient in the concept of abuse of process. However, the authorities do speak of the “use” of process for a purpose which stamps it as an abuse.”
Does anyone believe that the current federal Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus KC, who is an expert in constitutional law, does not know about these virtually unknown points of law?
The reality is that if change is to occur, politicians must con us with blatant lies and taxpayer funded mass media deceits a.k.a. the current slick, deceptive advertising being shovelled down our throats by the Albanese government.
The Coco 1994 decision:
[2] “to constitute such authorization express words are required.”
[3] The High Court also stated “An insistence on the necessity for express words is in conformity with earlier judicial statements in England which call for express authorization by statute of any abrogation or curtailment of the citizen’s common law rights or immunities.”
Note the use of the phrases “express words“ and “express authorization“.
Politicians can only undermine our civil rights, especially those that are protected by the Constitution, if we are so idiotic, stupid, and so carelessly irresponsible that we give them permission to do so.
INFORMED PERMISSION:
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLODURE ACT 2013
What the Voice Referendum may do, which we have a right to know about under the Public Interest Disclosure Act (2013), is that the constitutional change may make it possible for politicians to vote to extinguish their Common Law Duty of Agency, which is stated below, so that politicians can legally ignore the opinions of voters and do whatever they want.
(s this website, which was set up the 10th February 2010 clearly demonstrates in some 500 postings, politicians already ignore us at the moment – the Voice referendum will just give them an opportunity to make ignoring us legally valid. Also check out the Juice Media videos:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKRw8GAAtm27q4R3Q0kst_g
Whilst I definately disapprove of the very crude language use in the following video, since it is basically re-stating what I said in “The Synthetic Pandemic” video way back in April 2020, I do strongly endorse the facts of the matter.
By the way, the real impact of COVID-19 is under-stated: 107 million cases and 1,164,718 deaths so far.
BACK ON TOPIC: (The Voice Con Job)
Image being told to leave a politician’s office or face being arrested by the police if you do not do so. Do not kid yourself that this may not become a reality – after all, Work for the Dole was abolished in 1946 but there are people doing it even as I type this sentence.
We are not being told this, which is a denial of the Right to Know, before giving our permission to make a change to the current Constitution:
DUTY OF AGENCY IS A COMM ON LAW OBLIGATION ON POLITICIANS THAT THE REFERENDUM MAY KILL OFF.
The Common Law Duty of Agency is as follows in the above highlighted, but very unreadable, legal definition:
[1] When an agent is appointed to facilitate or negotiate a transaction on behalf of the principal, the agent owes a duty to the principal to act in the principal’s best interests within the authority of the agent.
[2] In practice, the duty to act in the best interests of the principal requires the agent to use his due diligence and skill to negotiate terms of a transaction on behalf of his principal with a third party to the greatest advantage of his principal in the circumstances.
Voters are “the principals” on whose behalf politicians are supposed to act. However, if enough people can be deceived into voting YES in the Voice referendum, politicians will have the constitutional right not to listen to your views.
ROBO-DEBT – 2,030 AND THE POLICE DID NOTHING
The deaths of over 2,000 people from the illegal Robodebt scheme are an example of how politicians flatly refused to listen to the truth while over 2,000 people were murdered.
Scott Morrison does not deny causing these deaths
On the 19th May 2022, there were 7,976 people who had died because Scott Morrison had violated Australia’s anti-terrorism laws. However, one-year later on the 19th May 2023, this is the admitted death toll:
HOW DID WE GO FROM 7,976 DEATHS TO 20,660 DEAD?
At 11:59 p.m. on the 19th May 2023, or 1-minute later at 00:00 a.m. on the 20th May 2023, there were 20,660 people dead after being illegally exposed to COVID-19.
DO THE MATHS: 20,660 – 7,976 = 13,684
YES -13,684 people have died in the last year and we have to ask why this is so.
The answer is that politicians to not want to know the truth, i.e., that the COVID-19 pandemic, which they caused, is far from over and so they do not listen to the truth.
THE JIM CHALMERS FACTOR:
On the 2nd May 2023, the Federal Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, demonstrated his ignorance of the fact that Work for the Dole was abolished by voters in the 1946 referendum.
In the following video, Jim Chalmers can be seen and heard clearly demonstrating his apparent ignorance of this most basic constitutional fact of law:
As the following example reveals, politicians are using their email servers to avoid listeningto what we are saying to them – they let their computers read the emails that we send and then send back a computer-generated ‘reply’ that is, in law, no reply at all, because computers are not legal entitites, i.e., they are not people.
This email response is proof that Dr. Scamps MP has learnt absolutely nothing from the illegal Robodebt data-matching’ fraud. Dr. Scamp, or a staff member, did not read my email, because if she did, she would have immediately been on the phone to me to query the pointsof law raised in my communication.
The truth of matter is that we are entitled to a whole raft of ways and means of contaacting politicians, but they do not always provide that information, a fact demonstrated by the contact details for MARY DOYLE MP, the newly elected Member for Alston:
TO CONTACT MPs, YOU NEED UP-TO-DATE CONTACT DETAILS
Mary Doyle initially only provided a phone number, which probably violated the Disability Discrimination Act as hearing challenged people cannot use phones. Today’s screen capture image is not much better when it comes to contact details:
NO EMAIL AND NO POST OFFICE BOX NUMBERS, WHICH HAS.
The taxpayers in the electorate of Alston are paying a $1,000 a day for these sloppy, half-baked contact details? Mind you, it’s an improvement on earlier today when I did a screen image capture at 8:14 .am.
8;14 A.M. TODAY – IS IT ANY WONDER THAT I CHASTISEED THE AGS DIRECTORY ADMINISTRATOR(S)?
The text below is a copy and paste of the actual feedback that was sent to the administrator(s) of the Australian Government Service Directory earlier this morning.
In this feedback, I would point out the constitutional obligation to provide the FULL CONTACT DETAILS for all members of the Federal Parliament – Members are the legally appointed ‘representatives’ of their respective electorates and must be accessible to their ‘Principals (the voters).
Insufficient information – The moment that a person is Sworn in as a Member of the Federal Parliament by making a sworn Oath of Office, they become an Officer of the Parliament and in that capacity are accountable directly to the people (Electors/voters) who they represent.
All members of the Federal Parliament owe a Common Law Duty of Agency to the people that they directly represent as well as a Duty of Care and and a Duty of Agency to all 3rd parties who may be affected by the decisions collectively made by all 227 members of the Federal Parliament, It is therefore imperative that the AGS Directive have full contact details within 24 hours of a person being sworn in as a member of the Federal Parliament. Hearing challenged people may not be able to use a phone to speak to a member of the parliament and visually challnged people may not be able to use a computer to send an email or fill out an on-line contact form.
The obligation on the administrator who is responsible for the AGS Directory is to ensure that FULL CONTACT DETAILS, which may be used by Electors, or by 3rd parties who may be affected by any decision made by an MP or senator can express their opinions by whichever means these people belive is most appropriate. The required contact information includes:
[1] Phone numbers – Parliament office and electorate office.
[2] FAX number – Parliament office and electorate office.
[Email URL – – Parliament office and electorate office.
[4] Postal address – – Parliament office and electorate office.
The previously mentioned Common Law duty of care and duty of agency obligations, which are consistent with Section 75(iii) of the Constitution, makes the requested requested information a constitutional obligation. As the contact details for Mary Doyle MP (Member for Alston) clearly reveal, this obligation is not being complied with.
Please remedy this deplorable situation today – the clock is ticking on “The Voice’ referendum, which amongst other things, will extinguish the Common Law Duty of Agency for members of the Federal Parliament to listen to their Prinicipals, i.e., Electors.
Ronald’s space readers take note: The adverts on TV, radio, and in newspapers and magazines are supposed to be neutral and provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which means telling all voters what they will loose if they vote YES in the referendum.
So think about this – Why aren’t we voters being told the truth?
With 13,684 deaths from COVID-19 in the last year, and with over 3,600 deaths in the last 20 weeks, the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. Almost every one of the 20,660 COVID-19 deaths have occurred because politicians have been allowed to violate our nation’s anti-terrorism laws:
TERRORISM 101 CARRIES A PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE
IMPORTING THE COVID PLAGUE IS BIO-TERRORISM 100.1
268.8 MURDER MOST FOUL
Ronald's space 