|
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Stewart
To: J R Hugo ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 30 September 1999 10:54 AM
Subject: RE: That referendum, our UNconstitution & AEC Crooks -
how to reject instead of elect dishonourable candidates Both for the Hansard and the explanation of the referendum 'con'. I'd add to your point that they are trying to "legitimise" only the part of the UK Act (Clause 5, which has been silently slipped into their UNconstitution under 'Miscellaneous' to replace Sec 126) which gives them power. The parts of the UK Act that once made them accountable to honourable people they couldn't control with the old 'fear & favour' tactics now used to silence and manipulate ministers, judges, Governors and G-Gs, are out! Also after what happened to Joe Bryant's effort to get the High Court involved before the 1998 election, I doubt if an injunction would stop the referendum, but seeking one would probably produce more evidence re-inforcing the message of Joe Bryant's still current case. It could be better to join with him, and I'm glad he's on your list. He may even appreciate hearing from some of us on 02 9623 6177 or 02 9826 1337. My latest JCEM submission on Tuesday was prompted by the referendum publicity (sub-titled 'Make sure you know the facts before you have your say') with its most deceptive "Constitution" T-junction, which actually helps to see through the deception, although millions of trusting Australians are being led to believe their acquiescent 'No' vote means no change. Why should saying 'No' to a route every-one knows the majority of Australians don't want mean a change of direction? And why do the opposing signs say the two routes take us to the same destination "Constitution"? Only after 6 November will they (including I expect some of the people on your list) be misled with the deception that they were offered a free choice between two 'Constitutions', neither of which commands an absolute majority. Even marking ballots A3 won't stop them being counted as a 'No' for their illegitimate Unconstitution. The well-known popular choice of 'direct election', which could easily get a 'double majority' is being deliberately denied on the grounds that we'll get a politician, when they know we want some-one who'll call the crooks to account. That confident assertion is worth closer consideration, particularly in the light of the evidence against the AEC already submitted to the JCEM. That is summarised in the attached files (Word & HTML), but don't read 'Dodgy Brothers' to mean just Bernie Fraser's 'Dickhead Ministers', also promoted by the media as Tweedledumb & Tweedledumber. They are just the fleeting fools, with their 3-year use-by labels. By the time they realise they are being abused by our less funny and more treacherous 'Sir Humphrey Appleby', its too late, and instead of resigning honourably they rely on personal loyalties and tax-payer (or corporate) funded pay-offs. The legal truth explained in 'Canberra Dodge' is that our electoral laws reject, not elect, candidates who can't get an ABSOLUTE majority of votes. So how could a known politician get the 'double majority' needed for election to the highest office in the land?? Only honourable Australians would have a chance. And 'politicians' would help expose the dishonourable ones The crooks in Canberra still control the election system so it deliver the 'Dickheads' they need to take the blame for Canberra's crimes and messes (like Canberra's latest arrogant and patronising 'White supremacy' policy to SE Asia). But once the crooks in Canberra lose control, and voters know what the AEC should have been telling us since 1920, John Howard and Kim Beazly could never again win even their MHR seats. Finally, please note the point 'Canberra Dodge' that the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JCEM) still needs help to confront their deceivers. Any MHRs on John's CC list who were returned as 'elected' in 1998 should take special personal interest in this, and not leave it to their staff. So as John says: Please show your friends and enemies your copy of this and tell them how to reject instead of elect dishonourable members. Regards, and looking forward to your replies - by phone is fine Jim Stewart ph:(07) 3397 4420 (Messagebank) mob: 04 1427 4420 (voice-mail) -----Original Message----- [heavily edited for ease of reference - Jim] From: J R Hugo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 29 September 1999 16:48 Subject: That referendum they know that this information is around and they are trying to "legitimise" the UK document that has been used for eighty years illegally. They do not want you mushrooms to have any say in a proper referendum on a new constitution and a Bill of Rights. If an injunction has not stopped the referendum, clearly mark your ballot A3 for the first question and No for the second. Only a "mushroom" could, in all seriousness, vote Yes or No to the first question. Please show your friends and enemies your copy of Hansard 10 Sep 1919. Regards to you all, John R Hugo. |
OUR "DODGY BROTHERS" AND
THEIR "CANBERRA DODGE"How the Dodgy Brothers get away with perverting democracy by breaking electoral, constitutional and ancient laws, and how to stop them by making your intentions clear.
Introduction
Ever wondered how �Politicians� keep getting elected whoever you vote for - even though the law requires candidates have absolute majorities of votes to be elected.
Also Sec 268(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act states: A ballot-paper shall not be informal for any reason other than the reasons specified in this section, but shall be given effect to according to the voter's intention so far as that intention is clear.
The following summarises some of the evidence already accepted by the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JCEM), in its Inquiry into the 1998 election. This evidence is 'privileged' and already published, but the committee is still accepting submissions and holding hearings. As you read on you may understand why the committee is not seeking (or getting) much publicity. They need your help to confront their deceivers!
Recent Developments
In 1996 the Full Bench of the High Court ruled (Langer v The Commonwealth) that the intention of the legislature was not to impose a legally enforceable duty to indicate preferences for all candidates.
Instead of publicising the truth, that Sec240 is to be interpreted as if it gave directions, which are not legally enforceable, the Electoral Commissioners (AEC), whose public duty is to: "promote public awareness of electoral and Parliamentary matters", initiated a treacherous deception to mislead parliament. In their 1996 submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, they did warn that "citizens would continue to be misled and confused about their rights and obligations in relation to full preferential voting", but qualified this by adding "in the absence of a practical solution to the underlying policy contradictions". They then offered to find a 'practical (but illegal) solution'.
With the offer of a 'practical solution', Canberra's Dodgy Brothers, rejected the court's re-statement of free voting. Even though free voting is protected by the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the First Statute of Westminster, plus Article 21(3) of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is strengthened by Section 24 of the Constitution, they deceived and misled parliament into legislating treacherous new laws in July 1998. This time there is little doubt these changes were intended to impose a legally enforceable duty to indicate preferences for all candidates, ie to prevent free voting.
Instead they caused just what the AEC had forecast: citizens continue to be misled and confused, and within two months the new laws were challenged in the High Court, well before the October election. Government lawyers and electoral officials, with the help of an illiterate judge, are still dragging this out, perhaps in the hope that a 'Yes' vote for a 'republic' will some-how save them from accountability.
After the new laws were enacted by the Governor-General, the AEC distributed treacherous, menacing, deceptive and misleading advice, implying that electors who write numbers like 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 etc, would be casting informal votes despite the clear intention of voting against �unpreferred� candidates. In doing all this, the AEC and others, have broken, and are knowingly breaking, laws, including Sec 24 of the Crimes Act, which includes 'treachery', for which the penalty is 'Imprisonment for life'. While this treachery achieved its immediate political purposes, the ultimate cost will be paid when enough Australians understand that we still have lawful solutions, and start using those which suit each of us.
Conclusions
The basic reason for the bi-partisan and bureaucratic treachery is the provision for new elections in electorates where no candidates win "an absolute majority". This happens when enough voters make their intention clear by casting votes against more than one candidate. Unless their preferred candidate gets an absolute majority, the election 'fails', and the law requires another election!
In marginal electorates 'enough voters' could be less than 1%, and in each electorate where such elections "fail", new writs "shall forthwith be issued for a supplementary election." Imagine how many major party candidates, would have failed to get absolute majorities if since 1996, and particularly during the 1998 campaign, the AEC had done its duty! The subsequent supplementary elections would encourage nomination of more honourable candidates than those rejected by absolute majorities!
By now members, and the AEC, realise that a growing number of Australians understand the above. The sooner you join them, and making your intentions clear, the sooner we can all stop the Dodgy Brothers and replace their mates with honest representatives who will respect and represent us, and even bring to account those behind the 'Canberra Dodge' who are/were not in parliament.
What Next?
To learn more, and for help to make your intentions clear, you could phone your local MP and ask if he/she is on the JCEM, or ring the JCEM secretariat on 02 6277 2374 to be put in contact with a local member (There are 10 from most parties). Ask to be told of any future JCEM hearings near you.
Also approach political parties and/or non-partisan organisations like the H S Chapman Society (07 3397 4420 in Queensland, and 02 9599 7915 in NSW).
You may also try to get a talk-back radio host interested. Ask if he/she has heard of the JCEM and the 'Canberra Dodge', which takes its name from the 19th Century "Tasmanian Dodge", a simple way to subvert secret ballot by bribing electors personally with party money. This contrasts with Canberra's 20th Century version which uses taxpayers money to bribe party officials!
J E STEWART
Canberra Dodge.doc