Hi again, and this is truly my last message to this topic In my previous contribution to this debate, I emphasised my concern at the suppression of the democratic truth that DEMOCRATIC, free, and FAIR elections can fail, and called for others to try to help the Governor of Queensland (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) fulfil his sworn duty. The debate is not really about what the law says, but whether it is lawful, or a massive fraud on those who believe in democracy, and that formal ballots DO AND MUST "remain in the count", rather than be removed from final counts. Antony says; "It was a deliberate act to do with the introduction of optional preferential voting, and the intent was to allow a candidate to be elected with less than 50% of the formal vote." If so, and I believe him, it was a deliberate act of fraud, because it deceives so many, including possibly the Governor of Queensland, who continue believing optional preferential ballots are counted fairly, and that the democratic 'bar' of 50% +1 is fixed. Many members of Legislative Assembly of Queensland in 1991, when the bill was debated and passed with 70 (of the possible 89) votes, were what Bernie Fraser called "dickheads" (also in 1991, although he confined himself to Commonwealth ministers), so it is possible many of the 70 were also deceived in the same way Antony seems still to accept, but others who have grasped the democratic truth, never can. We know we were deceived, and are being defrauded of democracy, and in thousands of cases of our franchise. The question is who intended to allow candidates to be elected, by such criminal means, with less than 50% of the formal vote? If, despite efforts to stop him, the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Des O'Shea, returned the Writ for Election of eighty-nine (89) Members of the Legislative Assembly to the Governor of Queensland, on Friday 2nd of March 2001, he has thereby confirmed that he is, for what-ever reason, a willing party to the unlawful fraudulent disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. 2080 of these are in the Kawana Electorate. They cast formal ballots with "just [1]" for Kevin Savage, the ONP candidate. The official results for Kawana Electorate, submitted by returning officer M R Stubbins, clearly shows the number of votes cast for Mr Cummins (ALP) is 431 votes less than all the formal ballots. Thousands more are in other electorates, still awaiting ECQ release. As part of the fraud, the legally meaningless term 'valid votes' reduces by 2080 between the first and last count. Each formal ballot represents the STV (single transferable vote) of each voter performing his/her democratic duty. As candidates preferred by voters are removed from successive counts, the ballots may exhaust, but the STV represented by the ballots remain formal does not disappear from the count, as implied by reducing legally meaningless term 'valid votes' by the number of voters who indicate no preference for remaining candidates. Nor does the democratic 'bar' of 11807 votes drop by 2080 votes, to defraud all who believe that the democratic 'bar' of 50% +1 is the reason preferences must be counted, as the Act itself states! Despite repeated requests (since 13 February) for any authority for such disenfranchisement, Mr O'Shea and his colleagues have failed to respond. These are the issues needing public debate to promote Justice Murray Gleesen's cause, that: "The democratic and lawful means of securing change, if change be necessary, is an expression of the will of an informed electorate." If Mr O'Shea and his colleagues are doing their duty, they will want the chance to defuse what will otherwise become a growing conviction that they are criminals defrauding all who believe we have democracy and fair elections in Queensland. Finally I repeat my previous point that "in the circumstances not only do ABC radio and/or TV have public duties to this, but doing so would rapidly revive public support for it, both in and beyond Queensland." To continue to suppress debate in defiance of Justice Murray Gleesen's cause, that: "The democratic and lawful means of securing change is an expression of the will of an informed electorate" will only justify and ensure the 'death' its people seem to dread! Why not start with Des O'Shea, by forwarding this e-mail (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]), and if he's too 'busy' to respond call him on 07 32277249 to arrange an interview. Also call Mr Cummins (5493 2662) or his campaign contact Linda Holliday (3844 8101), to ask how he feels about being returned at the expense of the 2080 Des O'Shea wants to disenfranchise. Invite him to meet publicly with the 2080 voters to say whether he will accept such an offer! Regards, and looking forward to the ABC doing its duty (and even scooping its rivals). Jim Stewart Phone:+617 3411 7646 Mobile: 04 1427 4420 (voice-mail) PS: I'll attach the only response so far from ABC Local Radio Qld, and keep trying for a human response from mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 07:48 01/03/2001 +1000, you wrote: >Thanks for the Automatic Reply from ABC Radio to my 'Help Mr O'Shea use all >the authority he can, to prevent DISENFRANCHISEMENT' message. I'm replying >to the 612 address hoping to get a more human response. > >A phone call is probably essential, so I can fax the hard evidence (already >sent the Governor of Queensland), and I could even explain on air, the >intended disenfranchisement of One Nation supporters, whose 2080 exhausted >ballots have been reclassified from valid in the first Kawana count, to >invalid in the second count. The total number set for such outrageous >betrayal will emerge only slowly unless the ABC quickly encourages other >candidates, including those being offered 'election' based on >disenfranchisement of voters for taking Mr Beattie's advice, to come forth. > >I hope it has been read by all ABC employees concerned with democracy and >the rule of law. As His Honour Justice Murray Gleesen, Chief Justice of the >High Court of Australia, said, on ABC Radio, in his first of the six Boyer >Lectures for 2000: "The democratic and lawful means of securing change, if >change be necessary, is an expression of the will of an informed >electorate." The only legally enforceable expressions of such people's will >are parliamentary elections and referendums, so it is vital to peace and >good government, that they are all truly "free and fair", as well as >"informed". > >His Honour also said: "In our society, threats to the rule of law are not >likely to come from large and violent measures. They are more likely to come >from small and sometimes well-intentioned encroachments upon basic >principles, sometimes by people who do not understand those principles." >Perhaps the encroachment upon basic principles involved in disenfranchising >the 2080 One Nation supporters whose exhausted ballots have been >reclassified from valid in the first count, to invalid in the second count >was well-intentioned, but I hope all at the ABC would agree with the >conclusion of the following submission to His Excellency, Major General >Peter Arnison, Governor of Queensland. "Any subversive lowering of the >democratic bar in final counts, by disenfranchisement of voters expressing >no preference for candidates remaining in the count, would not be just >unlawful, but plainly treacherous." > > >If the ABC uses its independence and authority, to expose those like >returning officer M R Stubbins (see below), it can take the lead in >informing the electorates like Kawana, and others like it, just how they >will have, for perhaps the first time in modern history, a chance to >exercise their votes in truly democratic, as well as "informed" elections, >rather than the phony democracy of first-past- the post, or the fraudulent >democracy being attempted right now in Kawana, and who knows which other >electorates! > >Since e-mailing His Excellency, I have learned that Gympie is also heading >for a failed election. Understandably such remaining candidates are facing >a quandary. What should they do if offered election by the ECQ, based on >in the unlawful, anti-democratic process, which they like Antony Green, were >deceived into believing? Will they join the others with strong interests >in suppressing the democratic truth that democratic, free, and fair >elections can fail? > >Here is a real chance for the ABC, particularly with Antony Green's growing >authority, to do far more than help Mr O'Shea and His Excellency, use all >the authority they can, to prevent such DISENFRANCHISEMENT. To further help >in this "democratic and lawful means of securing change", I'll CC others >besides Don Schultz, and those also CCd to my original message. Among them >are Antony Green and Dennis Shanahan of the Australian (eg.'Seducing those >sullen voters') suggest he should want to take up this story. It will be >interesting to see if any of the Murdoch/Packer stables break their silence >before the ABC. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2001 7:29 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Lawful Process of Elections or Disenfranchisement of Voters >Importance: High > > >The attached document is intended for His Excellency, Major General Peter >Arnison, Governor of Queensland. If he does not open this e-mail, please >print the attached Word file for his urgent attention. > >In case there is a problem opening it, the plain text of my submission is >reproduced below. Also I can't include the faxed copy of the official >results for Kawana Electorate in this e-mail, but will endevour to get it to >His Excellency with the original submission. > >Thankyou for your assistance > >James Stewart > >24 Moorbell Street >TARRAGINDI, 4121 >Phone:+617 3411 7646 >Mobile: 04 1427 4420 (voice-mail) > > >His Excellency, Major General Peter Arnison, Officer of the Order of >Australia, Governor of Queensland > > >Your Excellency > >Lawful Process of Elections or Disenfranchisement of Voters > >Recently you commanded Mr D J O'Shea, the Electoral Commissioner, to proceed >according to the law, with the election of eighty-nine Members of the >Legislative Assembly. There is mounting evidence that some of the of >eighty-nine elections will fail to produce winners with the necessary >majorities, but this simple truth will be suppressed by the unlawful and >fraudulent disenfranchisement of voters not preferring remaining >candidates. > >This hurried letter follows consultations with other voters, and alerts you >to the possibility that you may become an unwitting accomplice in this >unlawful, anti-democratic process, and to encourage you to insist on lawful, >not fraudulent, elections. So far the hard evidence for such corruption is >rare, but Ill include a faxed copy of the official results for Kawana >Electorate, submitted by returning officer M R Stubbins, which were >declared on Friday. > >As youll see 2080 exhausted ballots have been reclassified from valid in >the first count, to invalid in the second count. The 2080 voters who cast >these ballots can be expected to get justifiably outraged when they learn >the truth. Hopefully this will be after your intervention to prevent the >conclusion reached by the Kawana Electorate returning officer, and evidently >the Electoral Commissioner. > >Of course I sincerely hope that Mr O'Shea will prove I am wrong in the above >prediction, and involve your Excellency in defence of the democratic, free, >and fair elections, which are the only authority for enforcing laws for >peace and good government, rather than seek to deceive you, the way so many >others have been deceived. Two weeks ago, I raised these concerns with him, >and asked him to alert you, but he has yet to respond, so I feel it is >prudent to write directly to you. As the Queen's appointee, you are both >more free to act discreetly, quickly and responsibly, and have access to >better advice, than judges who could be asked to decide after 'winners on >preferences' of failed elections have been submitted to you. > >For each election to the Legislative Assembly, the law requires a majority >of the first preference votes (which equals all formal ballot papers, and >is hence the basis for a democratic and lawful majority), and second (and >further) counts must take place where no first preference winners emerge. >But with enough exhausted ballots, such as where enough voters marked their >ballots as advised by Mr Beattie, no candidate may get the democratic and >lawful majority, even after the final count of preferences. > >Antony Green, the ABCs election expert, predicted this during television >coverage of counting on 17 February, and even exposed the deception, albeit >without explicitly admitting the disenfranchisement of voters. He said: >many will be excluded from the count, referring explicitly to the >deceptive phrase in the Electoral Act: remaining in the count. The phrase >"remaining in the count" is being (and may have previously been) dishonestly >and UNLAWFULLY re-interpreted as authority to optionally disenfranchise >voters for not preferring remaining candidates, so that candidates with >less than a majority of the first preference votes" can be elected. > >Not surprisingly, there is nothing in the Act to authorise exclusion of >exhausted formal ballot papers from the count of "votes remaining in the >count", and the idea that ballots of voters expressing no preference for >candidates remaining in the count can be admitted to first counts, but >optionally removed from subsequent counts, is so utterly repugnant to >democracy and the much-touted term "fair elections", that I expect Mr O'Shea >is not a willing agent of such subversion of democracy, but is intimidated >by others with stronger, more direct interests in suppressing the democratic >truth that democratic, free, and fair elections can fail. > >My sincere apologies for what may at first seem confusing message, and I >trust this gets to you in good time to avert the harm to peace and good >government if electors, particularly those facing unauthorised >disenfranchisement, learn the truth after your proclaimation of the success >of candidates whose election does not reflect the will of democratic >majorities. Any subversive lowering of the democratic bar in final >counts, by disenfranchisement of voters expressing no preference for >candidates remaining in the count, would not be just unlawful, but plainly >treacherous. > >Please feel free to discuss this as soon as possible, by calling my office >(3411 7646) or mobile any time. > >Yours sincerely > > > > >J E Stewart > > > > **** This is an automatic reply **** Please email us at our new address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
