The exchange between RR & AL is encouraging, and if RR's note about ballot
papers with only 4 squares marked with 6 candidates bring counted as formal
can be substantiated (recount?) it would be a great start. Where is this
case?
I'd also like to add my 2 cents worth:
1. Any legal challenge to the existing system is doomed without wide
public attention, understanding, and support for those fighting the 2-party
state, and its AEC henchmen.
2. By-elections, with their local media and protest voters, are most
obvious opportunities to get support (pity Biggles back-flipped!), specially
while the GST 'mandate' is topical (until June 1999)
3. Newcastle has no coalition candidate, but a 'Kernot' coalition, with
tight preference swapping between Labor & Democrats.
4. If Newcastle electors want to make their votes count against the
2-party state and Howard's 'mandate' for a GST, Bob Carr has effectively
told them a Labor vote or preference for a reps seat is wasted, so they'll
vote One Nation.
5. One Nation preferences won't get distributed in Newcastle anyway, so
it would be pointless to ask its supporters to disenfranchise themselves.
6. Jointly issued non-partisan advertisements at the next federal
by-election should be an economical alternative to a disputed returns
challenge to the existing system and Oct 3 results.
7. If the above is before the 'republic' referendum, the results should
be used in a non-partisan campaign to publicise the constitution's
importance in protecting democracy against governments.
There's more but typing takes too long. What about off-peak phone hook-ups?
Regards
Jim Stewart
phone/fax: +617 3397 4420 (with Messagebank)
mobile: 04 1427 4420 (with voice-mail)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, 9 November 1998 2:57
Subject: RE: We need action, not words.
>[RR]
>
>For my part I would be happy to be part of an organisation which has as
>a purpose a court , and hereby offer my
>services.
>
>[...]
>
>*URGENT* As a start could we please have an update on the
>progress of
>any current Court Challenges for distribution to suitable media outlets
>up here? If I have the facts I can prepare a suitable media
>release.
>
>[AL]
>I am still waiting for information from Joe Bryant's lawyers but as
>previously mentioned there are no immediate plans for them to appeal
>against the rejection of their request for an urgent hearing of their
>appeal against the decision in:
>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1998/1242.html
>
>A legal project group should be setup immediately to ensure that there
>is both an adequate constitutional challenge before the High Court and
>at least 1 challenge in the Court of Disputed Returns. There is very
>little time left before the deadline for Disputed Returns (40 days after
>return of election writ).
>
>Main requirements are a suitable plaintiff with no assets (who must be
>enrolled in the electorate disputed for Court of Disputed Returns) as
>there are likely to be very heavy costs awarded to pay for the other
>side's QCs when the court declares that it fully agrees electors have no
>right to vote against candidates they reject. Costs for our side are not
>as big an issue as that. Most of the legal research has already been
>done. We just need the plaintiffs and enthusiasm to follow through
>contacting lawyers etc.
>
>Media release is unimportant until we actually have a project group
>working on it.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general
discussion.
>
>To unsubscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
>To subscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
>
>For information and archives goto
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
>
