WHY NOT PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS
READ THE QLD ACT
READ THE COMMONWEALTH ACT
WRITE DOWN THE CONFLICTING SECTIONS ( REMEMBER THE CTH ONE PREVAILS
OVER THE QLD ONES)
CHECK WHOSE NAME THE ELECTION WRIT WAS TAKEN OUT IN
CHECK IF THE ELECTROL ROLL IS CTH OR QLD
CHECK IF ANYONE PUBLISHED DECEPTIVE HOW TO VOTE OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL
CHECK SECTION 154 ELECTROL ACT 1992 QLD
CHECK IF AN OFFENCE AGAINST SECTION 154 VACATES A MEMBERS SEAT UNDER
SECTION 7(2) LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLEY ACT 1876 QLD
THEN ASK YOURSELF A QUESTION
If Section 109 Constitution has a destructive effect on State
Legislation, and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, provides for
only one voting system, the Writ for Election in the States are issued
by the Queen of Australia, the electoral roll is provided by the
Commonwealth, is it lawful and equitable for a State to enact
legislation, which purports to directly contravene the Federal
provisions for elections of popular houses of Parliament.
A CLUE TO THIS FRAUD
An Elector
Barron River Electorate
Cairns
The Editor
Cairns Post
Dear Sir,
In 1991 the Anti Discrimination Act 1991 , was passed into Queensland
law, and that law in Section 101, provides that discrimination in any
government program whatsoever is unlawful.
It says a person who- performs any function or exercises any power
under State Law must not discriminate in --- The performance of the
function or the exercise of the power, or the carrying out of the
responsibility.
The Act was passed to signify that Queensland is obliged to respect the
principles of dignity and equality for everyone. The Electoral Act
1992 (Q) says , in Section 113 (2) that there can be two classes of
elector in Queensland, those who vote just 1, and those who mark
preferences. The people who mark their preferences are being
discriminated against by allowing a vote, which has only one mark on it,
to be treated as equal to theirs.
This pretence has, in Barron River resulted in an elected representative
who is probably unable to prove the support of a majority of electors.
It is quite alright to talk about voting rorts, but when in Barron
River, on figures published on Monday by the Electoral Commission,
12,583 electors expressed a first preference for someone else than Dr
Lesley Clark. She cannot claim to be the legitimate choice.
Exhausted votes are a legal fiction, and a fraud. If a person votes 1
then that person intends to follow the How To Vote card of the person
they put one. The intent of the voters in Barron River was crystal
clear. They do not want Dr Lesley Clark. Equity looks to the intent.
rather than the form. To call a vote informal after only reading One,
is to use form to defeat intent.
Eliminate all exhausted votes, or eliminate none. To eliminate
exhausted votes cast for Peter Starr, Lyn Warwick, Sno Bonneau, and
Kevin Walls, and not eliminate the exhausted votes from Dr Lesley Clark
is discriminatory.
With Peter Starr one vote behind Lyn Warwick, and Sno Bonneau ahead of
both of them, by some 600 votes, a distribution of preferences done
without discrimination, should see Peter Starrs preferences flow to
Sno, Lyn Warwicks also flow to Sno, and the new member for Barron River
should be Sno Bonneau. If the bulk of Kevin Walls preferences flowed to
Dr Clark, it would still not be enough.
It is time someone went to the Court of Disputed Returns and insisted
the Electoral Commissioner desisted from discriminatory practices in
counting votes, and obtain a recount of the votes in Barron River with
the object of returning a legitimate representative.
The Court, under Section 136 (1) Electoral Act 1992, may make any order
the court considers just and equitable. It is just and equitable that
the majority of electors in Barron River must not be made to suffer an
unwanted representative, due to an electoral rort. Equitable principles
make it clear the electors want someone other than Dr Lesley Clark. The
court must make orders that give effect to the will of the people, even
if it must call a new election, with Section 113 (2) Electoral Act 1992
eliminated from the scene. Then a true representative will be elected.
Yours Disgruntled.
( NOT PUBLISHED OF COURSE)
A FEW MORE CLUES
The execution of this civil process must be in the manner and form
prescribed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
Section 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
states, ‘ This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the
Commonwealth under the Constitution shall be binding on the courts,
judges and people of every State, and of every part of the Commonwealth,
notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State:
Section 109 Constitution says "when a law of a State is inconsistent
with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former
shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid, and this section
alone, totally destroys the, section 113 (2), Queensland Electoral Act
1992
Section 113 (2) Electoral Act 1992 indicates that a valid vote may
contain the number 1 or a tick only, and by reference to the Acts
Interpretation Act 1954 (Q), Section 9, this provision is in
irreversible conflict with a Commonwealth act made within power, upon
the process of conducting elections.
Except for Section 113 (2) the Electoral Act 1992 (Q) is apparently a
valid Act.
Section 117 Constitution prohibits absolutely, the State of Queensland
from imposing a condition of voting on its citizens, which is
inconsistent with the dual Queensland and Australian citizenship enjoyed
by those citizens.
The State of Queensland by Section 109 Constitution is disentitled to
pass any electoral law which by effect contravenes the Constitution, or
is irrevocably in conflict with federal law.
Section 4 the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918., binds the Crown in all
its capacities. (including the States.)
Section 240 declares that a ballot paper is informal if all squares
are not numbered.
ANY CITIZEN CAN FILE A PETITION TO DISPUTE THE RETURNS WITHIN 7 DAYS OF
THE RETURN OF THE WRIT
PETITION
Form 266 Supreme Court Rules (1900)
WANTA HAVA GO INSTEAD OF ARGUING ??????????????????
IF A THOUSAND HAD THE GUTS TO PUT THE $400.00 WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS THEY
COULD GO TO THE SUPREME COURT AND DISPUTE THE RETURNS.
OR $500.00 IN THE HIGH COURT
EVEN ONE MISERABLE PERSON WOULD DO
COME BACK TO ME AND I'LL SENT YOU A SAMPLE TO FILE
COL
I WOULD IF MY SUGAR WASN'T UP FROM THIS STRESS
SO I GOTTA TRY AND LIE LOW AND NOT LET ANYTHING UPSET ME
( SIMPLE WHEN YOU SAY IT)
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subjectçsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?SubjectÎbscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
