Did the Governor General act with the Advice of the Executive Council when issuing the Election writs?

Did the Governor General act with the Advice of the Executive Council when issuing the Election writs?

There are many questions to be answered surrounding the issuing of writs for the federal election. Below is the government gazette evidencing writs were issued. Now the question is are the writs issued according to law? Is witnessing a document causing it to be issued? When the Governor General caused the writs to be issued did he do so on the advice of the Federal Executive Council in his role as the Governor in Council consistent with Section 32 and 63 of the Constitution?

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT  – SECT 12.

Issue of writs.

                   The Governor of any State may cause writs to be issued for elections of senators for the State. In case of the dissolution of the Senate the writs shall be issued within ten days from the proclamation of such dissolution.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT  – SECT 32.

Writs for general election.

                   The Governor-General in Council may cause writs to be issued for general elections of members of the House of Representatives.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT  – SECT 63.

Provisions referring to Governor-General.

                   The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

It is quiet clear when the Governor General acts in his role as Governor General in Council, he is to do so with the advice of the Federal Executive Council (s63), when this occurs the governor proclaims the advice, he cannot act in an alternate  capacity when acting ‘In Council’.

It is clear this has not occurred when causing the writ to be issued.

Under section 61 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General. This power covers the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth. The Federal Executive Council was established by section 62 of the Constitution to perform similar functions in Australia to those performed by the Privy Council in the United Kingdom, that is, to advise the Crown. It is the formal, constitutional and legal body responsible for advising the Governor-General (as distinct from Cabinet). The Executive Council is the legal means of ratifying executive acts by or on behalf of the Governor-General. Sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution provide for the Council to consist of Ministers and Ministers of State and Federal Executive Councillors under summons. They are required to advise the Governor-General regarding the Government of the Commonwealth. Meetings are held regularly, when Parliament sits, usually at Government House in Canberra. However, meetings may be held in other locations (e.g. Parliament House) depending on the number of Executive Councillors present. For this reason, the location of the Federal Executive Council has been taken as the location of the Federal Executive Council Secretariat in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The location of the Federal Executive Council prior to 1936 is subject to further research, as for a time the offices of the Prime Minister's Department were located in Melbourne and Parliament House in Canberra (1927-1936). The Secretariat is responsible for organising meetings of the Federal Executive Council, ensuring that appropriate Cabinet approvals have been obtained, that appropriate inter ministerial consultation has taken place, that agreement has been reached and that the Executive Council documents reach the standard of quality required by the Council. Meetings of the Federal Executive Council may be convened by the Secretary to the Council after consulting the Governor-General is unavailable to preside at a meeting of the Council, the meeting may, with his prior agreement, be held in his absence. A quorum of the Council consists of: (a) the Governor-
General and two Ministers; or (b) the Vice-President of the Federal Executive Council and two Ministers; or (c) three Ministers The work of the Federal Executive Council is mainly concerned with action to be taken under Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament. It therefore covers a wide spectrum of the Commonwealth's administration and includes such matters as: - the making of Proclamations and Regulations - the creation and abolition of government departments and positions in them - the issue of writs for the election of Members of the House of Representatives - the making and terminating of appointments to statutory offices on boards, commissions, councils and tribunals - the prohibition of import and export of certain commodities - the approval of compulsory land acquisitions - authorising entry into international treaties - authorising of government borrowings overseas - commissioning of officers in the armed services Business is submitted to the Executive Council by Minute; each Minute is accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum. All Ministers, in their capacity as Executive Councillors under summons, may make recommendations for consideration by the Governor-General in Council. Consequently, if a Minister responsible for a particular Minute is absent or otherwise unavailable, the Minute may be signed by the Minister carrying out his or her duties or by another Minister on his or her behalf. This is provided for in section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Source: Commonwealth Government Directory, Volume 2, Federal Executive Council and Parliamentary Departments, March 1984.

C2022G00297

In 2013 the ABC in the below story tells us writs are ‘printed on heavy paper and has a traditional wax seal, quaint 19th century wording and font, and sets out the formal dates for all the required steps of the election’. ‘The Commonwealth’s writs are similar. They are definitely not the sort of document you print quickly in A4 from a laser printer.’
The writs for the six state Senate election are signed by each State’s Governor. The drawing up of the writ and instruction to sign it are through the state’s Executive Council, in effect on the advice of the Premier.

What an Election Writ Looks like – ABC News

Various electoral Writs.

Below is a copy of a writ for the 2012 Queensland election,

WRIT QLD 1992
VIC GG WRIT 1971
GG2022S188

Senate Writs

The 2022 New South Wales & Queensland Writ clearly provides the seal and endorsement required by the Commissioner but the other State writs are absent these requirements.

NSW-Senate WRIT

QLD-Senate writ

South Australia clearly has a seal embossed under the Governors signature.

SA-Senate writ

Western Australia have clearly hidden the seal in use and there fails to be a signature of the Premier.

WA-Senate writ

Victoria and Tasmania have failed to seal the writs.

VIC-Senate writ

TAS-Senate writ

ACT-Senate writ

NT-Senate writ

Writs for the house of Representatives

NSW-HoR writ

VIC-HoR writ

QLD-HoR writ

SA-HoR writ

WA-HoR writ

TAS-HoR writ

ACT-HoR writ

NT-HoR writ

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 – SECT 153

Writs for election of Senators

             (1)  A writ for the election of Senators shall be addressed to the Australian Electoral Officer for the State or Territory for which the election is to be held.

             (2)  Where a writ for an election of Senators is received by the Australian Electoral Officer for a State or Territory under subsection (1), the officer shall:

                     (a)  endorse on the writ the date of its receipt;

                     (b)  advertise receipt of, and particulars of, the writ:

                              (i)  in not less than 2 newspapers circulating generally in the State or Territory; or

                             (ii)  if there is only one newspaper circulating generally in the State or Territory–in that newspaper;

                     (c)  take such steps as the officer considers appropriate to advise each Divisional Returning Officer in the State or Territory of the dates fixed by the writ; and

                     (d)  give such directions as the officer considers appropriate to each Divisional Returning Officer in relation to the holding of the election.

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 – SECT 154

Writs for election of members of House of Representatives

             (1)  A writ for the election of a Member of the House of Representatives or for a general election for the House of Representatives shall be addressed to the Electoral Commissioner.

             (4)  Where a writ for an election to be held in a Division, or each Division, in a State or Territory is received by the Electoral Commissioner under subsection (1), the Commissioner shall:

                     (a)  endorse on the writ the date of its receipt;

                     (b)  advertise receipt of, and particulars of, the writ:

                              (i)  in not less than 2 newspapers circulating generally in the State or Territory; or

Below the Governor General Acts under section 5 of the Constitution and seals with the Great Seal of Australia.

Below is a Commonwealth writ for the House of Representatives

showing there must be a seal next to the witness declaration,

The letters LS on the left represent where the seal is to be placed.

In 1998 there was an amendment to the Electoral Act via the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1998, that on the face of it allows for preference votes (other than first preference votes) that in the opinion of the electoral officer can be used to preference the leading candidate most likely to be elected in that Division. This new amendment of 1998 allows for your vote to preference a candidate that was not the intention of the elector to occur.

ELECTORAL AND REFERENDUM AMENDMENT ACT 1992 No. 219 of 1992 – SECT 26

Scrutiny of votes in House of Representatives elections

26. Section 274 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection
(2) the following subsections: "(2A) If, in a House of Representatives election, there are more than 2
candidates for a Division, the Australian Electoral Officer for the State or
Territory that includes the Division must, in writing, direct the Assistant
Returning Officers for the Division also to count such preference votes (other
than first preference votes), on such of the ballot papers, as, in the opinion
of the Australian Electoral Officer, will provide an indication of which
candidate is most likely to be elected for the Division. "(2B) An Assistant Returning Officer to whom a direction is given under
subsection (2A) must:    (a)  count the preference votes in accordance with the direction; and    (b)  transmit to the Divisional Returning Officer any information required
        by the direction; in the manner specified in the direction.".

If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.

Source

Removal of the Commonwealth – Attorney-General’s department decision: FOI21/114

Constitutional violations to the Commonwealth

admitted by the Attorney-General in FOI responses

In the last week for the run up to the federal elections, Australians need to know of a political agenda that has been hidden from them that has been played out over many years and has come full force in the last two years that has impacted the lives of all of us in the name of safety and security from the Covid pandemic.

Many have graver concerns regarding how we are dictated to concerning the choices we may make concerning our bodies, our medical choices and those of our children on a program that has been promoted and tested and safe where that is plainly not true as this vaccination program can only be in the experimental and assessment stage that a vaccine is required to undergo before it may be classed as tested to be called a vaccine.

The adverse effects are going under reported to avoid the outcome that may stop the uptake in the public. This is not how caution and assessment ought to be allowed to be carried out. We have a duty to ourselves our neighbour and most importantly to our children as to be prudent in assessing whether any medical option is tested and safe.

We are not the servants or possessions of government that the Labor governments around the States would have us believe. Under the Commonwealth, they are our servants, and they need our endorsement at the ballot box to be chosen as our servants.

The Commonwealth is simply the authority of the people and the Queen is the standard of law that they are held to, …. along with the constitutions rule book. This Commonwealth is what the federal governments have denied in the many decades after the removal of the Great Seal of the Commonwealth, the symbol of our authority.

I received an answer to a Freedom of Information Request last year from the Australian Attorney-General who confirmed that there was no legal basis for authority to remove the authority of the Australian people by destruction of the Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia.

In my Freedom of Information Request, answered by Joanna Baker of the Department of the Attorney-General in October 5 2021, I asked “ regarding the authority to terminate the Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia

page1image111894592

 I request the instrument that overrides, suspends or terminates the “indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom

.”. Ms Baker responded “no relevant documents were identified”  and “I am also satisfied that the documents within the department’s records holdings.” which confesses that there is no authority to remove, suspend or substitute the authority of the Australian people with government authority.

Why would the Labor government of Gough Whitlam remove the people’s authority on 1973, set in place by the Constitution for the Commonwealth? That singular most important question has not been attended by any government or court.

Earlier. one of my senior advisors, Mr Piccinin, who had prepared our case for the Restoration of the Commonwealth in London, received a wide ranging answer to an FOI request that all Australian should be concerned with, as the answer is no different in the answer to my request. His points of critical interests are:

1. ‘I request the cause, and/or reason, why the term, ‘Commonwealth of Australia’, was removed from the statutes by the passing of the Statute Law Revision Act 1973.

Answer is it does not exist.

2. I request the cause, and/or reason, why the term, Australia was made for use in place of the prior practice of using the term, Commonwealth of Australia.

Answer is it does not exist.

3. I request the instrument, and source of authority, for the removal of the authority of the Australian people, termed ‘Commonwealth of Australia’.

Answer is it does not exist.

4. I request the publication(s) issued for suffucient notice advising the Australian people of the removal of the Commonwealth of Australia  ’ was to be made or had been undertaken.

Answer is it does not exist.

5. I request the cause, and/or reason, why the term, ‘ Parliament of Australia was made for use of the federal parliament in place of the name ‘Parliament of Australia’

Answer is it does not exist.

6. I request the cause, and/or reason, why the term, ‘ Australian Gazette was made for use place of the publication name Commonwealth Gazette.

Answer is it does not exist.

7. I request the instrument for the constitution of Australia

Answer is it does not exist.

Can it be any clearer that the government in Canberra, and elsewhere, needs an overhaul to put it back in place of legitimacy in serving the Australian people?

I have not seen the any acknowledgement of the Labor governments for their sins in their role of the removal and substitution of the Commonwealth, And I see no reason why the Liberal governments have gone along with this scam and criminal behaviour in denial of the Commonwealth.

page2image111907712

Now that it has come to the AEC having assured that an election would in fact be conducted for the Commonwealth, constitutionally compliant, and the Great seal of the Commonwealth, representing our legal authority, has not been used for that authority of the Writ of election, I have no choice but to bring that to the attention of the Police by way of complaint and let the wheels of the law take it’s course.

This state of affairs cannot be allowed to go on any longer, and I believe that there is no excuse to deny these documents from the Department of the Attorney-General for the information that is contained within. It is time to take action and rightfully restore our Commonwealth, our rights, and our freedoms.

I pray that this message is taken on by the consciousness of the Australasian public and decide whether the major parties ought to have our franchise or consider any of the alternative candidates, for your rights and freedoms,

FOI21114 FOI Decision Letter

If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.

Source

The Evolution of a Separate Australian Crown.


The High court ruling of Sue v Hill provides the Queen of the United Kingdom is a foreign power for the purposes of s44 of the Constitution. If this is true how can Ministers swear oaths of allegiance to a foreign Queen acting under an alternate title dormant of constitutional validity?

From Page 6 below.

Probably the most significant suggestion of a personal union of Crowns prior to 1926 appeared in a memorandum prepared by Prime Minister Smuts of South Africa for the 1921 Imperial Conference. Having commented that Dominion equality with the United Kingdom ‘requires that the king should have exactly the same relation to a Dominion that he has to the United King- dom’, he remarked that that was not presently the case in practice.32 However, it would be, he suggested,

if the king were also the sovereign of a Dominion in his personal capacity. But this is not so.      The king in his relation to a Dominion is not the king in his personal capacity, but the king in his official capacity as the constitutional sovereign of the United Kingdom.33

The 1926 conference did not bring independence to the dominions on the world stage, they became autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another, this occurred within the British Empire ONLY. They became politically independent from England, but not from the Crown.

From Page 7 below.

The Imperial Conference of 1926 marked a watershed in the development of separate Dominion Crowns. As is well known, the conference declared (in italics!) that Britain and the Dominions were:

autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nation.

One must look to a Nations Date on Independence for confirmation of the Sovereign Independence of a Country, if Australia had a failed referendum for Independence in 1999 how is it that the Australia Act in 1986 proclaimed Sovereign Independence?
The 1926 conference was not ratified into law until the enactment of the Statute of Westminster where Australia, for the purposes of the Act was a dominion. One need to ask when Australia was proclaimed in history by the King to be a Dominion?
All other dominions were in Proclaimed in 1907 with their very own Dominion Day to celebrate the occasion of a Dominion Royal Proclamation, New Zealand on 26th September as well as Newfoundland and Canada earlier on July 1st 1867.
Canada repealed its clause 2 to allow for Dominion status to be adopted.

(THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867)

30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3.

[Consolidated with amendments]

An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith.

(29th March, 1867.)

II. UNION.

Declaration of Union3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominionunder the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)

Construction of subsequent Provisions of Act4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)

(3) Section 2, repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.), read as follows:

2. The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

.

So why could’nt the Commonwealth create a new Queen? Because Clause 2 of the Commonwealth Constitution does not allow for an indivisible Queen of the Realm, there additionally fails to be a head of power within the Constitution to do so.
Clause 2 has never been repealed and therefore the provisions of the Constitution only apply to the Queen in the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
https://constitutionwatch.com.au/queen-crown-summary-first-final-constitutional-commission-reports-1988/
royal proclamation granting New Zealand Dominion status was issued on 9 September 1907. 
It read – Edward R. & I. Whereas We have on thePetitionof the Members of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of Our Colony of New Zealand determined thatthe title of Dominion of New Zealand shall be substituted for that of the Colony of New Zealand as the designation of the said Colony,We have therefore by and with the advice of Our Privy Council thought fit to issue this Our Royal Proclamation and We do ordain, declare and command that on and after the twenty-sixth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and seven, the said Colony of New Zealand and the territory belonging thereto shall be called andknown by the title of the Dominion of New Zealand.And We hereby give Our Commands to all Public Departments accordingly. Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this ninth day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, and in the seventh year of Our Reign. God save the King.”

Or is it still a colony?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/28629/New-Zealand-still-a-colony

There fails to be an Australian Royal Proclamation to grant Australia its dominion status. The only official status is below.

PROCLAMATION UNITING THE PEOPLE OF NEW SOUTH WALES, VICTORIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA, QUEENSLAND, TASMANIA, AND WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN A FEDERAL COMMONWEALTH.

(Imperial Statutory Rules and Orders, revised 1948, Vol. II., Australia, p. 1027.)
1900 No. 722.

At the Court at Balmoral,
The 17th day of September, 1900.

Present:
The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council.
The following Draft Proclamation was this day read at the Board and approved: – A. W. FITZROY.

By The Queen
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS by an Act of Parliament passed in the sixty-third and sixty-fourth years of Our Reign intituled, “An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia,” it is enacted that it shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia:
And whereas We are satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto accordingly:
We, therefore, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, have thought fit to issue this Our Royal Proclamation, and We do hereby declare that on and after the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and one, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Given at Our Court at Balmoral, this seventeenth day of September, in the year of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and in the sixty-fourth year of Our Reign.
God Save The Queen!

THE EVOLUTION OF A SEPARATE AUSTRALIAN CROWN.

If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.

Source

BRUMBY ACTION GROUP INCOPORATED

BRUMBY ACTION GROUP INCOPORATED

A not for profit incorporated association the purposes of which are the preservation and conservation of Australian wild-living Brumbies.

Parks Victoria today announced its intention to secretly cull Brumbies in Bogong High Plains in the Victorian Alpine Park and Barmah National Park in “remote and difficult terrain”.

A Parks Victoria representative claim threats of harm to its employees as the reason for the clandestine shooting. Yet no announcement has been made charges were laid or details of alleged threats made public. It is believed, the reason to keep any brumby cull secret is because of strong public opposition.

In May 2021 a petition with 180,000 signatures against brumby shooting was delivered to the Minister for Environment Ms Lily D’Ambrosio. In 2021 a National Poll conducted by the Weekly Times reported 91% of participants were opposed to brumbies being shot and in June 2020 an ePetition with 14,000 signatures opposing brumby shooting, called for the introduction of brumby Legislation tabled in Parliament by Ms Wendy Lovell MP. A Notice of Motion opposing brumby shooting was carried unanimously in the Upper House of Victorian Parliament.

What does it take for the Andrews Government to listen to constituents? The public, brumby advocates, and stakeholders are opposed to plans of Parks Victoria to shoot brumbies.

Advocates believe there are better ways of brumby management which excludes archaic shooting. A Bill for Heritage Brumby Legislation was drafted on behalf of Brumby Action Group Incorporated, delivered to the Minister for Environment in 2021 and made available to the Shadow Minister for Environment James Newbury MP. It calls for recognition of the Heritage value of Brumbies and to protect that value in all National Parks while ensuring all environmental issues are satisfied. Rehoming is part of the draft Bill which excludes shooting brumbies in preference to managed rehoming.

Environmental issues claimed by Parks Victoria are robustly challenged with only 65 Bogong High Plains Brumbies surviving and about 350 in Barmah National Park. Numbers in the Alpine Park are under question mark following the wildfires of 2019.

Last year Parks Victoria were challenged over trapping horses during foaling season which can lead to foals being crushed in trap yards and is contrary to the regulator’s model code of practice.

With or without thermal scoping the first shot or horse fallen will cause Brumbies to bolt and any foals at foot are at risk of being crushed, mares in foal at risk of aborting, and lactating mares shot could leave foals without a mare, to die of starvation if unable to be found quickly.

Each planned operation will consist of two culling teams (a shooter and spotter), “each working over four consecutive nights, in remote and difficult terrain.” Yet the model codes of practice state: “Ground shooting is not suited to rough country as wounded animals cannot be effectively pursued and would suffer unnecessarily”

The surviving 65 Bogong Brumbies are bloodline descendants of War Horses, the last wild-living surviving descendants of army remounts. Numbers in Eastern Alps are unknown since the wildfires of 2019. Parks Victoria are yet to complete numbers counts of Barmah brumbies to comply with the plan.

The planned shooting is fraught with potential for wounded horses left to die drawn out deaths or foals to die of starvation if they are not located in “remote and difficult terrain” and is considered unsuitable in the model codes of practice.

We are reaching out today to every Member of Parliament to take a stand against this potentially cruel and unnecessary plan, to speak with the Minister for Environment and to support sensible Legislation that will see managed mobs of wild-living brumbies for all future generations.

We urge every Member of Parliament to speak in Parliament about this potentially cruel act and call for it to be set aside.

The Minister for Environment must be asked to abandon the planned shooting which is not management nor does it recognise the Heritage value of our Brumbies.

Contact: brumbyactiongroup@gmail.com Tel: 0400 784 754

Model Code Ground shooting

“Wounded animals must be located and killed as quickly and humanely as possible. If lactating mares are shot, reasonable efforts should be made to find dependent foals and kill them quickly and humanely. Ground shooting is not suited to rough country as wounded animals cannot be effectively pursued and would suffer unnecessarily.es of Practice:”

If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.

Source

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION REPORTS ~ FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION REPORTS ~ FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.

Below we present for your scrutiny a Freedom of Information Response from the Attorney Generals Office of the Australian Government (Not of the Commonwealth?).
The author wrote to confirm if there had been changes as recommended by the Constitutional Commission, Commissioned by the very same Attorney Generals Office, specifically Bill No 1, and Bill No. 2 below.

The 2 Bills above were recommendations by the Commission to bring the Constitution Act into conformity with the changes of the labor party (Whitlam) in 1973. The labor party created a statutory queen beyond the power of that which the Constitution provides. (As evidenced by the Attorney Generals law officer, Lindell in his report to the Attorney Generals office in 1973.

See ~ https://constitutionwatch.com.au/445-minute-by-lindell/

If the 2 Bills above were never presented to the Parliament and therefore the electors of the Commonwealth and the changes to the Constitution never took place, how is the Queen of Australia recognised within the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia?

Additionally, how are Senators and members of the House of Representatives swearing oaths of allegiance to the Queen of Australia if the Constitution failed to be amended to reflect a removal of the Queen in the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom?

FOI18080 – decision

The author then attempted to engage the Attorney Generals Office in discussion regarding the results of the request but was denied (Below).

Are the Attorney Generals Office in conflict with the Objects of the Act as stated below? We leave you the reader to decide.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 – SECT 3

Objects–general

(2)  The Parliament intends, by these objects, to promote Australia’s representative democracy by contributing towards the following-

     (b)  increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities.

3 pages

FOI AG ENTRENCHED

If the 2 Bills above were never presented to the Parliament and therefore the electors of the Commonwealth to change the Constitution, how is the Queen of Australia recognised within the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia?

How are Senators and members of the House of Representatives swearing oaths of allegiance to the Queen of Australia if the Constitution failed to be amended to reflect a removal of the Queen in the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom?

Have all Ministers since 1973 committed Treachery by swearing incorrect oaths to a Statutory Queen inconsistent with the requirements of the Constitution?

If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.

Source

The summary judgment test

The summary judgment test

Part 4.4 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 sets out the test for summary judgment: a court may give summary judgment if satisfied that a claim, a defence or a counterclaim or part of the claim, defence or counterclaim, has no real prospect of success (s63).

With the amendment of order 22 by the Supreme Court (Chapter I Summary Judgment) Rules 2015 and the County Court (Chapter I Amendment No. 9) Rules 2015 on 4 and 18 May 2015 respectively, it is now clear that all summary judgment applications must be made under the Civil Procedure Act and can no longer be brought under the older version of Order 22. The new version of Order 22 governs procedures applying to applications under s63 of the Civil Procedure Act, but no longer provides an independent basis for bringing the application itself.

Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act liberalises the rules governing summary dismissal in Victoria, such that it is easier to dispose of unmeritorious claims summarily. The Court of Appeal has stated that the test:

[S]hould be construed as one of whether the respondent to the application for summary judgment has a ‘real’ as opposed to a ‘fanciful’ chance of success; that the ‘real chance of success’ test is to some degree a more liberal test than the ‘hopeless’ or ‘bound to fail’ test; and that, as the law is at present understood, the real chance of success test permits of the possibility that there may be cases, yet to be identified, in which it appears that, although the respondent’s case is not ‘hopeless’ or ‘bound to fail’, it does not have a real prospect of succeeding (Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 158 at [29] per Warren CJ and Nettle JA (Neave JA agreeing)).

The test must be applied according to its own terms and not according to considerations of whether the proceeding is ‘hopeless’ or ‘bound to fail’. To adopt ‘an unduly constrained, historical approach to the construction of s63’ would ‘subvert the purpose of the provision’ (Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 158 at [25] per Warren CJ and Nettle JA (Neave JA agreeing)).

Courts must, however, continue to exercise the power to terminate proceedings summarily with caution. Courts should therefore only exercise the power if it is clear that there is no real question to be tried. This is so irrespective of whether an application for summary judgment is made on the basis that: the pleadings do not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and no amendment could cure this error; or the action is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process; or the application for summary judgment is supported by evidence (Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 158 at [35] per Warren CJ and Nettle JA (Neave JA agreeing)). See also Ottedin Investments Pty Ltd v Portbury Developments Co Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 222 at [18]; Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd; SPI Electricity Pty Ltd v Utility Services Corporation Ltd (Ruling No 2) [2011] VSC 168).

Further, as Derham AsJ stated in Innes-Irons & Anor v Forrest [2016] VSC 782 at [23]:

The power to give summary judgment must be exercised in accordance with the overarching purpose of the CPA and taking into account the fact that, if granted, a party will be deprived of the chance to pursue its claim or defence.

Courts have noted that summary judgment will be ordered more readily where the issue involves a pure question of law than where there is a disputed question of fact (Re Demediuk [2016] VSC 587 at [18]; Mutton v Baker [2014] VSCA 43 at [19]).

In resisting an application for summary judgment, a party is generally entitled to seek additional evidence if necessary. The proper basis certification obligation under s42 does not provide a basis for prohibiting a party from relying on or seeking to rely on information which was not available at the time the proceeding was commenced. A court must approach each case on a case-by-case basis (Klein v National Australia Bank Ltd [2016] VSCA 144 at [53]-[54]).

The power to give summary judgment must be exercised in accordance with the overarching purpose of the Act and taking into account the fact that, if granted, a party will be deprived of the chance to pursue its claim or defence (Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 158 at [42] per Neave JA).

In Wheelahan v City of Casey (No 3) [2011] VSC 15, it was accepted that the ‘no real prospect of success’ test ‘may in some circumstances extend to cases not regarded as sufficiently hopeless to warrant striking out under the Rules [Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005]’ (Wheelahan v City of Casey (No 3) [2011] VSC 15 at [8]).

To that end, the test expands the basis for giving summary judgment from that which was contained in the courts’ respective rules. However, in most instances, the new test will not differ from the old test in its practical application (National Australia Bank Ltd v Norman [2012] VSC 14 at [12]).

For an example of a case where a defence was not hopeless or bound to fail, but was nevertheless found not to have a real prospect of success, see Campaspe Investments Pty Ltd v PBP Accounting Solutions Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 26 at [27] to [29].

Summary judgment test and pleadings

In general, a court applying the summary judgment test must consider whether any defect in the pleadings can be cured by amendment. However, the Civil Procedure Act 2010 has also changed the landscape in relation to when a party may amend its pleadings and older cases must be approached with caution. Now, the court should not permit a pleading amendment which would itself have no real prospects of success, as the amendment would be susceptible to summary judgment and so be futile. Thus, the summary judgment test now also regulates when pleadings may be amended and may have narrowed the range of amendments that are now permitted (Mandie v Memart Nominees Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 4 at [42]-[43], [46]).

A repeated failure to present pleadings in proper form may, in suitable cases, be a basis for concluding that the case has not real prospects of success and that the other party should not be forced to continue incurring costs responding to deficient pleadings (see Sheehan v Brett-Young (No 4) [2016] VSC 53 at [67]; Nicholson Street Pty Ltd v Letten (No 4) [2017] VSC 307 at [30]).

If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.

Source

Gov’t Watchdog Uncovers $350 Million In Secret Payments Being Funneled To Fauci, Collins And Others At NIH

Gov’t Watchdog Uncovers $350 Million In Secret Payments Being Funneled To Fauci, Collins And Others At NIH

Dr. Fauci wasn’t just peddling nonsense and ‘disinformation’ during his time with the NIH, but he was also apparently raking in piles of cash.

According to a nonprofit government watchdog, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its so-called experts, including the agency’s recently departed director, Dr. Francis Collins, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, received an estimated $350 million in covert royalties.

We estimate that up to $350 million in royalties from third parties were paid to NIH scientists during the fiscal years between 2010 and 2020,” Open the Books CEO Adam Andrzejewski told reporters in a telephone news conference on May 9.

We draw that conclusion because, in the first five years, there has been $134 million that we have been able to quantify of top-line numbers that flowed from third-party payers, meaning pharmaceutical companies or other payers, to NIH scientists.”

We now know that there are 1,675 scientists that received payments during that period, at least one payment. In fiscal year 2014, for instance, $36 million was paid out and that is on average $21,100 per scientist,” Andrzejewski said.

We also find that during this period, leadership at NIH was involved in receiving third-party payments. For instance, Francis Collins, the immediate past director of NIH, received 14 payments. Dr. Anthony Fauci received 23 payments and his deputy, Clifford Lane, received eight payments.”

Collins resigned as NIH director in December 2021 after 12 years of leading the world’s largest public health agency. Fauci is the longtime head of NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), as well as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden. Lane is the deputy director of NIAID, under Fauci.

The top five NIH employees measured in terms of the number of royalty payments that they received while on the government payroll, according to a fact sheet published by Open the Books, include Robert Gallo, National Cancer Institute, 271 payments; Ira Pastan, National Cancer Institute, 250 payments; Mikulas Popovic, National Cancer Institute, 191 payments; Flossie Wong-Staal, National Cancer Institute, 190 payments; and Mangalasseril Sarngadharan, National Cancer Institute, 188 payments.

Only Pastan continues to be employed by NIH, according to Open the Books.

When an NIH employee makes a discovery in their official capacity, the NIH owns the rights to any resulting patent. These patents are then licensed for commercial use to companies that could use them to bring products to market,” the fact sheet reads.

Employees are listed as inventors on the patents and receive a share of the royalties obtained through any licensing, or ‘technology transfer,’ of their inventions. Essentially, taxpayer money funding NIH research benefits researchers employed by NIH because they are listed as patent inventors and therefore receive royalty payments from licensees.

An NIH spokesman didn’t respond by press time to a request for comment.

Andrzejewski told reporters that the Associated Press reported extensively on the NIH royalty payments in 2005, including specific details about who got how much from which payers for what work, that the agency is denying to Open the Books in 2022.

At that time, we knew there were 918 scientists, and each year, they were receiving approximately $9 million, on average with each scientist receiving $9,700. But today, the numbers are a lot larger with the United States still in a declared national health emergency. It’s quite obvious the stakes in health care are a lot larger,” Andrzejewski said.

He said the files Open the Books is receiving—300 pages of line-by-line data—are “heavily redacted.”

These are not the files the AP received in 2005 where everything was disclosed—the scientist’s name, the name of the third-party payer, the amount of the royalty paid by the payer to the scientist,” Andrzejewski said. “Today, NIH is producing a heavily redacted database; we don’t know the payment amount to the scientist, and we don’t know the name of the third-party payer, all of that is being redacted.”

Federal officials are allowed to redact information from responses to FOIA requests if the release of the data would harm a firm’s commercial privilege.

The undisclosed royalty payments are inherent conflicts of interest, Andrzejewski said.

We believe there is an unholy conflict of interest inherent at NIH, he said. “Consider the fact that each year, NIH doles out $32 billion in grants to approximately 56,000 grantees. Now we know that over an 11-year period, there is going to be approximately $350 million flowing the other way from third-party payers, many of which receive NIH grants, and those payments are flowing back to NIH scientists and leadership.”

Fauci and Lane told AP that they agreed there was an appearance of a conflict of interest in getting the royalties, with Fauci saying that he contributed his royalties to charity. Lane didn’t do that, according to Andrzejewski.

The governing ethics financial disclosure form in the past defined the royalty payments as income recipients received from NIH, which meant the recipients weren’t required to list their payments on the form.

But Andrzejewski said NIH has refused to respond to his request for clarification on the disclosure issue.

If they are not, none of these payments are receiving any scrutiny whatsoever and to the extent that a company making payments to either leadership or scientists, while also receiving grants … then that just on its face is a conflict of interest,” he said.

Open the Books is a Chicago-based nonprofit government watchdog that uses the federal and state freedom of information laws to obtain and then post on the internet trillions of dollars in spending at all levels of government.

The nonprofit filed a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit seeking documentation of all payments by outside firms to NIH and/or current and former NIH employees.

NIH declined to respond to the FOIA, so Open the Books is taking the agency to court, suing it for noncompliance with the FOIA. Open the Books is represented in federal court in the case by another nonprofit government watchdog, Judicial Watch.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)