Discussion:
The latest section 44 case - Katie Gallagher
Add Reply
Pelican
2018-05-09 07:35:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The High Court has decided that latest section 44 case, concerning Katie
Gallagher. The report is here -
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA//2018/17.html

As was expected, she lost. None of the judges gave her any lee-way. It
was a common garden variety of the application of section 44 to someone
who failed to do what was necessary to meet the requirements of section
44. The judges have made it clear that such people deserve no sympathy.

There was some discussion of the fantasy by which a mischievous country
could impose its citizenship on an Australian citizen, or the difficulty
an Australian citizen might have in renouncing the citizenship of
another country. Neither applied in this case, which was abundantly clear.

In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its citizenship
on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility that the court
could find that the relevant law of the country would not be recognised
by Australian courts because the country would be in breach of
international law. This situation is, however, still in the area of
fantasy. Even in the case of Russia,
Petzl
2018-05-09 07:50:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:35:30 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
The High Court has decided that latest section 44 case, concerning Katie
Gallagher. The report is here -
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA//2018/17.html
As was expected, she lost. None of the judges gave her any lee-way. It
was a common garden variety of the application of section 44 to someone
who failed to do what was necessary to meet the requirements of section
44. The judges have made it clear that such people deserve no sympathy.
There was some discussion of the fantasy by which a mischievous country
could impose its citizenship on an Australian citizen, or the difficulty
an Australian citizen might have in renouncing the citizenship of
another country. Neither applied in this case, which was abundantly clear.
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its citizenship
on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility that the court
could find that the relevant law of the country would not be recognised
by Australian courts because the country would be in breach of
international law. This situation is, however, still in the area of
fantasy. Even in the case of Russia,
Is New Zealand a mischievous country?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/robert-angyal/section-44-of-the-constitution-means-nobody-is-eligible-to-be-el_a_23078667/
http://tinyurl.com/yc9rtpk9
Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution says that a person is
incapable of being elected to the Senate or the House of
Representatives or sitting as a member of either house, if they are "a
subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a
subject or a citizen of a foreign power".

Let's break that down.

If you are "entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject ... of a
foreign power", you are ineligible to be elected to, or to serve in,
Federal Parliament. You don't have to have the rights and privileges
of a subject of a foreign power -- you just have to be entitled to
those rights and privileges.

Now, consider the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, a country
consisting of two tiny islands in the Caribbean Sea, remote from
Australia, with a population smaller than Bathurst's. Under s. 44 of
our Constitution, it is a "foreign power" (you don't have to be
powerful to be a foreign power, just foreign).

Suppose that Saint Kitts and Nevis tomorrow amended its citizenship
laws so that every Australian citizen was entitled to the rights and
privileges of a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Result? Because of
s. 44, all members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate
would be rendered incapable of sitting in Federal Parliament. And,
nobody would be capable of being elected to either house of Parliament
to replace them. Section 44 of the Constitution thus has the weird
effect of making eligibility to be elected to and serve in the
Australian Parliament dependent on the citizenship law of other
countries -- all 195 of them.

Your example is utterly hypothetical, you say. Absurd, you say. Could
never happen, you say.

Guess what? Much closer to home, under recent and little-noticed
changes to New Zealand law, Australian citizens now don't need a visa
to live, study or work in the Land of the Long White Cloud. That's
right: Any Australian citizen is entitled to live, study and work
there.

That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.

What does this mean?

New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Pelican
2018-05-09 07:56:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:35:30 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
The High Court has decided that latest section 44 case, concerning Katie
Gallagher. The report is here -
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA//2018/17.html
As was expected, she lost. None of the judges gave her any lee-way. It
was a common garden variety of the application of section 44 to someone
who failed to do what was necessary to meet the requirements of section
44. The judges have made it clear that such people deserve no sympathy.
There was some discussion of the fantasy by which a mischievous country
could impose its citizenship on an Australian citizen, or the difficulty
an Australian citizen might have in renouncing the citizenship of
another country. Neither applied in this case, which was abundantly clear.
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its citizenship
on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility that the court
could find that the relevant law of the country would not be recognised
by Australian courts because the country would be in breach of
international law. This situation is, however, still in the area of
fantasy. Even in the case of Russia,
Is New Zealand a mischievous country?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/robert-angyal/section-44-of-the-constitution-means-nobody-is-eligible-to-be-el_a_23078667/
http://tinyurl.com/yc9rtpk9
Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution says that a person is
incapable of being elected to the Senate or the House of
Representatives or sitting as a member of either house, if they are "a
subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a
subject or a citizen of a foreign power".
Let's break that down.
If you are "entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject ... of a
foreign power", you are ineligible to be elected to, or to serve in,
Federal Parliament. You don't have to have the rights and privileges
of a subject of a foreign power -- you just have to be entitled to
those rights and privileges.
Now, consider the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, a country
consisting of two tiny islands in the Caribbean Sea, remote from
Australia, with a population smaller than Bathurst's. Under s. 44 of
our Constitution, it is a "foreign power" (you don't have to be
powerful to be a foreign power, just foreign).
Suppose that Saint Kitts and Nevis tomorrow amended its citizenship
laws so that every Australian citizen was entitled to the rights and
privileges of a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Result? Because of
s. 44, all members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate
would be rendered incapable of sitting in Federal Parliament. And,
nobody would be capable of being elected to either house of Parliament
to replace them. Section 44 of the Constitution thus has the weird
effect of making eligibility to be elected to and serve in the
Australian Parliament dependent on the citizenship law of other
countries -- all 195 of them.
Your example is utterly hypothetical, you say. Absurd, you say. Could
never happen, you say.
Guess what? Much closer to home, under recent and little-noticed
changes to New Zealand law, Australian citizens now don't need a visa
to live, study or work in the Land of the Long White Cloud. That's
right: Any Australian citizen is entitled to live, study and work
there.
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Petzl
2018-05-09 09:00:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unselected high court judges!
Many of whom would not comply with S44
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Pelican
2018-05-09 09:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unselected high court judges!
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Since section 44 doesn't apply to High Court judges, the point you are
making escapes you.
Petzl
2018-05-09 10:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:57:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unselected high court judges!
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Since section 44 doesn't apply to High Court judges, the point you are
making escapes you.
No but the position under the oaths act reserves the position only for
Church of England (Anglican) Christians, not Jews or Catholics, many
decisions by the HC have a political not judicial judgment.

As you are wishing to change S44 for convenience of a party system HC
judges also need to be voted for.
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Pelican
2018-05-09 11:30:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:57:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unselected high court judges!
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Since section 44 doesn't apply to High Court judges, the point you are
making escapes you.
No but the position under the oaths act reserves the position only for
Church of England (Anglican) Christians, not Jews or Catholics, many
decisions by the HC have a political not judicial judgment.
Pity that's just more of your bullshit.
Post by Petzl
As you are wishing to change S44 for convenience of a party system,
As is that. You are becoming quite the bullshit artist.
Post by Petzl
HC judges also need to be voted for.
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
Petzl
2018-05-09 12:31:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 May 2018 21:30:16 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:57:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unselected high court judges!
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Since section 44 doesn't apply to High Court judges, the point you are
making escapes you.
No but the position under the oaths act reserves the position only for
Church of England (Anglican) Christians, not Jews or Catholics, many
decisions by the HC have a political not judicial judgment.
Pity that's just more of your bullshit.
Post by Petzl
As you are wishing to change S44 for convenience of a party system,
As is that. You are becoming quite the bullshit artist.
Post by Petzl
HC judges also need to be voted for.
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be, might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
Ördög
2018-05-09 21:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
Pelican
2018-05-09 21:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.

But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Petzl
2018-05-10 23:20:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
de chucka
2018-05-10 23:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
Not according to our constitution
Ördög
2018-05-10 23:37:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?

BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
Why should we change governments when Petz dislikes them?
Post by de chucka
Not according to our constitution
That has never deterred Petz from making crazy assertions.
--
Ördög, without any apologies
de chucka
2018-05-10 23:41:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
Why should we change governments when Petz dislikes them?
We shouldn't, our constitution and conventions clearly show how
governments in Australia are changed
Post by Ördög
Post by de chucka
Not according to our constitution
That has never deterred Petz from making crazy assertions.
Sadly true
Pelican
2018-05-10 23:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become
unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Petzl
2018-05-10 23:59:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:47:57 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Rubbish. Many States in USA, all of Japan do it with better success
with decisions and public than those without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
de chucka
2018-05-11 00:15:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:47:57 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Rubbish. Many States in USA, all of Japan do it with better success
with decisions and public than those without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
Not sure that putting up the US judicial system as perfection is a good
idea. In Japan it was imposed by the US and only applies to the Supreme
Court ( doesn't in the US go figure)
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:20:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:47:57 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Rubbish. Many States in USA, all of Japan do it with better success
with decisions and public than those without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
Not sure that putting up the US judicial system as perfection is a good
idea. In Japan it was imposed by the US and only applies to the Supreme
Court ( doesn't in the US go figure)
Japanese like it.
We have this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/the-lionel-murphy-files-to-be-released/8731632
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
Pelican
2018-05-11 00:31:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:47:57 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Rubbish. Many States in USA, all of Japan do it with better success
with decisions and public than those without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
Not sure that putting up the US judicial system as perfection is a good
idea. In Japan it was imposed by the US and only applies to the Supreme
Court ( doesn't in the US go figure)
Japanese like it.
We have this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/the-lionel-murphy-files-to-be-released/8731632
Just as a matter of interest, so you get the opportunity to make your
views clear, what were the outcomes of the decisions of Murphy J on the
law while he was on the High Court?

Feel free to say that you have no idea, or absolutely no idea.
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:50:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:31:16 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:47:57 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Rubbish. Many States in USA, all of Japan do it with better success
with decisions and public than those without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
Not sure that putting up the US judicial system as perfection is a good
idea. In Japan it was imposed by the US and only applies to the Supreme
Court ( doesn't in the US go figure)
Japanese like it.
We have this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/the-lionel-murphy-files-to-be-released/8731632
Just as a matter of interest, so you get the opportunity to make your
views clear, what were the outcomes of the decisions of Murphy J on the
law while he was on the High Court?
Feel free to say that you have no idea, or absolutely no idea.
I didn't vote for him why does it matter?
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
Pelican
2018-05-11 00:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:31:16 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:47:57 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Rubbish. Many States in USA, all of Japan do it with better success
with decisions and public than those without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
Not sure that putting up the US judicial system as perfection is a good
idea. In Japan it was imposed by the US and only applies to the Supreme
Court ( doesn't in the US go figure)
Japanese like it.
We have this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/the-lionel-murphy-files-to-be-released/8731632
Just as a matter of interest, so you get the opportunity to make your
views clear, what were the outcomes of the decisions of Murphy J on the
law while he was on the High Court?
Feel free to say that you have no idea, or absolutely no idea.
I didn't vote for him why does it matter?
If matters because he moved the direction of Constitutional law quite
dramatically in several areas, all of them important and positive.
Australia was fortunate to have him as a High Court judge. But you have
no idea whatsoever about that, eh?
Petzl
2018-05-11 01:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:59:32 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:31:16 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:47:57 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Rubbish. Many States in USA, all of Japan do it with better success
with decisions and public than those without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
Not sure that putting up the US judicial system as perfection is a good
idea. In Japan it was imposed by the US and only applies to the Supreme
Court ( doesn't in the US go figure)
Japanese like it.
We have this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/the-lionel-murphy-files-to-be-released/8731632
Just as a matter of interest, so you get the opportunity to make your
views clear, what were the outcomes of the decisions of Murphy J on the
law while he was on the High Court?
Feel free to say that you have no idea, or absolutely no idea.
I didn't vote for him why does it matter?
If matters because he moved the direction of Constitutional law quite
dramatically in several areas, all of them important and positive.
Australia was fortunate to have him as a High Court judge. But you have
no idea whatsoever about that, eh?
Not saying he wasn't a clever corrupt Judge. Evidence is that he was!
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
de chucka
2018-05-11 01:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:59:32 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:31:16 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:47:57 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become
unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Rubbish. Many States in USA, all of Japan do it with better success
with decisions and public than those without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
Not sure that putting up the US judicial system as perfection is a good
idea. In Japan it was imposed by the US and only applies to the Supreme
Court ( doesn't in the US go figure)
Japanese like it.
We have this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/the-lionel-murphy-files-to-be-released/8731632
Just as a matter of interest, so you get the opportunity to make your
views clear, what were the outcomes of the decisions of Murphy J on the
law while he was on the High Court?
Feel free to say that you have no idea, or absolutely no idea.
I didn't vote for him why does it matter?
If matters because he moved the direction of Constitutional law quite
dramatically in several areas, all of them important and positive.
Australia was fortunate to have him as a High Court judge. But you have
no idea whatsoever about that, eh?
Not saying he wasn't a clever corrupt Judge. Evidence is that he was!
The evidence said "According to the secret documents released by
Parliament on Thursday, the head of the inquiry, Sir George Lush,
notified Parliament in September 1986 that the aborted inquiry had made
"no findings of fact" and had therefore "formed no conclusions or
opinions whether any conduct of the Judge has been such as to amount to
proved misbehaviour"."

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/parliament-releases-lionel-murphy-papers-31-years-on-but-the-controversy-continues-20170914-gyhbz6.html

Saying that the allegations showed he played it very fast and loose with
his influence and with his mates. Not imo a great look for a HC judge
de chucka
2018-05-11 01:40:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:47:57 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petzl
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to lenient with
criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the
US is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
By doing so politicisation of the public services will become unavoidable.
Specially in the filed of justice and law enforcement that defeats the
idea of the separation of state powers into independent branches.
Is that what a sane society really want or need?
BTW is the average citizen really qualified in all instances for
selecting the most qualified and appropriate person for a job?
Highly unlikely!
No
No democracy requires much if its citizens when they select members of
the legislature to represent them. Selecting judges is different, and
selecting the head of State is usually a non-issue in the Westminster
system.
Rubbish. Many States in USA, all of Japan do it with better success
with decisions and public than those without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
Not sure that putting up the US judicial system as perfection is a good
idea. In Japan it was imposed by the US and only applies to the Supreme
Court ( doesn't in the US go figure)
Japanese like it.
Do they?
Post by Petzl
We have this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/the-lionel-murphy-files-to-be-released/8731632
The system works
Petzl
2018-05-10 23:45:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
Not according to our constitution
Bit unclear on this but was a norm when I were a kid?
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
Ördög
2018-05-10 23:56:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petz

/snip/
Post by Petzl
Bit unclear on this but was a norm when I were a kid?
You are already well advanced into your second childhood!
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
de chucka
2018-05-10 23:59:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
Not according to our constitution
Bit unclear on this but was a norm when I were a kid?
No it wasn't. When an election is called seats become vacant. With a
change of Gov. by loss of confidence the PM ( person with the confidence
of the majority of the House) asks the GG to swear in new ministers the
old ones don't resign they are basically sacked, well just aren't
ministers any-more.
Pelican
2018-05-11 00:39:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
Not according to our constitution
Bit unclear on this but was a norm when I were a kid?
No it wasn't. When an election is called seats become vacant. With a
change of Gov. by loss of confidence the PM ( person with the confidence
of the majority of the House) asks the GG to swear in new ministers the
old ones don't resign they are basically sacked, well just aren't
ministers any-more.
It's the GG who decides who his/her PM and Ministers will be. Usually,
it's an easy decision to make. He/she appoints the PM and Ministers as
his/her Ministers. They hold the appointment at the pleasure of the GG
ie an appointment can be terminated by the GG at any moment.
de chucka
2018-05-11 01:50:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
Not according to our constitution
Bit unclear on this but was a norm when I were a kid?
No it wasn't. When an election is called seats become vacant. With a
change of Gov. by loss of confidence the PM ( person with the
confidence of the majority of the House) asks the GG to swear in new
ministers the old ones don't resign they are basically sacked, well
just aren't ministers any-more.
It's the GG who decides who his/her PM and Ministers will be.
On the advice of the executive council

  Usually,
Post by Pelican
it's an easy decision to make.  He/she appoints the PM and Ministers as
his/her Ministers.  They hold the appointment at the pleasure of the GG
ie an appointment can be terminated by the GG at any moment.
As the GG acts on the advice of the executive ie the person/people that
the GG believes has the confidence of the house, random termination is
unlikely. Of course the GG can be sacked at anytime by the Executive.
Fran
2018-05-10 23:58:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
God no! That is how one ends up with the idiot US system. Australian
officials are public servants already so that is precisely why they are
not elected. They represent the interests of ALL Australians not just
the one's who elected them.

Sadly sincee that evil little gnome Howard started politicising the
public service it's no longer as strong in that area as it should be.
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:58:11 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
God no! That is how one ends up with the idiot US system. Australian
officials are public servants already so that is precisely why they are
not elected. They represent the interests of ALL Australians not just
the one's who elected them.
Sadly sincee that evil little gnome Howard started politicising the
public service it's no longer as strong in that area as it should be.
"Ours" is better?
https://www.smh.com.au/national/22m-in-mafia-bribes-to-nsw-judges-alleged-in-topsecret-police-reports-20150706-gi6et4.html
http://tinyurl.com/ybwcbd2z
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
Fran
2018-05-11 00:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:58:11 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
God no! That is how one ends up with the idiot US system. Australian
officials are public servants already so that is precisely why they are
not elected. They represent the interests of ALL Australians not just
the one's who elected them.
Sadly sincee that evil little gnome Howard started politicising the
public service it's no longer as strong in that area as it should be.
"Ours" is better?
Shit yeah!!!!!! Do read your cites and try to understand them before you
post.
Post by Petzl
https://www.smh.com.au/national/22m-in-mafia-bribes-to-nsw-judges-alleged-in-topsecret-police-reports-20150706-gi6et4.html
http://tinyurl.com/ybwcbd2z
Pelican
2018-05-11 00:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
God no!  That is how one ends up with the idiot US system.  Australian
officials are public servants already so that is precisely why they are
not elected.  They represent the interests of ALL Australians not just
the one's who elected them.
Sadly sincee that evil little gnome Howard started politicising the
public service it's no longer as strong in that area as it should be.
Public servants are employees who are appointed as part of the executive
branch to implement decisions of the executive. They don't represent
the interests of anyone except those above them in the executive branch.

At the higher levels of the public service, they traditionally give
frank and fearless advice to the relevant Minister(s) if and when asked,
but they are bound to carry out the wishes of Ministers. That what they
get paid to do. If they don't want to do that, they are free to resign.

All public servants, especially those at higher levels, know that
Ministers come and go.

The shift in the orientation in the public service is that, at one time,
Ministers received little serious advice about what might be done other
than from the public service. Things have changed. Ministers now have
significant personal staff who give advice, and who sometimes act as if
they are the Minister.
Petzl
2018-05-11 01:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:54:43 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:15:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Being a judge isn't the result of a popularity contest.
needs to be,
Utter retarded garbage!
Post by Petzl
might make them perform better. To many judges are to
lenient with criminals and need voting out.
We need celebrity populist judges (US style) like we need pestilence!
I don't think that the idea in practice of electing judges as in the US
is likely to be adopted elsewhere in the world, including here.
But, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.  Public officials
should, in principle, be elected by those they serve, whether it's the
head of State, members of the legislature or members of the judiciary.
Even down to teachers, dog catchers and street sweepers.
Change of Government requires they all offer resignation?
God no!  That is how one ends up with the idiot US system.  Australian
officials are public servants already so that is precisely why they are
not elected.  They represent the interests of ALL Australians not just
the one's who elected them.
Sadly sincee that evil little gnome Howard started politicising the
public service it's no longer as strong in that area as it should be.
Public servants are employees who are appointed as part of the executive
branch to implement decisions of the executive. They don't represent
the interests of anyone except those above them in the executive branch.
At the higher levels of the public service, they traditionally give
frank and fearless advice to the relevant Minister(s) if and when asked,
but they are bound to carry out the wishes of Ministers. That what they
get paid to do. If they don't want to do that, they are free to resign.
All public servants, especially those at higher levels, know that
Ministers come and go.
The shift in the orientation in the public service is that, at one time,
Ministers received little serious advice about what might be done other
than from the public service. Things have changed. Ministers now have
significant personal staff who give advice, and who sometimes act as if
they are the Minister.
Like Humphrey in Yes Prime Minister
https://vimeo.com/124392955
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
Ördög
2018-05-09 21:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petz
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:57:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Since section 44 doesn't apply to High Court judges, the point you are
making escapes you.
No but the position under the oaths act reserves the position only for
Church of England (Anglican) Christians, not Jews or Catholics, many
decisions by the HC have a political not judicial judgment.
As you are wishing to change S44 for convenience of a party system HC
judges also need to be voted for.
Utter goonbag fume Xtian fundy theocracy rubbish!
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
Pelican
2018-05-09 21:08:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:57:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Since section 44 doesn't apply to High Court judges, the point you are
making escapes you.
No but the position under the oaths act reserves the position only for
Church of England (Anglican) Christians, not Jews or Catholics, many
decisions by the HC have a political not judicial judgment.
As you are wishing to change S44 for convenience of a party system HC
judges also need to be voted for.
Utter goonbag fume Xtian fundy theocracy rubbish!
No need for such high-falutin' criticism. It's just Petzl fuckwittery.
Petzl
2018-05-09 22:37:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:08:47 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:57:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Since section 44 doesn't apply to High Court judges, the point you are
making escapes you.
No but the position under the oaths act reserves the position only for
Church of England (Anglican) Christians, not Jews or Catholics, many
decisions by the HC have a political not judicial judgment.
As you are wishing to change S44 for convenience of a party system HC
judges also need to be voted for.
Utter goonbag fume Xtian fundy theocracy rubbish!
No need for such high-falutin' criticism. It's just Petzl fuckwittery.
That was the meaning at time of Federation no referendum has changed
this!
--
Petzl
Australia's parliament needs to obey our Constitutions, the judiciary must apply the law!
Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian Constitution was finally adopted and on behalf of future generations,
‘Our Australian Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth’.
Pelican
2018-05-09 22:49:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:08:47 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:57:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Since section 44 doesn't apply to High Court judges, the point you are
making escapes you.
No but the position under the oaths act reserves the position only for
Church of England (Anglican) Christians, not Jews or Catholics, many
decisions by the HC have a political not judicial judgment.
As you are wishing to change S44 for convenience of a party system HC
judges also need to be voted for.
Utter goonbag fume Xtian fundy theocracy rubbish!
No need for such high-falutin' criticism. It's just Petzl fuckwittery.
That was the meaning at time of Federation no referendum has changed
this!
Repetitious Petzl fuckwittery.
Petzl
2018-05-09 23:53:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 08:49:28 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:08:47 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:57:13 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Since section 44 doesn't apply to High Court judges, the point you are
making escapes you.
No but the position under the oaths act reserves the position only for
Church of England (Anglican) Christians, not Jews or Catholics, many
decisions by the HC have a political not judicial judgment.
As you are wishing to change S44 for convenience of a party system HC
judges also need to be voted for.
Utter goonbag fume Xtian fundy theocracy rubbish!
No need for such high-falutin' criticism. It's just Petzl fuckwittery.
That was the meaning at time of Federation no referendum has changed
this!
Repetitious Petzl fuckwittery.
The Federation vote would of been still born if that was not a
condition of Federation. To many crooked Judges!

Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian
Constitution was finally adopted and on behalf of future generations,
‘Our Australian Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian
Commonwealth
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
Fran
2018-05-10 04:29:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unselected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Petzl
2018-05-10 23:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
de chucka
2018-05-10 23:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Petzl
2018-05-10 23:51:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't

But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!

Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
Pelican
2018-05-10 23:58:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
Judges are traditionally responsible to the legislature ie the
legislature is legally able to remove them under certain strict
conditions. In reality, it doesn't happen. The only glaring bad
appointment I can recall is the woeful choice of the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court in Queensland.
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:09:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:58:54 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
Judges are traditionally responsible to the legislature ie the
legislature is legally able to remove them under certain strict
conditions. In reality, it doesn't happen. The only glaring bad
appointment I can recall is the woeful choice of the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court in Queensland.
Wasn't there at least one in NSW Supreme Court?
https://www.smh.com.au/national/22m-in-mafia-bribes-to-nsw-judges-alleged-in-topsecret-police-reports-20150706-gi6et4.html
http://tinyurl.com/ybwcbd2z
Seems there are a lot more
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
Ördög
2018-05-11 00:04:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petz
dechucka
Post by de chucka
Petz
Post by Petzl
Fran
Post by Fran
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights
and privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that
country, living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or
studying. And there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign
power" -- you only have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to
realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of
being elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's
not just Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
Bull dust!
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
By letting morons like you vote for the judiciary would have exactly that
effect.
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA Real
Fake-News
(typo above generously corrected)

So you insist on to be directly Murdoched?
That'd complete the destructive job on your brain old age and alcohol
abuse has already started.
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
Fran
2018-05-11 00:05:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
Jesus wept. READ your own cites and try to understand what they say!
Post by Petzl
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
PRECISELY!!!!!!!!! That is why we want them to continue to NOT be
answerable to any PERSON!!!!!!!!!
Post by Petzl
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
That is what they would have to do IF they were answerable to anyone!!!!!!
Post by Petzl
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
FFS! You are a moron!
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:05:28 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
Jesus wept. READ your own cites and try to understand what they say!
Post by Petzl
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
PRECISELY!!!!!!!!! That is why we want them to continue to NOT be
answerable to any PERSON!!!!!!!!!
Post by Petzl
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
That is what they would have to do IF they were answerable to anyone!!!!!!
Post by Petzl
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
FFS! You are a moron!
Not answerable to anyone!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/the-lionel-murphy-files-to-be-released/8731632
http://tinyurl.com/y7kdoh4q
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
de chucka
2018-05-11 00:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
Oh you just want the US system or the one imposed on Japan. You know it
doesn't apply to all US states or federally don't you? Even where it
does apply it is very limited
Post by Petzl
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
They are answerable to the Chief Justice and the appeal procedures.
Finally they are answerable to the Parliament who is answerable to us
the voters. You see there are checks and balances
Post by Petzl
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
Wouldn't want that from the Judiciary
Post by Petzl
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
LOL, you've been Murdoched
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:25:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
Oh you just want the US system or the one imposed on Japan. You know it
doesn't apply to all US states or federally don't you? Even where it
does apply it is very limited
Post by Petzl
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
They are answerable to the Chief Justice and the appeal procedures.
Finally they are answerable to the Parliament who is answerable to us
the voters. You see there are checks and balances
Post by Petzl
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
Wouldn't want that from the Judiciary
Post by Petzl
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
LOL, you've been Murdoched
Better than being Fairfaxed?
http://www.foxnews.com
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
de chucka
2018-05-11 01:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
Oh you just want the US system or the one imposed on Japan. You know it
doesn't apply to all US states or federally don't you? Even where it
does apply it is very limited
Post by Petzl
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
They are answerable to the Chief Justice and the appeal procedures.
Finally they are answerable to the Parliament who is answerable to us
the voters. You see there are checks and balances
Post by Petzl
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
Wouldn't want that from the Judiciary
Post by Petzl
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
LOL, you've been Murdoched
Better than being Fairfaxed?
http://www.foxnews.com
You were the moron who started the phrase "You've been Murdoched" now
you apparently love him
Petzl
2018-05-11 02:59:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
Oh you just want the US system or the one imposed on Japan. You know it
doesn't apply to all US states or federally don't you? Even where it
does apply it is very limited
Post by Petzl
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
They are answerable to the Chief Justice and the appeal procedures.
Finally they are answerable to the Parliament who is answerable to us
the voters. You see there are checks and balances
Post by Petzl
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
Wouldn't want that from the Judiciary
Post by Petzl
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
LOL, you've been Murdoched
Better than being Fairfaxed?
http://www.foxnews.com
You were the moron who started the phrase "You've been Murdoched" now
you apparently love him
Just keeping media in balance
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
Fran
2018-05-11 04:00:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
sight?
Post by Petzl
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
Last thing we need is judges make decisions based on the position of pig
ignorant people like you because they are scared of being voted out.
Anyhow have you considered the practicality of voting for all Judges?
Will this include magistrates. JPs and other judicial officers?
Read Wiki and you will see it doesn't
Oh you just want the US system or the one imposed on Japan. You know it
doesn't apply to all US states or federally don't you? Even where it
does apply it is very limited
Post by Petzl
But how judges make them now? Answerable to no-one!
They are answerable to the Chief Justice and the appeal procedures.
Finally they are answerable to the Parliament who is answerable to us
the voters. You see there are checks and balances
Post by Petzl
May have to appease media like "our" politicians do!
Wouldn't want that from the Judiciary
Post by Petzl
Good to be able to watch Fox-News direct from USA
Real-News not Fake-News
LOL, you've been Murdoched
Better than being Fairfaxed?
http://www.foxnews.com
You were the moron who started the phrase "You've been Murdoched" now
you apparently love him
Just keeping media in balance
So that's a woosh from you. You really are a moron.

Fran
2018-05-11 00:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:29:55 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:56:14 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a
subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and
privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country,
living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And
there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only
have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being
elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just
Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!
Pity that it's all bullshit.
Maybe by unelected high court judges!
Bullshit. They are very obviously selected. but they are not
"selected" by uninformed and pig ignorant members of the public. And
thank God for that small mercy. Otherwise we'd end up with the
appalling US system.
Post by Petzl
Many of whom would not comply with S44
Uhoh! The Twisted Cracker is winding up for another pig ignorant rant!
Spell checker got me and bad eye-site!
Un-elected Judges is what I were meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
http://tinyurl.com/yal3jahj
And nor should they EVER be elected! The last thing this country needs
is anything that even vaguely mimics the disturbing US legal system.
Max
2018-05-09 09:26:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pelican
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its citizenship
on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility that the court
could find that the relevant law of the country would not be recognised
by Australian courts because the country would be in breach of
international law.
How would it be in breach of international law and why would that have
any legal impact on the constitutional issue?
Pelican
2018-05-09 09:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Max
Post by Pelican
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its
citizenship on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility
that the court could find that the relevant law of the country would
not be recognised by Australian courts because the country would be in
breach of international law.
How would it be in breach of international law and why would that have
any legal impact on the constitutional issue?
Now, that, Max, is a very interesting question. I have not the
slightest interest in trying to explain to you what your question means,
much less provide you with a response to it.
Petzl
2018-05-09 10:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:59:39 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Pelican
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its
citizenship on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility
that the court could find that the relevant law of the country would
not be recognised by Australian courts because the country would be in
breach of international law.
How would it be in breach of international law and why would that have
any legal impact on the constitutional issue?
Now, that, Max, is a very interesting question. I have not the
slightest interest in trying to explain to you what your question means,
much less provide you with a response to it.
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.

Then put it to referendum
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Pelican
2018-05-09 12:04:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:59:39 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Pelican
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its
citizenship on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility
that the court could find that the relevant law of the country would
not be recognised by Australian courts because the country would be in
breach of international law.
How would it be in breach of international law and why would that have
any legal impact on the constitutional issue?
Now, that, Max, is a very interesting question. I have not the
slightest interest in trying to explain to you what your question means,
much less provide you with a response to it.
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
There are many more pressing problems besides section 44.
Petzl
2018-05-09 12:33:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 May 2018 22:04:52 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:59:39 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Pelican
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its
citizenship on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility
that the court could find that the relevant law of the country would
not be recognised by Australian courts because the country would be in
breach of international law.
How would it be in breach of international law and why would that have
any legal impact on the constitutional issue?
Now, that, Max, is a very interesting question. I have not the
slightest interest in trying to explain to you what your question means,
much less provide you with a response to it.
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
There are many more pressing problems besides section 44.
You are the one who bought it up I just gave the solution
--
Petzl
Australia's parliament needs to obey our Constitutions, the judiciary must apply the law!
Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian Constitution was finally adopted and on behalf of future generations,
‘Our Australian Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth’.
Pelican
2018-05-09 12:49:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 22:04:52 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:59:39 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Pelican
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its
citizenship on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility
that the court could find that the relevant law of the country would
not be recognised by Australian courts because the country would be in
breach of international law.
How would it be in breach of international law and why would that have
any legal impact on the constitutional issue?
Now, that, Max, is a very interesting question. I have not the
slightest interest in trying to explain to you what your question means,
much less provide you with a response to it.
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
There are many more pressing problems besides section 44.
You are the one who bought it up I just gave the solution
There you go again - can't help yourself! Just bullshit upon bullshit.
A referendum isn't going to address section 44 anytime soon. All the
wannabee pollies have do is to check their circumstances, the way that
shithead Shorten said the ALP cretins checked their circumstances. That
is, until the facts showed him to be the lying fool he is and has always
been.
Petzl
2018-05-09 22:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 May 2018 22:49:56 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 22:04:52 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:59:39 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Pelican
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its
citizenship on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility
that the court could find that the relevant law of the country would
not be recognised by Australian courts because the country would be in
breach of international law.
How would it be in breach of international law and why would that have
any legal impact on the constitutional issue?
Now, that, Max, is a very interesting question. I have not the
slightest interest in trying to explain to you what your question means,
much less provide you with a response to it.
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
There are many more pressing problems besides section 44.
You are the one who bought it up I just gave the solution
There you go again - can't help yourself! Just bullshit upon bullshit.
A referendum isn't going to address section 44 anytime soon. All the
wannabee pollies have do is to check their circumstances, the way that
shithead Shorten said the ALP cretins checked their circumstances. That
is, until the facts showed him to be the lying fool he is and has always
been.
Referendum is not hard to include in a coming election. To alter the
constitution (meaning at time of Federation or last successful
referendum) needs a referendum.
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s128.html

Electing positions or maintaining positions for High Court Judges
don't need a referendum. This is done in a number of countries Japan
included.
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
Pelican
2018-05-09 22:56:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 22:49:56 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 22:04:52 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:59:39 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Pelican
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its
citizenship on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility
that the court could find that the relevant law of the country would
not be recognised by Australian courts because the country would be in
breach of international law.
How would it be in breach of international law and why would that have
any legal impact on the constitutional issue?
Now, that, Max, is a very interesting question. I have not the
slightest interest in trying to explain to you what your question means,
much less provide you with a response to it.
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
There are many more pressing problems besides section 44.
You are the one who bought it up I just gave the solution
There you go again - can't help yourself! Just bullshit upon bullshit.
A referendum isn't going to address section 44 anytime soon. All the
wannabee pollies have do is to check their circumstances, the way that
shithead Shorten said the ALP cretins checked their circumstances. That
is, until the facts showed him to be the lying fool he is and has always
been.
Referendum is not hard to include in a coming election. To alter the
constitution (meaning at time of Federation or last successful
referendum) needs a referendum.
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s128.html
It won't happen any time soon. Any pollie elected from today who is
tripped up by the citizenship rule in section 44 will be self-declaring
as a deeply committed fuckwit. Any argument about that?
Post by Petzl
Electing positions or maintaining positions for High Court Judges
don't need a referendum. This is done in a number of countries Japan
included.
The tradition here about appointing judges to the various courts is
working out fine. So long as pollies keep their grubby hands off the
process (eg the disaster in Queensland), Australia has been well-served.
Petzl
2018-05-09 23:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 08:56:52 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 22:49:56 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 22:04:52 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:59:39 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Pelican
In the situation where a mischievous country did impose its
citizenship on an Australian citizen, there is now the possibility
that the court could find that the relevant law of the country would
not be recognised by Australian courts because the country would be in
breach of international law.
How would it be in breach of international law and why would that have
any legal impact on the constitutional issue?
Now, that, Max, is a very interesting question. I have not the
slightest interest in trying to explain to you what your question means,
much less provide you with a response to it.
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
There are many more pressing problems besides section 44.
You are the one who bought it up I just gave the solution
There you go again - can't help yourself! Just bullshit upon bullshit.
A referendum isn't going to address section 44 anytime soon. All the
wannabee pollies have do is to check their circumstances, the way that
shithead Shorten said the ALP cretins checked their circumstances. That
is, until the facts showed him to be the lying fool he is and has always
been.
Referendum is not hard to include in a coming election. To alter the
constitution (meaning at time of Federation or last successful
referendum) needs a referendum.
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s128.html
It won't happen any time soon. Any pollie elected from today who is
tripped up by the citizenship rule in section 44 will be self-declaring
as a deeply committed fuckwit. Any argument about that?
I actually raised this very thing with the AEC must be over 10 years
ago, They were just not going to question a form with yes/no ticked in
right box.
Until a West Australian Lawyer kicked this off buy getting a court
ruling.
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Electing positions or maintaining positions for High Court Judges
don't need a referendum. This is done in a number of countries Japan
included.
The tradition here about appointing judges to the various courts is
working out fine. So long as pollies keep their grubby hands off the
process (eg the disaster in Queensland), Australia has been well-served.
Glad you think so NSW has also had it's share of crooked judges that
would have been voted out if that became the mandated norm.
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge
Ördög
2018-05-09 21:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petzl declared
Post by Petzl
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
Such brain-fart you're going to lose.
Tough cookie!

:P
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
Petzl
2018-05-09 22:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 May 2018 21:09:14 +0000 (UTC), Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petzl declared
Post by Petzl
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
Such brain-fart you're going to lose.
Tough cookie!
:P
Australia loses

All it takes to stand for Federal Election is for candidate to tick a
box on form claiming that he/she/it conforms to Section 44 then sign
it!

Has or does Malcolm Turnbull conform to Australian allegiance?
His tax obligations are in the Cayman Islands!
--
Petzl
"To Be A Politician You Need Three Things. Be a Good Liar, A Great Cheat
and a Brilliant Thief." Malcolm Turnbull


Malcolm applied to be a Senator for the Lobor party
https://spectator.com.au/2017/01/turnbulls-labor-dream/

Its time for Malcolm to kick some arse....his own!!!


Turnbull draing the swamp!
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cc61ccd180d35f931bae6ced5e4febaf?width=1024
Ördög
2018-05-09 23:59:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petz
Post by Petzl
Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
Such brain-fart you're going to lose.
Tough cookie!
:P
Australia loses
Not going down the track of septic Yankland is always a reason gain for
the country!
Post by Petzl
All it takes to stand for Federal Election is for candidate to tick a
box on form claiming that he/she/it conforms to Section 44 then sign it!
But if they ticked wrong they will be kicked out of Parliament.
So where is your problem...oh I know: A democratically elected parliament
is not at all compatible with your Xtian fundy dream theocracy!
Post by Petzl
Has or does Malcolm Turnbull conform to Australian allegiance?
Of course he does ... and I am not even part his fanclub!
Post by Petzl
His tax obligations are in the Cayman Islands!
WTF does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Goonbags so early in the mornin'?
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
news18
2018-05-10 01:17:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
All it takes to stand for Federal Election is for candidate to tick a
box on form claiming that he/she/it conforms to Section 44 then sign it!
And survive all the dirt digging of their opponent.
Petzl
2018-05-10 02:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by news18
Post by Petzl
All it takes to stand for Federal Election is for candidate to tick a
box on form claiming that he/she/it conforms to Section 44 then sign it!
And survive all the dirt digging of their opponent.
The bit you snipped was that when I complained to the AEC 10 years ago
about non-Australians claiming to be Australian they were not
interested.

As long as the box was checked paper signed it would never be checked
out.

Took a West Australian Lawyer to take one alien to court for the whole
hoax to unravel. Then there are politically appointed High Court
Judges doing a injustice!
Too many judges need voting out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Ördög
2018-05-10 03:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petz
Post by Petzl
The bit you snipped was that when I complained to the AEC 10 years ago
about non-Australians claiming to be Australian they were not
interested.
Bugger! Poor Petz.

Those public servants instinctively knew how to pick out a nutjob
making nuisance complaints....
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
news18
2018-05-10 04:19:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Took a West Australian Lawyer to take one alien to court for the whole
hoax to unravel. Then there are politically appointed High Court Judges
doing a injustice!
You've just repeated the same shit and not dealt wit the point. "They"
can tick the box, but there better not be any skeletons showing, because
now, the gloves are clearly off.

Your actual claim is wrong as the WA bod didn'ty take anyone to court. He
was looking into someone else, when he found out about a Green and made
that person aware and the Green resigned. Everyone else basically dug it
until the majors thought thery could make political mileage out of it.
Petzl
2018-05-10 04:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by news18
Post by Petzl
Took a West Australian Lawyer to take one alien to court for the whole
hoax to unravel. Then there are politically appointed High Court Judges
doing a injustice!
You've just repeated the same shit and not dealt wit the point. "They"
can tick the box, but there better not be any skeletons showing, because
now, the gloves are clearly off.
The Skeletons are only now being looked at
Post by news18
Your actual claim is wrong as the WA bod didn'ty take anyone to court. He
was looking into someone else, when he found out about a Green and made
that person aware and the Green resigned. Everyone else basically dug it
until the majors thought thery could make political mileage out of it.
Whatever it was only because of that action other fraudsters are being
looked into doubt if it is the AEC looking though not everyone, Tony
Abbott was also one being questioned AEC as usual did nothing.

Yes each "party" is dobbing the other "party" in.
--
Petzl
ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
Or you are voting for China,Islam, Sharia.
and against Christian morals, religious freedom!
news18
2018-05-10 05:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
The Skeletons are only now being looked at
The majors have been collecting skeletons for decades. they are currently
using one sety atm.
Post by Petzl
Whatever it was only because of that action other fraudsters are being
looked into doubt if it is the AEC looking though not everyone, Tony
Abbott was also one being questioned AEC as usual did nothing.
The AEC doesn't have the remit to verify any such caims and Tony Abbot
got his ducks ion a row quiet some time ago.
Post by Petzl
Yes each "party" is dobbing the other "party" in.
Only when it suits them.
Petzl
2018-05-10 09:39:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by news18
Post by Petzl
The Skeletons are only now being looked at
The majors have been collecting skeletons for decades. they are currently
using one sety atm.
Post by Petzl
Whatever it was only because of that action other fraudsters are being
looked into doubt if it is the AEC looking though not everyone, Tony
Abbott was also one being questioned AEC as usual did nothing.
The AEC doesn't have the remit to verify any such caims and Tony Abbot
got his ducks ion a row quiet some time ago.
Post by Petzl
Yes each "party" is dobbing the other "party" in.
Only when it suits them.
Well the storm on S44 may be going to referendum
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-and-opposition-resist-push-for-referendum-on-citizenship-20180510-p4zee1.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq
http://tinyurl.com/ybddcaw8
--
Petzl
Same Sex Marriage
"two blokes and a cocker spaniel don't make a family"
Pelican
2018-05-10 10:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by news18
Post by Petzl
The Skeletons are only now being looked at
The majors have been collecting skeletons for decades. they are currently
using one sety atm.
Post by Petzl
Whatever it was only because of that action other fraudsters are being
looked into doubt if it is the AEC looking though not everyone, Tony
Abbott was also one being questioned AEC as usual did nothing.
The AEC doesn't have the remit to verify any such caims and Tony Abbot
got his ducks ion a row quiet some time ago.
Post by Petzl
Yes each "party" is dobbing the other "party" in.
Only when it suits them.
Well the storm on S44 may be going to referendum
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-and-opposition-resist-push-for-referendum-on-citizenship-20180510-p4zee1.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq
http://tinyurl.com/ybddcaw8
While that media article says the opposite. Never let the facts get in
the way of your fuckwittery, eh, Petzl?
Petzl
2018-05-10 11:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 20:54:22 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by news18
Post by Petzl
The Skeletons are only now being looked at
The majors have been collecting skeletons for decades. they are currently
using one sety atm.
Post by Petzl
Whatever it was only because of that action other fraudsters are being
looked into doubt if it is the AEC looking though not everyone, Tony
Abbott was also one being questioned AEC as usual did nothing.
The AEC doesn't have the remit to verify any such caims and Tony Abbot
got his ducks ion a row quiet some time ago.
Post by Petzl
Yes each "party" is dobbing the other "party" in.
Only when it suits them.
Well the storm on S44 may be going to referendum
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-and-opposition-resist-push-for-referendum-on-citizenship-20180510-p4zee1.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq
http://tinyurl.com/ybddcaw8
While that media article says the opposite. Never let the facts get in
the way of your fuckwittery, eh, Petzl?
It says Coalition and Labor "play down" the possibility of a
referendum to amend section 44 of the constitution and resolve the
citizenship crisis, instead urging political candidates to be more
diligent in ensuring they are eligible for Parliament.

Then along came Pauline?
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
Pelican
2018-05-10 11:17:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 20:54:22 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by news18
Post by Petzl
The Skeletons are only now being looked at
The majors have been collecting skeletons for decades. they are currently
using one sety atm.
Post by Petzl
Whatever it was only because of that action other fraudsters are being
looked into doubt if it is the AEC looking though not everyone, Tony
Abbott was also one being questioned AEC as usual did nothing.
The AEC doesn't have the remit to verify any such caims and Tony Abbot
got his ducks ion a row quiet some time ago.
Post by Petzl
Yes each "party" is dobbing the other "party" in.
Only when it suits them.
Well the storm on S44 may be going to referendum
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-and-opposition-resist-push-for-referendum-on-citizenship-20180510-p4zee1.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq
http://tinyurl.com/ybddcaw8
While that media article says the opposite. Never let the facts get in
the way of your fuckwittery, eh, Petzl?
It says Coalition and Labor "play down" the possibility of a
referendum to amend section 44 of the constitution and resolve the
citizenship crisis, instead urging political candidates to be more
diligent in ensuring they are eligible for Parliament.
Because there is no citizenship crisis.
Post by Petzl
Then along came Pauline?
You seem uncertain about that.
Petzl
2018-05-10 11:37:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:17:53 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 20:54:22 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by news18
Post by Petzl
The Skeletons are only now being looked at
The majors have been collecting skeletons for decades. they are currently
using one sety atm.
Post by Petzl
Whatever it was only because of that action other fraudsters are being
looked into doubt if it is the AEC looking though not everyone, Tony
Abbott was also one being questioned AEC as usual did nothing.
The AEC doesn't have the remit to verify any such caims and Tony Abbot
got his ducks ion a row quiet some time ago.
Post by Petzl
Yes each "party" is dobbing the other "party" in.
Only when it suits them.
Well the storm on S44 may be going to referendum
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-and-opposition-resist-push-for-referendum-on-citizenship-20180510-p4zee1.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq
http://tinyurl.com/ybddcaw8
While that media article says the opposite. Never let the facts get in
the way of your fuckwittery, eh, Petzl?
It says Coalition and Labor "play down" the possibility of a
referendum to amend section 44 of the constitution and resolve the
citizenship crisis, instead urging political candidates to be more
diligent in ensuring they are eligible for Parliament.
Because there is no citizenship crisis.
Constitutional crisis
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/exclusive-fresh-warnings-from-lawyer-who-sparked-dual-citizenship-crisis
http://tinyurl.com/ybegutzd

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered the inquiry at the height of
the crisis last year.

It’s believed it could recommend a referendum to resolve the issue
once and for all, after the chair of the committee spearheading the
inquiry, Liberal senator Linda Reynolds, suggested such an option
could be needed.

Mr Turnbull has hosed down that as a possibility, saying politicians
should just do their proper paperwork instead.
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Then along came Pauline?
You seem uncertain about that.
nope, the Greens also see a number still defying S44 other
independents also are questioning the Citizen status of many
Politicians
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Pelican
2018-05-10 11:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:17:53 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 20:54:22 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by news18
Post by Petzl
The Skeletons are only now being looked at
The majors have been collecting skeletons for decades. they are currently
using one sety atm.
Post by Petzl
Whatever it was only because of that action other fraudsters are being
looked into doubt if it is the AEC looking though not everyone, Tony
Abbott was also one being questioned AEC as usual did nothing.
The AEC doesn't have the remit to verify any such caims and Tony Abbot
got his ducks ion a row quiet some time ago.
Post by Petzl
Yes each "party" is dobbing the other "party" in.
Only when it suits them.
Well the storm on S44 may be going to referendum
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-and-opposition-resist-push-for-referendum-on-citizenship-20180510-p4zee1.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq
http://tinyurl.com/ybddcaw8
While that media article says the opposite. Never let the facts get in
the way of your fuckwittery, eh, Petzl?
It says Coalition and Labor "play down" the possibility of a
referendum to amend section 44 of the constitution and resolve the
citizenship crisis, instead urging political candidates to be more
diligent in ensuring they are eligible for Parliament.
Because there is no citizenship crisis.
Constitutional crisis
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/exclusive-fresh-warnings-from-lawyer-who-sparked-dual-citizenship-crisis
http://tinyurl.com/ybegutzd
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered the inquiry at the height of
the crisis last year.
It’s believed it could recommend a referendum to resolve the issue
once and for all, after the chair of the committee spearheading the
inquiry, Liberal senator Linda Reynolds, suggested such an option
could be needed.
Mr Turnbull has hosed down that as a possibility, saying politicians
should just do their proper paperwork instead.
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Then along came Pauline?
You seem uncertain about that.
nope, the Greens also see a number still defying S44 other
independents also are questioning the Citizen status of many
Politicians
Most of it will resolve itself at the next election. But you keep
gnawing at that bone. It will keep you out of all kinds of trouble.
Ördög
2018-05-10 12:53:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Petz
Post by Petzl
Pelican
Post by Pelican
Petz
news18
Post by news18
Petz
Post by Petzl
The Skeletons are only now being looked at
The majors have been collecting skeletons for decades. they are
currently using one sety atm.
Post by Petzl
Whatever it was only because of that action other fraudsters are
being looked into doubt if it is the AEC looking though not
everyone, Tony Abbott was also one being questioned AEC as usual
did nothing.
The AEC doesn't have the remit to verify any such caims and Tony
Abbot got his ducks ion a row quiet some time ago.
Post by Petzl
Yes each "party" is dobbing the other "party" in.
Only when it suits them.
Well the storm on S44 may be going to referendum
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-and-opposition-
resist-push-for-referendum-on-citizenship-20180510-p4zee1.html?
utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%
3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-
nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq
Post by Petzl
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Post by Pelican
http://tinyurl.com/ybddcaw8
While that media article says the opposite. Never let the facts get
in the way of your fuckwittery, eh, Petzl?
It says Coalition and Labor "play down" the possibility of a
referendum to amend section 44 of the constitution and resolve the
citizenship crisis, instead urging political candidates to be more
diligent in ensuring they are eligible for Parliament.
Because there is no citizenship crisis.
Constitutional crisis
There is NO constitutional crisis either!
Post by Petzl
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered the inquiry at the height of the
crisis last year.
So where are then the "findings" of a "crisis"?
At the bottom of your goonbag?
Post by Petzl
It’s believed it could recommend a referendum
Could...would...possibly...if...only...etc...
Storm in a teacup!
Post by Petzl
Mr Turnbull has hosed down that as a possibility, saying politicians
should just do their proper paperwork instead.
So what's wrong with that?
Post by Petzl
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Then along came Pauline?
You seem uncertain about that.
Petz dreams of Pauline Hanson taking over the government...fuck democracy
and all those who would love to stuff her back into her fish and chips
shop far away from politics.
Post by Petzl
nope, the Greens also see a number still defying S44 other independents
also are questioning the Citizen status of many Politicians
Yeah. What a nice circus in Canberra! It'll play its course when the
whole country becomes sick and tired of their clowning around and those
from backstage operating politically motivated shit-stirrer creeps
finally get tired of beating the media drums!

So in summary...things will go back to normal and Pauline Hanson will not
become PM. Tough cookie for Petz!

Next idiotic Petz's brain fart!
--
Ördög ---- Your newsgroup Devil
Petzl
2018-05-10 22:09:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 12:53:52 +0000 (UTC), Ördög
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Post by Pelican
Because there is no citizenship crisis.
Constitutional crisis
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/exclusive-fresh-warnings-from-lawyer-who-sparked-dual-citizenship-crisis
http://tinyurl.com/ybegutzd
Post by Ördög
There is NO constitutional crisis either!
If "our" Governor General did his job as he is paid to do there could
be!
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered the inquiry at the height of the
crisis last year.
So where are then the "findings" of a "crisis"?
At the bottom of your goonbag?
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)

So far a dozen politicians have been embroiled in the saga and either
been forced to step down or reclaim their seats in a by-election.
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
It?s believed it could recommend a referendum
Could...would...possibly...if...only...etc...
Storm in a teacup!
War may be coming you don't think it is important to know what side
"our" politicians are on"?
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Mr Turnbull has hosed down that as a possibility, saying politicians
should just do their proper paperwork instead.
So what's wrong with that?
War may be coming you don't think it is important to know what side
"our" politicians are on"?
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Then along came Pauline?
You seem uncertain about that.
Petz dreams of Pauline Hanson taking over the government...fuck democracy
and all those who would love to stuff her back into her fish and chips
shop far away from politics.
Post by Petzl
nope, the Greens also see a number still defying S44 other independents
also are questioning the Citizen status of many Politicians
Yeah. What a nice circus in Canberra! It'll play its course when the
whole country becomes sick and tired of their clowning around and those
from backstage operating politically motivated shit-stirrer creeps
finally get tired of beating the media drums!
So in summary...things will go back to normal and Pauline Hanson will not
become PM. Tough cookie for Petz!
Next idiotic Petz's brain fart!
I'm pretty sure everyone knows what side One Nation is on (Australia),
not so with oligarchies Coalition (Saudi Arabia), Labor (China),
"Greens" (Russia)?
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
de chucka
2018-05-10 22:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Thu, 10 May 2018 12:53:52 +0000 (UTC), Ördög
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Post by Pelican
Because there is no citizenship crisis.
Constitutional crisis
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/exclusive-fresh-warnings-from-lawyer-who-sparked-dual-citizenship-crisis
http://tinyurl.com/ybegutzd
Post by Ördög
There is NO constitutional crisis either!
If "our" Governor General did his job as he is paid to do there could
be!
He is paid to act on the advice of the Executive. That is what our
founding fathers/mothers ( did they get a vote? ) wanted, to continue
the conventions of the Westminster system.
Post by Petzl
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered the inquiry at the height of the
crisis last year.
So where are then the "findings" of a "crisis"?
At the bottom of your goonbag?
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
So far a dozen politicians have been embroiled in the saga and either
been forced to step down or reclaim their seats in a by-election.
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
It?s believed it could recommend a referendum
Could...would...possibly...if...only...etc...
Storm in a teacup!
War may be coming you don't think it is important to know what side
"our" politicians are on"?
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Mr Turnbull has hosed down that as a possibility, saying politicians
should just do their proper paperwork instead.
So what's wrong with that?
War may be coming you don't think it is important to know what side
"our" politicians are on"?
Who is this war with?
Post by Petzl
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Post by Pelican
Post by Petzl
Then along came Pauline?
You seem uncertain about that.
Petz dreams of Pauline Hanson taking over the government...fuck democracy
and all those who would love to stuff her back into her fish and chips
shop far away from politics.
Post by Petzl
nope, the Greens also see a number still defying S44 other independents
also are questioning the Citizen status of many Politicians
Yeah. What a nice circus in Canberra! It'll play its course when the
whole country becomes sick and tired of their clowning around and those
from backstage operating politically motivated shit-stirrer creeps
finally get tired of beating the media drums!
So in summary...things will go back to normal and Pauline Hanson will not
become PM. Tough cookie for Petz!
Next idiotic Petz's brain fart!
I'm pretty sure everyone knows what side One Nation is on (Australia),
Boganville?
Post by Petzl
not so with oligarchies Coalition (Saudi Arabia), Labor (China),
"Greens" (Russia)?
I must say I agree with Pez and we should have a referendum to reform
the citizenship Part of Sect 44 to bring it in line with the States and
stop all this BS.
Fran
2018-05-10 23:53:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
I'm pretty sure everyone knows what side One Nation is on (Australia),
Boganville?
LOL. That's good.
Petzl
2018-05-10 23:56:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Boganville?
Probably
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
not so with oligarchies Coalition (Saudi Arabia), Labor (China),
"Greens" (Russia)?
I must say I agree with Pez and we should have a referendum to reform
the citizenship Part of Sect 44 to bring it in line with the States and
stop all this BS.
Seems easy to me?

Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.

Then put it to referendum
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
de chucka
2018-05-11 00:09:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Boganville?
Probably
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
not so with oligarchies Coalition (Saudi Arabia), Labor (China),
"Greens" (Russia)?
I must say I agree with Pez and we should have a referendum to reform
the citizenship Part of Sect 44 to bring it in line with the States and
stop all this BS.
Seems easy to me?
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
Fair enough can't see it happening soon and if it did get put up passing.
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:26:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Boganville?
Probably
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
not so with oligarchies Coalition (Saudi Arabia), Labor (China),
"Greens" (Russia)?
I must say I agree with Pez and we should have a referendum to reform
the citizenship Part of Sect 44 to bring it in line with the States and
stop all this BS.
Seems easy to me?
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
Fair enough can't see it happening soon and if it did get put up passing.
Easy to do with coming election all it can do is be passed or not/
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
they wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain
de chucka
2018-05-11 01:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
Post by de chucka
Boganville?
Probably
Post by de chucka
Post by Petzl
not so with oligarchies Coalition (Saudi Arabia), Labor (China),
"Greens" (Russia)?
I must say I agree with Pez and we should have a referendum to reform
the citizenship Part of Sect 44 to bring it in line with the States and
stop all this BS.
Seems easy to me?
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
Then put it to referendum
Fair enough can't see it happening soon and if it did get put up passing.
Easy to do with coming election all it can do is be passed or not/
Has to get through both houses
Ördög
2018-05-11 00:14:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petz
dechucka
Post by de chucka
I must say I agree with Pez and we should have a referendum to reform
the citizenship Part of Sect 44 to bring it in line with the States and
stop all this BS.
Seems easy to me?
Australia just needs to define "citizen" in the second bit of section
44(i) without taking foreign law into account.
We can't just simply ignore the existence international law and the
citizenship laws of other countries.
It can have unintended consequences!
Then put it to referendum
Any ideas you and your ilk are likely to put forward about citizenship
I'll certainly vote against!
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
Ördög
2018-05-10 22:57:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petz
Post by Petzl
Ördög
Post by Ördög
There is NO constitutional crisis either!
If "our" Governor General did his job as he is paid to do there could
be!
He does his job ... smiling and shaking hands at state functions, etc....
What not his job is to create any sorts of crisis that fucks up democracy
in OZ.
Newsflash: OZ is NOT an absolute monarchy with a monarch (or its
representative) ruling over life and death of the subservient serfs.

You need a time machine to switch to past centuries if that is what you
prefer.
Post by Petzl
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered the inquiry at the height of
the crisis last year.
So where are then the "findings" of a "crisis"?
At the bottom of your goonbag?
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in his
party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been referred
to the High Court for determination?)
Bulldust! Being of Polish or Hungarian descent does not disqualify anyone
from serving as an MP. So unless you can prove any existence of their
current foreign citizenship status you better return to soaking your
brain in goon bag juice!
Post by Petzl
So far a dozen politicians have been embroiled in the saga and either
been forced to step down or reclaim their seats in a by-election.
So we are working through the list of politicians with dual citizenship
status. The issue is being dealt with right now. It will be sorted out!
There will be by-elections! And Pauline Hanson will remain fucked in
politics and left at the extremist margins. :P
Post by Petzl
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
It?s believed it could recommend a referendum
Could...would...possibly...if...only...etc...
Storm in a teacup!
War may be coming you don't think it is important to know what side
"our" politicians are on"?
There will be NO war.
If your extremist ilk resort to terrorism to stir up civil unrest you'll
be dealt with swiftly and severely according to the draconian laws which
your ilk have pushed so hard to create against Muslims.
But you've never thought that these can be used just as effectively
against the alt-right and religious fundy extremists.
Post by Petzl
Post by Ördög
Post by Petzl
Mr Turnbull has hosed down that as a possibility, saying politicians
should just do their proper paperwork instead.
So what's wrong with that?
War may be coming you don't think it is important to know what side
"our" politicians are on"?
There will be NO war.
If your extremist ilk resort to terrorism to stir up civil unrest you'll
be dealt with swiftly and severely according to the draconian laws which
your ilk have pushed so hard to create against Muslims.
But you've never thought that these can be used just as effectively
against the alt-right and religious fundy extremists.
Post by Petzl
Post by Ördög
Petz dreams of Pauline Hanson taking over the government...fuck
democracy and all those who would love to stuff her back into her fish
and chips shop far away from politics.
Yeah. What a nice circus in Canberra! It'll play its course when the
whole country becomes sick and tired of their clowning around and those
from backstage operating politically motivated shit-stirrer creeps
finally get tired of beating the media drums!
So in summary...things will go back to normal and Pauline Hanson will
not become PM. Tough cookie for Petz!
Next idiotic Petz's brain fart!
I'm pretty sure everyone knows what side One Nation is on
We do! On the side of Pauline Hanson's bigotry, racism and self promotion.
Post by Petzl
not so with oligarchies Coalition (Saudi Arabia), Labor (China),
"Greens" (Russia)?
Sad. Your brain is now completely dead, marinated in CH3CH2OH.
It can't generate even a single sane conclusion.
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
Fran
2018-05-10 23:52:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:03:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:52:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Ördög
2018-05-11 00:07:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Petz
Post by Petzl
Fran
Post by Fran
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
...and Hungarian state authorities.

Next brain fart!
--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots like Petz.
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
<http://www.loonwatch.com/category/anti-loons/>
Petzl
2018-05-11 03:26:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 00:07:20 +0000 (UTC), Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Fran
Post by Fran
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
...and Hungarian state authorities.
Next brain fart!
According to his mothers immigration file has her born in Budapest
"Josh Frydenberg" is another lying Jew!
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
de chucka
2018-05-11 03:59:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 00:07:20 +0000 (UTC), Ördög
Post by Ördög
Petz
Post by Petzl
Fran
Post by Fran
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
...and Hungarian state authorities.
Next brain fart!
According to his mothers immigration file has her born in Budapest
"Josh Frydenberg" is another lying Jew!
How surprising another bigoted comment from our supposed christian.

Josh Frydenberg was an alien under Hungarian law when she was born so
could hardly be Hungarian
Fran
2018-05-11 00:20:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:52:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
Bullshit! He's got documentary proof in the form of his mother's
immigration record that shows she had been declared "stateless". It can
even be seen online.
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:33:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:20:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:52:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
Bullshit! He's got documentary proof in the form of his mother's
immigration record that shows she had been declared "stateless". It can
even be seen online.
Yeah sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Frydenberg#Early_life_and_education
http://tinyurl.com/yberfqpd
His mother was a Hungarian Jew born in 1943 who, *according to him,*
arrived in Australia in 1950 as a stateless child from a refugee camp
after escaping from The Holocaust.
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Petzl
2018-05-11 00:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:20:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:52:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
Bullshit! He's got documentary proof in the form of his mother's
immigration record that shows she had been declared "stateless". It can
even be seen online.
His mother has Budapest as her birth place 20/01/42
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
2018-05-11 02:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:20:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:52:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
Bullshit! He's got documentary proof in the form of his mother's
immigration record that shows she had been declared "stateless". It can
even be seen online.
His mother has Budapest as her birth place 20/01/42
...and under Hungarian citizenship law (1993),
1/ A Hungarian person born in Hungary before 1920 or between 1941 and 1945 is automatically a citizen
2/ A child (born anywhere) of a citizen is automatically a citizen

Some UN official labelling a person born in Budapest in 1943 as "stateless" doesn't cancel either citizenship.
Petzl
2018-05-11 03:05:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 19:31:02 -0700 (PDT), Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 10:20:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:52:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
Bullshit! He's got documentary proof in the form of his mother's
immigration record that shows she had been declared "stateless". It can
even be seen online.
His mother has Budapest as her birth place 20/01/42
...and under Hungarian citizenship law (1993),
1/ A Hungarian person born in Hungary before 1920 or between 1941 and 1945 is automatically a citizen
2/ A child (born anywhere) of a citizen is automatically a citizen
Some UN official labelling a person born in Budapest in 1943 as "stateless" doesn't cancel either citizenship.
Just reading her "immigration record" which is available here "page 8"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-03/minister-josh-frydenberg-faces-possibility-of-dual-citizenship/9113982
http://tinyurl.com/y79yoaoo
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
2018-05-11 02:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:52:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
Never mind Josh Frydenberg, what about Matthias Korman - he doesn't just have a funny foreign-sounding name, he even speaks funny.
Petzl
2018-05-11 03:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 May 2018 19:32:12 -0700 (PDT), Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
Post by Petzl
On Fri, 11 May 2018 09:52:59 +1000, Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Petzl
Turnbull is hiding it. it is known he has a Hungarian and a Pole in
his party (Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg. Why haven't they been
referred to the High Court for determination?)
Frydenberg's mother arrived here with no home country (ie stateless) so
her son can't be a Hungarian. Hungary has also advised that he is not
an Hungarian.
Only according to "Josh Frydenberg"
Never mind Josh Frydenberg, what about Matthias Korman - he doesn't just have a funny foreign-sounding name, he even speaks funny.
That's what I reckon
--
Petzl
The S44 riot act is
To be a Federal politician
you must be born in Australia to Australian born parents

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
Loading...