Arjay Martin
              ............................................................

Arjay wants to hear from you

     --------------------------------------------------

High Court Update - 2013 / 2014

Updating everyone as to what happened with the High Court Case:


Basically I created an 18 page legal petition to the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns for the election.  It is choc-a-block full of legal details, laws that were breeched, and by whom at the Australian Electoral Commission, how those Illegal Acts, Undue Influence, Vote Influencing, Interference with Political Liberty, Corruption, and Cover ups, 'were likely to affect the results of the election', etc. 


Months of research, trudging through various pieces of Legislation, International covenants, High Court Rules, etc...

Weeks of time taken off work...


And annoying friends and family with being too busy to do much in life.


I also had about 400 Petitioners (online and offline ones) who signed the related petition.


I tried getting the information in earlier, i. e. filing, but was told that I couldn't due to Western Australia's Writs not being returned.


There are also ridiculous requirement issues (obviously set up to remove non-lawyer access to the court), that goes down to the font size of 12 points, every tenth line numbered as such, 2.5 centimetre margins at the top, bottom, left and right of the page, font style, original documents only,  no faxing, no faxing to a lawyer to deposit the paperwork at the High Court, paper type, no emailing, must be done in person, service addresses, two witnesses with their occupations, etc., etc., etc.


Once accepted by the High Court - it is perfectly acceptable to 'serve it' on people via facsimile though.


There was prior to this a 'run around'  for over a week asking one Registry (Perth - since Sydney and Canberra were out to lunch) saying that they are only an Agent for the High Court and know nothing - that only Canberra  (Registry) does since 'that is where all of the High Court Registrars are... we only collect paperwork' (but couldn't tell me about the compliance of the paper work which they check before they will stamp it - if not complying = need a whole new version, re-printed, re-witnessed, etc.)


Then calling the Canberra Regis0try they told me only to speak to the Sydney Registry, that I'm in New South Wales and dismissed what I told them that the Perth Registry said.  They told me to call Sydney to deal with them. 


Sydney said to call Canberra...


Canberra again... so it went on.


It was rather peculiar that they demanded to know my  FULL NAME before talking to me (and writing or typing it with asking me to spell my name out, etc.), a sceptic might suggest that they would then inform the AEC in some manner, otherwise why else would they need it for my asking of generic questions?  This was without them needing to get me called back.


Then at other occasions I was told 'you'll need to ask XYZ, I'll get him/her to call you back' (a few different times) - then having to wait for hours to answer a simple question.


In asking one of the 'big people' at the Court such questions for compliance such as 'can the petition contain Constitutional Issues, or will that make it not comply (i.e. get told that they don't accept it, re make another version, re-print, re-witnessed, etc), or even simpler questions (these things are not covered in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, as amended, nor in the 'High Court Rules 2004, as amended), I was told 'I'm not telling you what to put in your (Electoral) Petition.  I changed it to, after being cut off for making it more generic (it wasn't case specific and the man already asked when the case was about) 'if someone puts Constitutional Issues in the Petition, if the High Court cannot determine these since it is sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, can the case be 'thrown out' on a technicality or is that part just ignored?', to again be told, 'I sad that I won't tell you what to write in your petition, there is no use trying to get around it', or words to that effect.


Anyway, the High Court Registry claimed that the form was deposited 8 minutes late to be accepted. 

I was going to be clever and send a copy to Western Australia to get a lawyer to run it into the Perth Registry - but Perth Registry (Western Australian Federal Court, acting as an Agent for the High Court of Australia) would not answer if they could accept a Petition for a NSW Federal Electorate.  Then was told that it is 'High Court Policy' that they only accept original documents (remember signed by myself, two witnesses with even their occupations recorded).


So it is all over.


Might I suggest that the AEC couldn't have handled another scandal for this election without getting serious changes to it, maybe even being abolished and a new organisation to replace it, and certainly many new 'head honchos' including Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Chief Legal Officer, etc.

This year alone the AEC had been known to:


prevent the Registration of Jaime McIntyre's 21st Century Australia Party,


appear to have attempted the same with Clive Palmer's United Australia Party / Palmer United Party,


have created the Australian Democrats Party's year long battle against the AEC Officers, including that of the AEC's Chief Legal Officer Paul Pirani, Deputy Commissioner Rogers, and Commissioner Killesteyn; each of whom are mentioned directly, and calls for them each to leave their roles, on the Australian Democrats' web article entitled 'AEC Offices Implicated in Election Interference'. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal 'found that the AEC had no power to declare internal party elections invalid and that such power was vested solely in the Courts', according to the Democrats. The interference / undue influence / ultra vires decisions of the AEC 'had the effect of interference in the 2013 Federal Poll as a full quota of 135 Australian Democrats did not run as a result', according to the site.


There was also, perhaps 'coincidentally' the case of a South Australian Candidate named Mark Aldridge, who had been complaining about the AEC and Electoral Process, being taken away by police during his campaign, and then released without charge.



Arjay Martin.