54 petitions

Update posted 2 months ago

Petition to Greg Hunt MP, Hon Greg Hunt MP

Patients First. Take urgent action for current and future Australian Lyme patients.

The Senate Inquiry into an emerging tick-borne disease that causes a Lyme-like illness for many Australians reported on November 30th, 2016. The Final Report indicated the priority was Patients First, stating: "...people are unwell, and they must be helped. It is therefore the committee's primary objective, in this, its final report on this inquiry, to put the patients first."Minister Hunt, it's time for Health Department leadership on Australian Lyme Disease – please take immediate action on the Senate Inquiry Final Report recommendations. Lyme Disease Association of Australia Statement. "The denial of locally acquired Lyme disease is based on a 20+ year old study into ticks which investigated a narrow spectrum of Borrelia and failed to further evaluate other evidence identified. International science has progressed with at least 100 Borrelia strains identified in the U.S. and up to 300 strains globally. (Source: Dr Richard Horowitz M.D.) In 2014 the government confirmed that Australia's official Lyme disease diagnostic pathology tests were ‘discordant’, meaning a negative test does not exclude the disease being present. The LDAA asserts that there is an Australian Lyme disease.  Research has not been urgently prioritised to identify the causative pathogens allowing the incidence of this emerging vector-borne disease to increase unchecked. The suggestion that patients, their carers and doctors should wait years for research projects is unreasonable. Australian Lyme patients are the evidence needed. We request the Government to prioritise Patients First.  Recognise the Lyme-like illness that is making Australians sick and make it an urgent health priority."

Lyme Disease Association of Australia
45,365 supporters
Update posted 2 months ago

Petition to Commissioners of The Australian Electoral Commission, Governor General of Australia, Australian House of Representatives, Australian Senate, The High Court of Australia, The Prime Minister of Australia, the queen

Deregister the Jacqui Lambie Network political party, ab initio, & hold a senate election.

I am hereby objecting to the continued registration of the Jacqui Lambie Network.I am hereby demanding a new full Senate election for the State of Tasmania.I am hereby demanding the restitution, to the people of Australia, electoral funding illegally had and received by the void, ab initio, Jacqui Lambie Network (fake) political party.Petitioners are hereby supporting one or more of these.Please share to spread the message. ---------- The Party is to be deregistered immediately. This is based on the following grounds, which I believe to be true. 1) Jacqui Lambie was not lawfully elected due to her dual Citizenship. 2) Her election is therefore void, ab initio. 3) Therefore, she could not have lawfully created the Jacqui Lambie Network political party (via 1 or more duly elected Parliamentarians). 4) I do not believe that the Party was initially created via having 500 or more (verified via audit) Members. 5) Therefore, if the Party currently has 500 or more Members, which I believe is unlikely, then it does not matter, the Party was not registered in that manner therefore a new registration would have to occur. 6) Due to current Federal Electorate Bi-Elections no Party Registration processing (to create a Party) is allowed. 7) Therefore, the Party's registration is void, ab initio. 8) Therefore, the Party, in not existing, cannot legally/lawfully have a replacement appointed for (fake) Senator Jacqui Lambie. 9) As Jacqui Lambie was unduly last elected with the fake political party, JLN, then count backs etc cannot draw from the previous election where Ms Lambie was unduly electd on the Palmer United Party ticket.9A) As Jacqui Lambie was not duly elected, there is no 'Casual Senate Vacancy' - therefore the Mechanism for Casual Vacancies (s15 of the Constitution) cannot take effect.  The Mechanism fails.  10) The Palmer United Party was deregistered on 5 May, 2017 anyway. 11) If the ballot papers from the 2016 Tasmanian Senate Election are still in existence, securely stored, etc then they could be recounted, excluding the Jacqui Lambie Network votes (taken as if they never existed) as they did not legally/lawfully exist. Voters were misled and deceived, or potentially mislead and deceived, via illegal activity (illegal practice), therefore it is not sufficient that the Party Group Voting square be taken to be a group of Independents.12) The Australian Electoral Commission should refer the matter to the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, as per, inter alia, S357(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) I as an elector and Australian stakeholder am hereby instructing the AEC to do.13) The election was not affected by immaterial errors.14) Further, all electoral funding paid to the Jacqui Lambie Network fake political party are to be repaid immediately, for the payment was tainted with illegality (fraud, constructive fraud, etc. or similar).15) many people voted for the non-existent Jacqui Lambie Network political party (above the line) as opposed to below the line for individual independents. 16) Independents are prohibited from claiming a party affiliation, if they do not have one (whether by recklessness of Candidates not checking their S44 requirements before signing that they are in compliance with it or not (which is again - fraud).17) Courts are prohibited from providing equity to those with unclean hands, and prohibited from enforcing illegality.18) Failing the ability to recount, wholly excluding the JLN votes (no matter what preference they received) there should be immediate writs issued for a new Tasmanian Senate election. As was the case for the 2013/14 Western Australia Senate Elections.19) As the last election was a Double Dissolution Election, the new election must be for the full Senate.20) The AEC is to do the job I have hereby instructed it to do. For all Australians,Arjay Martin.15 11 2017

Arjay Martin
22 supporters
Update posted 3 months ago

Petition to High Court of Australia, President Of The Senate, Australia's Parliament House

Refer Senator Sam Dastyari to the High Court (Potential S44 Breach - non-dual citizenship)

Senator Sam Dastyari may well be a team player, but (perhaps) it isn't for Team Australia.This is based on the following (allegations based on what the media have said - as far as I'm aware they have not been sued for defamation by Senator Sam Dastyari, successfully or not, nor have they been 'pulled from the web' - so I am under the reasonable belief of them being true / accurate):Senator Dastyari was being sued for over $40,000 (plus costs) for breach of contract with a marketing company.  A Chinese Company stepped in paid an undisclosed figure to the marketing company to settle the matter for Sam Dastyari's personal matter. 1, 2Senator Dastyari was nearly $2000 over his travel entitlement limit, and therefore was sent a bill to repay that excess.  He sent the bill to another Chinese company who paid his personal bill. 2, 3. Senator Sam Dastyari tipped off a donor that he was likely being phone tapped by intelligence organisations / the police (who may well be investigating bribery/blackmail/undue influence/treason/corruption type criminal offences.  Although everyone ought to know of such capabilities, and it would never be publicly confirmed or denied, this may/may not have compromised an investigation.  It is not the first time that Members of Parliament have potentially been compromised.  For Dastyari to do so seems as though something needs to be hidden - possibly to do with Labor Party corruption (he wouldn't presumably care about non-Labor parliamentarians being caught for such crimes). 4, 5, 6, 12, 13. Senator Sam Dastyari has had many trips (travel, accommodation, food, etc) paid for by China.  He supported China's claims to the South China Sea (artificial island military bases) in direct conflict with Australia and Australia's interest - supposedly in relation to a $400,000 donation to the Labor Party 6, 7, 11.Senator Dastyari was allegedly involved in an attempt to unduly influence the government into the granting of one of his donor's Australian Citizenship. 9, 10, 11.Sam Dastyari appears to be a compromised individual, within a position of power that he ought not have in Australia, a position where his occupancy ultimately may harm Australia.If it is true that Chinese companies are owned / controlled ultimately by the Chinese Government / Communist Party of China - then it can be justly stated that the Chinese government has been paying Senator Sam Dastyari - that he is in an office of profit with the Chinese Government (Chinese 'Crown').  If it is not the case that the Chinese government has any form of control / ownership of Senator Dastyari's personal bill payers, and personal donors; (or if it is), then it may be said that Senator Dastyari may be disqualified from Parliament, by way of Section 44, of the federal Constitution (notwithstanding any other potential foreign allegiances to do with dual citizenship, or being a member of the Ummah, or possible treason).  A foreign power need not be a foreign government, it may well be a supra-national community, or a foreign person (of power).  Nor does it need to relate directly to citizenship.If foreign people are paying Sam Dastyari's bills (i.e. tax free remuneration) then it may be said that he is "is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power".  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44Disqualification                   Any person who:                       (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or                      (ii)  is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer;...   Possible dual citizenship could relate to Iran, Azerbejaijan, or elsewhere (maybe there is a 'right of return' in any of the many islamic state countries, as all Jewish folk have with Israel -  and those married to Jewish folk - which also ought be dealt with by the High Court).  As well as the Ummah more generally.  This will affect many Members of Parliament (or invalid Members) - not just Dastyari. This needs to be referred to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, for determination. As it has been greater than 40 days since the return of the writs for the last election that Senator Dastyari was elected to, and since the introduction of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) (section 8 - potentially an unconstituional / invalid section), 1987 then the only authority to refer this to the High Court is the President of the Senate - as per, inter alia, s355 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth). 14, 15.If Senator Dastyari is disqualified from sitting in Parliament, and has been since nomination time of the previous election (even from being a Candidate), then S 15 of the Constitution, on 'casual senate vacancies' does not apply, including the reference to parliamentary members who are in a political party.It needs to be adjudged from what point in time, if at all, that Sen. Dastyari was ineligible from Parliament and he must pay back all parliamentary pay, entitlements, and expenses from that date (including for previous electoral periods - if relevant), as ineligible to be a Senator Culleton was ordered to do.There are many questions of law, and of fact, contained herein.  It is up to others to separate out.The President of the Senate is, hereby directed, to refer this matter to the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. 1. 5. 6. 8. 10. 11. 13. 14. PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES ACT 1987 No. 21, 1987 - SECT 8 Houses not to expel members s8. A House does not have power to expel a member from membership of a House.15.

Arjay Martin
388 supporters