Thursday, March 22, 2007

Sueing Mr. Santoro

Hmmm I thought.. This Mr Santoro has made a big mistake.. What he has done is in breach of the Constitution of Australia and carries large penalties as described in that document. Wow I thought.. The people of Australia can bring a class action against Mr Santoro and there is nothing he can do about it because it is written in plain language as being a condition of becoming a Member of Parliament or a Senator.

So I contacted my Federal Liberal Party Representative Mr Patrick Secker.
What follows is the email that I sent to him.

"
Mr Secker, (P.Secker@aph.gov.au )

I contact you regarding the conduct of Mr. Santo Santoro and his family.
Trading Shares in companies that he directly or even indirectly was able
to influence or assist as a Member of the House of Representatives is against the Australian Constitution.

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

See: Chapter I. The Parliament. (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter1.htm)
Part IV - Both Houses of the Parliament
44. Any person who -

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement 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 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: or

(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or

(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or

(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

But sub-section iv. does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

45. If a senator or member of the House of Representatives -

(i.) Becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section: or

(ii.) Takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors: or

(iii.) Directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State:

his place shall thereupon become vacant.

46. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

47. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House or Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

48. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.

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

As a result I will be seeking legal advise in sueing Mr. Santoro for 1/4 of his yearly salary for every day that he failed to resign.

Section 48. indicates that a member of the house of representatives is to be paid 400 pounds per year.

Section 46. indicates that 100 pounds per day is to be paid by members who default on the provisions contained within the constitution.

Obviously members salaries have been increased and converted to decimal currency since the constitution has been formed.

I take section 46 to indicate 1/4 the members salary.

I therefore demand to know:

1. The date Mr. Santoro aquired the shares or bonds that he sold.

2. What other companies Mr. Santoro has interests in.

3. The date that Mr. Santoro disposed of his interests in those companies.

4. If Mr. Santoro has disposed some of his intersts to his immediate family.

5. If those shares or interests (disposed of to Mr. Santoro's family) have now been sold or traded.

6. What date those interests were disposed of.

7. How many days was Mr. Santoro in breach of the guidelines contained in Section 45. of the constitution.

If there are other acts or laws dealing with Members allowances or penalties in existance.

Please provide the information to me via the above email address.

Please Note: This email along with your answer will be posted on the internet site know as:

http://lazerzap.blogspot.com/

Thank You for your time taken over this matter.
"
End Email

Later I found this this surfing around you tube..





It seems I wasn't the only person to notice Mr Santoro.

Comments:
From: Secker, Patrick (MP)
To: lazerzap
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: Liberal Party Representation of Voters


The key words are "otherwise .............. consisting of no more than 25 persons" - it is highly unlikey that any of these companies that issued shares have 25 shareholders or less. Therefore your point is not relevant.
 
Read it properly please Mr Secker.
Nowhere does the text indicate that there must be less than 25 shareholders.

If fact. It's the opposite.

The "otherwise" word is in reference to the Members interactions with those companies.
Not as a side note to the Shareholders.

Please represent me properly and ask the questions in Parliament as your charter dictates.

Are you suggesting that this is only relevant to companies who have less than 25 shareholders?

Even in 1901 I am sure most companies had more than 25 shareholders.

Excuse me for making this observation.
But in my opinion, you are twisting and turning like a snake to escape asking your own political party
the hard questions.

"(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:"
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on BlogShares Blog Directory & Search engine
Blog Directory