# Born Australian - now alien everywhere. Possible? Apparently not!



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Does Australian government have power to kick out, and keep out those born Australian in Australia to Australian parents while living in Australia, never having naturalized or emigrated to any foreign country, and no criminal record? Where is the source of power?

Federal Court of Australia will look for it at 4:30pm Melbourne time 22nd Sept 2020. 

Email EA.AnastassiouJ at fedcourt.gov.au for a link to VID376/2020 to hear on MS Teams


----------



## fugitive_4u (Nov 7, 2016)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> Does Australian government have power to kick out, and keep out those born Australian in Australia to Australian parents while living in Australia, never having naturalized or emigrated to any foreign country, and no criminal record? Where is the source of power?


Care to explain under what circumstances the govt would do that as an example? As far as I know, no govt will leave you stateless.

Last year or so, a British ISIS fighter's wife was stripped of her citizenship in spite of being born in UK to British parents of Bangladeshi origin. They did so, because she had an avenue to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and wouldn't be left stateless. That was purely due to her criminal background.


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

Without a docket number or any case details it isn't possible to check and confirm the case in question.

I do recall that earlier this year Zehra Duman lodged a high court case on behalf of herself and two children, challenging the 2015 law allowing government to strip citizenship from dual nationals.

The case argued that automatic removal of citizenship is akin to parliament judging criminal guilt and imposing a punishment, in breach of the separation of powers.

I can only suppose that this case or one like it has made its way through the courts and this is the origin of the "what is the source of power" comment above ... but Duman was a dual national at the time her citizenship was revoked so it doesn't quite fit.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

*Arbitrary decisions make anything possible*



fugitive_4u said:


> Care to explain under what circumstances the govt would do that as an example? As far as I know, no govt will leave you stateless.
> 
> Last year or so, a British ISIS fighter's wife was stripped of her citizenship in spite of being born in UK to British parents of Bangladeshi origin. They did so, because she had an avenue to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and wouldn't be left stateless. That was purely due to her criminal background.


No, I'm not a terrorist and no criminal record. In 2011 Home Affairs made a decision without evidence that my Australian citizenship ceased in 1995 on no specific day. Born Australian and not naturalised to any foreign country, I am stateless. Reviewed 3-times but each new decision was made on a different fact that did not exist. All arbitrary. Please listen in on the hearing noted in the OP. I would link further info but am not permitted under forum rules.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Moulard said:


> Without a docket number or any case details it isn't possible to check and confirm the case in question.
> 
> I do recall that earlier this year Zehra Duman lodged a high court case on behalf of herself and two children, challenging the 2015 law allowing government to strip citizenship from dual nationals.
> 
> ...


No link to terrorism or criminal record for me. Just an arbitrary original decision and 3 reviews all relying on different facts that did not exist. I questioned the source of power Home Affairs uses but no answers yet. Maybe VID376/2020 will answer at 4:30pm Melbourne time 22Sep20 on MS Teams. A public hearing and all welcome to request a link.

1. Where in S51 or anywhere in the Constitution did Parliament find power to alienate anyone while living in Australia, born Australian in Australia to Australian parents, who has never naturalized to any foreign country?

2. The law claimed to strip my citizenship is Australian Citizenship Act S17 as amended in 1984. [1992]FCA238 ruled S17 operates only by discretionary decision and not automatically on any fact. Where is the source of statutory power to make that decision? What statutory criteria must be satisfied to make it?

Unable to disclose the source of constitutional power to make law to alienate me casts more doubt on allegiance of Australian government to the people , Constitution and rule of law than on my allegiance. Still waiting for answers.


----------



## mustafa01 (Jan 29, 2017)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> No link to terrorism or criminal record for me. Just an arbitrary original decision and 3 reviews all relying on different facts that did not exist. I questioned the source of power Home Affairs uses but no answers yet. Maybe VID376/2020 will answer at 4:30pm Melbourne time 22Sep20 on MS Teams. A public hearing and all welcome to request a link.
> 
> 1. Where in S51 or anywhere in the Constitution did Parliament find power to alienate anyone while living in Australia, born Australian in Australia to Australian parents, who has never naturalized to any foreign country?
> 
> ...


Would be interested in watching it. How to request session link? All I could find is this.
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/FEDERAL/P/VID376/2020/order_list#;javascript:void(0);


----------



## JennyCulfer (Sep 18, 2020)

That would be very ridiculous cause no matter the crime anyone commits the highest punishment is death sentence


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

*Link to Hearing*



mustafa01 said:


> Would be interested in watching it. How to request session link? All I could find is this.]
> 
> 
> A link to the MS Teams public hearing VID376/2020 at 4:30pm 22Sep20 may be requested beforehand from ea.anastassiouj at fedcourt.gov.au
> ...


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

JennyCulfer said:


> That would be very ridiculous cause no matter the crime anyone commits the highest punishment is death sentence


No crime has been committed by me. If arbitrary use of power violates human rights of Australians, serious crimes may have been committed by those concealing the truth.


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

Even if you had committed a crime, no matter how serious, it is highly unusual for any country to strip a citizen of their citizenship if they are left stateless as a result. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

Just a thought, but was your birth registered correctly at the time? If not then maybe you simply don't exist in their records so are classed as illegally in the country.?


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

*Makes no sense*



Veronica said:


> Even if you had committed a crime, no matter how serious, it is highly unusual for any country to strip a citizen of their citizenship if they are left stateless as a result. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.



Made no sense to me for a long time. Four decisions that I'm not Australian and all relying on different facts that did not exist. It got worse. Last year I was denied entry to Australia to see my sister before she passed away in December, or say farewells with family at her funeral. No accountability. Without Expat Forum and the like - no voice either. Thank you.
What if the law that ceased my citizenship could not operate lawfully? What if no criteria had to be satisfied to make the decision? My experience is any reason will do. What if the law operates on a discretionary decision but there is no power to make it? What if flaws of the law were known but concealed for over 35 years? Then came the internet. Some background for the pending Federal Court hearing: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Als5rGwHPxOqwQbOalZyxYoSVAaM?e=tAB0sy


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Veronica said:


> Just a thought, but was your birth registered correctly at the time? If not then maybe you simply don't exist in their records so are classed as illegally in the country.?


The Outline of Submission for the pending Federal Court of Australia hearing explains. Born Australian in Australia with the papers to show it. I declared my marriage to an Irish national in Melbourne and received in the post the non-naturalised status of post-nuptial Irish citizenship. That is all that is needed to lose Australian citizenship and become alien to all countries.


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

Through the references you make, I was able to read the whole court history of the saga. 

I remember reading about it in the newspapers some years back.

Ah.. the dark ages before 2002 when Australia begrudgingly recognized the concept of dual citizenship.

I had to juggle similar when I became an Australian citizen. At that time Australia didn't require one to abandon their foreign citizen on acquiring Australian citizenship, but made it difficult the other way round.

The US has similar laws on its books, but they are not enforced due to a series of court challenges over the years. To this day, when I renew my US passport I have to declare that I did not acquire Australian citizenship with the intent of renouncing my US citizenship, and if I fail to do that I risk it being revoked.

Throughout, we seem to cede sovereign control of Australian citizenship to foreign governments and their internal laws.

During the parliamentary citizenship crisis, such is the wording of s.42, that I joked that a hostile power could easily force all federal politicians out of office by simply declaring them citizens.

I wish you luck.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Moulard said:


> Through the references you make, I was able to read the whole court history of the saga.
> 
> I remember reading about it in the newspapers some years back.
> 
> ...



Moulard, Thanks for pushing some luck my way. Pity if it's needed. None would be in a fair judiciary. Your summary is spot on too. In 1984 when S17 of the Australian Citizenship Act was amended, foreign citizenship had to be renounced by those acquiring US citizenship. A very powerful Australian became a more powerful US citizen in 1985. No problem before S17 was amended - Oz citizenship automatically ceased on acquiring foreign citizenship. Big problem after 1984. A discretionary decision had to find the person's "dominant purpose" for doing the act that acquired foreign citizenship. No ifs no buts after [1992]FCA238. Trouble is S17 grants no power to make the decision, or sets criteria to satisfy to make it. The solution: Any reason is used by anyone to cease Australian citizenship. My experience shows the effects. 

You note S42 of the Constitution and the dual citizenship debacle. In 2015 I applied to High Court on the same point but my application was rejected. Apparently HCA accepts letters received from someone sitting in Parliament whilst disqualified but not mine. No reason given.

Your view Australia cedes sovereignty to foreign law is sadly true. I lost my Australian citizenship-by-birth to Irish law automatically granting non-naturalized status of post nuptial Irish citizenship on declaring marriage to an Irish national. Received it in the post in Melbourne. I'm now alien to every country on four decision made without power, all for different reasons and all relying on facts that did not exist. What if I am suffering the effects of a coverup?


----------



## Maursh (Aug 17, 2010)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> What if I am suffering the effects of a coverup?


What makes you think this could be a cover up?


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

*Coverup*



Maursh said:


> What makes you think this could be a cover up?


The law claimed to alienate me from Australia operates only by a discretionary decision but no statutory power or criteria exist to make the decision. So Home Affairs operates S17 unlawfully on a predetermined decision based on a particular foreign citizenship acquired or not. Non-naturalised post nuptial Irish citizenship is not the luck one. 
For more details: 

https://1drv.ms/b/s!Als5rGwHPxOqwShLvTivoH2M7pXO?e=bdPcVD

Odd something that may be fraud in government finds no interest in law institutes, academics or media.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Tomorrow Federal Court of Australia will consider if a person born Australian to Australian parents in Australia, who had never emigrated or naturalized to any foreign country, or hold a criminal record anywhere, can be alienated by citizenship being ceased. Or where human rights abused in a coverup? 

Was citizenship ceased "automatically", or was a "discretionary decision" made by misfeasance? 

https://1drv.ms/b/s!Als5rGwHPxOqwSk8iiM8Ifcfxt0J

The public hearing will be held on MS Teams at 4:30pm Melbourne time on 22nd September 2020. Request a link beforehand by emailing [email protected] to hear case VID376/2020. 

All are welcome - by me at least.


----------



## mustafa01 (Jan 29, 2017)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> Tomorrow Federal Court of Australia will consider if a person born Australian to Australian parents in Australia, who had never emigrated or naturalized to any foreign country, or hold a criminal record anywhere, can be alienated by citizenship being ceased. Or where human rights abused in a coverup?
> 
> Was citizenship ceased "automatically", or was a "discretionary decision" made by misfeasance?
> 
> ...


Just attending the hearing, seems DHA was not prepared at all. Are they suppose to provide you with explanation from minister before 04 Nov hearing?


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

mustafa01 said:


> Just attending the hearing, seems DHA was not prepared at all. Are they suppose to provide you with explanation from minister before 04 Nov hearing?


Mustafa01, Thank you for listening in. Public forums like Expat Forum seem all that is left to hold government accountable for actions against people. Not the Australia I grew up in or want to leave future generations. 

DHA shows no argument other than "reject the extension of time" for filing the Originating Application on time but finally stamped by Court 2 days later. ADJR S11-1C allows Court to ignore any delay in filing the OA. However Federal Court R31.05(1) does not allow Court to consider the Notice of Objection to Competency filed by DHA 48 days late. Not a strong argument for an evergreen matter not limited to the decision challenged anyway. 

As an engineer I obey rules so things function safely. Hopefully the Minister follows similar principles and will explain why my complaint has no merit by answering:

1. What constitutional power enabled a law made in 1984 to alienate anyone born Australian in Australia to Australian parents, while living in Australia, who had never naturalized or emigrated to a foreign country? 

2. What statutory power, and criteria, enabled making the discretionary decision ruled necessary by [1992]FCA238?

3. How is the discretionary decision of S17 pre-determined lawfully by finding if a particular citizenship is acquired or not?

Waiting to see the explanation.


----------



## mustafa01 (Jan 29, 2017)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> Mustafa01, Thank you for listening in. Public forums like Expat Forum seem all that is left to hold government accountable for actions against people. Not the Australia I grew up in or want to leave future generations.
> 
> DHA shows no argument other than "reject the extension of time" for filing the Originating Application on time but finally stamped by Court 2 days later. ADJR S11-1C allows Court to ignore any delay in filing the OA. However Federal Court R31.05(1) does not allow Court to consider the Notice of Objection to Competency filed by DHA 48 days late. Not a strong argument for an evergreen matter not limited to the decision challenged anyway.
> 
> ...


Yes, very interested to see the merits of their decision. To be honest I found DHA rep totally clueless today. Hopefully they provide you with proper explanation before the next hearing.


----------



## darkknight2099 (Jul 22, 2017)

May be try to bring this to media like SBS, ABC and etc...


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

darkknight2099 said:


> May be try to bring this to media like SBS, ABC and etc...


Alarmingly no academic, law institute, media, or group claiming to watch government conduct shows any interest. That includes SBS, ABC, major and minor newspapers and radio stations. My earlier communications were a bit wordy and confusing but had the essence. Someday somebody objective will rise up and question Why. 

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/...eys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> The Outline of Submission for the pending Federal Court of Australia hearing explains. Born Australian in Australia with the papers to show it. I declared my marriage to an Irish national in Melbourne and received in the post the non-naturalised status of post-nuptial Irish citizenship. That is all that is needed to lose Australian citizenship and become alien to all countries.


It seems to me that this means you would not be stateless if you lose Australian citiwenship, you would be Irish.

That said, the case I would say is going forward because of lack of grounds, and that is definitely as it should be. Decisions made by Home Affairs and Minister Dutton are often unfounded and Dutton is always loath to use his Ministerial prerogative in favour of the person involved. There have been many cases, some of which have eventually been successful, but it is a long road. Australia has been called out by the UN on numerous occasions because of such issues, yet still it goes on.   

(I have met Dutton and seen him in action in the past through my work and before he was in Federal Parliament, really disliked him and could never understand how people could vote for him, but then I don't understand how people continue to vote LNP.)

Good luck


----------



## NickZ (Jun 26, 2009)

In the past it was pretty common for people to lose citizenship if by marriage they received a new citizenship. I didn't think it still happened but hardly unheard of.

Does Ireland automatically hand you citizenship on marriage or did you have to ask for it?


----------



## 95995 (May 16, 2010)

NickZ said:


> *In the past it was pretty common for people to lose citizenship if by marriage they received a new citizenship. I didn't think it still happened but hardly unheard of.*
> 
> Does Ireland automatically hand you citizenship on marriage or did you have to ask for it?


You can have more than one nationality/citizenship in both Ireland and Australia.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

*Ministerial prerogative*



EverHopeful said:


> It seems to me that this means you would not be stateless if you lose Australian citiwenship, you would be Irish.
> 
> That said, the case I would say is going forward because of lack of grounds, and that is definitely as it should be. Decisions made by Home Affairs and Minister Dutton are often unfounded and Dutton is always loath to use his Ministerial prerogative in favour of the person involved. There have been many cases, some of which have eventually been successful, but it is a long road. Australia has been called out by the UN on numerous occasions because of such issues, yet still it goes on.
> 
> ...



Thanks for throwing a bit of luck my way. "A long road" for sure, and expensive on an engineer's income. Hoping for a lawful decision in VID376/2020 on 4Nov20.

A few of your points need clarification:

1. "Alien". Google says "a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where he or she is living. "an enemy alien""

2. Irish post-nuptial citizenship is lesser status without the privileges of those born or naturalised Irish. I declared, in Melbourne, my marriage to an Irish national, in Melbourne, and received the status by post, in Melbourne. I have never naturalized to any foreign country. Home Affairs decided to cease my Australian citizenship by birth while I was living in Melbourne. By definition I am alien to all countries by that decision.

4. "Stateless". Google says "not recognized as a citizen of any country. "thousands were made stateless by enforcement of the citizenship act" " 
Wow. Google knows something with the closing quote.

I complained to Australian Human Rights Commission that Home Affairs had arbitrarily alienated me from Australia by at decision made on bias and racial discrimination to cease my Australian citizenship, and to arbitrarily deny me a visa to enter Australia when my sister was critically ill. Application of visa was rejected the week before my sister passed away. No final farewells with family and friends at her funeral. 

Peter Dutton did not respond to my messages, or those Christian Porter, AG claims he sent. AHRC dismissed my complaint without considering its merits. No power was found in the Constitution to make the law, or power to operate the law claimed to alienate me, and no reason other than racial discrimination was found for making the decision. 

If the Minister did not have the "prerogative" to alien me from Australia, he and others concealing the truth may not have immunity public office offers either.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

NickZ said:


> In the past it was pretty common for people to lose citizenship if by marriage they received a new citizenship. I didn't think it still happened but hardly unheard of.
> 
> Does Ireland automatically hand you citizenship on marriage or did you have to ask for it?


The more relevant question to an alien of all countries is:

Is a person a citizen if not born, or naturalized, to the country?


----------



## mustafa01 (Jan 29, 2017)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> Thanks for throwing a bit of luck my way. "A long road" for sure, and expensive on an engineer's income. Hoping for a lawful decision in VID376/2020 on 4Nov20.
> 
> A few of your points need clarification:
> 
> ...


Ministers' cannot simply make decisions just because they feel like it. Their decisions must be supported by evidence and most importantly should be acting within the law parameters the Constitution hold. They should not become judge or jury as their job should be just executing the law. If found that they are breaching a law, then they should be held accountable like any normal person, who does not hold a office. Like this https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-over-detention-of-afghan-asylum-seeker-judge

What bugs me is that you have no prior criminal record and you did not voluntary surrendered your citizenship acquired by birth, then how did they just decided to cancel your citizenship. Moreover, in doing so they will make you Stateless because you are not naturalized or have acquired citizenship of any other country. To me it just sounds bizzare.


----------



## fugitive_4u (Nov 7, 2016)

EverHopeful said:


> You can have more than one nationality/citizenship in both Ireland and Australia.


If that was allowed and recognised, why was his Australian Citizenship cancelled after his marriage and him acquiring post-nuptial Irish Citizenship? Sounds crazy..

(EDIT: Just read through that post-nuptial Irish Citizenship ceased to exist in 2005)



ExiledOz2020 said:


> 2. Irish post-nuptial citizenship is lesser status without the privileges of those born or naturalised Irish. I declared, in Melbourne, my marriage to an Irish national, in Melbourne, and received the status by post, in Melbourne. I have never naturalized to any foreign country. Home Affairs decided to cease my Australian citizenship by birth while I was living in Melbourne. By definition I am alien to all countries by that decision.
> 
> 4. "Stateless". Google says "not recognized as a citizen of any country. "thousands were made stateless by enforcement of the citizenship act" "
> Wow. Google knows something with the closing quote.


Doesn't this mean that you are an Irish National by virtue of your marriage? Agree'd it may not grant you full rights, but you are not stateless right? That was my initial point too, wherein no country will leave anyone stateless. 



ExiledOz2020 said:


> I complained to Australian Human Rights Commission that Home Affairs had arbitrarily alienated me from Australia by at decision made on bias and racial discrimination to cease my Australian citizenship, and to arbitrarily deny me a visa to enter Australia when my sister was critically ill. Application of visa was rejected the week before my sister passed away. No final farewells with family and friends at her funeral.


As a national of which country did you apply your Australian Visa? Which passport do you hold? Visa was refused on what grounds?

If you hold an Irish passport, can you not apply for Australian Citizenship and have dual nationality?


----------



## NickZ (Jun 26, 2009)

> “8.—(1) A person who is an alien at the date of that person's marriage to a person who is, or who after the marriage becomes, an Irish citizen (otherwise than by naturalisation or by virtue of this section or section 12) shall not become an Irish citizen merely by virtue of the marriage, but may do so by lodging, not earlier than three years from the date of the marriage or from the date on which the person last mentioned became an Irish citizen (otherwise than as aforesaid), whichever is the later, a declaration in the prescribed manner with the Minister, or with any Irish diplomatic mission or consular office, accepting Irish citizenship as post-nuptial citizenship: provided that—
> 
> (a) the marriage is subsisting at the date of lodgment of the declaration, and
> 
> ...



Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986, Section 3

That's from the 1986 act . You can check the other years on the website. I don't see a mention of lesser status. Maybe it's elsewhere in the act but that just states a citizen. 

The question then becomes what was the Australian law at the time you filed? Not today but then.


----------



## fugitive_4u (Nov 7, 2016)

NickZ said:


> Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986, Section 3
> 
> That's from the 1986 act . You can check the other years on the website. I don't see a mention of lesser status. Maybe it's elsewhere in the act but that just states a citizen.
> 
> The question then becomes what was the Australian law at the time you filed? Not today but then.


The snippet you shared says this



> 8.—(1) A person who is an alien at the date of that person's marriage to a person who is, or who after the marriage becomes, an Irish citizen (otherwise than by naturalisation or by virtue of this section or section 12) *shall not become an Irish citizen merely by virtue of the marriage, but may do so by lodging*, not earlier than three years from the date of the marriage or from the date on which the person last mentioned became an Irish citizen (otherwise than as aforesaid), whichever is the later, a declaration in the prescribed manner with the Minister, or with any Irish diplomatic mission or consular office, accepting Irish citizenship as post-nuptial citizenship: provided that—


OP Claims he has never lodged..!


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

mustafa01 said:


> Ministers' cannot simply make decisions just because they feel like it. Their decisions must be supported by evidence and most importantly should be acting within the law parameters the Constitution hold. They should not become judge or jury as their job should be just executing the law. If found that they are breaching a law, then they should be held accountable like any normal person, who does not hold a office. Like this https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-over-detention-of-afghan-asylum-seeker-judge
> 
> What bugs me is that you have no prior criminal record and you did not voluntary surrendered your citizenship acquired by birth, then how did they just decided to cancel your citizenship. Moreover, in doing so they will make you Stateless because you are not naturalized or have acquired citizenship of any other country. To me it just sounds bizzare.


Mustafa01, Thanks for the linked article. Just yesterday! Wow. Maybe the tide turns.
Bizarre to me what happened back in 2011, that Home Affairs (DIAC then) could cease my citizenship by birth from an arbitrary year of 1995 with no specific date on a decision made without evidence to show any law operated. AAT and FCA rubber-stamped the decision with their own decisions that relied on different facts that did not exist. Something deeper had to be found but no one in government, academia, media or law was interested. So I kept searching myself and found no power in Constitution to make law, or power in law to make a decision to alienate me from my country. The effect is evergreen and not limited to me - but still not newsworthy?

My view is all Australians are obliged to hold accountable those in government who abuse their position. Ultimately, if government lacks the will to police itself, the people of Australia have the "kick switch": S46 of the Constitution. Parliament claims it declawed S46 - but did it really? Just like the mysterious power that operates S17 of the Australian Citizenship Act since the 1984 change? 

Minister for Home Affairs has not shown the constitutional power used to alienate me, or statutory power to make the fateful decision, or lawful reasons to make that decision. No one in Parliament is interested. Maybe S46 was declawed unconstitutionally at the peril of Australians.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

fugitive_4u said:


> If that was allowed and recognised, why was his Australian Citizenship cancelled after his marriage and him acquiring post-nuptial Irish Citizenship? Sounds crazy..
> 
> (EDIT: Just read through that post-nuptial Irish Citizenship ceased to exist in 2005)
> 
> ...


Fugitive_4U, 
Are you trying to justify decisions that alienate me from Australia? Have you found the source of constitutional power was known by those who made law to alienate Australians living in Australia who had never naturalized or emigrated to a foreign country? And the statutory power to make the discretionary decision to operate S17 of the Australian Citizenship Act post 1984? And statutory reasons for making that decision? Otherwise why would you justify a decision made on an unjustified law?

If no constitutional power entitles anyone to alienate me from my country Australia, and S17 operated only by decisions made in excess of power on reasons of actual bias, a lot of public officers may be asked questions. May I ask if you are associated with anyone who may be affected?


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

fugitive_4u said:


> The snippet you shared says this
> 
> 
> 
> OP Claims he has never lodged..!


Fugitive_4U, Please keep the posts truthful. In earlier posts I note I declared in Melbourne my marriage in Melbourne to an Irish national to receive in Melbourne the non-naturalized status of Irish post-nuptial citizenship. 

Where exactly in the Constitution do you find that my action grants anyone power to alienate me from Australia?


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

NickZ said:


> Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986, Section 3
> 
> That's from the 1986 act . You can check the other years on the website. I don't see a mention of lesser status. Maybe it's elsewhere in the act but that just states a citizen.
> 
> The question then becomes what was the Australian law at the time you filed? Not today but then.


Not sure questioning the Australian law at the time is worthwhile until the fundamentals are answered:

1. What source of constitutional power alienates me?

2. What statutory power entitles anyone to make the discretionary decision ruled necessary in [1992]FCA238? 

3. What statutory criteria makes that decision?

4. Is it lawful to pre-determine the S17 decision by finding what citizenship was acquired? 

I suggest the foundations be checked before building on them.


----------



## fugitive_4u (Nov 7, 2016)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> Fugitive_4U,
> Are you trying to justify decisions that alienate me from Australia?


I'm not justifying you being alienated from Australia, but my point is you are not exactly stateless are you?

Now that you mentioned you have applied for a visa, which means you ought to have some passport with you, which is never given if you are not a citizen.



ExiledOz2020 said:


> May I ask if you are associated with anyone who may be affected


No..



ExiledOz2020 said:


> Fugitive_4U, Please keep the posts truthful. In earlier posts I note I declared in Melbourne my marriage in Melbourne to an Irish national to receive in Melbourne the non-naturalized status of Irish post-nuptial citizenship.
> 
> Where exactly in the Constitution do you find that my action grants anyone power to alienate me from Australia?


I'm no legal expert or have any expertise in understanding legal nomenclature, but, I agree the question still remains as to why were you alienated, especially when you are not a naturalised Irish Citizen? 

On another note, just curious, can you not apply for a Citizenship now since both Ireland and Australia honour dual citizenship?


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

fugitive_4u said:


> I'm not justifying you being alienated from Australia, but my point is you are not exactly stateless are you?
> 
> Now that you mentioned you have applied for a visa, which means you ought to have some passport with you, which is never given if you are not a citizen.
> 
> apply for a Citizenship now since both Ireland and Australia honour dual citizenship?


Google says:

Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized.

Alien: a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where he or she is living.

Stateless: (of a person) not recognized as a citizen of any country.
"thousands were made stateless by enforcement of the citizenship act"

Google does not see me as a citizen of anywhere so I am stateless. 

Home Affairs should ask:
"Is post nuptial Irish citizenship a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized?" 

Answer: NO.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

fugitive_4u said:


> On another note, just curious, can you not apply for another citizenship?
> 
> apply for a Citizenship now since both Ireland and Australia honour dual citizenship?


Why ask me to apply for another citizenship? 
I'm born Australian and not naturalized to any foreign country. The Constitution grants no power to anyone to take that from me.

BTW, yesterday Office of the Australian Information Commission OAIC informs:

1.	No records are found to show any member of Parliament had confirmed entitlement to make law to alienate Australians living in Australia who had never naturalized or emigrated before removing the words “whilst outside Australia” from S17 of the Australian Citizenship Act in 1984. 

2.	No records are found to show any public officer had confirmed statutory power was held, and statutory criteria understand, to make the discretionary decision to operate S17 ruled necessary in [1992]FCA238. 

I understand I am alienated by an arbitrary decision made on an arbitrary law. That leaves only misfeasance to make it. I find it odd anyone supports such a decision. Australia has a lack of citizens willing to stand by the Constitution and rule of law. Certainly none spare to alienate.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

*Puzzled?*

As I see it:

Parliament arbitrarily made the law that alienates me from Australia, S17, by undermining the Constitution, and no public record shows otherwise. 

Public officers arbitrarily decided (four times) to alienate me by operating S17 without statutory power or reason, and no public record shows otherwise. 

The law benefits one group who emigrated at the expense of Australians living in Australia, and no public record shows otherwise. 

No one in Parliament, Executive or Judiciary has shown the source of power to make and operate the law that alienates me from my country Australia. 

Can anyone explain why no one in media, academia or law shows any interest? 
Or why I must endure almost 10-years of legal battle to date at extraordinary personal expense to hold government accountable? 

Did Australia lose sovereignty, and governance under the Constitution and rule of law at some time?


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Yesterday lawyers representing the Minister for Home Affairs emailed to say:
"We have been instructed to transfer our file to the Australian Government Solicitor in light of constitutional matters raised by the applicant. I have discussed the case management hearing on 22 September 2020 and requested minutes of orders with AGS." 

Where did I raise constitutional matters? I see only administrative matters. But I am a layperson.
All lawyers recommended by Federal Court of Australia and Law Institute of Victoria have declined to provide support. The views of anyone would be appreciated - qualified in law or not. 

Copied for the Applicant's Outline of Submissions: 
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Als5rGwHPxOqwQbOalZyxYoSVAaM?e=omtJtT

"10. The complaint is that the sources of powers to make and operate S17 of the Australian Citizenship Act as amended in 1984 (S17) are not disclosed. Public records will show the powers that made and operated the law that alienates the Applicant in his circumstances were lawful or not. If records cannot show all powers exercised were known to be lawful, then power was arbitrary. Proposing a power sometime later is irrelevant. The Minister holds a view there is no “prospect of a practical outcome” to the Originating Application seeking disclosure of powers. He has a point but lacks integrity. Four decisions on S17 are made to cease the Applicant’s Australian citizenship and all rely on different facts that did not exist. 

11. The merit of seeking judicial review is to find the Applicant’s status of Australian citizenship has never changed since birth; to enforce restrictions of the Constitution on Australian citizenship law; and to enforce rule of law to prevent government from ever using power so hideous as to deny a brother and sister spending last moments together. 

12. Judicial review is sought to find if the powers that alienate the Applicant, and deny him entry to Australia by arbitrary or not, by way of public records showing:

a. Parliament confirmed entitlement to make law to alienate Australians who live in Australia, and had never naturalised or emigrated to any foreign state. Alternatively S17 overthrows constitutional protection granted to all Australians to remain Australian in Australia by removing words “whilst outside Australia” from the previous version of the law. 

b. Public officers operating S17 had confirmed statutory power and statutory criteria to make the discretionary decision to cease a person’s Australian citizenship. 

c. Guidelines11 for operating S17 treats all Australians equally in all circumstances. 

d. DHA rejected the Applicant’s visa application in Dec19 for reasons that did not exist when all prior visa applications were granted."


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Every law firm recommended by Federal Court of Australia, and the Law Institute of Victoria, has declined to support me in this matter. I am not a lawyer and would appreciate comments on the following: 

•	On 22nd September 2020 at case management hearing, the judge ordered VID376/2020 to be heard on the 4th November 2020, and for minutes to be filed by the 1st Respondent’s solicitor by the 29th September. No minutes have been filed.
•	On 5th October the Applicant (me) emailed the 1st Respondent’s solicitor noting no minutes had been filed. Reply was that the case file was transferred to Australian Government Solicitors. Division 4.1, 4.04 and 4.05 of Federal Court Rules are clear on process of changing lawyers. A Form 5, 6, 7 or 8 must be filed. I am not aware of any such form being filed. 
• Federal Court Rules R39.1 is clear that orders take effect when made by the judge and must be fulfilled by the date set, or within 14 days if no date is set. On that basis Court Books should have been filed by the 6th October. None has been. 
•	On 9th October I received consent orders from AGS to extend filing of Court Books to the 12th October (today). I received that notice from someone I have no reason to believe is a party to the matter because no Form 5, 6, 7 or 8 has been received. 
•	Should I sign consent orders to give the Minister who alienates me from Australia more time to file material to be used against me? No part of my compliant has been opposed by Australian Human Right Commission or the Minister for Home Affairs so it is unlikely any meaningful opposition to my compliant will be found in any material filed. More likely a distraction from my compliant will be filed. 
•	If consent orders are not signed, does that mean on the 4th November only material already filed can be considered i.e. my complaint unopposed?


----------



## darkknight2099 (Jul 22, 2017)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> Every law firm recommended by Federal Court of Australia, and the Law Institute of Victoria, has declined to support me in this matter. I am not a lawyer and would appreciate comments on the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mate you really need a very good lawyer for your case. No one is aware of the paperwork and the complex jurisdiction system. 

Sent from my SM-N910H using Tapatalk


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

*Anyone know a very good lawyer?*



darkknight2099 said:


> Mate you really need a very good lawyer for your case. No one is aware of the paperwork and the complex jurisdiction system.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910H using Tapatalk


You bet. Anyone know any good lawyers? My complaint asks for public records to show:

a. Parliament confirmed entitlement to make law to alienate Australians who live in Australia, and had never naturalised or emigrated to any foreign state. Alternatively S17 overthrows constitutional protection granted to all Australians to remain Australian in Australia by removing words “whilst outside Australia” from the previous version of the law. 

b. Public officers operating S17 had confirmed statutory power and statutory criteria to make the discretionary decision to cease a person’s Australian citizenship. 

c. Guidelines for operating S17 treats all Australians equally in all circumstances. 

d. DHA rejected the Applicant’s visa application in Dec19 for reasons that did not exist when all prior visa applications were granted.

Why are lawyers unwilling to support that?


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

I assume your pockets are shallow. The following are two organisations that Julian Burnside links to for Human Rights & Social Justice issues on his blog. 

The National Pro Bono Resource Centre is an independent organisation that supports and promotes pro bono legal services in Australia.
https://www.probonocentre.org.au/

JusticeConnect: working to provide effective means for people and organisations in need to access justice
https://justiceconnect.org.au/

Perhaps they can direct you to someone appropriate.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

*Shallow pockets now*



Moulard said:


> I assume your pockets are shallow. The following are two organisations that Julian Burnside links to for Human Rights & Social Justice issues on his blog.
> 
> The National Pro Bono Resource Centre is an independent organisation that supports and promotes pro bono legal services in Australia.
> https://www.probonocentre.org.au/
> ...


Since the initial arbitrary decision in 2011 to cease my Australian citizenship, my pockets shrank but understanding grew. I was rudely awaken from dreaming government under the Constitution operated within the rule of law. 

Four decisions making me stateless all relied on different facts with the only thing common being the facts did not exist. My Australian citizenship was a pawn for the benefit and convenience of those who emigrated. I was taught what complacency gets: public officers unaccountable for their conduct. 

Thanks for the tips. I previously contacted JusticeConnect without response but just tried again. Probonocentre I will try next.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Moulard said:


> I assume your pockets are shallow. The following are two organisations that Julian Burnside links to for Human Rights & Social Justice issues on his blog.
> 
> The National Pro Bono Resource Centre is an independent organisation that supports and promotes pro bono legal services in Australia.
> https://www.probonocentre.org.au/
> ...


Hi Moulard, 

Waiting for JusticeConnect to respond. Probonocetre not encouraging. Must live in Oz, not exiled. 

Posts on many threads show you have a wealth of knowledge. The Minister did not file Court Books by the 6th October deadline. This morning I'm told Court will "make orders on the papers". Site you referred, JusticeConnect, gives clear explanation: https://justiceconnect.org.au/resources/decisions-made-on-the-papers/

VID376/2020 reviews Australian Human Rights Commission decision to close my complaint without considering any part of it. No material has been filed to oppose any part of my complaint. 
Does that mean my complaint that I am arbitrarily alienated from Australia stands? 
Do you know a forum for lawyers that I can post these questions?


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

I am sorry to say but what I suspect what you really need f is a referral to someone who can help you even if not on a pro bono basis. I would expect that the Pro bono Centre or Justice Connect or even Legal Aid Australia would be able to do that even if they could not help you directly.

This is all way outside my wheelhouse.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

*Denied legal assisitance*



Moulard said:


> I am sorry to say but what I suspect what you really need f is a referral to someone who can help you even if not on a pro bono basis. I would expect that the Pro bono Centre or Justice Connect or even Legal Aid Australia would be able to do that even if they could not help you directly.
> 
> This is all way outside my wheelhouse.


Sound advice but that door is firmly closed. Every law firm referred by Federal Court of Australia, and Law Institute of Victoria has declined to support me. No reason other than its not the type of case supported. Wonder if that means a case to uncover a coverup. Whatever, I'm alone. 

Bad day yesterday. Orders "on the papers" by Court find power I cannot find in rules to ignore Minister's team of lawyers failure to file by 29Sep20 minutes of the 22Sep20 hearing , and Court Books by default of 6Oct20. Restrictions placed on "The applicant" (me) but none on "The Respondent" (Minister). Court's separation hard to spot right now. Doesn't someone has to stand against a parallel and independent society in unaccountable control taking hold?


----------



## wrussell (Jan 7, 2020)

I could not get any legal help either, but I had the time of my life in the federal court:

I am instructed to put some matters on the record 
your honour.’ 
‘Yes counsel?’ 
‘I am instructed that we will be seeking leave to 
amend the objection to competency.’ 
‘That's statute barred, by being a day late, and under 
the rules of the court, we respectfully submit, that the court 
has no discretion . . .’ 
‘I am not hearing you.’ 
It would not make much difference if the learned 
counsel sprang up on the bench and your honour read the 
Bogus brief on the way up in the lift. 
‘Yes, it was a day late.’ 
You can hardly lie about that, whatever your 
instructions. I would love to see how his honour is going to 
find a way of letting you amend that mishmash. 
‘I am further instructed that the applicant is an 
Australian citizen.’ 
Bad luck mate, that is in her affidavit. Haven't you 
read it? Do you think his honour hasn't? 
Wog acquires citizenship and should shut up. 
‘I am instructed that the wrong respondent is named 
in the application.’ 
Go on mate, Top Gun has a recognised defence if he 
was acting on the direct instructions of his minister. Say 
something about the claims being untrue. 
‘I am instructed that the remedy applied for would 
have no effect and the court should not grant it.’ 
The standard public service dodge—delay as long as 
possible and then try to get out of it by saying—after the 
lapse of time there is no point in trying to fix it up—too bad 
we thought of that—the applicant seeks damages, you galah. 
If she makes out her case, the court has no discretion about 
making an award. One dollar in damages and a million 
dollars in costs. 
‘You should be aware that there can be very large 
costs if this matter continues.’ 
Tell me your honour. 
‘Do you want me to hear you on costs counsel?’ 
‘I have no instructions today, your honour.’ 
‘You should consider yourself lucky, the respondent 
is being very reasonable.
*****************************************
Best of luck.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

wrussell said:


> I could not get any legal help either, but I had the time of my life in the federal court:
> 
> I am instructed to put some matters on the record
> your honour.’
> ...


Thanks for the warning. I reckon growing up in the Oz I did is why I must face what I do now. You had problems of discretion overpowering law. Me too. We’re not the first or last. The endless war is lost when good people say nothing. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aehe.3640270203 
Slavery, racism and fascism was just to seemingly reasonable people until someone had guts to call out the truth. 

Our view of time limitations seems similar, though I am not a lawyer: 
•	Closure of Complaint by Australian Human Rights Commission dated 6May20
•	Originating Application by me faxed 2Jun20. Ack’d by Court 3Jun20. Sealed 5Jun20. ADJR Act 11 c gives Court discretion to extend date.
•	1st & 2nd Respondents ack being served by 6Jun20
•	1st Respondent files Objection to Competency on 7Aug20.
FCA Rule R31.05(1) sets expiry date of 23Jun20 with no Court discretion to extend date.
•	Order on 22Sep20 for 1st Respondent to file minutes by 29Sep20. Minutes never filed. FCA R39.02 sets 29Sep20 without discretion to extend. 
•	No date set on 22Sep20 for 1st Respondent to file Court Books. Books filed 16Oct20. FCA R39.02 by default sets 6Oct20 with no discretion to extend. 

I reckon the 1984 (interesting year) amendment to S17 of the Australian Citizenship Act was made as fodder for young lawyers studying “Wednesbury unreasonableness principles” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Provincial_Picture_Houses_Ltd_v_Wednesbury_Corp

The law operates by a discretionary decision no one has power to make, or statutory reason for making it. It fits right into the principles. 

So does this: I’m born Australian in Australia to Australian parents. Never naturalised and living in Australia, a public officer decides without evidence that I am not Australian. Unlimited discretion. That decision affirmed by 3 more decisions, all on different facts with the only thing in common being the facts did not exist. More Wednesbury examples to study. 

Then I’m denied entry to Oz to see my sister before she passed away, or attend her funeral. Extraordinary unlimited power. If Court reckons the Minister has that sort of power, perhaps Court funding needs review and it’s time justice by public forum be considered.

Thanks for the luck thrown my way.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Some movement today. The Minister finds an "underlying constitutional question" on whether someone born in Australia can be alienated from Australia. A question asked years ago by some bloke on: Can Australian-born be alienated from Australia? - Lifestyle

Born Oz, you're probably protected by Constitution. Naturalised or "resumed" is discretionary statue. 

Those who lost Australian-born and resumed citizenship traded Constitution for statute. A lot of trust in government. I put my trust in Constitution. 
Those quiet on "that other citizenship" should realise your kiddies and their kiddies who need to keep the secret too. Strange days theses days and getting stranger. 

Hearing on 4Nov20 can't consider the "underlying constitutional question", but might be able to ask High Court for an answer. Not sure. I'm denied legal support but could do with some advice.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Now lawyer for the Minister says no underlying constitutional question will be asked or answered. Change to last post:

Source of power used by Parliament in 1984 to make law to alienate Australians born in Australia, living in Australia and never having emigrated or naturalized to a foreign country, has never been found. Law to strip substantive right of Australians was made arbitrarily with reckless disregard for the Constitution. The current Minister has no intention of looking for any source, so the conduct continues.

Personally I think my previous post held the Minister to a brighter light but, hey, I'm no lawyer.


----------



## mustafa01 (Jan 29, 2017)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> Now lawyer for the Minister says no underlying constitutional question will be asked or answered. Change to last post:
> 
> Source of power used by Parliament in 1984 to make law to alienate Australians born in Australia, living in Australia and never having emigrated or naturalized to a foreign country, has never been found. Law to strip substantive right of Australians was made arbitrarily with reckless disregard for the Constitution. The current Minister has no intention of looking for any source, so the conduct continues.
> 
> Personally I think my previous post held the Minister to a brighter light but, hey, I'm no lawyer.


If the question is asked by federal court justice then they have to answer it but does the justice looks intrigued? 
Any decision taken by Minister should be backed by reasonable findings operating within the parameters of law.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

A few things coming together. The [1992]FCA238 ruling changed the understanding of the decision type that operates S17 - since 1984! Presumably, S17 operated on the mandatory finding of foreign citizenship being acquired. A few decisions might be for "favour" though govt says all records are lost. The 1992 ruling meant a discretionary decision needed to be made but there was no statute to make it. What of all those citizenships ceased in the 8 years since the amendment of S17? Rather than send S17 back to Parliament to remake, and fess up to an error, the solution appears to be to ignore all previous decisions, and continue to make future decisions on finding foreign citizenship was acquired. A few exceptions would be made just to make clear why S17 was amended in the first place. Seems no problem that support of all in government, media, academia, and anyone else who could spill the beans had to buy in. That alignment is extraordinary and outrageous to me. Anyone who challenges a decision just gets another one to challenge, and so one. Explains a lot, including the pariah status I have with the Oz law industry. Wonder if those on the inside know they are outside the Constitution and rule of law, and probably showing a foreign allegiance too. Worst thing is human rights of Australians are the pawn keeping it under wraps. Its just a theory mind you. But seems to fit the circumstances.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Applicant's Contentions of Fact and Law filed and served on time today. Anyone interested in a copy? 
Respondent to do same by 30Oct20. 
Court hearing is listed for 4.30pm Melbourne time 4Nov20 . 
Interested in listening live? 
Email _[email protected]_ and ask for a link to VID376/2020 on MS Teams.


----------



## mustafa01 (Jan 29, 2017)

ExiledOz2020 said:


> Applicant's Contentions of Fact and Law filed and served on time today. Anyone interested in a copy?
> Respondent to do same by 30Oct20.
> Court hearing is listed for 4.30pm Melbourne time 4Nov20 .
> Interested in listening live?
> Email _[email protected]_ and ask for a link to VID376/2020 on MS Teams.


Yes, will do.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Comments on the Applicant's Contentions of Fact and Rule would be appreciated. 
I reckon Sections 3 & 4.4 are worth a read. 









VID376-2020 - Notice of Contentions of Fact and Law.pdf


PDF File



1drv.ms


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

mustafa01 said:


> Yes, will do.


Federal Court hearing is tomorrow at 4:30pm Melbourne time - less than a day away.
I just received from the Minister 's lawyer almost 700 pages of material linked below.








20201103 Heiner Bundle of Authorities.pdf


PDF File



1drv.ms





Hmmm... Is the Minister protecting Australia's borders for Australians? Or protecting his own neck?

Not one point in my Contentions of Fact and Law linked below is contended by the Minister. 








VID376-2020 - Notice of Contentions of Fact and Law.pdf


PDF File



1drv.ms





Interested in listening live at 4:30pm Melbourne time?
Email _[email protected]_ and ask for a link to VID376/2020 on MS Teams.


----------



## ExiledOz2020 (Sep 14, 2020)

Hearing over 2 weeks ago and decision pending. Jurisdiction of Fed Court aside, questions without answers:

How did Australia change from being my only country, to not being my country at all?
Was I made un-Australian lawfully?
What constitutional power alienates and denies me entry to Australia?


----------

