20140224-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to JSCEM

8/12/2019 20140224-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to JSCEM

1/60


2/60

p2 24-2-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI seriesby making a reservation, See alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

The litigation was about charged against me for FAILING TO VOTEin the 2001 and 2004federal elections. I had been a candidate in elections.5

While I voted in the 2013 federal Election (In fact the Returning officer Mr King himself wassurprised to see me to vote) as I make it very clear I am not against voting but as I did set out


3/60

p3 24-2-2014




to the Court I was against compulsory voting as a self-educated CONSTITUTIONALIST,I am aware that in April 1891 the Delegated to the Constitution Convention (Official Recordof the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)debated if it should or should not

provide the Commonwealth of Australia with legislative powers to make registration andvoting compulsory. The delegates didnt accept this was appropriate. This even so as I5understand it postal voting already then existed!

Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)QUOTE10

Mr. GORDON:I move:

To strike out the words: "or it person qualified to become such elector."

I do this for three reasons

Mr. REID:Give us one.

Mr. GORDON:One is that everyone born in the Commonwealth is qualified to become an elector.15

HON. MEMBERS:Do not make a speech

Mr. GORDON:My chief point is that I think that registration should be made compulsory. I would notgive a man who has lived here for three years without registration a vote.

Mr. PEACOCK:His name might have dropped off accidentally.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:He may have been away for a trip.20

Mr. REID:Withdraw. (Laughter.)

Mr. GORDON:I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

END QUOTE

25The mere fact that the Delegate held that compulsory registration (and so voting) was not

permissible for the commonwealth to legislate for unless it was provided for in theconstitution may underlines that failing such an amendment to authorise compulsory votingthen any legislation compelling compulsory registration/voting is unconstitutionalOne has to then question why did the AEC and the DPP lawyers acting for the AEC conceal30from the Parliament and the JSCEM this and other issues relevant to elections?Often politicians and even judges are looking at the history of the United Kingdom and thenargue that we have a Westminster system and so what applied in the United Kingdom thenalso applies in the Commonwealth of Australia. How dead wrong they are!And looking at precedents handed down prior to the Handsard records being allowed to be35used (Tasmania Dam case finally allowed this) then all precents as such are to bereconsidered.In the United Kingdom Parliament has unlimited powers and so Ministers within thelegislation whereas in the Commonwealth of Australia this is considerably different.The United Kingdom for example has no such prohibition as exist in s116 of the40

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK)


4/60

p4 24-2-2014




Commonwealth of Australi a Constitu tion Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religionThe Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing anyreligious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall5be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

I refer to the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL (VICT.); EX REL. BLACK v. THE COMMONWEALTH [ 1981]

HCA 2; (1981) 146 CLR 559 (2 February 1981)was wrongly decided!10In my view, Murphy J (dissenting judge) was correct.Wilson J stated at 42;QUOTE

While on present authority it is not permissible to seek the meaning ofs. 116 in the convention debates,END QUOTE15

That was in 1981. But since then we have;http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-

bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50QUOTE20

Constitutional interpretation

The starting point for a principled interpretation ofthe Constitutionis the search for the intention of its

makers[51].END QUOTE

25Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17June 1999)QUOTE

Constitutional interpretation

1. The starting point for a principled interpretation ofthe Constitutionis the search for the intention of its30makers[51].That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutionalinterpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved orenacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used inthe historical context in which they used them[52].In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented atFordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:35

"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - theauthors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have calledconstructive interpretation[54].It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people deadfor centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a40

particular way on a particular occasion."

END QUOTE

Hansard 17-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the

National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) (Re-now- Section 96 of the Constitution)45

Mr. OCONNOR.-It is nicely wrapped up. Any one who reflects upon the conditions which must exist

before this provision can be brought into operation will see that it assumes that the states must be reduced to a

condition of pauperism before they can take advantage of it.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-What would you do if they were?

Mr. OCONNOR.-I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some power50

implied in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been

able to give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such power
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s116.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s116.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s116.html


5/60


6/60

p6 24-2-2014




QUOTE

388 Averments deemed to be provedIn any prosecution in a court of summary jurisdiction in respect ofa contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulationsrelating to compulsory enrolment or compulsory voting, instituted5by an officer or by any person acting under the direction of anofficer, the averments of the prosecutor contained in theinformation or complaint shall be deemed to be proved in the

absence of evidence to the contrary.END QUOTE10

Before going into further details I will first refer to some other issues and then get back to thereligious exemptions. This as the quotations of some of the submissions to the court areextensive, but of the total of submission before the court was only a fraction of it.The fact that lawyers for the AEC are perverting the course of JUSTICE in attempts to15

pursue to succeed for the AEC no matter how they are misusing and abusing their positions tome is of grave concern. If the AEC desires to succeed in litigation even by perverting thecourse of JUSTICE then I view it is not a fit and proper entity to conduct or even beingassociated with elections.

20

AGAIN: Why did the AEC conceal from the JSCEM as to what transpired in the CountyCourt of Victoria and that I comprehensively defeated the AEC?I do not propose to refer to all matters in this submission as I am well aware my effort to setout matters in considerable details often have been ignored.

25In my view, where the WA Senate election has been declared void then all candidates whichstood at the time should have their deposits refunded and also the payment per primary voteshould be reclaimed. It is then for the relevant candidates to seek to sue the AEC for any lossthey incurred. Albeit I have in past submissions to the JSCEM made clear I view the payment

per primary vote is unconstitutional.30

The fact that the Proclamation was not published until 9 October 2001 whereas the writs wereissued on 8 October 2001 is also a matter the AEC concealed from the JSCEM, this even so inthe litigation before the County court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 the AEC didnt challenge

my submissions that the writs for the 2001 federal elections were all invalid because of the35failure to publish the Gazette before the writs were issued.I provided the Court with evidence obtained under FOI that proved the writs were sent out bythe Government Printer on 9 October and on 10 October 2001 whereas the writs had beenissued on 8 October 2001. As a matter of fact in the Magistrates Court of Victoria on 16

November 2005 counsel for the AEC filed a copy of the Gazette dated 8 October 200140claiming it proved the proclamation was published, and then submitted to withdraw the sameas evidence when I pointed out certain defect with this Special Gazette. And in the appeals I

relied upon the same to succeed in the appeals for that also.The evidence obtained from the Commonwealth Gazette clearly dispute the date of S421 of

8 October 2001 being correct as it wasnt published until 22 October 2001 in Tasmania and45so S421 ought to have been dated 22 October 2001 be held to be so for Tasmania.

Reportedly the AEC commissioner is paid some $800.000.00 a year and cannot even manageto conduct proper elections! I could have done a better job for far less.In my view the JSCEM ought to carefully read my submissions of 19 July 2006 and discover50what I then exposed being wrong in the conduct by the AEC still has continued ever since.The Magna Carta provided for FREE ELECTIONS, which was without the force of arms.As the Magna Carta does apply to the Commonwealth of Australia (and even the US Supreme

court held the Magna Carta still applies to the US Constitution) then the force of arms, such as


7/60

p7 24-2-2014




a Sheriff enforcing a fine for an alleged defaulter of a fine not to vote, I view is in conflictwith the rights provided for in the Magna Carta.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. DEAKIN.-

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the5liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of

liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good

government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTE

And10HANSARD 17-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. SYMON(South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the

people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta

for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole15history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples ofAustralia to vote.The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new

charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves .

END QUOTE

And20HANSARD 17-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter ofthe Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under

it;but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-25the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the

Constitution, they are bound to serve.What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution ofthis kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow

degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the

guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained;and so, in the highest sense, the30 court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal aswill preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of

constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphereof the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE35

Political libertyis not as what some Parliament may dictate or permit.What political liberty stands for is that when a person exercises a certain right then andonly then the person can be deemed to be compelled to follow certain rules applicable to theexercise of such rights. For example, when a person exercise the right to drive a motor vehicle40the person then is bound to act in accordance with road traffic regulations relevant to the

usage of a motor vehicle. However, if the person remains at home than any legislation as tospeed, etc, are totally irrelevant because they do not then apply to that person.Likewise, when a person exercises his/her rights to vote then the person can be compelled tovote according to a certain procedure but if the person desires not to vote then the person45cannot be compelled to act as if he./she votes.

Further down in this submission I have also set out the issue desire as was before the

County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006, and this was not challenged by the AEC either.Hansard 24-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates50QUOTE

Sir GEORGE TURNER:It would never do to allow in this Federal Parliament that those representativeswho are elected upon the most liberal franchise possible should be outvoted by those who would be elected

by a very limited franchise indeed. As this may fairly be regarded as the National House, representing the


8/60

p8 24-2-2014




people of the various States as a nation, we ought to have uniformity in the franchise. We must leave it to theFederal Parliament to say what the franchise should be. At the same time, as some colonies have given theright of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to takefrom any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to

allow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of5exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. I would gothe length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise theirfranchise, should have the opportunity of doing so.

END QUOTE

.10 Political liberty therefore is that an elector can opt to vote and be required to comply wi ththe voting procedures governed by law or the elector can elect not to vote and that would bethe end of the matter.

Again:15WELSH v. UNI TED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNI TED STATES,

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,

Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970 20 January 1970QUOTE

3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose20conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are basedon a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief

emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.

4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of

exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should25

extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp.

361-367.

END QUOTE

Therefore, as long as there is a religious exemption then the entire part of compulsory30registration/voting is an absurdity as it flies in the face of reasonable conduct.The scandalous conduct is that the AEC and so its lawyers conspired to pervert the course ofJUSTICE time and time again to have innocent citizens convicted by concealing from the

courts the true meaning and application of the constitution as well as relevant judicialdecisions.It must be very obvious that the AEC knew it had so to say hope in hell to defeat me35and so embarked upon a path of gross deception upon the JSCEM, the government and theParliament as well as the Governor-General and the Governors. I during the 2013 federalelection did publish material setting out that an elector cannot be compelled to vote, even onthe Facebook page of the AEC and at no time did the AEC seek to oppose my writings.Obviously well aware that because I comprehensively defeated the AEC in court it has so to40say no leg to stand upon. (Typing errors in the document have been included)QUOTEAustralian Electoral [email protected]

45Sir/Madam,

I understand from your Facebook website details that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.succeeded in his appeals against convictions of FAILING TO VOTE, on 19 July 2006, in the CountyCourt of Victoria, and have quoted below details published on the AEC Website in relation to some ofhis submissions. I understand that the AEC didnt in any form or manner seek to oppose the numerous50submissions in support of his appeals.

I rely therefore, upon this information published on the AEC Facebook website, as my right to object tovoting, and do urge you to respond with your acknowledgement of my constitutional and other legalrights to do so, irrespective if it are religious or non-religious beliefs.55

https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission/posts/510419275711079?comment_id=53976906&offse

t=0&total_comments=1


9/60

p9 24-2-2014




QUOTE (19-8-2013) Australian Electoral Commission Facebook WebsiteOn 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia (AEC) in 2 appeals beforethe County Court of Victoria.As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my ADDRESS TO THE COURT included the following, which wasnot challenged by the prosecution (nor any other about 50 constitutional issues I submitted to the court)5

QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURTAs shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an invasion as to his rights.Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the matter in U.S. Supreme Court.

10 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religionThe Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing anyreligion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for

prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious testshall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust15under the Commonwealth.

WELSH v. UNI TED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNI TED STATES,CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,

Argued January 20, 1970,20Decided June 15, 1970

1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in theprevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it beingclear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by25reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal,organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that iscontrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose30conscientiousobjection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on asecular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose beliefemanatesfrom a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.35

4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy ofexempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, shouldextend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp.361-367.

And;40http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml

Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization

Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter andsupport materials provided in the following link:45

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of arecognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not50require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious

exemption to be challenged.

AndSome schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.55You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you tosubmit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; donot feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.

And
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtmlhttp://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml


10/60

p10 24-2-2014




Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the

law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are

betting on the

fact that you don't know your rights.

5What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be asthis would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion asthis would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the religiousobjection Subsection245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious

person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNI TED10 STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the religious objection applies as much to nonreligious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly isentitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.END QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

15So on that basis, the Court could never convict me for FAILING TO VOTE, because the electoral acthad an exclusion for religious objection and that means I was entitled to a non-religious objection also,as otherwise it is unconstitutional

Again:20QUOTE

3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whoseconscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are

based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include thosewhose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source.25

END QUOTE

Lets be clear about it that gthe lawyers involved acting for the AEC (Ausrtralian Electoral Commission) are perverting the course of justice for and onbehalf of the AEC when they are concealing theabove stated from the court.30.Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)

QUOTE

As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or

choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his35client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty

to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his

client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He

owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously

misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly40make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant

authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered,all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific

instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.

END QUOTE45.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention),QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-

Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of50justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;

END QUOTE.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE55Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on

terms that are just to both.

END QUOTE.

In my view, the AEC concealing this from the courts in every occasion they score a conviction proves60to be more like a debt collection agency then an impartial party conducting elections.Considering the hundreds of thousands of electors each time fines inappropriately by the AEC one may

just ask, what is its purpose? Is it to hold fair and proper elections or to use elections to financially


11/60

p11 24-2-2014




shore up a government?Time will tell if the AEC does reveal the truth, but safe to say that its hand delivered document tohomes, titled Your official guide to the 2013 federal election, claims that voting is compulsory, thisI clearly disproved on 19 July 2006, and this document also fails to set out that any person having anon-religious objection then likewise as with a religious objection doesnt have to vote. 5In my view, not just to the judges but also to the AEC and its lawyers the following should be applicable,as the Framers of the Constitution embedded as a legal principle in the Constitution!

For the above, I view that anyone who object to voting, even on a non-religious ground for this also

should not be fined for FAILING TO VOTE, and I challenge the AEC to prove me wrong.! After all, I10 am quoting from the ADDRESS TO THE COURT I have on 19 July 2006 before the court when Icomprehensively defeated the Australian Electoral Commission! Again, it never even attempted tochallenge my submissions whatsoever!END QUOTE (19-8-2013) Australian Electoral Commission Facebook WebsiteI trust that the information obtained from your Facebook Website is correct, and you will (again) acknowledge15this in your response to me.

Were you decide not to acknowledge my rights and it would eventuate that you were to pursue to litigateagainsgt me then I intend to infiorm the Court of this my correspondence and that I view you mayseek to pervert the course of justice in seeking court orders adverse to my person.20

Elector in the electorate of,House of Representative:Senate:

Name:25Address:State/Territory:Email address:SignedDated30END QUOTE

(Again typing errors were left in the quotation)

I have clearly stood my position as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and the Court upheld both35

my appeals and as such I view the Commonwealth of Australia must uphold this. Becauseneither the constitution or the legislative provisions were enacted merely for my sake butrelates to the general community then when I challenged the legislation being ULTRAVIRES then unless and until a Court of competent jurisdiction ruled against it and declaredthe legislation to be INTRA VIRES, the legislation and/or part(s) of the legislation subject to40my objection(s) remains ULTRA VIRESand so without legal force.

It is an absurdity that if the AEC can obtain a ruling in its favour then it applies to all electorsbut if a ruling is against the AEC then somehow it can disregard the ruling.In my view the AEC conduct underlines that it disregard the rule of law and cannot conduct45FAIR and PROPER elections..

One of the issues I raised in my defence was that as a candidate I couldn t be forced to votefor any of my opponents. After all, the very reason I stood as a candidate was because I heldnone of the other candidates were of the calibre and trustworthy, etc, as I held they ought to50

be. So why on earth would I then vote for them?Just consider that a person Adesire to apply for a job and so many others do. Ais thenasked to list which person should get the job and whomever received the most number ofvotes from the candidates would be the successful candidate. It would be deemed an absurdityhaving to vote for other applicants. Why spend money and effort on applying for a job if you55have to vote and perhaps your vote could land another applicant with the job?The same with elections. Why should a candidate standing on certain values, etc, vote for anopponent? And this I also placed before the court.,


12/60


13/60

p13 24-2-2014




ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

As the book was published 12 days prior to the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoriahearing there could have been no doubt that I admitted I had not voted. But that was simplyirrelevant because if one cannot be compelled to vote then if one voted or not is irrelevant.5.

I have also an issue with legislation that may refer to allowing a person to vote not residing inthe Commonwealth of Australia and therefore under alliance of a foreign nation. No one can

be permitted by law to vote in federal elections but by virtue of s41. Yet, we have that forexample a former Australian who gave up her Australian associated nationality to become a10Dutch national then years later retained her Australian associated nationality even so she isnot entitled to vote in State elections and so has no State franchise but can nevertheless vote infederal elections. Surely this unconstitutional conduct cannot be allowed to remain..

Hansard 2-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates15QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under theoperation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be acitizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a

state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual20citizenshipexists, but it is not dual citizenshipof persons, it is dual citizenshipin each person. There may

be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a

citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual

citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen

of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.25But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and thosewho say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do notexpect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, indealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenshipof thisCommonwealth in any way or exclude anybody[start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and30clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want toplace in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the

right of depriving me of citizenship.I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such athing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should

be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.35

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this

Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a

citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or

restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to40disabilities, as aliens, and so on.

END QUOTE

One only has to consider that Senator Ray (JSCEM 2002 transcript) asked the AEC if aperson challenging an election would have to pay cost and the AEC denied this, whereas in45reality the AEC pursues cost. How on earth can the JSCEM trust the AEC when it openly

perjure itself during JSCEM hearings? After all the JSCEM doesnt require a witness to takean oath but nevertheless they are bound by their statements.

As I understand it the AEC is not accountable to the minister (albeit this is unconstitutional)50but has to report to the JSCEM, which in itself has no powers to punish JSCEM for failure tocomply with legal procedures required by the Act. So, the AEC is so to say a law onto itselves and the JSCEM is so to say a toothless tiger!


14/60

p14 24-2-2014




.

Lets compare the time table the AEC furnished to the Prime Minister and which was thenprovided to the Governor-General/Governors versus the true and correct calculations of thetime table.

5

Er ror! Use the Home tab to apply ShortT to the text that you want to appear here.QUOTE

155 Date for close of Roll s

The date fixed for the close of the Rolls shall be 7 days after the date of the writ.

156 Date of nomination10

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the date fixed for the nomination of the candidates shall not be less

than 10 days nor more than 27 days after the date of the writ.

(2) Where a candidate for an election dies, after being nominated and before 12 oclock noon on

the day fixed by the writ as the date of nomination for the election, the day fixed as the date

of nomination for the election shall, except for the purposes of section 157, be taken to be the15day next succeeding the day so fixed.

157 Date of poll ing

The date fixed for the polling shall not be less than 23 days nor more than 31 days after the

date of nomination.

158 Poll ing to be on a Satur day20

The day fixed for the polling shall be a Saturday.END QUOTE

Again

Er ror! Use the Home tab to apply ShortT to the text that you want to appear here.25 QUOTE

The date fixed for the polling shall not be less than 23 days nor more than 31 days after the date of

nomination.END QUOTE

30Therefore, where the date of (closure of) nomination was set for Thursday 15 August 2013then the first day AFTER this date to commence counting is Friday 16 august 2013.Because it also requires shall not be less than 23 daysthen as per Authorities such as theHigh court of Australia the last day being the 23rd day cannot be used for a pol to be held.Hence, the 24th day being Sunday 8 September 2013 was not a day for polling because the35

legislation requires The day fixed for the polling shall be a Saturday. Then the firstavailable Saturday was 14 September 2013!Below I have explained it in more details, including Authorities, as was submitted to theCounty court of Victoria on 19 July 29006. As such one must be complete idiots/morons notto be able to understand this set out. And as the AEC didnt challenge this either, as it didnt40challenge anything, then I view the JSCEM ought to hold the AEC accountable for thisdisastrous rot it continues with where it should know better. What kind of intelligencerequires a man being paid a reported $800,000.00 a year if he cant fathom simplecalculations a 4th grade primary school student ought to comfortably being able to do on acalendar.45


15/60

p15 24-2-2014




In this case a proposed referendum was railroaded in the process. For sure I opposed thevalidity of the referendum on constitutional grounds but that is irrelevant to the issue that theelectors were conned out of a proposed referendum because the AEC can t even use acalendar to work out dates.We expect a child to mature to some extend when completing primary school in about 6 years5and yet the AEC cannot even manage this single items in more than 12 years, as to properlycalculate dated!I never had any formal education in the English language and neither was it my nativelanguage but surely even I can understand the concept of shall not be less.Considering the number of people, including lawyers involved in the AEC and the lot cannot10even together manage a simple calculation as to dates? Year after year, decade after decade!Their stupidity and arrogance, including of the lawyers, resulted to a lot of waste of taxpayersmonies and yet they seem to be rewarded with promotions, etc, rather than to be held accountablefor their stupidity.

15http://australianpolitics.com/2013/08/04/federal-election-timetable.html QUOTE

2013 Federal Election TimetableAug 04, 2013 Leave a CommentThis is the official timetable of key dates for the 2013 Federal Election.20

The dates show the election is being conducted within the minimum timeframe whereby pollingday must be no less than 33 days from the issue of the writ. As has been the practice in recentyears, the writ will be issued within 24 hours of the election announcement.

Event Date Explanation

Announcement

of ElectionSunday 4

August 2013

The Prime Minister visits the Governor-General and advises adissolution of the House of Representatives. The Governor-General is entitled to dissolve the House underSection 28 ofthe Constitution.

Following vice-regal approval, the Prime Minister announcesthe election date to the public. Rudd did this via an email toALP members and supporters within 10 minutes of leavingGovernment House.

Issue of WritMonday 5

August 2013

On this day the current 43rd Parliament is prorogued, a legalact which has the effect of terminating all business before theHouse. A minute later the House is dissolved. Both these

ceremonial acts are delegated to the Governor-GeneralsOfficial Secretary. A notice of dissolution is placed on the

parliamentary doors.

The writ is the official legal document that commands theAustralian Electoral Commission to conduct the election inaccordance with dates required by the Constitution and theCommonwealth Electoral Act. The writ must be issued within10 days of the dissolution or expiration of the House ofRepresentatives.

At the same time as the Governor-General issues the writ for
http://australianpolitics.com/2013/08/04/federal-election-timetable.htmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/2013/08/04/federal-election-timetable.htmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/text/28.shtmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/text/28.shtmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/text/28.shtmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/text/28.shtmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/text/28.shtmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/2013/08/04/federal-election-timetable.html


16/60

p16 24-2-2014




the House of Representatives, State Governors are requestedto issue writs for the half-Senate election in each state. Unlikethe House, the Senate is not dissolved.

Close of Rolls

Monday 12

August 2013(8.00pm)

The electoral rolls close seven days after the issue of the writ,in accordance with Section 155 of the CommonwealthElectoral Act.

Voters have one week after the issue of the election writ toensure that they are correctly enrolled.

New voters can enrol in this time and people who havechanged residence can also notify the Australian ElectoralCommission of their new address.

Close of

Nominations

Thursday 15

August 2013

(Midday)

Nominations for the election must close between 10 and 27days after the issue of the writ, in accordance with Section156 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. People intending tostand as a candidate at the elections have until this date tosubmit their nomination forms.

Bulk nominations from political parties are submitted at anearlier time.

Declaration of

Nominations

Friday 16

August 2013

(Midday)

Nominations must be publicly declared 24 hours afternominations close, in accordance with Section 176 of theElectoral Act.

At each of the 150 divisional offices of the AustralianElectoral Commission, the nominations will be declared andthe order of names on the ballot paper will be determined by a

blind-folded ballot.

Polling Day

Saturday 7

September

2013 (8.00am-

6.00pm)

Polling day must be between 23 and 31 days after the close ofnominations, in accordance with Section 157 of the ElectoralAct.

Pre-poll voting takes place at Electoral Commission officesprior to this date. Mobile polling booths also visit hospitals,nursing homes, prisons and remote locations in order to makevoting easier for people who may experience difficulty.

Return of

Writs (latest

date)

Wednesday 13

November

2013

The writs must be returned within 100 days of their issue, inaccordance with Section 159 of the Electoral Act. This

timeframe allows divisional returning officers sufficient timeto count all votes and, if necessary, conduct recounts

Meeting of

Parliament

No later than

Friday 13

December

2013

Section 5 of the Constitution requires the new House to meetwithin 30 days of the return of the writs.

In practice, the House is likely to meet in late October or earlyNovember.

Filed Under:2013 Federal Election,Election Timetable,House of Reps,Rudd Tagged With:2013 Federal Election,election timetable

END QUOTE
http://australianpolitics.com/text/5.shtmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/text/5.shtmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/category/elections-aus/2013-federal-electionhttp://australianpolitics.com/category/elections-aus/2013-federal-electionhttp://australianpolitics.com/category/voting/election-timetablehttp://australianpolitics.com/category/parliament/house-of-representativeshttp://australianpolitics.com/category/executive/prime-minister/ruddhttp://australianpolitics.com/tag/2013-federal-electionhttp://australianpolitics.com/tag/election-timetable-2http://australianpolitics.com/tag/election-timetable-2http://australianpolitics.com/tag/election-timetable-2http://australianpolitics.com/tag/2013-federal-electionhttp://australianpolitics.com/tag/2013-federal-electionhttp://australianpolitics.com/category/executive/prime-minister/ruddhttp://australianpolitics.com/category/parliament/house-of-representativeshttp://australianpolitics.com/category/parliament/house-of-representativeshttp://australianpolitics.com/category/voting/election-timetablehttp://australianpolitics.com/category/voting/election-timetablehttp://australianpolitics.com/category/elections-aus/2013-federal-electionhttp://australianpolitics.com/category/elections-aus/2013-federal-electionhttp://australianpolitics.com/text/5.shtmlhttp://australianpolitics.com/text/5.shtml


17/60

p17 24-2-2014




Further down this submission I have included quotes from the County Court of Victoriasubmissions regarding Authorities how time/days are to be calculated.As I understand it the writs issued had:15 August 2013 closing nominations as such 23 days must be counted at conclusion of the 155Augustand the poll cannot be held until the conclusion of the 23 rdday. As such, it is not on the23rdday! The following time table was forwarded to Mr Tony Abbott and Mr Clive Palmer on 16October 2013 also.

Day 1 16 August 2013 Friday10Day 2 17 August 2013 SaturdayDay 3 18 August 2013 SundayDay 4 19 August 2013 MondayDay 5 20 August 2013 TuesdayDay 6 21 August 2013 Wednesday15Day 7 22 August 2013 ThursdayDay 8 23 August 2013 FridayDay 9 24 August 2013 SaturdayDay 10 25 August 2013 Sunday

Day 11 26 August 2013 Monday20Day 12 27 August 2013 TuesdayDay 13 28 August 2013 WednesdayDay 14 29 August 2013 ThursdayDay 15 30 August 2013 FridayDay 16 31 August 2013 Saturday25Day 17 1 September 2013 SundayDay 18 2 September 2013 MondayDay 19 3 September 2013 TuesdayDay 20 4 September 2013 WednesdayDay 21 5 September 2013 Thursday30

Day 22 6 September 2013 FridayDay 23 7 September 2013 SaturdayDay 24 8 September 2013 Sunday, after which the first Saturday can become polling day!Day 25 9 September 2013 MondayDay 26 10 September 2013 Tuesday35Day 27 11 September 2013 WednesdayDay 28 12 September 2013 ThursdayDay 29 13 September 2013 FridayDay 30 14 September 2013 Saturday, first and last available polling date!

END QUOTE40

The error the AEC constantly and persistently hard headed is making is that it fails to accept thatthe 23rdday cannot be used for a poll to be held as the 23 are the minimum days between theissue of the writs and the day the actual poll is held. This despite court judgment as to how daysare to be calculated and despite that it was comprehensively defeated by me on 19 July 2006 forthe same error in calculation. This is also why the supervision of how the AEC conduct elections45should be in the hands of a supervisor not the AEC itself.

The same with the 2001 Federal election:QUOTE 2-11-2001 Affidavit of Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka

34. I have spend considerable time researching the wording SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN50and besides having a multitude of documentation setting out the difference of the meaning it is


18/60


19/60

p19 24-2-2014




Where in an Act any reference to time occurs, such time shall, unless it is otherwise specificallystated, be deemed in each State or part of the Commonwealth to mean the standard or legal time inthat State or part of the Commonwealth.

Australian Treaty Series 1987 No 95

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

CANBERRA

Rule 12bis

Computation of time limits

12bis.1 Periods expressed in years10

When a period is expressed as one year or a certain number of years, computation shall start on the dayfollowing the day on which the relevant event occurred, and the period shall expire in the relevantsubsequent year in the month having the same name and on the day having the same number as themonth and the day on which the said event occurred, provided that if the relevant subsequent month hasno day with the same number the period shall expire on the last day of that month.15

12bis.2 Periods expressed in months

When a period is expressed as one month or a certain number of months, computation shall start on theday following the day on which the relevant event occurred, and the period shall expire in the relevantsubsequent month on the day which has the same number as the day on which the said event occurred,

provided that if the relevant subsequent month has no day with the same number the period shall expire20on the last day of that month.

12bis.3 Periods expressed in days

When a period is expressed as a certain number of days, computation shall start on the day following the

day on which the relevant event occurred, and the period shall expire on the day on which the last day ofthe count has been reached.25

Victorian Consolidated Legislation

CREDIT ACT 1984 - SECT 162Computation of periods

162. Computationof periods30

Where, for the purposes of this Act, any limited period less thaneight days from or after a date or event is appointed or allowed for

giving a notice or doing any other act or thing or for the takingeffect of any act or thing, Sunday, Saturday and any public or bank35holiday throughout the State shall not be reckoned in the computationof that limited period.

ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD (1950) 81 CLR 16140

COURTHigh Court of Australia

5. In the present case the document served allowed "the period of fourteen

days next ensuing after the second day of May" 1948. That period would expire45
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca198474/s5.html#this_acthttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca198474/s5.html#bankhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca198474/s5.html#bankhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca198474/s5.html#this_act


20/60

p20 24-2-2014




at midnight on 16th May 1948. The document purports to be "dated" 30th April,but it was served on 3rd May. A period of fourteen days from 30th April wouldexpire at midnight on 14th May, but a period of fourteen days from 3rd Maywould not expire until midnight on 17th May. If, therefore, the words "date ofthe notice" inthe Actmean the date which the document bears on its face, the5minimum period whichthe Actrequires to be allowed ran from 30th April andexpired at midnight on 14th May, and the notice complies withthe Act,becauseit allows up to midnight on 16th May.

The wording in Section 157 of theElectoral Act 1918makes it clear beyond doubt that the10legislators intended to have the polling day on a Saturday and as such that isnt argued.However, in view that the office of the Australian Electoral Commission was closed onSunday the 14thof October 2001 and I was then unable to obtain certain nomination formsfrom that office it ought to be accepted that the 10 days must exclude also the Sunday. Itought to be accepted that the Legislators had every intention to provide the constituents15with an opportunity of 10 days to provide nominations. If then the office of the AustralianElectoral Office is closed on the Sunday, as I discovered, and so prevents me to obtaindocuments to obtain nominations then I view the 10 days as referred to by the Act must be

construed as in accordance with CREDIT ACT 1984 - SECT 162 and must exclude theSunday for counting of the days.20Unlike in theAssociated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v Balmford (1950) 81 CLR161case where the reference to the number of days was an issue that would be applicablethroughout the years, with an election the SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 10 DAYS isonly occurring during election time and as such the Australian Electoral Commission hadan ability to have its offices open or accept that indeed Section 36 is applicable to exclude25the Sunday!I submit my view that the 10 days completed on Friday night the 19 thday of October 2001,at midnight.

36.That I was advised, and so have noticed notifications in the newspapers, that the Australian30Electoral Commission closed the nominations of candidates on Thursday the 18th day ofOctober, 2001. This was well short of the SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 10 DAYS as itwas in effect during the 10th day of the excluded period and so after 9 days and 12 hours

precisely, being 24 hours less then the minimum legislated requirement, as it denied the 12hours of the 10thday as well as the 12 hours up till 12 noon on the nomination day.35

37.That various legislations exist where the Sunday is excluded from calculating days, I canpresent further documentation at the hearing to support the matters argued.

38.That I was advised, and so attended, to a draw of the candidates numbers and allotment40upon the ballot paper conducted shortly after 12 noon on Friday the 19 th day of October2001. This draw was to be held AFTER 24 hours of the closing of the nominations and somistakenly held upon the incorrect closing of the nominations held on Thursday the 18thday of October, 2001 and the draw ought to have been held on the earliest on Monday the22ndday of October, 2001 after 12 noon as Sunday is a day the Australian Electoral Offices45are closed, after closing of nominations ought to have been held (Table B) on Saturday 12noon 20thday of October, 2001. Even if Nominations had closed upon Table A then still thedraw ought to have been held no earlier then Saturday the 20thday of October 2001.

39.That with the provisions of a polling day to be held not less then 23 days after the50nomination day then I view the following is applicable:To continue using Table A:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1945144/


21/60

p21 24-2-2014




10thday Thursday 18thday of October 2001 10thday after Writs issue.11thday Friday 19thday of October 2001 Nomination day12thday Saturday 20thday of October 2001 1stday for polling day13thday Sunday 21stday of October 2001 2ndday14thday Monday 22ndday of October 2001 3rdday515thday Tuesday 23rdday of October 2001 4thday16thday Wednesday 24thday of October 2001 5thday17thday Thursday 25thday of October 2001 6thday18thday Friday 26thday of October 2001 7thday19thday Saturday 27thday of October 2001 8thday1020thday Sunday 28thday of October 2001 9thday21stday Monday 29thday of October 2001 10thday22ndday Tuesday 30thday of October 2001 11thday23rdday Wednesday 31stday of October 2001 12thday24thday Thursday 1stday of November 2001 13thday1525thday Friday 2ndday of November 2001 14thday26thday Saturday 3rdday of November 2001 15thday27thday Sunday 4thday of November 2001 16thday

28

th

day Monday 5

th

day of November 2001 17

th

day29thday Tuesday 6thday of November 2001 18thday2030thday Wednesday 7thday of November 2001 19thday31stday Thursday 8thday of November 2001 20thday32ndday Friday 9thday of November 2001 21stday33rdday Saturday 10thday of November 2001 22ndday34thday Sunday 11thday of November 2001 23rdday2535thday Monday 12thday of November 2001 first day clear.Pollingday Saturday 17thday of November 2001

40.That by Table B excluding Sundays and Melbourne Cup Day the following applies;30

11thday Friday 19thday of October 2001 10thday after Writs12thday Saturday 20thday of October 2001 Nomination day13thday Sunday 21stday of October 200114thday Monday 22ndday of October 2001 1stday for polling day15thday Tuesday 23rdday of October 2001 3rdday3516thday Wednesday 24thday of October 2001 4thday17thday Thursday 25thday of October 2001 5thday18thday Friday 26thday of October 2001 6thday19thday Saturday 27thday of October 2001 7thday20thday Sunday 28thday of October 20014021stday Monday 29thday of October 2001 8thday22ndday Tuesday 30thday of October 2001 9thday23rdday Wednesday 31stday of October 2001 10thday24thday Thursday 1stday of November 2001 11thday25thday Friday 2ndday of November 2001 12thday4526thday Saturday 3rdday of November 2001 13thday27thday Sunday 4thday of November 200128thday Monday 5thday of November 2001 15thday29thday Tuesday 6thday of November 2001 Melbourne Cup day30thday Wednesday 7thday of November 2001 16thday5031stday Thursday 8thday of November 2001 17thday

32

nd

day Friday 9

th

day of November 2001 18

th

day


22/60

p22 24-2-2014




33rdday Saturday 10thday of November 2001 19thday34thday Sunday 11thday of November 200135thday Monday 12thday of November 2001 20thday36thday Tuesday 13thday of November 2001 21stday37thday Wednesday 14thday of November 2001 22ndday538thday Thursday 15thday of November 2001 23rdday39thday Friday 16thday of November 2001 Clear for election to occur.40thday Saturday 17thday of November 2001 Polling day

41.That using either Table A or Table B the earliest election date (polling day) could be held10from the day of the Writs issued on the 8 thday of October, 2001 being Saturday the 17 thday of November, 2001.

That I requested personally for Mr M King, Divisional Returning Officer for me to beprovided with a list of all names of constituents in the electorate of Jagajaga this was declined.15This has prevented me to conduct my electioneering in a manner, as I desired such as postingout notices etc. On Thursday the 1stday of November 2001, I received finally a CertifiedCopy of the Rolls, some 15 days later. With the delay, it would be sheer impossible to sendout to all constituents or most of them any material.

END QUOTE 2-11-2001 Afidavit of Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka20

On 4 August 2005 I defeated the Commonwealth of Australia in the Magistrates Court ofVictoria at Heidelberg that AVERMENT couldnt be used by the Commonwealth ofAustralia in a State court exercising federal jurisdiction, and in the end the magistrate ruledthat the Commonwealth of Australia would have to file and serve all material it sought to rely25upon. I had submitted to the court that the Framers of the Constitution made clear theCommonwealth of Australia couldnt interfere with the judicial processes of State Courtsexercising federal jurisdiction and in fact this was underlined where the Victorian Parliamentdid legislate for the use of AVERMENT for the Commonwealth of Australia regarding oilrigs but not as to election issues.30

Council for the AEC then commented to the Magistrate that this would be truck load ofdocuments and the Magistrate made clear that that was an issue the AEC had to sort out withthe Defendant.Yet, for so far I am aware of the AEC concealed this from the Federal Parliament the Federalgovernment as well as the JSCEM!35One had to ask why?Moreover, they also concealed this time and time again in litigations since then in court casesagainst other electors and one has to ask why?If anything to me it underlines the AEC used inappropriate conduct to conceal relevant detailsfrom the courts and by this time and time again pervert the course of JUSTICE.40

How many electors were ending up with criminal convictions because the AEC perverted thecourse of JUSTICE one should investigate! Indeed considering also what is set out below,this as the 2013 federal election if the legislated time table has any meaning then that electioncould only have been held on 14 September 2013 and not 7 September 2013 as the writs45continue to have an incorrect calculation, this, even so this was an issue before the CountyCourt of Victoria on 19 July 2006 regarding the same problem with the 2001 and 2004 writs.As such the AEC so to say is a law upon itself.The mislead the Prime Minister and Governor/General/Governors as to the correct calculationas to election time table and then seek to excuse itself for that it did not issue the writs.50

Hansard 28-1-1898Constitution Convention Debates


23/60

p23 24-2-2014




QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-If we make it read that it shall take place on the date of the proclamation by the Governor-General it will

only take place when the Governor-General will take that action by publishing a proclamation. Then itwould follow the action of the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE5

Again; will take that action by publishing a proclamation

It shows; Then it would followthe action of the Commonwealth!This is embedded in the Constitution and the Commonwealth of Australia, so the FederalParliament has no constitutional powers to interfere with this section what so ever.10Hence, where there was no proclamation published on 8 October 2001 then the Parliament wasnever prorogued and the House of Representatives was never dissolved when it wasASSUMED it had been.As set out below there is no proper system governing procedures involved to set in train anelection process and to supervise this to occur in a proper manner, and hence the Australian15electoral commissioner being both in supervisory capacity and conducting the election has aconflict of interest and as it appears to me willing to abuse the legal processes to ensure hisunconstitutional and illegal elections will prevail.

It should be noted that the Framers of the Constitution did very much consider treaties, etc20but restricted it to those powers otherwise provided for in the constitution to the

Commonwealth, and no more.

The following quotations are from submissions to the County Court of Australia on 19 July

2006 which were not challenged by the Commonwealth of Australia (AEC)25

QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURTCounty Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

It is not the counter argument itself that the Defendant is worried about, but the deceptiveconduct employed in the past by the lawyers acting for the Australian Electoral Commission in

their litigation to the extend as to deliberately replace words in what is claimed to be an30 Authority being quoted as to pretend to the Court that a judge made a certain ruling even so theruling is a fraudulent version to deceive the Court. Such as Mr Peter Hanks QC did before theFederal Court of Australia and later again made a deceptive statement to the High Court ofAustralia.

35For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in hisargument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;

QUOTE

22 In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd(1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred40to the general rule that not less than so many days refers to clear days unless thecontext or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention.

END QUOTEHis quotation is again false and misleading!

45Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;

QUOTEunless the context orthe statutory intentionreveals a contrary intention

END QUOTEThis ought to be;50

QUOTE

unless the context or the subject matterreveals a contrary intention


24/60

p24 24-2-2014




END QUOTE

Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case forthe Court to deal with a statutory intention versus subject matter.

5Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001);

The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language (not

less that orat least a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific asfound in ss156(1) and 157.10

Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search shall not be less

than or shall not be less that. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for theAustralian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement werefound by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.15

We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the

ASSOCIATED DOMI NI ONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD

(1950) 81 CLR 16120

What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the casereally was on about.As the authority stated:

25The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period whichwas too short by one day, and theActs Interpretation Actdoes not affect this position.

Mr Peter Hank QC didnt argue that the authority wasnt relevant, to the contrary he argued its

relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on about. As30such, it had nothing to do with within as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the usagewithin was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did imply.

It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeeddeceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry35about the means as long as it achieves his end results.Because I expect the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to come up with anynonsense and unable to verify the correctness of any claims they may make about anyAUTHORITYthey may refer to I am left no alternative but to present my own research.Lawyers are OFFICERS OF THE COURT but I experienced that when it comes to the40Australian Electoral Commissioner being the instructing party then it seems to me fromexperiences their oath of alliance is worthless and they cannot be trusted, as set out also further

in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT.

It is my view, that had Mr Peter Hanks QCnot concealed matters and not presented fraudulent45Authorities and how they applied then the Federal Court of Australia would not have ruled that ithad no legal jurisdiction, and would in fact have granted the orders I sought. And in the end thiscase would never have eventuated before this Court as then matters could have been addressedappropriately before any federal election had been held!

50I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitutionis not and cannot be regarded tolimit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) religious objection but includes alsoany secular belief objection.

If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being theistic belief then it would be unconstitutional.55
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/


25/60

p25 24-2-2014




QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer5Melbourne Office, 22ndFloor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc

T01567737& Q01897630AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN10

Re; religious objection (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)offend Section 116 if the Constitutionif it excludes secularbeliefbased objections.

Madam,15As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate

that while using the religious objection referred to in subsection 245(14) of the

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objectiononly to an theistic belief based religious objection but in fact it also includes any secular

belief based religious objection, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for20an objection. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth ofAustralia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only theistic belief based religious

objections. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source ofreligious objection have a valid objection.

Neither do I accept that a person making an religious objection requires to state his/her25religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a religious objection as the

mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being areligious objection. Therefore, the wording religious objection is to be taken as objection

without the word religion having any special meaning in that regard.If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!30I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKAEND QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURTCounty Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q1089763035

QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURTCounty Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

The Defendant submits, that albeit the Defendant is not required to give any evidence as to theprecise grounds of religious objection nevertheless somedetails have been set out which indicatethat the Defendant for many years had such religious objections. No duty was upon the40Defendant to specifically refer to this to the Australian Electoral Commission when it questionedabout their alleged failure to vote, as all along the Defendant contested the validity of theAustralian Electoral Commission to do so where the Defendant all along had his constitutional

based objections on foot against the elections being held. Considering other matters set outextensively the issue of if the Defendant voted and if not why not is not relevant unless and until45first all constitutional based objections have been appropriately dealt with. If for example theCourts were to declare that indeed section 245 of the CEA1918is beyond constitutional powersthen it was so ab ini tio and it then is clearly for this also not relevant if the Defendant did ordidnt vote, and if he did not vote why not as there is no legislation applicable for this. Indeed,the Defendant in his correspondence to the Australian Electoral Commission made known that50Fact sheet 17, that was provided by the Australian Electoral Commission about various courtdecisions (authorities) regarding VOTING that none of them were deemed by the Defendant

to be relevant as they did not reflect the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.


26/60

p26 24-2-2014




IN RE WOOD (1988) 167 CLR 145 F .C. 88/018

END QUOTE"The election is either valid or invalid. If5invalid, the reason of the invalidity is notmaterial so far as regards its consequences. Wethink it follows that, upon the avoidance of theelection itself by the Court of Disputed Returns,

the case is to be treated for all purposes, so10far as regards the mode of filling the vacancy,as if the first election had never beencompleted, unless there is something in the

HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" Constitution to lead to a contrary conclusion."15

END QUOTE

The following details were shown on the FREEDOMOF INFORMATIONreleased computerrecords of the Commonwealth of Australia as to copies of the Gazette having been transferred,after printing.20

11/03/02 GO BOI 53/2 GAZETTES Wr-Off 20 0.20 MGIRVAN11/10/01 GO SGAZ421 . Subs Issue Adj Dist -6 -0.06 HEMSAN9/10/01 GO CAS0153391 Trf to CA Transfr -2 -0.02 CA ZZ BMO5IAI9/10/01 GO ICN0910ADL ICN to AD Transfr -1 -0.01 AD ZZ DCRANE259/10/01 GO ICN1076CAN ICN to CA Transfr -3 -0.03 CA ZZ DCRANE9/10/01 GO ICN0907MEL ICN to ME Transfr -1 -0.01 ME ZZ DCRANE9/10/01 GO ICN0886PER ICN to PE Transfr -1 -0.01 PE ZZ DCRANE9/10/01 GO ICN0881TOV ICN to TH Transfr -1 -0.01 TN ZZ DCRANE8/10/01 GO FGS0153363 CANPRINT PO-Fins 35 0.35 GHANNA308/10/01 GO FGS0153363 CANPRINT Receipt 35 0.35 GHANNA

While 35 copies of the Special Gazette S421 was requested to be printed and the computerrecords show they were on 8 October 2001, it also shows that not until 9 October 2001 first 2copies and later a further 3 copies had been transferred to Canberra (CA) As such the35Proclamation was not published until at the earliest 9 October 2001, and therefore in regard of allwrits governing the House of Representatives and the Senate sets for the territories there were novacancies when the writs were issued on 8 October 2001.

Despite a request by the Defendant in his 19 September 2002 correspondence, for example, to40the Australian Electoral Commission as to provide certain details to prove the validity of theelections basically little had been forthcoming and no evidence at all as to the Proclamation infact having been published on 8 October 2001! To the contrary, evidence provided proves that

not until 9 October 2001 the proclamation was published in Canberra and on later dates in Statesand Territories. As such, where the writs were for this also defective then none of the members45of the House of Representatives were validly elected and neither the Senators for Territories.

IN RE WOOD (1988) 167 CLR 145 F .C. 88/018

QUOTE50

The return does not meet the exigency of the writ (Drinkwater v. Deakin,at p 638) because Senator Wood was incapable of filling the 12th place.That is not to say that, putting to one side "a mere abuse of the rightof nomination or an obvious unreality" (Harford v. Linskey (1899) 1 QB


27/60

p27 24-2-2014




852, at p 862 and cf. Pritchard v. Mayor, &c. of Bangor (1888) 13 AppCas241), the Electoral Officer who makes a return has authority himself todetermine the qualifications of a candidate (who declares and maintainsthat he is duly qualified: HYPERLINK5"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s170.html" s.170 (a)(ii) of HYPERLINK"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Act ) orto refuse to return the name of an otherwise successful candidate whose

qualifications are in issue: see HYPERLINK10 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s172.html" s.172 of HYPERLINK"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Act andEvans v. Thomas (1962) 2 QB 350. But the performance by the ElectoralOfficer of his ministerial functions in these respects does not determine15the validity of the return or the efficacy of the election of anunqualified person to a vacant place in the Senate.

END QUOTE

Clearly, the declaration by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission itself did not purportedly20validate the election and neither any candidate declared elected where there was no valid

election.

Where then Mr John Howard was not elected in 2001, so neither others, then he neither couldhave been Prime minister for any longer then 3 Months, as Section 64 limits the appointment of a25non elected person to no longer then a period of three months.

Hence, Mr John Howard was neither then Prime Minister to advise the Governor-General for ageneral election in 2004! Indeed, neither was Mr John Howard in any legal position to beinvolved in the appointment of the Governor-General Michael Jeffrey and as such that also the30appointment also is unconstitutional and invalid (without legal force- ULTRA VIRES).

THE DEFENDANT SUBMITS, THAT WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT OR A CARETAKING GOVERNMENT IN OFFICE THE COUNTRY GRINDS TO A HOLD.Wherethere was no valid government since November 2001 then neither was there any authority for the35Australian Electoral Commission to pursue the Defendant as to alleged breaches of law, and theCommonwealth of Public Prosecutions (Prosecutor) neither for this could have legal authority to

pursue the Defendant regarding the alleged FAILING TO VOTEin the purported 2001 Federalelection and the purported 2004 Federal election.As the Senate elections also were ULTRA VIRES, because the writs had not been issued40according to relevant legislative provisions, then when half of the senators retired in 2002 therewere no duly elected replacements for them. Further, when the half of the Senate that retainedtheir seat in 2002 retired in 2005 then not a single Senator was left in the Senate as none had

been duly elected. All Bills passed since 2001 are for this also NULL AND VOIDand withoutlegal force.45END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURTCounty Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

QUOTE 19-7-2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT -County Court of Victoria

Where and how can the validity of a Proclamation be challenged?

50A Proclamation, within the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918clearly does not fall within themeaning of electoral matter and as such neither an Issue that can be pursued before the Court of Disputed Returns.A Writ is an electoral matter when issued. However, if the writ was defective then the writ never had any

legal force and likewise never could invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Disputed Returns but remained for


2

Documents

20140224-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to JSCEM