You are on page 1of 19

Page 1

1
2
3 Australian Electoral Commission 0-0-2019
4 (forwarded via email https://www.aec.gov.au/About_Aec/Contact_the_AEC/)
5
6 COMPLAINTS
7
8 Sir/Madam,
9 I understand that the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) requested the Australian
10 Federal Police to investigate a response by Mr Culleton to a questionnaire. In my view the AEC
11 should not appear to be politically bias and for this then should also request the Australian
12 federal Police to investigate all and any responses of questionnaires by those who are pursuing
13 re-election.
14
15 I attach also a copy of my document 20190506-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
16 O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The theft of our democracy, etc, & the constitution-Supplement 48-
17 Electoral Terrorism-etc-
18 This document sets out certain issues, albeit in limited format, and used Mr William Shorten also
19 known as ill Shorten response to the questionnaire as an example.
20
21 Electoral terrorism is being pursued and we need to stop this. Every candidate in the
22 federal election should read this document to get some understanding/comprehension
23 about relevant issues.
24
25 This document can be downloaded from:
26 https://www.scribd.com/document/408839382/20190506-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-
27 Hlavka-O-W-B-ISSUE-Re-the-Theft-of-Our-Democracy-Etc-the-Constitution-Supplement-48-
28 Electoral-Terrorism
29
30 As you ought to be aware from your records I comprehensively defeated the AEC
31 (Commonwealth of Australia) in case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 before the County
32 Court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction involving numerous constitutional issues
33 including the issue about CITIZENSHIP (Not being a Commonwealth of Australia legislative
34 power), COMPULSORY VOTING (being unconstitutional), AVERMENT, etc. On 4-2-2002
35 the Magistrates Court of Victoria by consent of the Commonwealth of Australia/AEC ordered
36 that my S78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS should be heard and determined
37 by The High Court of Australia. This so far never eventuated. It is a matter of legal principles
38 that when a party in litigation object to the validity of certain legislative provisions and/or part
39 thereof then this is ULTRA VIRES and remain to be so Ab Initio for all citizens (not just
40 regarding myself) unless and until if ever at all a court of competent jurisdiction declares it to be
41 INTRA VIRES. This has never eventuated.
42
43 CONSIDER ALSDO:
44 https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/?
7-5-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2

1 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)


2 QUOTE
3 In criminal cases, prosecuted under the laws of the United States, the accused has the constitutional right
4 "to be informed *558 of the nature and cause of the accusation." Amend. VI. In United States v. Mills, 7
5 Pet. 142, this was construed to mean, that the indictment must set forth the offence "with clearness and all
6 necessary certainty, to apprise the accused of the crime with which he stands charged;" and in United States
7 v. Cook, 17 Wall. 174, that "every ingredient of which the offence is composed must be accurately and
8 clearly alleged." It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading, that where the definition of an
9 offence, whether it be at common law or by statute, "includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the
10 indictment shall charge the offence in the same generic terms as in the definition; but it must state the
11 species, — it must descend to particulars. 1 Arch. Cr. Pr. and Pl., 291. The object of the indictment is,
12 first, to furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to
13 make his defence, and avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further
14 prosecution for the same cause; and, second, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may
15 decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. For this, facts
16 are to be stated, not conclusions of law alone. A crime is made up of acts and intent; and these must be
17 set forth in the indictment, with reasonable particularity of time, place, and circumstances.

18 It is a crime to steal goods and chattels; but an indictment would be bad that did not specify with some degree
19 of certainty the articles stolen. This, because the accused must be advised of the essential particulars of the
20 charge against him, and the court must be able to decide whether the property taken was such as was the
21 subject of larceny. So, too, it is in some States a crime for two or more persons to conspire to cheat and
22 defraud another out of his property; but it has been held that an indictment for such an offence must contain
23 allegations setting forth the means proposed to be used to accomplish the purpose. This, because, to make
24 such a purpose criminal, the conspiracy must be to cheat and defraud in a mode made criminal by statute; and
25 as all cheating and defrauding has not been made criminal, it is necessary for the indictment to state the
26 means proposed, in order that the court *559 may see that they are in fact illegal. State v. Parker, 43 N.H. 83;
27 State v. Keach, 40 Vt. 118; Alderman v. The People, 4 Mich. 414; State v. Roberts, 34 Me. 32. In Maine, it is
28 an offence for two or more to conspire with the intent unlawfully and wickedly to commit any crime
29 punishable by imprisonment in the State prison (State v. Roberts); but we think it will hardly be claimed that
30 an indictment would be good under this statute, which charges the object of the conspiracy to have been
31 "unlawfully and wickedly to commit each, every, all, and singular the crimes punishable by imprisonment in
32 the State prison." All crimes are not so punishable. Whether a particular crime be such a one or not, is a
33 question of law. The accused has, therefore, the right to have a specification of the charge against him
34 in this respect, in order that he may decide whether he should present his defence by motion to quash,
35 demurrer, or plea; and the court, that it may determine whether the facts will sustain the indictment.
36 So here, the crime is made to consist in the unlawful combination with an intent to prevent the enjoyment of
37 any right granted or secured by the Constitution, &c. All rights are not so granted or secured. Whether one is
38 so or not is a question of law, to be decided by the court, not the prosecutor. Therefore, the indictment should
39 state the particulars, to inform the court as well as the accused. It must be made to appear — that is to say,
40 appear from the indictment, without going further — that the acts charged will, if proved, support a
41 conviction for the offence alleged.

42 But it is needless to pursue the argument further. The conclusion is irresistible, that these counts are
43 too vague and general. They lack the certainty and precision required by the established rules of
44 criminal pleading. It follows that they are not good and sufficient in law. They are so defective that no
45 judgment of conviction should be pronounced upon them.

46 The order of the Circuit Court arresting the judgment upon the verdict is, therefore, affirmed; and the cause
47 remanded, with instructions to discharge the defendants.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Hence, to do some fishing expedition that the Defendants has to prove having voted in that
51 regard is contrary to the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
52 .

7-5-2019 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 3

1 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


2 QUOTE
3 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
4 point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
5 heard.
6 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
7 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
8 the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
9 accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
10 first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Hence, where the Commonwealth of Australia/AEC fails to present relevant evidence to prove
14 an elector had not voted and neither objected to vote then I view there is NO CASE TO
15 ANSWER.
16
17 My wife and I received a document titled “Your official guide to the 2019 federal election
18 SATURDAY 19 MAY 2019”
19
20 “Voting is compulsory for all Australian citizen aged 18 years and over”.
21
22 Here the AEC refers to “Australian citizen” which constitutionally means a person residing in a
23 State/Territory. As there are people who are not permanently residing in Australia they are
24 constitutionally not a “citizen” and cannot have franchise. As the Framers of the constitution
25 made clear the Commonwealth is to rely upon the electoral rolls of the states and by applying the
26 Commonwealth determination of the age of when a person is an adult then uses those rolls for
27 federal elections.
28
29 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
30 QUOTE
31 41 Right of electors of States
32 No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of
33 the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the
34 Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 It must be clear that the constitution doesn’t provide any franchise to any person merely for
38 being in the Commonwealth but limit the right to vote in federal elections to being entitled to
39 vote in a State! Hence any Commonwealth electoral law is unconstitutional.
40 The same applies in the USA!
41
42 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
43 Australasian Convention)
44 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
45 Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,
46 which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 As such the Teritiories are entitled to have their own electoral laws as they are actually owned by
50 the combined states.
51
52 What is relevant however is that contrary to the presentation by the AEC that when a person
53 attends to a polling station for voting their name is marked on the electoral law it really isn’t this
54 is because it is the relevant State electoral roll that needs to be marked as the purported
7-5-2019 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 4

1 Commonwealth Electoral law is unconstitutional. Hence marking of the purported electoral law
2 is a waste of time and shouldn’t be used in court either as evidence.
3
4 https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/?
5 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
6 QUOTE
7 The sixth and fourteenth counts state the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the
8 citizens named, being of African descent, and colored, "in the free exercise and enjoyment of their several
9 and respective right and privilege to vote at any election to be thereafter by law had and held by the people in
10 and of the said State of Louisiana, or by the people of and in the parish of Grant aforesaid." In Minor v.
11 Happersett, 21 Wall. 178, we decided that the Constitution of the United States has not conferred the
12 right of suffrage upon any one, and that the United States have no voters of their own creation in the
13 States. In United States v. Reese et al., supra, p. 214, we hold that the fifteenth amendment has invested the
14 citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is, exemption from discrimination in the
15 exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. From this it
16 appears that the right of suffrage is not a necessary attribute of national citizenship; but that exemption from
17 discrimination in the exercise of that right on *556 account of race, &c., is. The right to vote in the States
18 comes from the States; but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United
19 States. The first has not been granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States; but the last has
20 been.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 It is beyond me that there are so many lawyers in the parliament as well as legal advisers in
24 numerous parliamentarian bodies and not a single one of them ever seemed to have realized that
25 the commonwealth has no constitutional powers to create a Commonwealth electoral Roll. As
26 the Framers of the constitution debated the commonwealth has to rely upon State electoral rolls.
27 And because the issue was as to the so called baby franchise of 16 years old in Western
28 Australia possibly being entitled to vote the Framers of the Constitution held that any person
29 granted franchise in a state had to be of ADULT age as determined by the commonwealth as to
30 be able to vote in federal elections.
31
32 Hansard 20-7-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
33 Australasian Convention)
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. DEAKIN: Before that is put I wish to direct attention to the point put by Mr. Lewis, which I do not
36 think has been exactly caught. It is worthy of consideration.

37 Mr. LEWIS: I suggest that it should be made to read:

38 If the electors of a majority of the States approve of the proposed law, and if a majority of the electors who
39 vote on the subject also approve of the proposed law, then the proposed law shall be presented to the
40 Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

41 The principles embodied in that amendment and in that of Mr. Barton are radically different.

42 Mr. ISAACS: It will give a very unfair advantage to South Australia, which has women voters.

43 Mr. BARTON: South Australia would count twice that way.

44 Dr. COCKBURN: They only count as electors.

45 Mr. LEWIS: I did not consider that phase of the question.

46 Dr. COCKBURN: That principle is the right one.

47 Mr. LEWIS: How are you to reckon the people of the States? Is it to be on a population basis, men,
48 women and children?

49 The CHAIRMAN: The only amendment I can put is that suggested by Mr. Barton.
7-5-2019 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 5

1 Dr. COCKBURN: And this is an amendment on that.

2 The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Barton has now suggested a second amendment I do not know which be wishes to
3 propose.

4 Mr. LEWIS: If these words are struck out, and Mr. Barton's amendment becomes a substantive motion,
5 the consideration of my amendment will be quite in order.

6 Mr. DEAKIN: I was struck by the point raised by Mr. Lewis. It Seems a very fair one to raise, and a very
7 fair one to insist upon if there were a uniform franchise through the Commonwealth. One obstacle is that in
8 South Australia at present there is a different franchise from that obtaining in any other portion of the
9 Australian continent, and the double voting power in that colony and in any which follow its example would
10 be certainly unfair to the remaining States. If the franchise were uniform I do not think that the more
11 populous States should have their abstinence from voting allowed for, as it is in this plan. It might even
12 enable them to negative a proposal which secured, not only a majority of the States, but actually a majority of
13 those persons who took the [start page 1026] trouble to go to the poll. This plan would not enable a proposal
14 to be carried unless the States in the majority were also the most populous States of the group. It is right to
15 require a majority of the States as States. But why should you require that the people of the States whose
16 electors approve of the alteration should also contain a majority of the people of the Commonwealth? One
17 can conceive that if you have one State much outstripping the others in population, although You might have
18 practically all the other States, except perhaps one small one, in favor of the proposed reform, and although a
19 majority of those who went to the poll were in favor of the proposed reform, the population in the oustanding
20 State would be so numerous that the majority of the States would not include a majority of the
21 Commonwealth. The amendment would be defeated solely by the abstinence from voting of that very large
22 State.

23 Mr. LEWIS: Can you defend that?

24 Mr. DEAKIN: I do not think it is fair. I can conceive circumstances in which it would not be. But the hon.
25 member's proposal is not fair unless he couples with it a provision that it is only to apply after a uniform
26 franchise has been established.

27 Dr. COCKBURN: The proposal will undoubtedly be an advantage to the women of South Australia, as it
28 will class them as electors instead of as infants. Otherwise it is a baby franchise. It will be some year or two
29 before Federation is accomplished, and it will be some time after that before the Constitution is amended, and
30 there will be plenty of time for the franchise to become uniform. I do not suppose there will be any
31 amendments in the Constitution for ten years.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 Hansard 20-7-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
35 Australasian Convention)
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. HIGGINS.-It would exclude baby suffrage.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Hansard 20-7-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
41 Australasian Convention)
42 QUOTE
43 Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I do not know that there is anybody here who
44 wishes that persons under 21 should have the vote. If there is, I should like him to say so.
45 Mr. HOWE.-Your leader said so.
46 Mr. KINGSTON.-The leader of the Convention did not say that he wishes it.
47 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-What I said was that I do not believe anybody here wants the
48 franchise to be given to persons under 21 years of age. I was not referring to anybody
49 outside. Now, what are we discussing? You certainly have provided in the clause with
50 regard to the amendment of the Constitution to the effect that the South Australian vote,
7-5-2019 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 6

1 being an adult vote, shall be allowed to continue. You want to carry that out logically, and
2 therefore you provide that any other colony shall be allowed to adopt franchise laws
3 similar to the franchise law of South Australia. I do not suppose that anybody wants to
4 provide more than that; but you want to make the provision of this particular clause broad
5 enough to allow any other colony to extend its franchise to the same extent as the franchise
6 has been enlarged in South Australia. The amendment of Mr. Glynn would certainly allow
7 the colonies to make any laws they like-baby suffrage, I think, was one of the
8 interjections I heard.
9 Mr. GLYNN.-None of the states could do that. They could not go beyond the South
10 Australian suffrage, and have baby voters.
11 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-But I think the honorable member will admit that this does not
12 relate to the present time, but to the time when this Bill is passed by the Imperial
13 Parliament.
14 Mr. MCMILLAN.-We are on very dangerous ground.
15 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I think so too, and if we are going to alter the clause at all we
16 had better have a very precise limitation as to what we mean. Many of the colonies
17 consider that, the South Australian law is an innovation on the laws that they are
18 accustomed to, and I do not think that anybody in Australasia wants to go one bit further
19 than South Australia has gone in the direction of extending the franchise.
20 [start page 1853]
21 Mr. DOUGLAS.-Oh, yes; there are such people.
22 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Are there? I did not know there were. I do not think any
23 responsible person in Australasia would contend for more than adult suffrage. That being
24 so, may I suggest that we make the clause commence:-
25 No elector who at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or who, being an adult, has
26 the right to vote at elections,
27 and so on. That is the wording we have used in clause 121, where we have provided that-
28 Until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes
29 uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the votes for and against the
30 proposed law shall be counted in any state in which adult suffrage prevails.
31 Mr. HOWE.-That is the clause for amending the Constitution.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 It is clear that the Commonwealth can set the age it deems a person for franchise is entitled to
35 vote it does however not provide any legislative powers to create its own Commonwealth
36 Electoral Roll. As in the USA system a person derives franchise (electoral rights) pending the
37 relevant state providing for this. The problem within the USA is now that undocumented persons
38 (being persons unlawfully in the USA) by some states are now permitted to vote merely if
39 holding a driver license such as in presidential elections as to sway the votes for a particular
40 political party’s candidate.
41

7-5-2019 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 7

1 Within the provisions of Sections 8 & 34 the Commonwealth could legislate as to qualifications
2 but upon non discriminating manner for all states/Territories. All commonwealth laws must be
3 applicable to the whole of the Commonwealth.
4 Motor vehicle departments across the country have accidentally allowed a small
5 number of noncitizens to register to vote.
6 Because State (in Australia) do enroll students not even reaching 18 years of age and also as I
7 understand it those with driver license and perhaps state taxation records, etc, it means that many
8 persons unlawfully in Australia are likely enrolled.
9 It means that ultimately the states can increase their percentage of voters in federal elections if
10 only to grand franchise to any visitor and/or visa card holder for election State purposes There is
11 absolutely nothing the Commonwealth can do to prevent this, because it can only determine
12 within Section 41 to when a person for federal electoral purposes is deemed to be an ADULT.
13 Neither can it deny a person from voting merely because of a criminal record nor for being held
14 in a prison system other than that provided within sections Sections 8 & 34.
15 If for example Tasmania desire to boost its percentage for election purposes then allow any visit
16 franchise during a federal election deemed to be a “citizen” in a constitutional meaning that the
17 person is deemed to reside in Tasmania as his place of abode when staying overnight then the
18 Commonwealth is bound to allow for this unless within Sections 8 & 34 this is prohibited for
19 Commonwealth election purposes. Neither does the constitution allow the Commonwealth to
20 deny any person to register before or on the election date. Its legislative powers it to provide for
21 federal elections but cannot use this to deny anyone to register as an elector with a State and any
22 State can allow for a person to register up to and until the very date of the federal election.
23 Sections 8 & 34 cannot deny a person who is at ADULT age to vote on Election Day merely
24 because of not being registered with the Commonwealth. Again the States only can have
25 electoral rolls. This is the system that I understand is used also in the USA.
26
27 In a sense "Mass hallucinations" now the bedrock of politics in Australia. To use a term
28 used at https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-27-everything-the-left-believes-is-complete-
29 fiction-mass-hallucinations.html albeit in regard of the USA.
30
31 I understand that from media announcements such as via 91.5FM Smooth radio channel the AEC
32 claims that voting is compulsory. In my view this is false and misleading as no decision was
33 made since my objection to the validity of the part of compulsory voting that resulted that
34 compulsory voting legislation was declared INTRA VIRES in my legal objection.
35 .
36 On 4 August 2005 the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
37 then ordered that the AEC (Commonwealth of Australia was to file and serve all documents it
38 relied upon. This was as I objected to the usage of AVERMENT by the Commonwealth to be
39 constitutionally applicable. It may be noted that on a later appeal the County court of Victoria
40 exercising federal jurisdiction in case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 then noted that the
41 commonwealth had not file/present any evidence. As such this underlines that the county court
42 of Victoria agreed with the 4 August 2005 orders of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at
43 Heidelberg of 4 August 2005.
44
45 Moreover, as I during the successful appeals also relied upon 245(14) of the Commonwealth
46 Electoral Act 1918 being unconstitutional.
47
48 The quotations are reproduced with any typing error as was in the original documentation)
49
50 QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers
51 T01567737 & Q10897630

7-5-2019 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 8

1 As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an
2 invasion as to his rights. Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the
3 matter in U.S. Supreme Court.
4
5 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
6 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any
7 religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall
8 be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
9
10 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED
11 STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
12 THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
13
14 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
15 and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
16 in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
17 analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
18 and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
19 worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
20 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of
21 that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
22 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
23 exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief
24 while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with
25 that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from
26 a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
27 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the
28 longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
29 nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
30 have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
31
32 END QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE County Court of Victoria, Case
33 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
34
35 And
36
37 QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers
38 T01567737 & Q10897630
39 I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded
40 to limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) “religious objection” but includes
41 also any secular belief objection.
42
43 If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being “theistic belief” then it would be
44 unconstitutional.
45
46 QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
47 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
48 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
49
50 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
51 Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
52 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
7-5-2019 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 9

1 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc


2 T01567737 & Q01897630
3 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
4
5 Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
6 offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
7
8 Madam,
9 As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
10 that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
11 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an
12 objection only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also
13 includes any secular belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever
14 a person uses as grounds for an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution
15 prohibit the Commonwealth of Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only
16 “theistic belief” based “religious objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely
17 moral, ethical, or philosophical source of “religious objection” have a valid objection.
18 Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
19 religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as
20 the mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as
21 being a “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken
22 as “objection” without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
23 If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
24 I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
25
26 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
27 END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
28 END QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE County Court of Victoria, Case
29 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
30
31 And
32 QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case
33 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
34 Where then Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 has been ULTRA
35 VIRES, at least since challenged by the Defendant, albeit it is ULTRA VIRES from when it
36 was originally enacted as any legislation that is ULTRA VIRES because of being beyond
37 constitutional powers is then ULTRA VIRES from when it was enacted, then the fact that
38 nevertheless the Australian Electoral Commission fined tens of thousands of electors itself
39 ought to be a major scandal and indeed requires a ROYAL COMMISSION. Further the fact
40 that despite this the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions continued to pursue
41 enforcement of Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and in deed as is
42 currently before the Court charged the Defendant with FAILING TO VOTE in the 2004
43 purported federal election, and even scored a conviction on 17 November 2005 also
44 underlines that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is using taxpayers funds
45 to employ lawyers to illegally litigate charges for which in the circumstances there was no
46 legal justification. The onus was upon the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to
47 pursue that the High Court of Australia may declare the legislative provisions INTRA
48 VIRES before any further charges could be pursued, such as in regard of the 2004 purported
49 Federal election.
50

7-5-2019 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 10

1 The issue is that at least from 4-12-2002 (albeit it was earlier because of the objections made
2 by the Defendant) Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was ULTRA
3 VIRES and for this any further litigation or other fines by the Commonwealth Electoral
4 Commission and/or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in regard of the same
5 purported 2001 Federal election and/or the subsequent purported 2004 Federal election and/or
6 any by election could not be legally sustained where Section 245 ever since remained ULTRA
7 VIRES.
8
9 Any legislative provisions that becomes ULTRA VIRES is so not just in regard of the
10 person/Defendant who makes the objection but it becomes ULTRA VIRES to the whole of
11 the Commonwealth of Australia. To every person who otherwise might be subject to this
12 legislative provisions. It would be utter and sheer nonsense if any legislative provisions could
13 be declared ULTRA VIRES for one Defendant but not for other Defendant. Commonwealth
14 of Australia legislative provisions must apply to all and any person without discrimination
15 and so it is either ULTRA VIRES to all people or INTRA VIRES to all people. It would be
16 abhorrent to contemplate that every person has to obtain in their own right a legal decision as
17 then the High Court of Australia could be forced to decide tens of thousands of cases
18 governing the same legal provision. clearly, this is not what is possible. The 1999 HCA 27
19 Wakim case is a clear example, where the High Court of Australia declared that the so called
20 Cross Vesting Act indeed was ULTRA VIRES, and this applied to anyone not just to Wakim!
21
22 The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions pursues the courts to convict Defendants
23 time and again, and obtained this to be done concealing from the Court that Section 245
24 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in fact was ULTRA VIRES and had not been declared by
25 the High Court of Australia to be INTRA VIRES.
26 Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an
27 advocate)
28 "As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot
29 pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on
30 behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his
31 client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that
32 he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he
33 directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is
34 the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He
35 must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of
36 fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities,
37 even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all
38 relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
39 specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court."
40
41 Yet, despite Orders by the magistrate ( ON 4-8-2005) to provide to the Defendant all relevant
42 material as Section 388 of the CEA1918 was not held applicable, the Commonwealth Director
43 of Public Prosecutions failed to do so on and after 17 November 2005.
44 The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions concealed from the Court on 16 and 17
45 November 2005 that Section 245 was ULTRA VIRES. In fact concealed this time and again
46 so also from the Courts in other proceedings dealing with charges of FAILING TO VOTE.
47
48 Tim Evans, Director Elections Systems & Policy, Australian Electoral Commission
49 16 January 2006
50 • Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to determine whether a
51 person has completed their ballot paper prior to placing it in the ballot box. It
7-5-2019 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 11

1 is therefore not possible to determine whether all electors have met their
2 legislated duty to vote. It is, however, possible to determine that an elector
3 has attended a polling place or mobile polling team (or applied for a postal
4 vote, pre-poll vote or absent vote) and been issued with a ballot paper.
5
6 While the writer relies upon the issue that it can be established if a person attended to a
7 polling place “possible to determine that an elector has attended a polling place”, the truth is
8 that the defendant was known to have attended to the Polling Place, and so with his wife, yet
9 no records of this exist, as none are held. Indeed, the issue of ballot papers neither can be
10 relied upon as incorrect names are at times marked of and so people who are deemed to have
11 voted in fact have not and people who are deemed not to have voted in fact did vote.
12 Therefore, any charge of FAILING TO VOTE is not based upon accurate evidence but merely
13 based upon whatever the Australian Electoral Commission may deem applicable and then the
14 Defendant is given the onus of proving his/her innocence.
15 A person my have posted his/her ballot paper and it may never have been received by the
16 Australian Electoral Commission, beyond the fault of the person having posted the postal
17 vote.
18 END QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria,
19 Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
20
21 It is not for the AEC to determine if an elector objects upon religious or other grounds as
22 this would interfere with the freedom of religion, which includes not to practice a religion.
23 .
24 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
25 Australasian Convention)
26 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
27 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty
28 and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is
29 enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the
30 whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
31 END QUOTE
32 And
33 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
36 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
37 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
38 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
39 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
40 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
41 END QUOTE
42
43
44 QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case
45 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
46 http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
47
48 Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
49 Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious
50 exemption letter and support materials provided in the following link:
51
52 Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
53
54 Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and
7-5-2019 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 12

1 practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member.


2 However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing
3 your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.
4
5 And
6 Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than
7 required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or
8 daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet
9 the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your
10 religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
11 And
12 Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely
13 unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by
14 deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't
15 know your rights.
16
17 What appears to be clear is that a “religious objection” is not qualified to a specific religion
18 and neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it
19 be associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the
20 Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the “religious objection” Subsection
21 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious
22 person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in
23 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the
24 “religious objection” applies as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore,
25 anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of
26 having any specific religion mentioned.
27 END QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria,
28 Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
29
30 And
31
32 QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case
33 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
34
35 The Defendant submits, that the charge of FAILING TO VOTE in regard of the (purported)
36 2004 federal election cannot have any legal justification, this as on 4 December 2002 upon the
37 submission of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, in view of constitutional
38 challenges by the Defendant, the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg adjourned
39 matters pending a judicial decision by the High Court of Australia to determine if the
40 legislative provisions objected against were INTRA VIRES. Such decision has so far not
41 been forthcoming. Hence the legislative provisions objected against, including Section 245
42 CEA1918 remains ULTRA VIRES. Hence, since 4-12-2002 Section 245 could no longer be
43 used to pursue any fines/charges against anyone and neither so against the Defendant. As such
44 the FAILING TO VOTE charge in regard of the (purported) 2004 federal election is without
45 legal justification and VEXATIOUS.
46 END QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria,
47 Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
48
49 As I had already made my legal challenges by way of S78B NOTICE OF
50 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and otherwise then the subsequent charge relating to the
51 2004 federal election clearly was a gross abuse and misuse as well as vexatious. While
7-5-2019 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 13

1 purportedly the now Senator Hinch was defeated with his legal team objecting to compulsory
2 voting whereas I as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate represented myself
3 successfully in both appeals is that I did my own elaborate research and presented this to the
4 court and the AEC concealed this in the Hinch case!
5
6 QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case
7 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
8 The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions pursues the courts to convict Defendants
9 time and again, and obtained this to be done concealing from the Court that Section 245
10 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in fact was ULTRA VIRES and had not been declared by
11 the High Court of Australia to be INTRA VIRES.
12 Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an
13 advocate)
14 "As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot
15 pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on
16 behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his
17 client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that
18 he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he
19 directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is
20 the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He
21 must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of
22 fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities,
23 even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all
24 relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
25 specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court."
26
27 Yet, despite Orders by the magistrate ( ON 4-8-2005) to provide to the Defendant all relevant
28 material as Section 388 of the CEA1918 was not held applicable, the Commonwealth Director
29 of Public Prosecutions failed to do so on and after 17 November 2005.
30 END QUOTE written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria,
31 Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
32
33 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/64.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(csr%20and%20eddy%20)
34 CSR Limited v Eddy [2005] HCA 64; (2005) 80 ALJR 59 (21 October 2005
35 QUOTE
36 13. These events placed the Court of Appeal in a difficult position. It is of course
37 commonplace for the courts to apply received principles without argument: the
38 doctrine of stare decisis in one of its essential functions avoids constant re-litigation
39 of legal questions[32]. But where a proposition of law is incorporated into the
40 reasoning of a particular court, that proposition, even if it forms part of the ratio
41 decidendi, is not binding on later courts if the particular court merely assumed its
42 correctness without argument[33]. "[T]he presidents, ... sub silentio without argument,
43 are of no moment"[34].
44 14. Sullivan v Gordon, of course, cannot be criticised for proceeding by assumption, or sub
45 silentio. The court focused very directly on the question of whether Burnicle v Cutelli
46 should be overruled. But Sullivan v Gordon cannot be regarded as having proceeded by
47 argument. None is recorded, and it flows from the stand of the parties at each of the
48 hearings that very little, if anything, is likely to have been said against overruling
49 Burnicle v Cutelli. No amicus curiae appeared to defend it. The normal function of
50 forensic argument in pointing out difficulties in and necessary qualifications to the

7-5-2019 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 14

1 competing propositions advanced by adversaries could not be fulfilled. Hence the


2 great advantages of adversarial debate were not available to the court. In Miliangos
3 v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd[35] Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: "although certainly a
4 case is not decided per incuriam merely because it is argued on one side only ... , the
5 absence of a contrary argument will sometimes make it easier to establish a per
6 incuriam exception, and in any case a judgment in undefended proceedings or a
7 decision on an uncontested issue tends to have less authority than one given after
8 argument on both sides." Further, Sullivan v Gordon, unlike other cases in which
9 binding authorities have been overruled despite the absence of adversarial argument[36],
10 was not a case in which there was any dissenting judgment which the majority reasoning
11 might have taken account of and profited from.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 Where a party in legal proceedings doesn’t contest/challenge the submissions of the other party
15 then the Court is entitled to hold that the non-responsive party concede the truth of it all.
16
17 Hence, the total uncontested/unchallenged submissions of 409 pages are deemed to have been
18 upheld as the Court did not take note to objecting in any manner to any of the content of the
19 written submission
20
21 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 Part 1 149 pages
22 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 Part 2 134 pages
23 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 Part 3 126 pages
24 --------------- +
25 Total written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT 409 pages
26
27 It must therefore be very clear that the AEC, at least in my view, each time pursuing to prosecute
28 a elector for failing to vote where the elector indicated not willing to vote it perverted the course
29 of justice as I view the AEC(so the Prosecutor) was obligated to inform the court that within
30 S116 of the constitution any elector is entitled to object to voting without giving any reasons at
31 all as to the basis of such objection. The Prosecutor being an Officer of the Court (if a lawyer)
32 then I view placed the administration of justice in disrepute and perverted the course of justice
33 and committed CONTEMPT OF COURT as well as CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE
34 COURT when at the bar table pursuing this kind of conduct. The AEC as the instigator also must
35 be held legally liable.
36
37 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
38 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
39 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
40 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
41 that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
42 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
43 any private person would be.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 As such AEC officials can and I view should be held liable before the courts for their deceptive
47 publications. Anything that omits relevant details I view is deceptive/fraudulent. This then also
48 places the validity of the 18 May 2019 federal election in question this as any so called contract
49 obtained by fraud is not legally enforceable. Likewise the election being the product of fraud
50 would not be legitimate.
51
52 Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)-Attorney-General liable-prison
7-5-2019 Page 14 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 15

1 Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)


2 U.S. Supreme Court
3 Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
4
5 A public official even an attorney-General can be imprisoned for acting in violation of a court
6 decision, and I view that the AEC precisely does so violating the decision of the County Court of
7 Victoria of 19 July 2006 that compulsory voting was upheld to be unconstitutional. The fact the
8 court didn’t hand down a special judgment was because the Prosecutor indicated to accept any
9 ruling of the court. Hence, it implied to accept the courts implied endorsement of my numerous
10 submissions on constitutional issues. And the AEC being the instigator of the litigation is then
11 bound by that, not just to me but to every other elector.
12 .
13 We had in recent times that Senator Angus Fraser was the subject of an assault with an egg and
14 the political leaders somehow seemed to hold it was ok to do so.
15
16 I published:
17 Regardless if you agree or not with the comments of Senator Fraser Anning one should never
18 implied or otherwise condone an attack upon a parliamentarian merely because you dispute
19 his/her views. Now the floodgates are open to physically attack Member so Parliament!
20
21 This document can be downloaded from:
22 https://www.scribd.com/document/402362975/20190319-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-
23 Hlavka-O-W-B-ISSUE-Re-the-Theft-of-Our-Democracy-Etc-the-Constitution-Supplement-37-
24 Senator-Fraser-Anni
25
26 ISSUE: 20190319- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
27 Supplement 37- senator Fraser Anning -etc
28
29 Now however that an egg was thrown at Care Taking Prime Minister Scott Morrison suddenly
30 Mr Bill Shorten held that violence cannot be tolerated. Well, this is precisely what I warned
31 about but then it was ignored.
32
33 In my view candidates who are during an election campaign unlawfully attacked should have
34 protection by special legislation as it with the interference with a candidates posters and other
35 electoral material.
36
37 Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)-Attorney-General liable-prison
38 Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
39 U.S. Supreme Court
40 Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
41
42 There is also the issue of what I view fraudulent usage of public monies by the Victorian State
43 government. It is advertising such as at 91.5FM Smooth radio channel about the Federal
44 Government not funding sufficiently in education, roads, etc.
45 To my understanding this is blatant political advertising for and on behalf of the ALP.
46
47 While the Victorian Police claimed that the candidates who misused abuse State consolidated
48 Revenue (as determined by the Victorian Ombudsman) were EXHONERATED in reality they
49 were not and neither could have been this is because I filed a complaint with the State DPP and
50 this is still not been addresses.
51

7-5-2019 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 16

1 How arrogant to have pursued Geoff Shaw only for themselves to commit fraud and by this
2 undermine democracy
3
4 The document can be downloaded from:
5 https://www.scribd.com/doc/278087822/20150903-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Premier-of-
6 Victoria-Mr-Daniel-Andrews-VEC-PRESS-RELEASE-Re-COMPLAINT-Electoral-Matters-etc
7
8 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
9 QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
10 Ethics Orientation for State Officials
11 Misuse of Public Funds
12 Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
13 The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the
14 principle that public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure
15 is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private
16 individuals or private purposes.
17 Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official
18 possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
19 The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not
20 be expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a
21 public purpose nor are they authorized.
22 The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no
23 personal benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.
24 For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the
25 employee, but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the
26 services of the employee for public purposes.
27 The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure
28 is not merely incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of
29 value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and
30 use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other equipment and resources.
31
32 Examples of Misuse of Public Funds
33 1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to
34 purchase items for himself and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though
35 those receiving the discount paid for the items with personal funds.

36 2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle
37 to transport a political candidate, his staff and family.

38 3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on
39 his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor.

40 4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in
41 connection with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great
42 Falls, Montana and back.
43 Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and
44 civil sanctions.
45 These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
46

7-5-2019 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 17

1 State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections


2 There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal
3 use of public funds. This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot
4 measure campaigns. Following is a list of what we’ll cover in this section.
5  Stanson v. Mott

6  Endorsements and Informational Materials

7  Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines

8 Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns


9 The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the
10 expenditure of public funds in election campaigns.
11 In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks
12 and Recreation, challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage
13 of a bond act appearing on a statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the
14 director had acted unlawfully, concluding that “in the absence of clear and explicit legislative
15 authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an
16 election campaign.”
17 Stanson v. Mott
18 The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic
19 electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an
20 unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our
21 country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would use
22 official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”
23 The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election
24 campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic
25 electoral process.”
26 Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a
27 government agency may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does
28 not expend funds to promote its passage.
29 Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise,
30 but may not promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
31 Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency
32 participation in ballot measure elections.
33 1. “The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to
34 disseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the
35 public with a fair presentation of relevant information.”
36
37 2. “The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable
38 public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such
39 disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.”
40
41 3. “To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal
42 treatment to both sides of the issue.”
43 Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may
44 trigger fines from the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign
45 contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection
46 with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several ballot measures. The
47 Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a
48 neutral and fair presentation of the facts.

7-5-2019 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 18

1 Let's Review
2 TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
3  Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
4 Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a
5 few telephone calls before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent
6 Governor’s campaign fundraising dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have
7 dealings with the state government on a variety of issues, may she charge these calls to the
8 state? Yes or No.
9  Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal
10 political purposes rather than for a public purpose.

11 Let's Review
12 Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to
13 answer questions about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is
14 permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
15 a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
16
17 b. The materials do not make false statements.
18
19 c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts
20 of the measure.

21  Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and
22 unfavorable impacts of the measure.

23 Remember These Points


24  Expenditures must be for a public purpose

25  Expenditures must be authorized

26  Public funds may not be expended for personal use

27  Information must be fairly presented

28  Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions

29
30 You have completed the "Misuse of Public Funds" module. The next module is Other Laws.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 We now have Care Taking Prime Minister electioneering at cost of taxpayers when he should not
34 do so as he is no longer a Member of the House of Representatives and one cannot vote for a
35 Government. Again: "Mass hallucinations" now the bedrock of politics in Australia.
36 For example, there is no provision in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
37 1900(UK) for any elector to vote for who shall be in government and/or who shall be a Minister
38 of the Crown.
39 It is therefore grossly deceptive for political parties to claim to provide certain things if elected
40 into government. It is within Section 64 of the constitution that ultimately the Governor-General
41 commissions whomever to be a Prime Minister. If a Governor-General determines to
42 commission me regardless I am not a candidate in an election then for up to 3 months I can be so
43 commissioned. In fact there is nothing to prevent the Governor-General to commission some
44 person of a so called foreign power. Albeit such a person could not be elected unless naturalising
45 in the meantime to become a Subject of the Brtitish Crown, this as we are still under its
7-5-2019 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 19

1 constitution, it doesn’t prevent the Governor-General for up to 3months. While it may be argued
2 that because of Section 44 the principle embedded is that no one of a foreign power should be
3 commissioned, reality is that the High Court of Australia itself has gone against this by declaring
4 that the British are of a foreign power this when they themselves at the time actually were judges
5 who had sworn an oath to the British Crown when they were made members of the bar.
6
7 As to using public monies for election purposes see also:

8 Vargas v. City of Salinas, 46 Cal. 4th 1 (2009): represented the ...


9 https://www.nmgovlaw.com/.../vargas-v-city-salinas-46-cal-4th-1-2009-represented-c...
10 Mott, 17 Cal. ... of public funds in connection with ballot measures under Stanson v. .... elections law case
11 reaffirming the Stanson v Mott doctrine, in Vargas v.

12 View Document - California Code of Regulations - State Government ...


13 https://govt.westlaw.com/.../I61163560D49311DEBC02831C6D6C108E?...
14 (8) Misuse of Public Funds (Pen. Code § 424; Gov. Code § 8314;Fair Political Practices Commission v.
15 Suitt(1979) 90 Cal. App. 3d 125;Stanson v. Mott(1976) 17 ...

16 [PDF]Going to the Ballot?:


17 www.achd.org/.../SMvH-ACHD-Leadership-Conference-Ballot-Measures-and-Legsilat...
18 Feb 8, 2018 - Stanson v. Mott (1976). – “Style, tenor, tone” standard differentiates campaign activity vs.
19 informational material. • League of Women Voters v.

20 [PDF]Attorney General Opinion takes position that Pre-Election School ...


21 schoolslegalservice.org/.../AG-Opinion-Bond-Sale-Services-Business-Law-Update-CP...
22 1 See Government Code § 8314, Education Code § 7054 and Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 206 for
23 more background on advocacy versus informational ...

24 [PDF]kromko v. city of tucson: use of public funds to ... - Arizona Law Review
25 www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/46-2/46arizlrev423.pdf
26 by AC Poliquin - Cited by 5 - Related articles
27 1978) (declining to apply campaign finance law and adhering to the traditional approach to government
28 election communications challenges); Stanson v. Mott ...
29
30 www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/46-2/46arizlrev423.pdf
31 by AC Poliquin - Cited by 5 - Related articles
32 1978) (declining to apply campaign finance law and adhering to the traditional approach to government
33 election communications challenges); Stanson v. Mott ...
34
35 I maintain that the so called “deposit” and the many nominations demanded for an aspiring
36 INDEPENDENT candidate to be allowed to be a candidate is unconstitutional, regardless of
37 what legislation the Commonwealth may have enacted. There is no such power within the
38 constitution that grand the Commonwealth to do so as Section 44 is the constitutional reality.
39 While Section 34 provides “Until the Parliament otherwise provides” section 44 does not. As such a
40 person may qualify within section 44 but the Commonwealth may not accept this person to
41 become a Member of Parliament even if validly elected because of some other serious issue that
42 it holds would or might place the Parliament in disrepute. Deposit and nominations are not part
43 of Section 8 & 34 and therefore cannot be used for electoral purposes.
44
45 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
46 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

47 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

48 (Our name is our motto!)


7-5-2019 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati

You might also like