Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Objection to Vote in Federal Election Due 7 September 2013

Objection to Vote in Federal Election Due 7 September 2013

Ratings: (0)|Views: 179|Likes:
If you object to vote in the 7 September 2013 federal objection then perhaps you may desire to use this format of objection. Do keep in mind to ensure you use both the Senate electorate and the House of Representatives electorate as they are different. If you can cc or bcc me a copy if you forward it to the AEC, if you don't mind?
If you object to vote in the 7 September 2013 federal objection then perhaps you may desire to use this format of objection. Do keep in mind to ensure you use both the Senate electorate and the House of Representatives electorate as they are different. If you can cc or bcc me a copy if you forward it to the AEC, if you don't mind?

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka on Aug 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Australian Electoral Commissioninfo@aec.gov.auSir/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 of his submissions. I understand that the AEC didn
t in any form or manner seek to oppose the numeroussubmissions 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.
https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission/posts/510419275711079?comment_id=53976906&off-set=0&total_comments=1QUOTE (19-8-2013) Australian Electoral Commission Facebook Website
On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia (AEC) in 2 appeals be-fore the 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)
QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
As 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.
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The 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 trustunder the Commonwealth.
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970
), 398 U.S. 333
,
WELSH v. UNITED STATES 
, CERTIORARI TOTHE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970,Decided 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 the prevail-ing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of reli-gious 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 is con-trary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscien-tious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secu-lar belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanatesfrom 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 exempt-ing religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend itscoverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.And;
 
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and support mate-rials provided in the following link:Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting DocumentationRefer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognizedor organized religion of which you are an adherent or member.
However, the law does not require you to name areligion 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.
You arenot required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to submit your own let-ter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to de-scribe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.AndMany times, when a school or day care
questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the law ortrying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on thefact that you don't know your rights.
What appears to be clear is that a
religious objection
is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be as this wouldin fact offend Section 116 of the
Constitution
. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion as this would also in-terfere with Section 116 of the
Constitution
. Likewise, any person objecting under the
religious objection
Subsection245(14) of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
neither can be required to be a religious person as this would also offendSection 116 of the
Constitution
, as the equivalent in
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970
), 398 U.S. 333made clear that it (the
religious objection
applies as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyoneobjection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion men-tioned.END QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
So 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 unconstitutionalAgain:
QUOTE3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscien-tious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secu-lar belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanatesfrom a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source.END QUOTE
Let
s be clear about it that gthe lawyers involved acting for the AEC (Ausrtralian Electoral Commis-sion) are perverting the course of justice for and onbehalf of the AEC when they are concealing theabove stated from the court..
Foster 
(1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
 
QUOTEAs an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick orchoose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of hisclient. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a dutyto the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of hisclient to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. Heowes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not con-sciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth.He must not unjustlymake a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all rele-vant authorities, even those that are against him.
He must see that his client discloses, if or-dered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case.
He must disregard the spe-cific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.END QUOTE
.
Hansard
1-2-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of the National AustralasianConvention
),QUOTE
Mr. OCONNER 
(New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justiceshould be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE.
Hansard
8-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER 
.-Now it is coming out.
The Constitution is made forthe people and the stateson termsthat are just to both.
END QUOTE.
In my view, the AEC concealing this from the courts in every occasion they score a conviction provesto 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 financiallyshore 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 doesn
t have to vote.In my view, not just to the judges but also to the AEC and its lawyers the following should be applica- ble, 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 alsoshould not be fined for FAILING TO VOTE, and I challenge the AEC to prove me wrong.! After all, Iam 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 Website
I trust that the information obtained from your Facebook Website is correct, and you will (again) ac-knowledge this in your response to me.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->