Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
10
12-3-2015
COMPLAINT
15
20
25
Sir/Madam,
I on 12 March 2015 received from the Victorian Electoral Commission a, Apparent
Failure to Vote Notice dated 10 March 2015 alleging that I had failed to vote in the 29
November 2014 State election.
I have included below my previous 24-11-23014 correspondence (including the typing errors)
and view that therefore the Victorian Electoral Commission is in CONTEMPT OF COURT!
As I indicated the then Attorney-General Robert Hulls had indicated to abide by the decision of
the County Court of Victoria and therefore the VEC I view is blatantly in CONTEMPT OF
COURT. It should be clear that I had filed and served an s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and as such the State of Victoria accepted the courts
decision and didnt whatsoever challenge any of my submissions. As the State of Victoria is
created by s106 of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK))
subject to this constitution
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
30
QUOTE
35
END QUOTE
.
40
45
10
15
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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 whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia 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
Besides this, my 82 year old wife attended to the polling station accompanied by me and I did
enter the polling station albeit was not asked for my name and left through the other door
subsequently.
Below my wife walking to and entering the polling station.
20
The image taken at 1.22 was after I had walked through the polling station. Having spent about 8
minutes in the polling station itself.
p2
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
3
While most people may vote for any crook I am very selective. As has now been proven Mr
Daniel Andrews deceived the electors to claim that the East West road link was not worth the
paper it was written upon, whereas now it is claimed a compensation bill (obviously at cost of
taxpayers) could be as high as $1.2 billion.
.
The Liberals were also misleading the electors by not having revealed that it signed a special
guarantee for compensation. As such swindling electors as to what they were facing.
.
10
I am neither for or against the East west road link but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST hold that
candidates must act honestly in election campaign and where there is any doubt then an elector is
entitled to exercise his/her liberty not to vote.
Will Tony Abbott show leadership in the Melbourne East West link debacle?
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
view this also undermines a FAIR and PROPER election. As previously having been an
INDEPENDENT candidate in numerous elections I am aware that at times a prospective
candidate failed because either failing to have sufficient people nominating, even if only one
signature short, or failing to pay the monies allegedly at the correct office.
It is my right to vote in FAIR AND proper ELECTIONS and if I question the validity of how an
election is held then the legal principles in the constitution entitles me to withhold my vote as to
express my disapproval.
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
As I reported in the past I witnessed how an election official was taking ballot papers, not
belonging to him, and took it to his desk and then after being observed writing then deposited the
ballot papers in the ballot boxes. Despite my written complaint no response was received about
this. Again, this violates the legal provisions and also violates the principles of a FAIR and
PROPER election and clearly the Victorian Electoral Commission is incompetent to ensure FAIR
and PROPER elections are being held. The same with when as an INDEPENDENT candidate in
the 2010 State election I was advised I was not permitted to use a T-Shirt and other items for the
election, yet the next by-election I then was advised that I didnt need to register these items
because I could use them. Therefore, there is a lot wrong with how the Victorian Electoral
Commission as I view it manipulates its powers to undermine the rights of an INDEPENDENT
candidate in favour of political parties.
As I indicated also previously I view that the electoral commission should provide an A4
electronic display of How-To-Vote cards to ensure that when early voting centres commence to
allow for voting every candidate has an A4 display available, this as having the How-To-vote
card printed prevents them from doing so, due to the lack of sufficient time after closing of
nominations, the need to have How-To-Vote cards approved where the early voting commences
before a How-To-Vote card even can be approved let alone printed. This would then give every
elector an opportunity to check, if he/she desires to do so, what each candidate stands for and
avoid wasting paper on How-To-Vote cards and also reduce the rubbish around polling stations.
Again it would assist towards providing FAIR and PROPER elections, which currently are not
held in that regard.
I have provided in the past images to prove what I claimed to be genuine and the VEC simply
ignored it all. Well, the VEC has the onus to ensure there are FAIR And PROPER elections and
cannot force any elector to vote despite of the lack of any FAIR and PROPER election being
held, this as it would deny the elector his/her constitutional right to exercise the right to vote as
he/she may desire.
In view that I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia and so also all
Attorney-Generals , including of the State of Victoria, in my constitutional based submissions
that compulsory voting is unconstitutional then where the County court of Victoria upheld both
appeals without any reservations, then I am entitled to rely upon this and as the Victorian
Attorney General indicated to abide by the courts decision then again I view then Victorian
Electoral Commission is in CONTEMPT OF COURT to nevertheless pester me with its Failing
to vote correspondence dated 10 March 2015.
45
It must be clear that a magistrate couldnt invoke any jurisdiction, and neither could
overrule any decision of the County Court of Victoria!
QUOTE 20-1-2015 correspondence Re East West road link
50
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM
20-1-2015
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
p4
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
5
Cc:
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tony,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that the commonwealth having originally pledged to
partial fund the Melbournes East west link then should step in and make this a Commonwealth
project with a requirement that the state shall contribute towards the cost.
In my view as much as the commonwealth was provided with powers for navigation in regard of
rivers the same should apply to the road system for inter-state travel of trucks, etc. As such
certain highways can be deemed to be of Commonwealth interest. By this the east West link
could be declared to be a vital link required for this.
It must not be perceived and neither is it intended by me to be so that I support an y east west
link or being opposed to it as simply I have not sufficient information at hand to make an
informed consideration of it all, and as such merely express my views as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST.
Perhaps what is displayed is the ridiculous conduct by an outgoing government and an incoming
government that they cannot even mutually agree if a certain costly project should be proceeded
with or not and then the taxpayers ending up having to foot the bill for their total incompetence
to act reasonable towards each other. While it might be commendable to some extend that
Premier Daniel Andrews desires to keep his promise to the electorate as too often politicians are
known not to do so, on the other hand it is absurd to burden the community with a hefty
compensation bill that could have been avoided had the then government and opposition worked
out a resolution suiting both. Perhaps the blatant disregard by Premier Denis Napthine (as he then
was) to proceed with signing contracts he knew were opposed by the opposition then the cost of
compensation should really be levied to them and not the taxpayers.
After all they were well aware of the imminent State election.
As for Premier Daniel Andrews, he should not be selective in what he states to enforce. After al;;
he did state in 2003:
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&date2=M
ay&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+%29
QUOTE
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.
The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by the Liberal and National
parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as much information as possible.
50
END QUOTE
Why then that we turning tomorrow into 2015 it is that 14 years later we still have large parts of
Victoria without safe drinking water?
In fact it appears there are at least 42 towns that are still denied safe drinking water.
p5
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
6
Likewise in 2005:
5
10
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=42705&activity=Second+Reading&title=LAND+TAX+BILL&date1=8&date2=September&date3
=2005&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'land'%0a%09and+data+contains+'tax'+%29%0a%09and+%2
8+house+contains+'ASSEMBLY'+%29
QUOTE
Title
House
ASSEMBLY
Activity
Second Reading
Members
BRUMBY
Date
8 September 2005
Page
717
This bill provides that for the purposes of the Taxation Administration Act 1997, the Land Tax Act 2005 is a 'taxation law'. A
central purpose of this bill is to bring land tax under the Taxation Administration Act 1997.
END QUOTE
QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
No. 81 of 1952.
[Assented to 6th November, 1952.]
B E it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of
Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows :-
1. This Act may be cited as the Land Tax Abolition Act 1952.
20
2. This Act snall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, One thousand nine
hundred and fifty-two.
3. Land tax shall not be levied and paid for the financial year which commenced on the first day of July,
One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or for any subsequent financial year.
4. Section fifteen of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1952 does not apply in respect of the financial year
25
which commenced on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or in respect of any
While the Commonwealth abolished the payment of land taxation it did however also show:
30
35
40
This part of the law remains in force and so also the right of uniform taxation (land tax)
throughout the Commonwealth, and no land taxation can be applied and any State
(delegated municipal/shire council rates are therefore in violation of this part of the act!
Therefore, the State of Victoria clearly is in direct violation of Section 3 of the LAND TAX
ABOLITION. No. 81 of 1952.
p6
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
7
And as the High Court of Australia in Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904]
HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi5
10
15
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=titl
e(Sydney%20Municipal%20Council%20v%20Commonwealth%20) stated:
QUOTE
In a constitutional instrument, therefore, defining and limiting the power of constitutional authorities,
the word "tax" must be construed in the wider sense, and a prohibition of the imposition of a tax must
be held to include a prohibition of any such imposition by a delegated authority, by whatever name the
tax is called.
END QUOTE
Then clearly municipal/shire council rates since 1910 when the Commonwealth created the Land
Tax Office (the forerunner of the ATO) then all council rates are unconstitutional since 11
November 1910. They also conflict with the Victorian Land Tax Act 2005.
The question then is: when will the Commonwealth act appropriately as a sentry?
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
20
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member
of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a
sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
25
30
35
40
45
50
END QUOTE
It is not for the Commonwealth to get involved in internal political mess created in Victoria but
at least it can address matters within its legislative powers and make clear that the East West link
is of Commonwealth interest (as if it never was the Commonwealth couldnt in the first place
have provided any funding for it) and the Commonwealth therefore will take over the conduct
and handling of project from the State of Victoria under Commonwealth legislation. It will then
be for the Commonwealth to provide appropriate legislation to ensure it can do so. As I wrote in
the pasty about Brisbane and the mess under the then Premier Peter Beattie where ships were on
anchor trying to load because of insufficient harbour provisions that this falls under
Commonwealth authority as it deals with navigation and access to the ports. I will refrain to yet
again quote extensively from the Hansard Debates where the Framers of the constitution made
clear that this was a principle embedded in the constitution that the Commonwealth had this
authority. Safe to say the commonwealth has such inter-state and external affairs powers
regarding trade and commerce.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/andrews-government-faces-massive-compensation-bill-to-axe-eastwest-link/story-fni0fit31227190062639?sv=fe00170200d2881318c3cae663d1221e&utm_source=Herald%20Sun&utm_medium=email&ut
m_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=88329125
QUOTE e.Herald article
Andrews Government faces massive compensation bill to axe East West Link
The government of Daniel Andrews could be forced to pay compensation for the scrapped East West Link.
Source: News Limited
p7
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
UPDATE: THE State Government is bracing for a gigantic East West Link compensation bill,
running into the hundreds of millions of dollars, despite Premier Daniel Andrews insistence that
tearing up the contract wouldnt cost a cent.
Deputy Premier James Merlino told 3AW today: There will be a settlement reached with the consortium,
there was always going to have to be.
But he refused to reveal more details including possible financial costs, saying: Im not going to conduct
negotiations over the airwaves.
The Herald Sun can reveal that key members of the consortium that signed the contract to build the Link
want at least $1.2 billion to walk away from the dumped project.
Banks and superannuation funds that financed the deal are leading the hardline push.
But they are at odds with partner and construction giant Lend Lease, which is understood to be taking a
more cautious approach for fear a fracas may dent its chances for future government jobs in Victoria.
Its understood that Lend Lease favours a settlement amount in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Herald Sun can confirm that, in the wake of weeks of frantic negotiations with the consortium, there is
a dawning acceptance within the Labor Government that it will have to write a taxpayer-funded cheque to
rip up the contract for the 6.6km road.
The Government has engaged businessman and former MCG Trust chairman John Wylie and gun Arnold
Bloch Leibler lawyer Leon Zwier to help it argue its case.
Mr Wylie was heavily involved in complex government business cases such as the privatisation of Qantas
and of the states power industry.
Uncertainty about the looming cost to taxpayers of compensation poses problems for Budget planning.
It could also embarrass Mr Andrews, who repeatedly said the contracts signed by the Napthine
Government in September were worthless.
Four days before the election, he said: Be very clear about this: there will be no compensation paid.
Mr Andrews revealed in September that he planned to dump the $6.8 billion toll road and said then he
expected some modest compensation.
Opposition Leader Matthew Guy said Labor only had itself to blame for the scale of the compensation
payout.
Labor knew their claim that (East West Link) had no binding contract was wrong. It will now cost $1
billion to scrap a roadway that Melbourne needs, Mr Guy said on Twitter today.
The consortium that won the contract for the $6.8 billion toll road includes Lend Lease, French group
Bouygues, and Spanish company Acciona.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
A complex network of institutions, including local and international banks and super funds, financed the
deal.
p8
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
A source said CEOs of the major partners, including from overseas, came to Melbourne before Christmas,
and made clear they would be pursuing their legal rights as contained in the contracts.
This was understood to relate to the sum the group believed it would be owed.
Treasurer Tim Pallass office said commercial-in-confidence negotiations were under way.
Mr Wylie and Mr Zwier have agreed to work towards a fair and appropriate outcome for Victorian
taxpayers in the circumstances where the Government has decided that the project will not proceed.
james.campbell@news.com.au
END QUOTE e.Herald article
It seems that we are ongoing subjected to irresponsible conduct by politicians merely so they can
try to get elected, no matter the financial and other cost to the community/taxpayers. In my view
politicians by this have set their selfish interest above that of the community they are to serve.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE
In my view this East West link is an issue in which the Commonwealth can excise legitimately
legislative powers and in the process may even avert a costly financial blow out to Victorians,
pending how it deals with the matter.
What is required to be shown is LEADERSHIP, but which politicians can display this, that is
the question?
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
30
35
(
)
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
40
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Victorian Electoral Commission
Level 8, 5050 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria
Email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au
Cc:
45
24-11-2014
50
p9
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
COMPLAINT
10
Sir/Madam,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST my first concern always is the conduct is as per true
meaning and application of the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which in s106 the states are created subject to this
constitution.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
15
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for 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 a
particular way on a particular occasion."
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
END QUOTE
I in 2001 refused to vote in the federal election upon a number of reasons which included that the
Framers of the Constitution provided political liberty and that is an elector chooses to vote
and in fact rebutted compulsory registration/voting. In 2004 I again refused to vote upon
numerous grounds as well as that John Howard and other Ministers had unconstitutionally
invaded Iraq, etc. I had at the time filed and serve a Section 78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, regarding about 50 constitutional issues. Including that s245
of the Commonwealth elect oral act 18918 regarding compulsory voting was unconstitutional.
The Commonwealth of Australia had me (twice) charged for FAILING TO VOTE, being the
2001 and 2004 federal elections. Various hearings were held in the Magistrates Court of Victoria
albeit in the end the magistrate on 1q7 November 2005 held me to be guilty of both charges,
having blatantly disregarded the rulings of earlier magistrates.
I lodged my appeal with the County court of Victoria and relied also upon my Section 78B
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
The then attorney General of Victoria Mr Rob ert hulls indicated to abide by the ruling of the
court. None of the Attorney Generals challenged any of my numerous written submissions and
on 19 July 2006 the County court of Victoria upheld both appeals unchallenged by any of the
other parties/Attorney Generals, setting aside both convictions.
To follow the High Court of Australia ruling in HCA27 of 1999 Wakim a dispute between the
same parties cannot be re-litigated once the court has handed down its decision previously on the
same issues.
It follows that the issue of an elector to vote or not to vote is a decision the elector is entitled to
make within the legal principles of the (federal) constitution and the states created within s106
are subject to this constitution and therefore bound by this.
Mr Michael King at the time the divisional officer for Jagajaga who had pursued albeit
unsuccessfully the FAILING TO VOTE charged against me, was most surprised to noticed that
in the 2013 federal election I attended and voted. In fact he came personally over to me to
p10
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
11
express he was pleased I did so. I explained to him that I always maintained that I opposed
COMPULSORY VOTING but not voting itself, and as I held there was a worthy candidate
standing therefore I decided to vote.
Hence it should be clear I do not object to a democratic expression by an elector to vote if he/she
desires to do so but opposes compulsory registration/voting. And the County Court of Victoria
upheld my constitutional rights with none of the Attorney Generals opposing my submissions nor
the courts ruling. Again, not a single Attorney General appealed the decision of the County
court of Victoria since it handed down its decision on 19 July 2006, and by now any appeal time
is long passed and therefore the State of Victoria is bound by it.
10
One of the objections I also submitted to the Court was the religious exemption and relied upon
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970)
15
20
25
30
35
40
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
QUOTE
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing 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 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 is
contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
conscientious 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 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, should
extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage.
Pp. 361-367.
END QUOTE
I am also deeply concerned about the LACK OF PROPER MANAGEMENT of Victorian and
federal elections to mention a few by the relevant electoral commissions..
In fact during the 2013 Federal election I objected (130902-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to
Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS) to Mr Clive Palmer having a radio
advertisement to vote for Clive Palmer to be Prime Minister. I will quote my complaint in full
and it may be noted the offending advertisement was to my understanding withdrawn that very
day!
QUOTE 2-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
45
2-9-2013
info@aec.gov.au
?
12
Mr Kevin Rudd: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au
Ref: 130902-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS
10
Sir,
as you may recall from the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision to uphold both
appeals on FAILING TO VOTE, where I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth, on
that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I submitted that the Framers of the Constitution refused to
give the Commonwealth legislative powers to compel any person to register or to vote in
elections. As I submitted to the court, I am not against voting but against compulsory voting, and
the AEC didnt oppose this and other submissions based upon constitutional grounds.
http://aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#compulsory
QUOTE
Is voting compulsory?
15
Yes, voting is compulsory for every Australian citizen aged 18 years or older. If you do not vote and do not
have a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote, a penalty is imposed. For further information see
Compulsory Voting.
What happens if I do not vote?
20
Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either
provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.
If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or
declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in
court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $170 plus court costs.
25
30
END QUOTE
As I challenged the validity of the legislation as being ULTRA VIRES and the County Court of
Victoria upheld this and the AEC didnt oppose my submissions then I view the AEC is bound
by the court decision. It had the opportunity to challenge the submissions I made and by failing
to do so is bound by the decision of the court. Indeed, I view that the AEC must be independent
and shown to be independent and must not tow a government line where it clearly was
comprehensively defeated by me on 19 July 2006!
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
35
The constitution is the primary source of any legislative power and any legislation in violation to
the constitution therefore is ULTRA VIRES,
40
45
50
For the AEC nevertheless to persist in deceiving electors/people and enforcing this by what I
consider acts of terrorism, to fine people and litigate against them is making them also glorified
debt collects to aid the government in its debts rather then \to be and remain and be seen to
remain impartial. And in particular, accepts the courts decision and its implications of 19 July
2006!
p12
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
13
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
I have a further complaint against what I view is false/misleading election advertising by Palmer
United Party and obviously the question may be asked if the AEC approved this advertising,
and if so, why?
On Monday Afternoon on 2 September 2013 between about 4 and 6 pm I heard over the radio a
political announcements by Palmer United Party, with various people, including a lawyer, to
say something like to vote for Clive Palmer as Prime Minister.
I must admit that also leaders of political parties tend to argue people are voting for who shall be
the next Prime Minister. I view the AEC has for too long failed to act against this kind of
deceptive conduct, even so this already was occurring even when former Queensland Jo BelkjePeterson was campaigning to become Prime Minister.
Constitutionally no one can vote for anyone to be voted in as Prime Minister. While there is a
convention that generally the Governor-General appoints the leader of the political party which
can have the support of most of the Members of the House of Representatives, this is nothing but
a convention and cannot override what is constitutionally applicable.
QUOTE
64 Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such
departments of State of the Commonwealth as the
Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the
Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal
Executive Council, and shall be the Queens Ministers of State for
the Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office
for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a
senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
END QUOTE
While the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has been created, it doesnt nor can
circumvent the fact that who shall or shall not be commissioned to become Prime Minister is a
decision the Governor-General makes and not subject to voting by the Australian electors. It
ought to be understood that the 2010 debacle came about where members elect (to the House of
Representatives) but had not been sworn in, were making deals to support Julia Gillard to remain
Prime Minister. In my view they had no such constitutional position.
Mr Edmund Barton, was commissioned on 26 December 1900, as to form a government for the
1 January 1901 Commonwealth of Australia. He did not have any one in the House of
Representatives, for the simple reason it didnt exist. Constitutionally, within Sec 64 the
Governor-General could commission me to form a government, regardless that I am not a
Member of the House of Representatives nor even a candidate. It should be clear that political
parties cannot amongst themselves overrule what is constitutionally applicable, only a s128 of
the constitution successful referendum can result to an amendment of the constitution!
While it may be argued that the majority of Members of Parliament of one political party or a
coalition generally has its leader to become Prime Minister, nevertheless, it is deceptive to claim
that somehow electors decide who shall become Prime Minister. In the end, it is the GovernorGeneral who decides which person shall be commissioned to form a government.
Fancy, for example that the leader of a political party, having attained the majority of seats in the
House of Representatives, then is declared bankrupt before being sworn in (again) as a Member
of the House of Representatives. It would be idiotic to hold that somehow the Governor-General
had to ignore s44 of the Constitution to commission a person to form a government, merely
because of some convention. Constitutionally, the Governor-General could still appoint this
person for up to 3 months without becoming a Member of the House of Representatives, but
unlikely would a Governor-General desire to act contrary to the public interest.
p13
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
14
10
15
In my view the AEC should clamp down on false./misleading representation that the electors
vote who shall become the Prime Minister after the election, because as we saw in the 2010
debacle it could have been even either party leaders or neither of them, that is if the GovernorGeneral had not so to say bowed to pressure.
I am not standing as a candidate, and as such have in that regard no political interest in who shall
or shall not be voted for. However, I view the gross deception upon Australian electors should be
stopped. hence the AEC must take immediate action to stop any false/misleading claims as to
electors voting for a Prime Minister. Indeed, where the sitting Prime Minister is failing to
succeed in being re-elected, such as John Howard was in 2007, then clearly even if his party had
succeeded in gaining most of the seats it would be ridiculous to argue that somehow all
Australians nevertheless voted for John Howard to be again the Prime Minister.
It appears to me that the AEC for decades that is failed to ensure election(s) advertising and other
election claims were appropriately supervised, and this elaborate swindle upon the Australian
electors was stopped.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/palm
er-united.htm
QUOTE
20
Registered Abbreviation:
Parliamentary Party:
No
Peter Burke
127 Monaco St
BROADBEACH WATERS QLD 4218
25
END QUOTE
Another matter is that s41 of the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) is very clear:
30
QUOTE
41 Right of electors of States
No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for
the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while
the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth
from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the
p14
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
15
Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
10
15
20
Yet, I understand that people who have no residential address in the Commonwealth of Australia
nevertheless somehow are permitted to vote in Federal Elections. In my view this is
unconstitutional, this is because the only qualification to be an federal elector is to be a State
elector. (Which includes also being a Territorian elector)
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,
which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.
END QUOTE
(
END QUOTE 2-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
25
QUOTE 130902-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Australian Electoral Commission
30
2-9-2013
info@aec.gov.au
?
Sir,
40
45
as you may recall from the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision to uphold both
appeals on FAILING TO VOTE, where I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth, on
that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I submitted that the Framers of the Constitution refused to
give the Commonwealth legislative powers to compel any person to register or to vote in
elections. As I submitted to the court, I am not against voting but against compulsory voting, and
the AEC didnt oppose this and other submissions based upon constitutional grounds.
http://aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#compulsory
QUOTE
p15
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
16
Is voting compulsory?
Yes, voting is compulsory for every Australian citizen aged 18 years or older. If you do not vote and do not
have a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote, a penalty is imposed. For further information see
Compulsory Voting.
5
What happens if I do not vote?
Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either
provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.
10
If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or
declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in
court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $170 plus court costs.
END QUOTE
15
20
As I challenged the validity of the legislation as being ULTRA VIRES and the County Court of
Victoria upheld this and the AEC didnt oppose my submissions then I view the AEC is bound
by the court decision. It had the opportunity to challenge the submissions I made and by failing
to do so is bound by the decision of the court. Indeed, I view that the AEC must be independent
and shown to be independent and must not tow a government line where it clearly was
comprehensively defeated by me on 19 July 2006!
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
25
30
35
The constitution is the primary source of any legislative power and any legislation in violation to
the constitution therefore is ULTRA VIRES,
Uniform Tax case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a
decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.
The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
invalid ab initio.
END QUOTE
For the AEC nevertheless to persist in deceiving electors/people and enforcing this by what I
consider acts of terrorism, to fine people and litigate against them is making them also glorified
debt collects to aid the government in its debts rather then \to be and remain and be seen to
remain impartial. And in particular, accepts the courts decision and its implications of 19 July
2006!
40
45
50
I have a further complaint against what I view is false/misleading election advertising by Palmer
United Party and obviously the question may be asked if the AEC approved this advertising,
and if so, why?
On Monday Afternoon on 2 September 2013 between about 4 and 6 pm I heard over the radio a
political announcements by Palmer United Party, with various people, including a lawyer, to
say something like to vote for Clive Palmer as Prime Minister.
I must admit that also leaders of political parties tend to argue people are voting for who shall be
the next Prime Minister. I view the AEC has for too long failed to act against this kind of
deceptive conduct, even so this already was occurring even when former Queensland Jo BelkjePeterson was campaigning to become Prime Minister.
p16
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
17
Constitutionally no one can vote for anyone to be voted in as Prime Minister. While there is a
convention that generally the Governor-General appoints the leader of the political party which
can have the support of most of the Members of the House of Representatives, this is nothing but
a convention and cannot override what is constitutionally applicable.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
QUOTE
64 Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such
departments of State of the Commonwealth as the
Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the
Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal
Executive Council, and shall be the Queens Ministers of State for
the Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office
for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a
senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
END QUOTE
While the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has been created, it doesnt nor can
circumvent the fact that who shall or shall not be commissioned to become Prime Minister is a
decision the Governor-General makes and not subject to voting by the Australian electors. It
ought to be understood that the 2010 debacle came about where members elect (to the House of
Representatives) but had not been sworn in, were making deals to support Julia Gillard to remain
Prime Minister. In my view they had no such constitutional position.
Mr Edmund Barton, was commissioned on 26 December 1900, as to form a government for the
1 January 1901 Commonwealth of Australia. He did not have any one in the House of
Representatives, for the simple reason it didnt exist. Constitutionally, within Sec 64 the
Governor-General could commission me to form a government, regardless that I am not a
Member of the House of Representatives nor even a candidate. It should be clear that political
parties cannot amongst themselves overrule what is constitutionally applicable, only a s128 of
the constitution successful referendum can result to an amendment of the constitution!
While it may be argued that the majority of Members of Parliament of one political party or a
coalition generally has its leader to become Prime Minister, nevertheless, it is deceptive to claim
that somehow electors decide who shall become Prime Minister. In the end, it is the GovernorGeneral who decides which person shall be commissioned to form a government.
Fancy, for example that the leader of a political party, having attained the majority of seats in the
House of Representatives, then is declared bankrupt before being sworn in (again) as a Member
of the House of Representatives. It would be idiotic to hold that somehow the Governor-General
had to ignore s44 of the Constitution to commission a person to form a government, merely
because of some convention. Constitutionally, the Governor-General could still appoint this
person for up to 3 months without becoming a Member of the House of Representatives, but
unlikely would a Governor-General desire to act contrary to the public interest.
In my view the AEC should clamp down on false./misleading representation that the electors
vote who shall become the Prime Minister after the election, because as we saw in the 2010
debacle it could have been even either party leaders or neither of them, that is if the GovernorGeneral had not so to say bowed to pressure.
I am not standing as a candidate, and as such have in that regard no political interest in who shall
or shall not be voted for. However, I view the gross deception upon Australian electors should be
stopped. hence the AEC must take immediate action to stop any false/misleading claims as to
electors voting for a Prime Minister. Indeed, where the sitting Prime Minister is failing to
succeed in being re-elected, such as John Howard was in 2007, then clearly even if his party had
p17
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
18
succeeded in gaining most of the seats it would be ridiculous to argue that somehow all
Australians nevertheless voted for John Howard to be again the Prime Minister.
It appears to me that the AEC for decades that is failed to ensure election(s) advertising and other
election claims were appropriately supervised, and this elaborate swindle upon the Australian
electors was stopped.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/palm
er-united.htm
QUOTE
Palmer United Party
10
Registered Abbreviation:
Parliamentary Party:
No
Peter Burke
127 Monaco St
BROADBEACH WATERS QLD 4218
15
Another matter is that s41 of the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) is very clear:
25
QUOTE
41 Right of electors of States
No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for
the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while
the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth
from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
30
Yet, I understand that people who have no residential address in the Commonwealth of Australia
nevertheless somehow are permitted to vote in Federal Elections. In my view this is
unconstitutional, this is because the only qualification to be an federal elector is to be a State
elector. (Which includes also being a Territorian elector)
35
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,
which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.
20
p18
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
19
END QUOTE
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
(
)
END QUOTE 130902-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS
In my view the Victorian Electoral Commission has an obligation gto the electors (not being bias
towards any political party) as to ensure that all and any media advertising is done to reflect the
true application of the constitution, hence not allow any party to mislead/deceive that they vote
for a political party and/or vote for who shall be premier.
As was noted in 2007 electors around the Commonwealth of Australia were urged to vote for
John Howard rather than Kevin Rudd, but the moment he lost his seat it was clear he wouldnt be
elected as Prime Minister regardless how many people around the Commonwealth of Australia
may have voted in the hope he would remain to be Prime Minister
Mr Edmund Barton was commissioned to form a Government on 26 December 1900 even so the
Commonwealth of Australia didnt commence until 1 January 1901. He didnt have at all any
majority in either Houses of Parliament nor needed to because the commission is a decision by
the Governor-General and not as to whom may hold the most seats in the House of
Representatives. Likewise the Governor of Victoria is the person who exercises prerogative
powers to determine who he shall commission to be premier after the election. Albeit I no longer
stand as a candidate in political election the Governor nevertheless could decide to commission
me as premier if this was his decision.
It is nonsense to argue that the supply bills are decisive, this as the Federal budget problems
underlines that even where politicians promise to pass supply we now see that the Appropriation
Bills are far from having passed. This problem is the end result of ignoring the true meaning and
application of the constitution, this as if the budget had been presented before the end of the 21e3
year then 6 months would have been left for the parliament to pass the bills, and if it twice
refused the bills then fort the Governor-General to call for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION.
The Victorian Constitution Act indicates that there are only 21 persons as members of Parliament
to hold an Office of Profit, but one find that despite my extensive writings Mr Denis Napthine
Premier has still 22 persons. As such I view he is not worthy to be a Premier.
Mr Daniel Andrews also has his own serious problems for example staging a Frankston byelection campaign (which Mr Napthine also did) against sitting Member of Parliament Mr Geoff
Shaw. Yet, the Victorian Electoral Commission instead of stepping in about this deceptive
purported by-election let it go.
I wrote to Mr Peter Walsh Minister for Water and local member for Berriwillock where
untreated water is provided in clear violation to the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003
.
QUOTE 21-9-2014 correspondence
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=AS
SEMBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&da
te2=May&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+
%29
p19
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
20
QUOTE
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.
The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by the Liberal and National
parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as much information as possible.
10
15
END QUOTE
Why then did you not pursue this matter where Berriwillock as an example is within your
electorate and still provided with untreated water, which is poison water. Many people
seem to take it that if you boil water it gets rid of impurities but reality is that mercury and
other chemicals do not get out of water by boiling. Why dont you sent your children and
grandchildren down for a drink of water at Berriwillock to see how they may suffer severe
illness and you can then watch them suffering, if not they die in the process. Nothing better to
learn but see your own family suffering till they die to what you ignore of others, so you may
just discover that you ignored others suffering even so you were paid to do a job.
END QUOTE 21-9-2014 correspondence
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Despite that both Mr Napthine and Mr Andrews were provided with copies of my writings
neither bothered to resolve this unlawful situation.
As such I view neither one of them can be credited to be as proper person to be premier because
leaving an health hazard in place with numerous electors and their family and friends at health
and other risk surely cannot be deemed to be the conduct of a fit and proper person.
.
Then we have for example Mr Daniel Andrews going around in a large bus to vote for Labor.
Why again didnt the Victorian Electoral Commission not step in making clear that electors
cannot vote for a political party but only for a candidate irrespective of the candidate at the time
may or may not be aligned to a particular political party. Not uncommon and Senator Jacqui
Lambie is a clear example a Member of Parliament changes party affiliation and may become an
independent, as did for example Mr Geoff Shaw.
Therefore I view the Victorian Electoral Commission has denied electors any fair and proper
election period by allowing this gross misleading conduct to go on.
It must be clear that other than those electors in the electorate of Mr Daniel Andres himself no
one else can actually vote for him. No one can anywhere in the Victorian election vote for Labor
or the Coalition as they are not registered candidates. The mere fact that candidates aligned
themselves with a particular political party cannot alter the fact that in the end they are
candidates and not the political party they are associated with.
.
We also have this discriminatory conduct that political parties can fund expensive advertisements
because they calculate as to how much monies they likely will receive from first preferences.
This, whereas most INDEPENDENT candidates have no such luxury, hence denies them a fair
and proper election.
Also, there is no equality in the media as if one check the daily newspapers they are generally
about the leaders of political parties even so the INDEPENDENTS who may hold balance of
power are ignored. As such a deceptive view to the electors and again the Victorian Electoral
Commission ignores this.
What we are presented with is what I view a corrupt form of election that one can so to say chose
between 2 leaders of major political parties even so constitutionally this is not all applicable.
p20
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
21
The Victorian Electoral Commission simply doesnt so to say have the balls to insist that
elections shall be conducted within the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
Ample of people attend to a polling booth only to scribble across the ballot paper or simply
leaving it blank (when then at times election officials illegally are filling in their ballot paper (as
I reported in the past). I deplore any of this conduct as the Framers of the constitution made clear
that when one participate in an election then one must follow the relevant requirements, being it
the hare or other system that is applicable. As such, if one doesnt want to vote, such as I
generally decide not to do, then that is a right one can legitimately exercise but if one go to a
polling station to accept ballot papers then one is bound to fill in the ballot papers according to
the rules.
While I am now retired, I used to assist/represent many parties in litigation (including
solicitors/barristers) and it was too obvious to me that many intervention orders were given out
by the courts like candies. As once a judge stated, as I recall; if there is no violence then why
not both agree to intervention orders as it wuill not harm either one? Well, what the judge didnt
understand is that court orders and in particular intervention orders should be issued sparingly
and only where there is an actual requirement for an intervention order and not on a flimsy basis
it doesnt do harm. Still we have intervention orders which includes at time the concealment of a
persons address. So, as I understand it, the State Government devices that any student enrolled
at a secondary school or has a driver license is automatically enrolled by the Victorian Electoral
Commission. Now, here we have the parent of the student having a undisclosed address on the
electoral roll and then the student has his/her address listed and so the parent with the
undisclosed address (for security) now can be traced by the students listed address. And, again
compulsory registration is unconstitutional.
Hey, are you so to say all deaf and blind? I succeeded on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of
Victoria after a 5 year protracted huge court litigation and so entitled to rely upon the court ruling
in my favour. By this every other elector likewise has the right to benefit for the same, as laws
are not just in regard of myself but for all electors.
Mr Andrew Carbines is I understand standing as a candidate for re-election, whereas he was
involved in undermining my election during the 2010 State election for Ivanhoe, when I stood as
an INDEPENDENT candidate where he then as councillor in Banyule City Council was using
council staff to interfere with my election campaign, etc. In fact the police became involved
investigating criminal actions against my campaign. I recall that 2 years earlier the then Member
of Parliament Mr Craig Langdon asked all candidates standing for council election if they would
give an assurance that if elected to council not to stand as a candidate in the next State election. I
recall all candidates, including Mr Anthony Carbines to make a statement not to stand for state
elect ion. Well, Mr Anthony Carbines in my view acted contrary to what he had stated and so
unreliable. Why on earth would I want to vote where my vote then by the system could be
counted in favour of Mr Anthony Carbines?
I recall in about 2000 to attend to a meeting at which Mr Craig Langdon assured people he
opposed any freeway through Banyule as he would father resign. Yet, years later I understood he
supported the freeway to go through Banyule, just didnt resign. Another person I understand
now to stand as a candidate for Ivanhoe. And when one considers the Australian Greens conduct
in the 2010 State election, claiming they were opposed to the freeway, as I was as an
INDEPENDENT candidate, but then in the end they gave their votes to Mr Anthony Carbines
who was in favour of the freeway. As such I view the electors voting for the green candidate
were conned! In my view without the green support (opposing the freeway) Mr Anthony
Carbines would not have gained the majority of the votes.
p21
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
With already 3 candidates in regard of which I do not desire to vote it is clear that any kind of
voting would likely end up for one of them. Well I rather give it a mist so no one either get an
unconstitutional first preference vote from voting.
My wife who just turned 82 years is scared that if she doesnt vote then they may drag her to
court. This is the form of terrorism that the Victorian Electoral Commission allows to be
perpetrated and so unconstitutionally upon an elderly citizen. And the major political parties are
partner in this because they should have stopped this rot long ago. Again, the County Court of
Victoria on 19 July 2006 made its decision and all electors are entitled to the benefits of this
ruling.
.
What fair and proper elections when Members of Parliament can use taxpayers monies to push
out election propaganda whereas INDEPENDENT candidates or other candidates not being
Member of Parliament cannot do so. So, we have Members of Parliament using taxpayers monies
to travel about as a candidate or to support another candidate in a different electorate, essentially
robbing monies from consolidated revenue. Indeed, when the writs are issued there are no
Members of Parliament left as all are unemployed (unless holding a position as minister or
private employment) and so not entitled whatsoever to use parliamentarian privileges, not even
email facilities associated with the Parliament.
As for anyone blinded by that Parliament can do what it likes lets make it very clear any
legislation that defies legal principle embedded in the constitution are ULTRA VIRES (NULL
AND VOID). The High Court of Australia in the Wakim case proved this.
As I indicated in the past in my view the election commission should make available to very
candidate the space of an A4 size page, for setting out his/her policies, etc, so that even with
early voting every elector can read on an electronic board in the polling booth what each
candidate stands for. Not the current system where INDEPENDENT candidates usually have no
way of having their How-To-Vote cards approved and printed before early voting commences,
and by this electors commence voting without having all information available.
There is a lot more to it all but while I am in no way required to give any reasons to why I do not
vote when I do not desire to do so, I held it appropriate for me to set out the above and publish
the same, as to enabled other electors to make an informed decision what to do as they desire.
And I request the Victorian Electoral Commission to advise my wife that indeed she cannot be
compelled to vote if she doesnt desire to do so as the County Court of Victoria by its 19 July
2006 decision clearly made its rulings to which the State Government is bound to comply with.
Lets make it absolutely clear I am not the least concerned as to what the Victorian Electoral
Commission may have as views as ultimately what is relevant is that I was involved in a 5 year
litigation and comprehensively defeated all involved. I am entitled to the benefits of that decision
and as like with the Wakim case where the High Court of Australia handed down its decision but
applicable to all people not just those directly involved in the Wakim case as parties, then all
electors are entitled to the benefits of my successful appeals.
Stop the unconstitutional/unlawful conduct and make sure that candidates do not misrepresent
what an election is about. Unless Labor, Coalition, Australian Greens or whomever uses a
party name has the party standing as a candidate in an electorate, which in my view is not legally
possible anyhow, then election propaganda must be conducted as to the candidates themselves
and as such asking people to vote for a premier or political party is deceptive/misleading, etc, and
each person involved should be charged accordingly for deceiving/misleading electors.
Those who prefer an American style of election are free to move to the U.S.A. but in Australia
they must be required to comply with what is constitutionally applicable and appropriate. And
the Victorian Electoral Commission should so to say be hands on to seek to stop any
p22
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
23
false/deceptive/misleading advertising, this also as that is why they are being paid fro at
taxpayers expenses.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.
10
(
)
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
15
20
3-12-2014
25
COMPLAINT(S)
30
Sir/Madam,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST my first concern always is the conduct is as per true
meaning and application of the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which in s106 the states are created subject to this
constitution.
35
40
On Sunday 30-11-2014 I happen to switch onto channel 7 news at 6 pm when I noticed that it
was announced that the new premier Mr Daniel Andrews was to speak. After the advertising
Mr Daniel Andrews did speak and on the screen it showed Premier elect.
Likewise, on Monday 1 December 2014 Channel & again reported about Premier elect.
While it may be argued that this was after the election and so couldnt in itself compromise the
election just held, the reality is that there that is constitutionally be no premier elected because
electors do not elect a premier. As I stated in my 24 November 2014 correspondence the
Governor determines who shall be commissioned as Premier. What we have is that electors
have been so to say brainwashed already for the next election that they elect a Premier.
In my view the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) failure to advertise appropriately to warn
electors they do not vote for a Premier and neither for a party but for a candidate in their
electorate in my view clearly has undermined and indeed denied a fair and proper election.
.
45
50
When I attended to the Banyule polling station (Banyule primary school) my wife gave her
name, whereas I walked through the polling station, and no one asked me anything. One enter on
one side and walk out on the other side of the building.
As such, anyone, elector or not, can enter the polling station and walk through without anyone
questioning the reason for doing so.
While I take no position as to the freeway link that the former coalition government allegedly
contracted into I do however respect that Mr Daniel Andrews made clear he has no intention to
p23
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
24
breach any election promises. This, whereas Prime minister Tony Abbott now acknowledged that
he did breach his promises not to cut ABC funding, etc. While his argument is the financial
situation, I view this is a lame duck excuse as in fact during the federal election this this budget
issue was highlighted. As such he clearly deceived the electors as did Julia Gillard with her NO
CARBON TAX. While this might be a federal issues, nevertheless it is well overdue in both
state and Federal elections that where a candidate had made false/misleading statements during
an election period then by 10% of the electors signing a petition as by election can be held in
regard of the seat of the successful candidate who misled/deceived electors, and the candidate to
carry the cost of such by-election. Likewise, where a candidate who was successful in an election
within 12 months of the election having been held then this candidate to carry the cost of the byelection. Too often a candidate resigns after discovering that his political party didnt make it
into government, and I view this should be stopped. If a candidate doesnt desire to be in
opposition then let them pay the cost of the by-election. Likewise, there should be a ban on any
one who is a councillor with a city council to stand as a candidate for a State or federal election.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the political liberty of a person and do not
desire to interfere with this, however, if a person desires to stand as a candidate for a State or
federal political election then the person ought to resign first as councillor. After all the
councillor has clearly shown not really to be interested to remain councillor!
I recall where during the council election the then Member of parliament asked if anyone
standing would undertake if elected not then to stand for a State election while being councillor,
and everyone agreed to this. Yet following the then 2010 State election Mr Anthony Carbine who
was elected and a councillor then nevertheless stood for and was elected to state parliament. This
clearly contrary to his past assurance. And as such the electors had been deceived/misled.
What we need is honesty in elections and clearly this is not happening and I view the Victorian
Electoral Commission is much the blame for this also failing to ensure that inappropriate
advertising is not permitted.
.
30
35
40
Getting back to the 29 November 20914 State election, I noticed that around the school
perimeters on its fences there were an estimated 40 or more banners showing the then Premier
Denis Naptine. I view this is grossly misleading as Mr Denise Napthine clearly was not a
candidate in the Ivanhoe district election.
As was so often shown that a candidate claims to belong to a certain political party but after
being elected for whatever reason resigns from that political party and becomes INDEPENDENT
then clearly the seat is occupied by the candidate and not the political party.
Hence, while a candidate may ascribe to a certain political philosophy it is the candidate
regardless of political affiliation that is standing as a candidate in his/her own right.
Therefore, any advertising that purports for an elector to vote for a political party is
false/misleading/deceptive/fraudulent and must be stopped. Likewise, those who are
broadcasting about political matters should be trained or be required to be trained that they do not
mislead viewers to claim that some person is elected premier as electors do not elect a premier.
This gradually conditioning of electors to follow the USA kind of election process must be
deplored and prohibited as it is not what our constitution provides for.
.
45
50
My wife was sick and tired of having phone calls claimed to be for the Naphine government to
vote liberal. I explained to my wife that with political liberty there is little that can be done
against this. However, what should be an issue is that this cannot be deemed for public interest
and therefore the VEC should investigate if the phone calls were made at cost of taxpayers or by
the Liberal Party itself.
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE
p24
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
25
Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal
political purposes rather than for a public purpose.
END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
We have that while when there is a general election effectively not as single person of both the
Legislative Assembly and/or the Legislative Council remains to be a Member of Parliament
nevertheless they continue to use their parliamentarian email facilities at cost of taxpayers
without declaring the same for their returns. They still use their other parliamentarian perks like
travelling, etc, even so no longer entitled to do so. Ministers can only use their ministerial offices
in regard of ministerial duties, not election matters, as while ministers may follow a particular
political philosophy in the end they are Ministers, advisors to the Governor, and cannot limit
their Ministerial offices and services to only their political party members as they are to serve all
citizens irrespective of any political association they may hold. This also means they cannot use
their ministerial offices for political purposes not the speaker of the legislative Assembly or the
President of the Legislative Council use the Parliament for political purposes of fund raising for a
political party.
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE
Stanson v. Mott
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: A fundamental precept of this nations democratic
electoral process is that the government may not take sides in election contests or bestow
an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our
countrys founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would
use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson ...The selective use of public funds in election
campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the
democratic electoral process.
END QUOTE
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE
There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal
use of public funds. This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot
measure campaigns. Following is a list of what well cover in this section.
Stanson v. Mott
Endorsements and Informational Materials
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines
40
45
Stanson v. Mott
50
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: A fundamental precept of this nations democratic
electoral process is that the government may not take sides in election contests or
bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger
p25
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
26
10
15
20
feared by our countrys founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental
authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in
office....
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson ...The selective use of public funds in
election campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of
the democratic electoral process.
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a
government agency may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not
expend funds to promote its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise,
but may not promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency
participation in ballot measure elections.
1. The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to
disseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the
public with a fair presentation of relevant information.
2. The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable
public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such
disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.
3. To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal
treatment to both sides of the issue.
25
30
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may
trigger fines from the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign
contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection
with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several ballot measures. The
Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a
neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Let's Review
TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
35
Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to
make a few telephone calls before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to
the incumbent Governors campaign fundraising dinner. Since the people she will be
calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues, may
she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.
40
Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal
political purposes rather than for a public purpose.
Let's Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational
materials to answer questions about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation
in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
45
b. The materials do not make false statements.
c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts
of the measure.
p26
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
27
Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and
10
I am also concerned that far too often the Government uses excuses as to commercial
confidentiality as to disclose details of contracts, etc, which really appears to me to indicate
a likely ab use of power and may involve possible kickbacks, etc.
15
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE
25
30
35
The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with
the principle that public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose.
An expenditure is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public
interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A
public official possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either
expressly or impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public
funds may not be expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such
expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no
personal benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.
For example, the payment of a public employees salary confers a personal benefit on the
employee, but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the
services of the employee for public purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public
expenditure is not merely incidental. The term public funds is not limited to money, but
includes anything of value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies,
compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other
equipment and resources.
40
45
p27
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
28
3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to
work on his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in
connection with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to
Great Falls, Montana and back.
Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to
criminal and civil sanctions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding
office.
10
15
20
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
25
30
35
40
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/members/ministers
QUOTE
Mrs Inga Peulich
Cabinet Secretary
END QUOTE
45
Despite that the Version No. 204 Constitution Act 1975 No. 8750 of 1975 limits the number of
officers (regardless if they are Ministers or secretaries) with a salary is limited to 22 we found
that Mrs Inga Peulich in violation was the 23rd person, and so disqualified by this from the
Parliament and so the seat, yet still somehow could use parliamentarian facilities for the election?
.
50
In my view the material that was published by the Premier Denis Napthine (as he then was)
clearly was a political publication where he used it for election as a major issue. This I view was
rorting of the public monies that should never be allowed to be ignored.
p28
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
29
The same with any Member of Parliament who is on a superannuation scheme and or a
termination payment if not re-elected can only be so if deemed to be in an office for a salary and
hence then disqualified from the seat.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
It is not relevant if the Parliament legislated to allow for payments as if it isnt constitutionally
permissible then any legislation in violation to legal principles embedded in the constitution are
NULL AND VOID (ULTRA VIRES).
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
And
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
Constitution.
END QUOTE
As the states were created within s106 of the (federal) constitution subject to this constitution
then they are bound by the legal principles embedded in the (federal) constitution.
Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There are, of course, many formal matters relating to both houses, such as the election of president and
speaker, disqualifications, the issue of writs, elections, and so on, with which I shall not on this occasion
trouble the Convention. It is provided, then, that each member of either house shall have an annual
allowance for his services, which is proposed to be fixed in the meantime at 500 a year. The ordinary
disqualifications are inserted as to members holding offices of profit, with the exception of ministers of the
Crown, or becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary
offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the
Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates,
and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the
p29
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
30
Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think that
that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere.
QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
As such the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council are
not included in any counts as officers on a salary of Office for Profit.
It is clear to me that electors are conned into voting for a Premier even so they cannot do so and
the VEC clearly is aiding and abetting to this by allowing this fraud/deception/misleading/false
kind of election process to continue.
In my view the VEC cannot both conduct elections and supervise its own conduct and/or
misconduct. There ought to be an INDEPENDENT/IMPARTIAL supervision not
associated with the VEC as to ensure that elections are and remain to be fair and proper.
I for one cannot accept that the VEC is whatsoever pursuing fair and proper elections where it
failed to act to take action against misuse and abused such as those referred to above.
It own deceptive/misleading/fraudulent statement to electors that voting is compulsory underline
this because as I did set out previously also the Victorian Attorney General did make known to
abide by the decision of the county Court of Victoria in regard of both appeals I had before it on
19 July 2006, in which I challenged on constitutional grounds also that compulsory
registration/voting is unconstitutional. Therefore, the VEC cannot rely upon outdated legislation
because the court made its decision to uphold both my appeals and the Victorian Attorney
General clearly accepted its ruling!
As such not a single elector should be fined for allegedly FAILING TO VOTE because to
do so I view is a form of terrorism and extortion!
I urge you to ensure an impartial/independent investigation is conducted as to the VEC how it
conducts elections and also the issues referred to above, and so if relevant former members of
parliament at the time during an election were using their old parliamentarian not applicable
privileges to gain unfair advantage upon other candidates, as well as the failure of the VEC to
ensure that election s are conduct in a manner which avoids deceptive claims as to the election of
a Premier or election of a government when neither exist. The fact that a governor may likely
commission elected Members of Parliament is not excusing the deceptive/fraudulent/
misleading/deceptive conduct of candidates and others.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.
40
Awaiting your response,
(
)
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
45
50
https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission
https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission/posts/510419275711079?notif_t=like
(Posted at about 3.06am Tuesday 3 September 2013 by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.)
QUOTE Posted at about 3.06am Tuesday 3 September 2013 by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Due to problems with posting I will placed it in parts, but it must be read as one statement.
Part 1 of 4
p30
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
31
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
32
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
applied then the AEC. Well, it is long over due it finally became realistic and alter its modus operandi of
sheer ignorance, and seek to look after the rights of the electors and not act adverse to their rights. Ordinary
people would likely make far better Members of Parliament then those we now seem to get, just that those
surviving on the breadline and having all relevant experiences by the huge cost of deposit are prevented to
stand as a candidate.
Again, the lawyers were at court and merely had to present their case but instead claimed it was not in the
public interest to pursue to oppose my appeals. Neither did any State Attorney-General oppose my
submissions either, even so they were all informed about it. Therefore, lets get realistic and accept no one can
be forced to compulsory register/vote, but the AEC should divide a system that will attract more people to
register and vote and become candidates so that it becomes a truly national issue people desire to engage in
and not like slaves people as forced labour are subject to attend to a polling place regardless if they do or do
not formally fill in a ballot paper. My wife who dreads ordinary being forced to vote now could not wait for
the poling place to open up because there was a candidate she felt deserved to vote for. After decades of
retirement it was looking as if she was back at work again. This is the kind of excitement missing in general
from elections because generally is it a choice, so to say, between dud no1 and dud no 2by musical chairs and
very much the AEC has been an active participant to prevent ordinary people to just nominate themselves and
that is it. We do have a constitution and do not just seek but demand that finally the AEC adheres to the true
meaning and application of the constitution, and not despite of it
END QUOTE Posted at about 3.06am Tuesday 3 September 2013 by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
It should be clear that the Victorian Electoral Commission (as its counterpart the Commonwealth
Electoral Commission) disregards to maintain FAIR and PROPER ELECTIONS where
numerous posters and banners at polling stations refer to electing a Premier/Prime Minister this
even so constitutionally a elector can only vote for a candidate which is standing in a particular
seat, irrespective if this candidate belongs to a certain political party or not.
There is also an issue with that upon the Governor proroguing the Parliament or the GovernorGeneral proroguing the Parliament (general election or DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) then all State
Parliament seats/House of Representatives seats are vacant at that time when the writs are issued
and those who held any seat no longer do so. Yet, they still use their former parliamentarian
email addresses and free travel, etc, during the election period. Clearly this is misuse of their
former parliamentarian offices. All Members of Parliament parliamentarian/electorate offices
should be closed down when writ is issued regarding their seats being vacant. Again, I am not
aware the VEC ever having bothered about this issue of misusing former parliamentarian offices
during an election. It is not relevant if a person is re-elected as the usage of a parliamentarian
office cannot be used unless and until the person upon returning of the writs make the required
oath to take up the seat. Any person who is a Minister can only use the parliamentarian offices
for Ministerial business and not for electoral purposes. And any former Member of Parliament
standing for re-election cannot from the time the writs are issued receive any allowance
because from the time the writs are issues until the person makes an oath to take up the seat
elected for the person is NOT a Member of Parliament, and as such not entitled to an
allowance. Again the VEC allows this misuse and abuse of parliamentarian/electorate offices
during elections and so deny in that regard electors and other candidates a FAIR and PROPER
election.
I maintain that candidates who are proven to have misled the electorate should have their seats
declare vacant and a by-election to be held without the former successful candidate being entitled
to stand as a candidate. This, as to try to get some honesty in elections.
The following shows that the AEC finally did show PREVIOUS MEMBER on its website
during the 2013 Federal election this even so at the time Jenny Maclin was still a Minister. She
simply was no longer a Member of Parliament when the writs were issued. With Senators
standing for a half Senate they remain to be Senators and so members of parliament, but with a
DOUBLE DISSOLUTION they no longer remain to be Senators when the writs are issued.
p32
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
33
10
15
In my view where I legally challenged the validity of compulsory registration/voting and the
County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 upheld both appeals then I view the legislation (THAT
REQUIRES COMPULSORY REGISTRATION/VOTING) by this clearly is and remains to be
ULTRA VIRES.
As I have written about in the past also, such as in my published books in the INSPECTORRIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues, I view that there should be an
impartial supervisor over any electoral commission as to avoid in-house cover ups, etc. This as I
view too often my complaints were railroaded (by the relevant electoral commission) and never
properly resolved.
p33
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
34
Because the constitution was made long before I existed and was enacted not just for my sake but
to be applicable to whomever resides in the Commonwealth of Australia then where the
compulsory voting legislation is ULTRA VIRES then it applies to all electors, not just for me.
Hence, in regard of all electors any compulsory voting is and remains to be unconstitutional. Any
fines issued in my view then is a CONTEMPT OF COURT as the Attorney-General at the time
made known to abide by the courts ruling.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.
10
(
Awaiting your response,
p34
12-3-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati