You are on page 1of 4

Australian Electoral Commission


Sir/Madam, I understand from your Facebook website details that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. succeeded in his appeals against convictions of FAILING TO VOTE, on 19 July 2006, in the County Court of Victoria, and have quoted below details published on the AEC Website in relation to some of his submissions. I understand that the AEC didnt in any form or manner seek to oppose the numerous submissions in support of his appeals. I rely therefore, upon this information published on the AEC Facebook website, as my right to object to voting, and do urge you to respond with your acknowledgement of my constitutional and other legal rights to do so, irrespective if it are religious or non-religious beliefs. QUOTE (19-8-2013) Australian Electoral Commission Facebook Website

On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia (AEC) in 2 appeals before the County Court of Victoria. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my ADDRESS TO THE COURT included the following, which was not challenged by the prosecution (nor any other about 50 constitutional issues I submitted to the court)
QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an invasion as to his rights. Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the matter in U.S. Supreme Court. 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. 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 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. And; Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and support materials provided in the following link: Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged. And Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law. And Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.

What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the religious objection Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the religious objection applies as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned. END QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

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

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

QUOTE As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. END QUOTE .
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE . Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. END QUOTE .

In my view, the AEC concealing this from the courts in every occasion they score a conviction proves to be more like a debt collection agency then an impartial party conducting elections. Considering the hundreds of thousands of electors each time fines inappropriately by the AEC one may just ask, what is its purpose? Is it to hold fair and proper elections or to use elections to financially shore up a government? Time will tell if the AEC does reveal the truth, but safe to say that its hand delivered document to homes, titled Your official guide to the 2013 federal election, claims that voting is compulsory, this I clearly disproved on 19 July 2006, and this document also fails to set out that any person having a non-religious objection then likewise as with a religious objection doesnt have to vote. In my view, not just to the judges but also to the AEC and its lawyers the following should be applicable, as the Framers of the Constitution embedded as a legal principle in the Constitution! For the above, I view that anyone who object to voting, even on a non-religious ground for this also should not be fined for FAILING TO VOTE, and I challenge the AEC to prove me wrong.! After all, I am quoting from the ADDRESS TO THE COURT I have on 19 July 2006 before the court when I comprehensively defeated the Australian Electoral Commission! Again, it never even attempted to challenge my submissions whatsoever!
END QUOTE (19-8-2013) Australian Electoral Commission Facebook Website

I trust that the information obtained from your Facebook Website is correct, and you will (again) acknowledge this in your response to me.

Were you decide not to acknowledge my rights and it would eventuate that you were to pursue to litigate againsgt me then I intend to infiorm the Court of this my correspondence and that I view you may seek to pervert the course of justice in seeking court orders adverse to my person. Elector in the electorate of, House of Representative: Senate:

Name: Address: State/Territory: Email address: Signed Dated