You are on page 1of 10

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Auditor General
Level24, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 comments@audit.vic.gov.au

Cc:

10

15

20

4-9-2015

Michelle Ainsworth michelle.ainsworth@news.com.au,


Victorian Electoral Commissioner Email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au,
Hon. Bruce Atkinson, MLC President of the Legislative Council bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au,
Telmo Languiller (Speaker since 23 December 2014) telmo.languiller@parliament.vic.gov.au,
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au,
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au,
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au,
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com,
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au,
Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au,
Herald Sun Andrew Bolt news@heraldsun.com.au, readerfeedback@heraldsun.com.au,
Mark Robinson mark.robinson@news.com.au, jay.clark@news.com.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

Ref: 20150904-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor GeneralPRESS RELEASE-COMPLAINT


Sir/Madam,

25

30

It is precisely 18 months since I made my 4-3-2014 complaint (with supplements),


albeit I am aware it was basically ignored,.
QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General
Because we are facing a State election in 2014, I view that we must curtail the usage of public servants for
political purposes.
END QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

Let us be clear about it the Monarch withdrew her Victorian colonial Letters Patent and on 2-11901 replaced it with a Letters Patent to create the permanent Office of the Governor, subject to
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and in which Her Majesty also
made clear that the Governor was to establish an impartial administration of justice. As such
35 separation of powers of the executive, parliament and the judiciary, as embedded in the federal
constitution. Do understand that when you so to say close your eyes regarding this gigantic rip
off//fraud against taxpayers then I view you are part of the problems and might be held to
conspire to defraud Consolidated Revenue Funds.
Because we are to have a democracy based upon democratic elections it means your blatant
40 disregard to act regarding fraudulent conduct is by this as I view it to undermine our democracy.
Do also understand that as much as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) is applicable, as the states are created within s106 of this constitution and the (Victorian)
Letters Patent relies upon this also, then the embedded legal principles also apply. It also means
that no person having left a seat of Parliament can thereafter receive any monies. Nor can any
45 Member of Parliament receive a salary for being a Member of Parliament. Also, when a
Member of Parliament becomes a Minister of the Crown then all and any allowances otherwise
entitled upon being a Member of Parliament is no more!
p1 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

In my view this is a very serious matter as I warned various parties prior to the 2014 State
election about the misuse/abuse of public monies and yet nothing was done about this, even so
the very people abusing the system we so to say make it a hanging offence regarding then
Member of Parliament Mr Geoff Shaw. Safe to say we had fraudulent elections and this
5 criminal conduct needs to be stopped and those who participated in criminal conduct
should be thrown out of the Parliament and prosecuted for their fraudulent conduct as it
undermines our democratic entitlements. In particular where I pre-warned against the
misuse/abuse of public monies there can be no excuse for those nevertheless fraudulently
engaging in this kind of election campaign.
10 Below I quote statements of the Framers of the Constitution as well as some of my previous
correspondence to you.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

15

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.

20 END QUOTE
As such the constitution belongs to We, the People, and not to the politicians, parliament
or the courts
25 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE

30

Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other provision is
made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.

35

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!


Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those colonies
which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement of expenses,
because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a
salary for their work, which they are not.

40

Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
p2 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.

10

15

20

If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of
parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of
the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational
manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own
judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well
to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work tonight. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in
regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting
committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have,
therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a
payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual allowance
for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at 500.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.

25

30

35

Convention adjourned at 6.33 p.m.


END QUOTE
QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General
Likewise, I have an issue with how public monies is being used for political purposes.
.
Because the issue is reported about the Federal spending I use this as an example, but it should be kept in mind that
the same is occurring in State level. It was reported that the change of who was Prime Minister Rudd-Gillard-Rudd
was costing tax payers each time about $5 million because many public servants would resign when there was a
change of leadership, this even so they were of the same political party. As public servants are employed not to serve
a political party but the general community within a Department then I view this is a rort costing tax payers a lot
of monies. Consider all the phone calls then made regarding this ongoing contest between the two. Likewise we
have that those employed within the State Government as public servants are serving political parties and using
public funding to make phone calls to perhaps shore up their leader, etc. If any employee did the same in the private
sector who/she likely would be sacked on the spot if it related to a union business (political parties are unions).

40

45

50

55

We shouldnt have public servants engaged in the research and promotion of political parties campaigning to seek to
oust opponents.
Public servants should be limited to being employed to serve the general public irrespective as to which
political party/parties may be in government.
We have this head of a Department of a Minister going on to search for dirt on the opposition and many a Member
of Parliament has an office in which public servants are employed which then work on getting dirt files on other
opponents. This to me is a misuse and abuse of the use of public servants and so unduly burden the taxpayers with
cost for political motives.
We always have Governments claiming how they have to reduce spending, obviously this then targets the general
community, not themselves, as they appear to spend monies at cost of taxpayers as if there is no tomorrow.
Because we are facing a State election in 2014, I view that we must curtail the usage of public servants for political
purposes. Ministers are appointed to be advisors to the Governor and while they may have certain political views,
they are not commissioned by the governor to only serve their own political party members but to serve the general
community of the State.
On 3 March 2014 it was highlighted how Mr Bill Shorten leader of the opposition had claimed that he was there to
represent the union. This may underline that Mr Bill Shorten doesnt seem to understand that regardless if a person
p3 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

is elected in to a State or Federal Parliament he/she is elected not to serve a union but to serve the electorate. In my
view there should be a clamp down on those political abuses of public servants. The abuse of taxpayers monies to
have them engaging in making numerous phone calls for political purposes. We cannot have and enjoy fair and
proper elections when some candidates can use their offices to gain unfair advantages upon other candidates, in
particular INDEPENDENT candidates.
One of the great rip offs that eventuates is when Parliament is prorogued and Members of the Parliament by this
seize to be and remain to be Members of Parliament. Yet, you find they will nevertheless use the perks as if they are
still Members of Parliament, including accommodation and travel at cost of taxpayers and being paid even so this is
unconstitutional.
I have pointed this out in the past to Federal former Members of Parliament and view the same is applicable to State
former Members of Parliament. Such as using their parliamentarian email addresses during the time there is an
election. They are no longer a Member of Parliament when the writs are issued as the seats are vacant (other than in
the federal level where by a general election half of the Senators remain to keep their seats and the other half still
remain to be Senators until the following 1 July. However in a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION no one remains to be a
Member of Parliament during the election.
With the state parliament not a single Member of Parliament remains to be a Member of Parliament when the writs
are issued. Still they refer fraudulently to themselves as being a Member of Parliament during the election and use
the privileges as being a Member of Parliament not entitled upon. Yet, I understand they never declare this in their
statement of expenditure to the election commission.
While Ministers retain their functions as care taking Ministers during an election period, they nevertheless no longer
are a Member of Parliament and should therefore neither use their parliamentarian email address as such, as it is a
fraud upon the electors also.
.
Unless the contrary is stated in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) such as that s116 only
applies to the Commonwealth and not the States) I hold that the States are subject to this constitution and bound
by the legal principles embedded in this constitution. For this I have below further quoted statements of the
Delegates and other authorities to support my above set out.

30 Hansard 12-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I should like to ask a question with regard to clause 75, as to whether it is
intended to leave the right of appeal from a state or the Federal High Court itself direct to the Privy Council,
as it stands in the Bill, or whether the matter can be subsequently opened by the Parliament?

35

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am afraid that if I were to answer questions as to what is intended to
be done, I should expose the Drafting Committee to a flood of interrogations. I can only say that what we
intend to do is to carry out the decisions of the committee. Of course there are one or two cases in which
the [start page 2439] decisions which have been arrived at require a certain amount of interpretation in
the light of the debates, and in those cases we shall take what was said, as well as what was put in the
Bill, for the purpose of ascertaining what the movers of provisions desire. In the case of the proposal my
honorable friend carried, and which was put as a proviso to clause 74, it is evident that the words as they
appear are only in the nature of instructions to the committee, and they will have to be interpreted in
the light of statements made by my honorable friend in answer to inquiries by me. That is the course that will
be pursued. When an amendment, as carried, is intended only as a suggestion to the committee, it will be
interpreted in that way.

40

45

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

50 June 1999) Last Updated: 22 September 2000


QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
1.

55

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

p4 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

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."

10 END QUOTE
QUOTE

15

Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.

20

25

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
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE
.

30 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
.

35 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.

40

45 END QUOTE
.

50

55

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
p5 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.

END QUOTE
.

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

10 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

15

20

25

30

35

40

The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
such authority.
END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
.

45

50

55

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664
397 U.S. 664 Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York (No. 135)
Argued: November 19, 1969 Decided: May 4, 1970
Opinion
BURGER, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
QUOTE
It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution
by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence, and indeed predates it.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he
pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation
including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the
ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be
p6 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage
of its existence.
END QUOTE
END QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General
QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
Ethics Orientation for State Officials

10

Misuse of Public Funds

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

15

20

25

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.

Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

30

35

1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase items for himself
and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those receiving the discount paid for the
items with personal funds.
2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to transport a
political candidate, his staff and family.
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.

40
State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections
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.

45

50

Stanson v. Mott
Endorsements and Informational Materials
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines
Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns
The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public
funds in election campaigns.
In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
challenging the directors expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a
p7 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that in
the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a
partisan position in an election campaign.
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.
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.

20
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.

25

30

3. To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both sides of
the issue.
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
p8 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

b. The materials do not make false statements.

c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.

Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of
the measure.
Remember These Points

10

Expenditures must be for a public purpose


Expenditures must be authorized
Public funds may not be expended for personal use
Information must be fairly presented
Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions

You have completed the "Misuse of Public Funds" module. The next module is Other Laws.
END QUOTE

15
For the record, while I was an INDEPENDENT candidate in State/Federal and council elections
in the past, I decided in 2013 to no longer to do so, and hence didnt stand as a candidate in the
last 2013 federal election. This as I hold the view there are no FAIR and PROPER elections, and
some of the reasons are is set out above.
20 END QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General
QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

I look forwards to you providing the courtesy of responding in details to this correspondence of
complaint(s).
25 END QUOTE 20149304-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General

30

35

40

45

I have never been afraid to acknowledge my self-professed crummy English but at least I can
read and understand what the constitution and the Letters Patent stand for. No matter what riles
Premier Daniel Andrews may seek to rely upon they can never interfere let alone overrule the
legal principles embedded in the constitution. If he fraudulently became Premier then he should
be held legally ac countable for this, as should any other Member of Parliament who fraudulently
claimed cost after the writs were issued as if they were still members of parliament. None and I
repeat none were entitled to use their former parliamentarian offices nor their electorate offices
for an election because they were no longer members of parliament. And they would only
become Members of parliament subsequently if they were re-elected and after the return of the
writs had taken up the seat elected for. Than on that date they would again become Members of
Parliament. It means that no Member of Parliament ever continuously sits in the State
Parliament, because every time the writs are issued they lose their seats and all and any
entitlements as a Member of Parliament are to be deemed suspended pending if they are not just
re-elected but actually are sworn in to take up a seat.
It also means that former Premiers are not entitled to some lifelong pension but are only entitled,
if Her Majesty desires to do so, a limited pension for the time they were in employment of Her
Majesty. No Member of Parliament is employed by the State of Victoria, albeit Ministers pay are
to be paid out of Consolidated Revenue funds to Her Majesty. Ordinary Members of Parliament
are only entitled to an allowance and not a salaries this would be in defiance of s41 of the
constitution which legal principles also applies to the States. Any superannuation or other
retirement payment associated with being a Member of Parliament would indicate a salary and
would automatically disqualify this person from being a Member of Parliament.
p9 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

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
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.
END QUOTE
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.

20

END QUOTE

25

It appears to me you are so to say asleep behind the wheel and not doing your job!
.

If you cannot handle the job then vacate it as We, the People, are entitled to so to say get our
monies worth as after all you accepted the job and so better perform properly in the job.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out issues as to
30 importance and neither sets out all relevant details/issues.
Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL


35

Our name is our motto!)

40

p10 4-9-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati