Page 1

5

10

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Peter Panayiotou Divisional Returning Officer for JAGAJAGA 9-1-2011 65 Burgundy Street Heidelberg 3084 Email: jagajaga@aec.gov.au Phone 13 23 26 REPLY PAID 146 HEIDELBERG 3084 Ref: 1181 3821 3133 0899 24
.

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.

15

20

25

30

35

Sir/Madam, I have quoted below my 2 December 2010 response to you and it should be understood that the issue of if I did or didn’t allegedly vote is a non issue as the issue is that the Court upheld that compulsory voting is unconstitutional (both in regard of the alleged non-voting in the 2001 and 2004 purported federal elections! As such there is non-issue if I have or haven’t any excuse either. Your repeat correspondence causes considerable distress to my 78 year old wife and I urge you to stop writing regarding this issue any further to me as I would consider this stalking. As the High Court of Australia in HCA 27 of 1999 in Wakim made clear that one cannot re-litigate the same issue between the same parties but Mr Wakim was a different party. This means that the Commonwealth is bound by the ruling of 19 July 2006 and never again can litigate in regard of the same issues of alleged non-voting. On 4 August 2004 the Court then also found that “AVERMENT” for the Commonwealth doesn’t and cannot apply as it upheld my submission that it was unconstitutional in the circumstances where it would interfere with the State judicial processes. The court then ordered the Commonwealth to file and serve all material it intended to rely upon, this the Commonwealth never did, albeit the counsel for the Commonwealth did make known to the court this would involve truck loads of documents. The Court then made clear that it was up to the Commonwealth and myself to sort out what was or wasn’t to be filed and served but the Commonwealth had to file and serve any material it sought to rely upon. There are numerous other issues but safe to say I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth after a 5-year epic legal battle and for all legal purposes entitled upon the benefits of the courts various rulings in that regard. Your predecessor Mr Michael King is well aware that both cases against me were comprehensively defeated. The fact that you now are the Returning Officer is irrelevant for legal purposes as in the end it is the Commonwealth you are acting for. However do keep in mind that if you persist with your demands, regardless of the courts decisions then the following may also be applicable:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50 QUOTE Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. END QUOTE p1 9-1-2011 Re election 2010-Cth INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS B&W Book ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0, Book-Colour ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2, on CD ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7 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

40

45

Page 1
.

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE

5

10
.

Mr. PEACOCK.-Quite so; but the question of a few thousand pounds ought not to be taken into consideration. When we remember that this Federal Court will have to deal with important matters affecting the liberties of the people, we are all desirous of seeing a strong Federal Court established, and appeals should be decided without incurring the large expenditure which is now involved in the case of appeals to the Privy Council. I am confident the people are desirous of not seeing this provision weakenedthat they would rather see it strengthened. I therefore hope the amendment will be rejected. END QUOTE Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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 accor ding 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. END QUOTE
.

15

20

25

30

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE
.

35

As such not only yourself but even any lawyer seeking to act in disregard of the courts various rulings in my benefit may risk the legal consequences of doing so.
.

40

The Framers of the Constitution specifically created a separation of powers as to the Legislators (the Parliament), the Executive (Government of the Day) and the Judiciary (the courts) as the arbitrators between a government and a citizen where a legal dispute exist and is placed before it. The Courts having made its various legal determination then by this has created what is commonly known as an “ESTOPPLE” and both parties are by this entitled to the benefits as well as the legal application of the orders. It is not my place to try to educate you in legal issues as you can consult your legal advisors for this, safe to say that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I so to say made piece meal of the Commonwealth lawyers.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE

45

50

What this means is that lawyers may seek to twist and infringe upon the constitutional meaning and/or application of constitutional provisions but in the end it is what the constitution actually stands for that is relevant.
.

55

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the p2 9-1-2011 Re election 2010-Cth INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS B&W Book ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0, Book-Colour ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2, on CD ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7 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

5

10

15

20

25

30

Page 1 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE

And then consider also: 35
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE

40

And 45
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
.As

50

55

such “POLITICAL LIBERTY” is not something that is subject to what a Parliament and/or government may permit but is as what the Framers of the Constitution intended and they specifically refused to give the Commonwealth any constitutional powers to compel any person to register and/or to vote! As such even a system of automatic registration, as now used in the State of Victoria would be null and void because the States by way of 106 are created from the colonies and bound by the principles embedded in the constitution! The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
p3 9-1-2011 Re election 2010-Cth INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS B&W Book ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0, Book-Colour ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2, on CD ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7 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

5

Page 1 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for 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
.

10

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

15
.

Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are. END QUOTE Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power? Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right. END QUOTE
.

20

25

30

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. END QUOTE
.

35

40

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE
.

45

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE
.

50

As for “citizenship” and that purportedly the 1988 Royal Commission” “ASSUMED” that the Commonwealth could legislate as to “citizenship” (as a nationality) even so the Constitution doesn’t provide for any amendment of the meaning and/or application of the constitution other then by way of s.128 referendum and as such it is irrelevant what the 1988 Royal Commission may have “ASSUMED”. Fancy any perhaps political motivated Royal Commission to try to alter the meaning and application of the constitution to circumvent a referendum!
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this p4 9-1-2011 Re election 2010-Cth INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS B&W Book ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0, Book-Colour ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2, on CD ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7 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

55

60

Page 1 provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it. END QUOTE

5

As such not even CoAG (Council of Australian Government) is a constitutionally valid body!
.

Let’s consider then also the following:
.

10

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." END QUOTE
.

15

20

25

30

35

40

Now, on that basis, as I pointed out also at the time to the court, the constitutional validity of all and every judicial officer and indeed any Member of Parliament and so Minister of State also was in question as each and all relied upon being an “Australian citizen” a term that is beyond legislative powers of the States and/or the Commonwealth. Constitutionally the States can only provide for “State citizenship” providing for legislative powers as to determine who shall or shall not be granted political rights such as franchise and where a person is granted this “State citizenship” then AUTOMATICALLY this invokes “Australian citizenship”. However, the Framers of the Constitution did also make clear that where the Commonwealth enacted any special legislation in regard of any race, then this shall apply to all persons of that race and more over AUTOMATICALLY all persons of that race will be without “citizenship”. What this means is that where the Commonwealth since 1967 gained legislative powers as to Aboriginals as a race then where it enacted any legislation then all and any person of the Aboriginal race no longer are constitutionally deemed to be “citizens” and have neither any State and/or Commonwealth citizenship entitlements and neither can for this be Members of any Parliament. Where for example the Commonwealth issued special legislation regarding Afghan refugees then within s.51(xxvi) of the constitution by this it automatically so to say robbed every other Afghanistan living in the Commonwealth of Australia of their State and Federal political rights. The Migration Act cannot be used against a specific race (The Framers of the Constitution referred to Afghans as a “race” not as a nationality for purpose of s.51(xxvi)!) as such any race legislation can only be sustained within s.51(xxvi) of the constitution and only if applicable to all person of that race, hence the Northern Territory Intervention act by this is unconstitutional as it purports to apply only to certain Aboriginals. Likewise any State legislation enacted since 1967 in regard of any race (including Aboriginals) is without legal force.)
.

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID

45

The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the Federal Legislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on them-the state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law is passed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" the federal law prevails over the state law. END QUOTE
.

50

55

Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE p5 9-1-2011 Re election 2010-Cth INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS B&W Book ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0, Book-Colour ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2, on CD ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7 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

Page 1
.

5

10

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID: We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind. END QUOTE
.

15

20

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE
.

25

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised. END QUOTE
.

30

This is also why State land taxes are unconstitutional because since the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to land taxes and on 11 November 1910 created the Land Tax Office (now known as the ATO) then it became an exclusive federal power and the 1956 NSW land tax legislation by this was ULTRA VIRES as it was without legislative powers, and so likewise for every other State/Territory, irrespective that the Commonwealth in 1952 abolished its land tax legislation because there is no constitutional provision to reverse Commonwealth power back to the States.
.

35

40

45

50

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitutionthe Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
.

55

60

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 p6 9-1-2011 Re election 2010-Cth INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS B&W Book ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0, Book-Colour ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2, on CD ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7 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

5

Page 1 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
.

Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

10

15
.

The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I am wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, are subjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is, as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left for all time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions are not state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a national referendum. END QUOTE Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

20

Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government. Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear. Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might be dangerous to the Constitution itself. END QUOTE
.

25

30

35

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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

40

45

As such no judicial officer can merely assume to be validly appointed where the State constitution was purportedly amended albeit without State referendum since federation as each and every purported amendment of such State constitution will be null and void and so without legal force. It also means that any purported judicial appointments and/or the appointment of any person to practice law by purportedly being admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court (of a State) is then unconstitutional and so without legal basis, essentially turning all courts into so called KANGAROO COURTS.
.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-

Mr. BARTON.-And a judicial determination. Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary. 50
END QUOTE
.

55

Within the framework of the constitution there is no such thing as the AEC fining anyone for purportedly FAILING TO VOTE because constitutionally a “judicial decision” is required and each party be heard before such a judicial decision is made (This also invalidates all and any interim Intervention Order issued in the absenteeism of any person subjected to such an order!)
p7 9-1-2011 Re election 2010-Cth INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS B&W Book ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0, Book-Colour ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2, on CD ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7 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

Page 1
.

5

I may add that these issues at the time were submitted as constitutional issues within s78 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and none, I repeat none, of the AttorneyGenerals then appealed the decision nor attempted to challenge it in the first place well aware they only faced further defeat if they were to do so. Never mess with a CONSTITUTIONALIST as you may just discover you may suffer a comprehensive defeat.
.

QUOTE 2-12-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

10

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Divisional Returning Officer for JAGAJAGA 65 Burgundy Street Heidelberg 3084 Email: jagajaga@aec.gov.au Phone 13 23 26 REPLY PAID REPLY PAID 146 HEIDELBERG 3084

2-12-2010

15

Ref: 1181 3821 3133 0899 24

20

. AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN . Sir/Madam, As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I submitted to the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 that the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied the Commonwealth to compel any person to register and/or to vote and the court upheld my submissions against the AEC (Commonwealth). As we are residing in a democratic society where the Courts are to determine conflicts between a government (and its Departments) and a citizen and the court ruled in my favour then I view the AEC is bound by this and it is an estoppel against the AEC to ever again prosecute or seek to prosecute me for the same. In fact it either should do so against any other person/elector. It is therefore a concern to me that, while the States within s.106 of the constitution were created out of the colonies, the State of Victoria has now commenced to compel persons to be automatically enrolled such as using school enrolments, driver licence registration, etc, because this clearly is in blatant breach of the “Political Liberty” and “Civil Rights” the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution and hence the Commonwealth neither can rely upon such purported registrations. Any election can only be fair and proper if it is conducted according with the provisions, including the embedded provisions, of the constitution and this appears not to eventuate in the Commonwealth of Australia. For the above it is not relevant if I, or for that matter anyone else, voted in any election because Parliaments are constitutional Parliament since federation, and no longer sovereign Parliaments, and hence cannot overrule by legislation what is embedded in the constitution. Or the above I request you withdraw this utter and sheer nonsense of the purported S20.o00 penalty because the AEC has no legal position either to try to interfere with the constitutional embedded “Political Liberty” and “Civil Rights” of any person, and again the court upheld my submissions in that regard against both cases previously. . Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka END QUOTE 2-12-2010 CORRESPONDENCE
.

25

30

35

40

45

50

I do not propose to repeat ongoing the same issues as after all I have various court judgment in my favour and the Commonwealth and also the States/Territories are bound by these orders and as such stop your rot and do not pester me any further as again you are upsetting my 78-year old wife with it all and as such it is a harassment. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

p8 9-1-2011 Re election 2010-Cth INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS B&W Book ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0, Book-Colour ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2, on CD ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful