20201117-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

ISSUE –
The Australian & USA misconceptions about elections

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, are you saying there is a lot of misconceptions regarding elections?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, in Australia we have leaders of the 2 major parties advertising
for elections for people to vote for them to be Prime Minister, however our constitution doesn’t
provide for electors (We, the people) to vote for anyone to be in government, or for that who
shall be Governor-General or Governor of a State. It is false and misleading advertising but we
lack any credible Electoral Commission to stop this deceptive advertising. Likewise in the USA
there we have for example Van Jones a former lawyer in the Obama administration claiming that
he didn’t knpw but now knows how the constitution applies. Just that he published a TED video
that I view is grossly misstating. His claim is, and most people do, that the people vote who shall
be President. Reality is that the USA Constitution doesn’t at all provide for the ordinary people
to vote for who shall be President. Indeed, if this was to be the system then more than likely the
President would generally be always of the one party that has the majority. However, the
Framers of the USA Constitution made clear that it had to be “Electors” not being Members of
Parliament who would choose who shall be the next president. While the States may have
implemented their own system how the electors are to be appointed, that however doesn’t in any
way at all alter the constitutional provisions. As such, there really is not popularity vote for
someone to become President, at least not by the provisions of the USA constitution. Some states
allocate the Electors to a party having the majority of people voting for it whereas others apply
their own different system where you could get some to one candidate and others to another
candidate. While they use 270 Electoral College votes to gain majority, this is not at all regulated
by the constitution. There could be or more candidates for becoming Presidents and then none
likely may obtain 270 but may have one or two gaining the majority of votes. And if there is a tie
then the States shall appoint one person for each vote to determine who shall be the president.
This Van Jones however seems to fail to understand this system and instead claims that it is the
“popularity vote” that determines who shall win and that someone who doesn’t win it should
concede. As such, seeking to get rid of the real constitutional system. And that is a danger
because it could essentially nullify the equality of the States to some regard. We often hear that
some senators are having a larger electorate than others. But, reality is that every senator
represent the State, not the ordinary electors who vote for a federal Government for the House of
Representatives. As such, the number of Senators in the USA is determined by there being 2
Senators of each State. This, whereas the number of representatives in the USA House of
Representatives is determined by the number of people in each state. Senators are representing
the interest of their respective States and not the federal interest.

QUOTE 17-11-2020 correspondence

Larry P. Arnn 17-11-2020
President, Hillsdale College
larry.p.arnn@hillsdale.edu

p1 17-11-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 20201117-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B to Larry P. Arnn, President, Hillsdale College

Sir,
This morning I came across a TED video of Mr Val Jones titled “What if a US presidential
candidate refuses to concede after an election? | Van Jones”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb62x6XGjv4
https://podcasts.apple.com/kg/podcast/what-if-us-presidential-candidate-refuses-to-
concede/id160904630?i=1000496141164
https://www.ted.com/talks/van_jones_what_if_a_us_presidential_candidate_refuses_to_concede
_after_an_election/transcript?language=en

I also noticed:
https://vanjones.net/

Van Jones |
Anonymous View
His reach transcends age, race, geography and political ideology. Van is a CNN political
contributor, the host of the Van Jones Show and The Redemption Project.
https://www.facebook.com/vanjones/

Van Jones - Home | Facebook

Anonymous View
Van Jones. 961K likes. CNN contributor. CEO of REFORM. The Van Jones Show.
Founder of the Dream ... Contact Van Jones on Messenger. Highlights info row ...

https://www.facebook.com/vanjones/

QUOTE

Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka

Van Jones in my view should learn what the US constitution is really stating then his absurd claims about the system
Such as 9 innings and then 4 innings, etc in his TED video "“What if a US presidential candidate refuses to concede after
an election? ".

Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka

Let me quote the US constitution:

QUOTE

Article. II.

Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President

of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office

during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice

President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

p2 17-11-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature

thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the

whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the

State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,

or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under

the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

END QUOTE

Therefore there is no election by the People but rather an election by the Electoral college. The fact that the States provide
for people to vote is an addition but cannot override the provisions of the constitution.

As such, there is no such thing of a candidate to concede on the alleged popular vote, because it is the addition by the
States. A candidate only may concede (but it is not required as the vote itself determines the successful candidate) if the
Electoral College votes for an opponent candidate to become President.

Failure any majority of any candidate then the so called “safety valve” provides for each state to nominate their
preference.

I view the TED video should be withdrawn as it in my view caused deception and misconception by misrepresenting
details what really is applicable.

Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka

So you cried for allegedly Joe Biden being elected President, when in fact no one is elected President unless the Electoral
College vote on this and there is one successful candidate with the most votes. If say there are or 4 candidates then it is
the candidate which of them all has the most votes. Surely as a lawyer you do better to check what really is applicable? I
am in Australia and do not vote in that regard in any kind of USA election but still held one should consider the true
meaning and application of the constitution before making claims that can cause people to misconceive what is
applicable.
END QUOTE

I understand that candidate Al Gore conceded in 2000 to George W Bush, but then recanted this
and litigated, albeit unsuccessfully, until the Electoral College voted for George W Bush.

In my view there is a danger that some lawyer makes claims that may cause considerable
misconceptions to those who take his word for granted.

While each State/District may desire to have in place some sort of population involvement reality
is that the Presidency is based upon the States/Districts allocating its Electors, regardless of how
may within a State/District may support one or another candidate. The popularity of the voting is
for the representation of the House of Representatives (The Peoples House) whereas the equality
of each State is providing for 2 Senators of each State in the Senate (The States House).

In my view, unless some Amendment to the US Constitution provides otherwise, States can
simply appoint Electors to the Electoral College without any need for a public participation to
vote which candidate in a presidential election they desire. As such, the so called “popular vote”
is immaterial when it comes to the application of constitutional provisions, as it appears to me
not applied for. The “popular vote” is simply a creation by the States that I view cannot interfere
with what the constitution provides for.
I welcome any response in this regard to outline a different application then what I understand
the constitution provides for.
p3 17-11-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 17-11-2020 correspondence

This lawyer is preaching something he in my view doesn’t understand and worse is he can cause
a lot of problems in the process.
It is totally irrelevant if a candidate “concedes” defeat when in fact no defeat exist unless and
until the Electoral college decides who is to be the next President. It has on 8 occasions
eventuated that an Elector of then Electoral College voted for a person contrary to what was
expected to be voted for.
While president Donald J Trump is litigating about whatever, even if hypothetical he lost every
case the Electoral College still could vote him to be re-elected. And, if the Supreme Court of the
USA were to hear the matter and nullifies the election of the States then the next issue is will it
nullify the Electoral College voting ability?
* Is your view the States acted wrongly to associate the popular vote with how the Electoral
college shall vote?
**#** Not particular. The States may prefer to appoint Electors who are reflecting the States
citizen’s views, but it will in itself not change the voting rights of each Electoral College elector
how such person votes. If for example a State has 6 Electors and in that State political party
Purple won the majority of seats in the House of Representatives then the State may desire that
all 6 vote for the political party named Purple. However, the Electors themselves may decide
they may not do so and instead vote for another candidate. It might be because they view that a
Purple Party candidate is not acceptable to be President. It might be they hold the election was
rigged, or whatever.
* On that basis it is wrong to claim candidate Joe Biden won?
**#** Absolutely. It is the Electoral College Electors that ultimately make the decision and
provided there is no two or more candidates who have the highest votes the one who receives the
most votes is to become President. This is also why Candidate Trump because President on 20
January 2017. The so-called “popular vote” is a creation of the States and doesn’t have anything
to do with the constitutional provisions how to elect the next President. As much as the “popular
vote” in Australia doesn’t decide who shall be Prime Minister. The Governor-General can
commission any person to be Prime Minister even if not a Member of Parliament. As was with
Edmund Barton on January 1901. (See Section 64 of the constitution for relevant conditions.) As
such in my view it was utter stupidity for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to congratulate
candidate Joe Biden having been elected “President Elect” as no such election has as yet taken
place by the Electoral College, as I understand will eventuate on 14 December 2020.

We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
p4 17-11-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati