Page 1

1
2
3 Tom Rogers - Australian Electoral Commission & Ors 9-9-2023
4 info@aec.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus
7 attorney@ag.gov.au
8
9 Michelle.Rowland.MP
10 Michelle.Rowland.MP@aph.gov.au <Michelle.Rowland.MP@aph.gov.au>;
11
12 Reece Kershaw
13 Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
14 Forwarded via email commissioner@afp.gov.au
15
16
17 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
18 Re COMPLAINT
19 Sir,
20 hereby I request you to resign as I view your conduct questions your integrity, etc.
21
22 First of all in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka (in which I represented myself) County Court of Victoria,
23 Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 on 19 July 2006 I succeeded in both appeals (Re 2001
24 FAILING TO VOTE and 2004 FAILING TO VOTE).
25
26 I had filed a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER (served upon all 9 Attorney-
27 Generals also) in which I challenged the constitutional validity of the legislation regarding the
28 “compulsory” part of voting. I also challenged the constitutional validity of the Commonwealth
29 to define/declare “Australian Citizenship” as a nationality, etc, to which the Court on 4
30 December 2002 issued the order that the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER was to
31 be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. Part of the case also was that the writs
32 had been issued on 8 October 2001, albeit FOI Act obtained records proved that the Special
33 Gazette dated 8 October 2001 actually was not issued by the Government Printer until 9 October
34 2001 and as such no valid writs and so general election regarding the House of Representatives
35 and the Senate seats for the Territories eventuated. Also, that the Special Gazette was not
36 published in some State until 10 October 2001, or not at all.
37 Neither the Commonwealth (DPP) and/or any of the Attorney-Generals in any manner
38 challenged my constitutional and other legal based numerous submissions, contained in my 409
39 pages ADDRESS TO THE COURT (written submissions).
40
41 It is therefore clearly absurd that the AEC nevertheless pursued that voting is “compulsory”!
42 After all, the AEC and so all or any of the Attorney-Generals had the opportunity to challenge
43 me but failed to do so. Res Judicata now means that neither the Commonwealth and or the States
44 can ever litigate against me regarding “FAILING TO VOTE”.

9-9-2023 Page 1 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 2

1 However, legislation is not just enacted as to my person as all Commonwealth law is required to
2 be UNIFORM throughout the Commonwealth of Australia and therefore if any part is ULTRA
3 VIRES, as I pursued to be ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio, then it applies to all Australians.
4
5 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that natural born Australians and those naturalised
6 would all be equal. Hence, where I succeeded in both cases that the “compulsory” part of voting
7 was unconstitutional then this applies for all Australians. Hence, the statement of the document
8 issued by the AEC “VOTING IS COMPULSORY” and “Voting is compulsory for
9 Australian citizens aged 18 years and older. If you don’t vote you may be fined or
10 prosecuted If you vote more than once it is a criminal offence.” clearly violates the Court
11 decisions!
12

13
14
15
16 In my view the documents is also false and misleading containing misinformation/disinformation
17 where it includes the wording “There would be a description of the proposed constitutional
18 change here.” which also contains the word “SAMPLE”.
19
20 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sample
21 QUOTE
22 sample
23 1 of 3
24 noun
25 sam·ple ˈsam-pəl
26 Synonyms of sample
27 1
28 : a representative part or a single item from a larger whole or group especially when
29 presented for inspection or shown as evidence of quality : SPECIMEN

9-9-2023 Page 2 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 3

1 2
2 : a finite part of a statistical population whose properties are studied to gain information
3 about the whole
4 3
5 : an excerpt from a recording (such as a popular song by another performer) that is used in
6 a musical composition, recording, or performance
7 … had to substantially rewrite "Sometimes I Miss You … " when he was denied
8 permission to use a Michael Jackson sample …—Jon Young
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Australia (Commonwealth of Australia) has Australians from about 136 or more different
12 countries as origins of their families, and not each and every person would be competent in
13 Australian law let alone in constitutional law, the may however understand plain English!
14
15 The Framers of the Constitution did make clear:
16
17 Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
18 QUOTE
19 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee
20 will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not
21 understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by persons commonly
22 acquainted with the English language.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
27 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
28 understand.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
32 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
33 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Clearly the wording “There would be a description of the proposed constitutional change
37 here.” Is NOT a “SAMPLE” of the actual text proposed for the referendum? Moreover, because
38 this is a proposed amendment to alter the constitution every Australian should be given ample of
39 opportunity to consult whomever as to the proposed amendment of the constitution and therefore
40 the wording “There would be a description of the proposed constitutional change here.”
41 denies electors to have sufficient time to do so. In my view the onus is upon the Australian
42 Electoral Commission to present a “SAMPLE” of the actual wording the proposed amendment
43 of the constitution as to ensure that each and every elector has ample of opportunity (this to
44 include sufficient time) to research what the proposed amendment is actually about.
45 Mr Albanese has claimed it is a “modest” amendments, however, I as a constitutionalist hold this
46 is a proposed s129 amendment to the constitution that would clash with Section 25 as well as
47 Ss51(xxvi), etc.
48
49 The Framers of the Constitution did make known that there should be State conventions for a
50 proposed referendum so citizens in each state would have an opportunity to present their views
51 as to any proposed amendment. However, Mr Thomas Mayo made clear that even amongst
52 Aboriginals certain Aboriginals were excluded because they opposing views. And as such, even
53 certain Aboriginals were excluded from consultation regarding the proposed amendment of the
9-9-2023 Page 3 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 4

1 constitution. Moreover, the proposed referendum was based upon what was presented to the
2 Parliament for Members to vote upon, however, since then Mr Albanese when questioned by
3 Peta Credlin Sky News seemed to admit that he actually had not read more than the first page.
4 Hence, in my view his reference to the (first) page rather than submitting to the Parliament the
5 entire document also I view was misleading/deceiving the Parliament.
6
7 Members of Parliament are entitled to exercise their “political liberty” as enshrined in the legal
8 principle of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) however, when a
9 Member of parliament accepts to become a Minister of the Crown then he/she must conduct
10 his/her duties and obligations non-partisan as he/she must act and be seen to act for and on
11 beheld of all Australians, this as Ministers are deemed to be “constitutional advisers” to the
12 Governor-General and cannot act bias towards any particular section of the general community.
13
14 Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
15 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
16 It is only when the federal parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those
17 matters that the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal
18 legislature chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not
19 interfering with the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is
20 proposed to give some exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal
21 with the affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws
22 not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation
23 with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 It should be understood that the 1967 Ss51(XXVI) referendum did NOT alter the original
27 intention of Ss51(xxvi) against any race but merely was to include Aboriginals in this section.
28 Which means that you cannot have the proposed 129 as it would conflict with Ss51(xxvi) and
29 Section 25! It means that any proposed referendum must be placed by the AEC before a
30 competent court of jurisdiction as to determine the validity of the proposed Section 129
31 legislation. This also as I view the number 129 is inappropriate because the S128 referendum
32 provision should always be the last part. As such s129 may be changed to s127, etc.
33
34 “A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the
35 country is entitled to disregard it”. Chief Justice Latham 1942
36
37 As I indicated I challenged the validity of the Australians Citizenship Act” and succeeded in both
38 appeals without any challenge by the Commonwealth and/or any or all of the Attorney-Generals
39 and as such the requirement of an electors to be having “Australian Citizenship” as a nationality
40 disqualifies each and every purported elector. Moreover, the Framers of the Constitution made
41 clear that one has to be an elector to be able to be a candidate in a political election, and as such
42 without being a “Subject of the British Crown” there are no valid electors. Actually one cannot
43 be a Member of Parliament, Legal practitioner, judge, etc, unless one had the status of “Subject
44 of the British Crown”, as I did set out during the appeals in 2006 the High Court of Australia
45 decision in Sue v Hill was outside the courts jurisdiction.
46
47 I am also concerned that Mr Albanese and others are claiming that Aboriginals are in Australia
48 for some 65,000 years albeit I on my blog at https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati have set out
49 that Nigritoes and other races were in what is now known as the Commonwealth of Australia
50 well before Aboriginal arrived. As such, the spread of misinformation/disinformation is
51 considerable.
52

9-9-2023 Page 4 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 5

1 I understand that in Bay v Commonwealth on 5 September 2023 the High Court of Australia
2 indicated that the ballot paper referring to merely a title of the proposed s129 amendment and not
3 the entire act would be unconstitutional.
4
5 Section 128 included the wording “When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote
6 shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes.” As such, the entire proposed
7 Act must be shown on the ballot and not merely a part thereof.
8
9 While it may not be directly relevant to this proposed referendum, in my view the 1967
10 ss51(xxvi) referendum was a con-job referendum, this as Aboriginals appeared to be informed
11 and so electors that this amendment would grand them citizenship, even so Aboriginals had
12 “Australian Citizenship” from commencement of federation, this as Australian Citizenship can
13 only be AUTOMATICALLY obtained by being a State/Territory citizen. Franchise was
14 provided to Aboriginals who were entitled to vote in the numerous House of the Parliament of a
15 State by s41 of the constitution. Ss51(xxvi) couldn’t give the Commonwealth any powers to
16 grant any Aboriginal “franchise” as that was up to the States/Territories. Moreover, The Framers
17 of the Constitution also made clear that a person had to resign in the Commonwealth of Australia
18 to be able to exercise any franchise. For purpose of diplomats and armed forces their residence is
19 deemed to be in Australia. However, the Commonwealth unconstitutionally allows persons
20 residing overseas to become so called Australian Citizen as a nationality and then vote while
21 residing in a foreign country. There is no such thing as the Commonwealth create its own
22 electoral laws as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth was to rely
23 upon the State’s electoral rolls but limit those who were not an “adult” (as the Commonwealth
24 may from time to time declare to be the age of adult) not to vote in federal elections.
25
26 There is a lot more to it all but the above is just some indication that merely because the
27 Parliament may have voted for a deceptive presentation doesn’t mean it then can go ahead, this
28 as it already is in violation of the existing constitution and for this cannot be proceeded with.
29
30 In my view you ought to resign as there are too many issues that I view should never have
31 eventuated by proper management.
32
33 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
34 constitution!
35
36 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
37 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

38 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

39 (Our name is our motto!)

9-9-2023 Page 5 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati