20140308-g. h .schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to jscem-supplement4 -when is an election commencing validly

8/12/2019 20140308-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to JSCEM-Supplement4 -When is an Election Commencing Validly

1/35


2/35


3/35

p3 8-3-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI seriesby making a reservation, See alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Whenever a vacancy happens in the House of Representatives, the Speaker shall issue his writ for theelection of a new member, or if there is no Speaker or if he is absent from the Commonwealth the Governor-General in Councilmayissue the writ.

END QUOTE5

From the above the speaker, the Governor (not Governor in council), the Governor-Generalor the Governor-General-in-council is referred to as to writs to be issued.The Speaker is not an employee of the Commonwealth of Australia but is employed by the

House of Representative (Parliament) as is the President of the Senate employed by theSenate (Parliament) as to the Rules of the House.10

HANSARD 16-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. BARTON(New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of15Speaker 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 extentthat really the Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit theirown Estimates, and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, arealtogether untouched by the Government of the day.20

END QUOTE

However, the speaker cannot violate constitutional provisions and as such couldnt issue awrit that was in violation to the return required by the constitution or the time frame required

by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. As such, any writ in violation must be deemed not25to be valid. It makes not one iota difference if the writ(s) is/are in violation to the return of thewrits, the closing of the polls, the closure of nominations, the time frame from closure ofnominations to the holding of the poll, as unless each and every time frame is complied withthe writ(s) has no validity. To hold otherwise would allow politicians to violate legislative

provisions as may suit them and indeed would endanger the FAIR and PROPER elections30condition to be applied for elections.

The publication of the writs must be as so to ensure that it is not kept secret until the last

moment. What is the use if writs are issued following the time frame of the legislation butkept secret from electors and anyone else, including of members of parliament other than the35

political party/parties in power and then suddenly after the closure of nominations the PrimeMinister announces that there will be an election but the writs for it were issued weeks agoand it is now too late to nominate as the closure of nominations already has eventuated. Assuch, the prime minister deliberately wait with the writs to be published until after the closureof nominations but having ensured his own political party members have been able to40nominate in time. It is not if some Prime Minister may do so but that the Framers of theConstitution specifically placed a certain regime in place because of past abuses by Colonial

politicians to thwart the holding of elections. Even that where elections were held thegovernment would refuse to hand over power to the successful party (in the election held).

45In my view electors must have a certain way of being able to know what the law is and the

publication of a writ must be deemed to be an important matter in a democratic society andthe writ cannot take effect unless and until it is published in the Gazette, and the Gazette is infact available to the general community.Therefore any kind of registration of any proclamation/writ without publication in the50Gazette must be deemed to be invalid.

WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;

Such as:To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means55

of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


4/35


5/35

p5 8-3-2014



23. These two enactments of the Commonwealth Parliament provide a mechanism for parliamentaryoversight of delegated legislation and, no less importantly, allow those hom such laws affect to learn of

their making and of their terms.

As Scott L.J. said in Blackpool Corporation v. Locker (1948) 1 KB 349, at p

361 , speaking there of sub-delegated legislation, "there is one quite general question . . . of supreme5importance to the continuance of the rule of law under the British constitution, namely, the right of the

public affected to know what that law is". The maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse forms the

"working hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracy" but to operate it requires

that "the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to the public - in the sense, of course, thatat any rate its legal advisers have access to it at any moment, as of right". It was, his Lordship said (1948) 110KB, AT p 370 , "vital to the whole English theory of the liberty of the subject, that the affected person should

be able at any time to ascertain what legislation affecting his rights has been passed". (at p395)END QUOTE

AndWATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;15QUOTE

JUDGE4 MASON J.16. The subsections to which I have referred and the comments made in Dignan's Case proceed upon thefooting that a regulation takes effect from the date of its notification, or where another date is specified in theregulations, from the date specified, for this is what s. 48 (1) (b) explicitly provides. Whether the requirement20in s. 48 (1) (a) that the regulations shall be notified in the Gazettewould, viewed in isolation, call for the

publication in the Gazetteof the regulations in their entirety is not a question that needs to be answeredbecauses. 5(3) of theRules PublicationActapplies so that publication of a notice in the Gazettethat theregulations have been made and of the place where copies can be purchased is a sufficient compliance withthe statutory requirements respecting notification.25In Myer Queenstown Garden Plaza Pty. Ltd. v. Port Adelaide Corporation (1975) 11 SASR 504, at p 537Wells J., referring to the requirement in s. 38 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915-1972 (S.A.) that regulations"shall be published in the Gazette", said: "In the setting of s. 38, and more especially because it is associatedwith the Government Gazette, the word, in my judgment, means rather to make generally accessible oravailable to the public". It is perhaps possible that the requirement in s. 48 (1) (a) that regulations "shall be30notified in the Gazette" means something less than this, but for the reason which I have already given, I haveno need to discuss this question. (at p405)

END QUOTE

.As I did set out in the successful appeals on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria35against the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) that that the proclamation of the specialGazette did not eventuate at the time at all (such as in Tasmania) but was weeks later

published in the ordinary Gazette. And the same with conversion rates and numerous otherissues, where then citizens were left so to say in the dark about legislation (including aviationmatters) being applicable until weeks later. This is in direct violation to what was held40applicable in WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374.

Again, it is not just in regard of proclamations and writs relating to elections but numerousother proclamations, etc, are not published until weeks later. Meaning that a business can

enter into a contract with a foreign based company on what is known only to discover days45 later that a publication was made to alter the foreign exchange, etc, but not published in theState for weeks when it should have been.Imagine to board a plane in Tasmania and carry something that by law became prohibited but

because it was not at the time published in Tasmania the unsuspected traveler when landing insay Sydney could be charged as the details had been published in Sydney weeks ago.50It is an issue that I raised since 2001 and while subsequently then the publications went overto the Attorney-Generals Office in my view it became worse.For example, the constitution provides:.Commonwealth of Australi a Constitu tion Act 1900(UK)QUOTE55

4 Provisions relating to Governor-General
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/s5.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/s5.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/s5.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/rpa1903202/s5.htmlhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


6/35

p6 8-3-2014



The provisions of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for the time being, or such person as the Queen may appoint to administer the Government of theCommonwealth; but no such person shall be entitled to receive any salary from the Commonwealth inrespect of any other office during his administration of the Government of the Commonwealth

END QUOTE5

Yet, one find that the Attorney-General is then the deputy on executive meetings when theGovernor-General is not attending, which I view violates section 4 of the constitution.Likewise, a Minister then without obtaining a signature of the Governor-General to sign a

proclamation simply record the proclamation as a registered document even so it is required10to be published in the Gazette, which now doesnt eventuate.As such, the system now used is that the minister may register a proclamation (exercisingunconstitutionally the prerogative powers of the governor-General) and the Governor-Generalmay not even be aware of what is registered..15It should be understood that the signing by the Governor-General of a proclamation is a legalrequirement but in itself is not the final act to complete the application of a proclamation.For example the Governor-General signed on 5 October 2001 the proclamation that on 8October 2001 tat 11.59 the House of Representatives was to be dissolved and at 12.00 noonthe Parliament was prorogued. However, as the Special Gazette officer was not in the office20

until in the afternoon the time to publish the proclamation in the gazette has already passed.

The following details were shown on the FREEDOMOF INFORMATIONreleased computerrecords of the Commonwealth of Australia as to copies of the Gazette having been transferred,after printing.25

11/03/02 GO BOI 53/2 GAZETTES Wr-Off 20 0.20 MGIRVAN11/10/01 GO SGAZ421 . Subs Issue Adj Dist -6 -0.06 HEMSAN9/10/01 GO CAS0153391 Trf to CA Transfr -2 -0.02 CA ZZ BMO5IAI9/10/01 GO ICN0910ADL ICN to AD Transfr -1 -0.01 AD ZZ DCRANE309/10/01 GO ICN1076CAN ICN to CA Transfr -3 -0.03 CA ZZ DCRANE

9/10/01 GO ICN0907MEL ICN to ME Transfr -1 -0.01 ME ZZ DCRANE9/10/01 GO ICN0886PER ICN to PE Transfr -1 -0.01 PE ZZ DCRANE9/10/01 GO ICN0881TOV ICN to TH Transfr -1 -0.01 TN ZZ DCRANE8/10/01 GO FGS0153363 CANPRINT PO-Fins 35 0.35 GHANNA358/10/01 GO FGS0153363 CANPRINT Receipt 35 0.35 GHANNA

QUOTE9/10/01 GO CAS0153391 Trf to CA Transfr -2 -0.02 CA ZZ BMO5IAI

END QUOTE40

It is clear that while Canprint printed 35 copies of the special Gazette on 8 October 2001 not asingle one left the printers that day. Some were sent out on 9 October 2001 and the rest went

on 11 October 2001. But even this claim is disputable as record prove some were sent out notuntil 10 October 2001. What may have eventuated is that the copies were allocated to be sent45out but the paperwork to send it out was not printed until 10 October 2001.Clearly it shows that Canberra was provided with 2 copies on 9 October 2001.


7/35

p7 8-3-2014



A larger view to see the time of printing;

The transport voucher clearly shows it was printed on 10/10/2001 at 17:33 which means it was5not dispatched on 9 October 2001 as was recorded on the computer but was still at the printers on10 October 2001. It should be understood that other dispatch documents also showed a laterdispatch. As such, it was not just a once off. Obviously if this deception was perpetrated todeceive what really eventuated then how often is this eventuating in other elections?

10It should be very obvious that due to the ongoing litigation at the time spanning some 5 years(climaxing in 2006) the JSCEM was not able to attend to these issues. And obviously the AECnever bothered since then to inform the JSCEM about the true facts of the matters. After all whyshould it expose its own wrongdoing when it can continue the same rot unchecked?

15

Below a copy of the computer records as obtained under FOI, as such I am not just making it up!20


8/35

p8 8-3-2014




9/35

p9 8-3-2014



.


10/35

p10 8-3-2014



By way of 6 February 2002 letter Mr David Smith Principal Legal Officer for the Department ofCommunications Information Technology and the Arts provided that Special Gazette S421 withthe proclamation to Prorogue the parliament on 8 October 2001 at 11.59 PM and to Dissolve theHouse of Representatives on 8 October at 12 noon was published as follows as S421 on its ownor included in General Notices Gazette GN 41 as follows:5

Infor Shop S421 Available for sale GN41(S421) Available for sale

Adelaide 11/10/01 18/10/01Brisbane Not made available 19/10/0110Canberra 8/10/01 17/10/01Hobart Not made available 22/10/01Melbourne 10/10/01 18/10/01Parramatta Not made available 18/10/01Perth 15/10/01 22/10/0115

According to the FOI details provided somehow on 8 October 2001 S421 was available inCanberra even so still at the printers until 9 October 2001. Which may underline the extend

that people were willing to go to try to cover up their own wrongdoings.20While it is claimed by Mr David Smith Principal Legal Officer for the Department ofcommunications Information Technology and the Arts (as it then was) that Brisbane,Hobart, Parramatta and Sydney had not ordered any copies of s421 this only underlines thatthe modus operandi was that unless a bookshop held it served its profit margin it wouldntorder a copy. But, how can this apply one has to ask?25After all the publication of the Gazette is not for profit margins to be boosted of theGovernment Bookshop but a legal requirement to ensure the legislation can be applied.(consider Watson authority). What therefore is proven is that numerous laws that weredeemed applicable were not at all. And whenever I during an adjournment of a court case

attended to the Government Bookshop to obtain a copy of a Gazette to check if a particular30piece of legislation had been referred to in the Gazette then I had to ait at time 8 weeks ormore. And I can guarantee a Court isnt going adjourning a case just so I can wait for a fewmonths or so to check details. Therefore the failure of the Government bookshop to haveGazettes available at the time certain legislation is purportedly proclaimed to be applicableundermine also the intentions of the legislators. What an utter mess and I am not aware this h35

What the above also shows is that somehow Canberra was to have received copies of theSpecial Gazette allegedly on 8 October 2001, even so they were still at the printers on 9October 2001! I would call this fiddling with the books!And it also shows that without any proclamation being published in some States the special40

Gazette was not provided until included in GN41 and well after the writs were issued. In factwith Hobart it was 14 days after the Writs were issues. The criteria of the challenge of theWrits is not defeated by purported elections held as if the writs are defective and of no effectthen any of the purported elections held are as if they never occurred.According to Electoral Pocket Handbook issued by the Australian Electoral Commission45including the 1998 Federal election results an election ought to have been held by no later than12 January 2002. No valid election was held and as such any election after that date for theHouse of Representatives would be outside the legal provisions of the Commonwealth ofAustralia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as Section 28 specify when an election is to be heldwithin the current sitting year of the elected Parliament. Meaning that basically the50Commonwealth of Australia, in my view has entered the era of being a BANANA REPUBLIC.


11/35

p11 8-3-2014



Transcript 2-11-2001 Federal Court of Australia before Finkelstein JQUOTE

MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA; Im not necessarily, at the moment, disputing the election.Im disputing the writs.5

HIS HONOUR; I understand.

MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: So thats different, sir. At least nobody say Im crying sourgrapes for not winning whatever an election ---10

HIS HONOUR; Because you havent lost yet.

MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA; Thats right. I havent lost yet. Im doingbefore it.END QUOTE15

When I question this then it was alleged that some copies had been provided to CanberraGovernment Bookshop on 8 October 2001 but this clearly is not supported by any evidence,indeed the computer records obtained under FOI shows that not a single copy had been send

out on 8 October 2001, and so the writs issued on 8 October 2001 was without constitutional20and legal validity as one cannot issue writs for a general election before the proclamation is

published in the Gazette and so accessible to the general public.

My original Application for the High Court of Australia was showing the headingQUOTE25IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAMELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY No. M of 2003

ON THE MATTER of an Application for Writs of Prohibition and Certiorari andMandamus against:30

EX PARTE: GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA

APPLICANT

35END QUOTE

However the Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia directed me to change this as bys353 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918it was to be an application within that sectionand it had to be made to the Federal Court of Australia, where subsequently I then filed an40amended application.There can be no doubt that my original application lodges with the High Court of Australiawithin s75(v) was the appropriate manner to follow but the Deputy Registrar and the AAECheld it was not and both referred to (albeit incorrectly) so s353 of the CEA1918.

Nothing has changed since to ensure such a disastrous deceptive conduct never again can45eventuate. The AEC simply continues it horrendous conduct against citizens who seek nomore but the law to be appropriately applied!

The message (below) it contains;QUOTE50

Special Gazette No S421 appeared at the rear of Government Gazette No 41 dated 17 thOctober 2001.It did not appear in GN No 40 dated 10 October 2001 as the close off date for that issue was 5 October 2001

END QUOTE


12/35

p12 8-3-2014



The copy (below) shows that the special Gazette was not available in the GovernmentBookshop in Queen Street, Melbourne (as it was at that time located) until 10 October 2001.As such 2 days after the writs were already issued..5Also the Special Gazette shows Printed by the Government of Australia whereas the

legislation demanded that it should be Government printers, and when therefore the

lawyers for the AEC in 2005 filed this copy and the magistrate overruled me and so allowedit to be filed, when they I made clear I had already filed it but no longer the prosecutor couldobject because he filed it himself, and it showed it failed to show Government Printer as10required (then) by law, the prosecutor then withdrew his exhibit but I made clear I could stillrely upon it.


13/35

p13 8-3-2014



As such s421 and numerous other gazettes were never valid and so neither any of the

proclamations were validly published! One has to ask how on earth such kind of utter5mismanagement can eventuate and still does surely cannot be excused.

The copy (below) shows that GN40 albeit having the publication date of 10 October 2001actually was not available and sold to me until 7 December 2001. A massive 8 weeks and 2 dayslater.10Meaning that any 28 days to provide a claim is well and truly passed considering that 8 weeksand 2 days amount to a delay of 58 days!

Now what kind of system are we running where people are robbed of any rights pending if thepublication is available pending the profit margin of some bookshop?

.15


14/35

p14 8-3-2014



That the Special Gazette S421 has a label affixed by the Government Bookshop (Melbourne,known as AusInfo) which label shows AusInfo 10/10/01 showing the true date of publication inVictoria (Not published as such in Tasmania, New South Wales or Queensland.). There under it5is shown, S GAZ 421 8/10/01 referring to the Special Gazette S421 printed on 8 October 2001.

That the customer service office of the AusInfo bookshop, being the CommonwealthGovernment bookshop located at 190 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria assured me on 7December 2001, that the Gazettes are made available the day they arrive at the bookshop, which10is generally the day after the day shown on the Gazette.

That for example, to show how the delay in publication effect not only the Proclamations relatingto the election, but generally undermines the publications of the Courts, the Notices required by


15/35

p15 8-3-2014



law with Statutory requirements of a minimum days and Acts to come into force the following isreferred to:

(a) The Government Notices Gazette GN41 dated 17 October but published on 18October 2001 or later, includes a document numbered 9620598 that is of theGovernor-General of a 8 October 2001 signed Proclamation to commence on 175October 2001 under subsection 2(1) of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Act

2001, fix 17 October 200 as the day on which that Act commences. As such, it isto commence 1 day before it is actually published in the State of Victoria (orother States up to 6 days before it was published, Tasmania publication was on 22October 2001 and).10

(b) The Government Notices Gazette GN41 dated 17 October 2001 but published on 18October 2001 includes a document 9620601 which provides NB: The prescribedtime for lodgement of objection is 28 days.. Clearly, the later publication results

that citizens are denied the 28 days statutory lodgement period. Meaning that in15Tasmania they were robbed of 5 days in view that the publication was 5 days later.

(c) The Government Notice Gazette GN41 dated 17 October 2001 but published on 18October 2001 (Victoria) includes a document 9620606 revoking under subsection6(1) of the Australian Protective Service Act 1987 certain matters from 17 October202001 even so it wasnt published in Victoria until 18 October 2001. Again, In

Tasmania it wasnt published until 22 October 2001 and as such again 5 days of

people kept unaware of it.

That Special Gazette S416 purported to be of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia in25regard of Foreign Exchange applicable This instrument comes into operation on 3 October2001. Whereas it wasnt placed into a Gazette until 5 October 2001 and actually published yetlater in Victoria and other States making the notice effectively NULL AND VOID. In Tasmania,it wasnt published until 22 October 2001 as such some massive 19 days later! Now, if a business

in Tasmania relies upon the exchange rate but is prevented to be aware of a change until some 1930days later then this can have catastrophical consequences for such a company. Unlikely wouldthey detect that the Special Gazette never was published in Tasmania and so an employee mightwrongly be blamed afterwards, as companies hardly would expect that the lack of proper

publication would be the fault.35

The above enlargement of dispatched document cis03029 (reproduced below) shows that thiswas printed on 10/10/2001 at 07:04.22. This is about 7 am in the morning.Meaning that if the dispatch document had not been printed until 10 October 2001 then it hardly40could have been transported by FastTrack transporter until after this document was printed.


16/35

p16 8-3-2014



At the left the entire dispatch document and at the right an enlargement showing that thealleged dispatch date is 9 October 2001. As such, the document was printed on 10 October52001 and falsifying the dispatch date to be 9 October 2001! The same with the cis03033dispatched documentation, shown below where the dispatch date IS CLAIMED TO BE 9

October 2001 while it was printed on 10 October 2001!

10

And this was clearly an elaborate conspiracy including the AEC and lawyers to pervert the

course of JUSTICE as the litigation was then ongoing when the FOI material was requested15


17/35

p17 8-3-2014



I consider that this is a very serious matter and the JSCEM nay now want to disregard this but Iview it expose the underlying conspiracy within the AEC and others to pervert the course ofJUSTICE and by having concealed this from the JSCEM I view this must be deemed aCONTEMPT AGAINST PARLIAMENT!5

If therefore the JSCEM allows this matter to continue unchecked then it in my view loses itselfany credibility..

While it was obvious that the AEC would go through any length to pervert the course of10JUSTICE, and hence it engaged Mr Peter Hanks QC to deceive the court withfalse/misleading/fraudulent statements (see my original 24-2-2014 submission also) itnevertheless is not a matter I will let go. The fact that on 19 July 2006 I comprehensivelydefeated the AEC in the County Court of Victoria and so unchallenged may underline it hadunder estimated what I was about.15In my view it would have been better for the AEC to have had the writs reissued or a

proclamation having been issued to alter the dates of the writs to conform with legal provisionsrather than to take me on in such elaborate deceptive manner..

Now, none of the purported Members of Parliament involved in the 2001 federal election were20validly elected! None therefore had the protection of their offices as Ministers once their 3months had expired as provided for in s64 of the constitution.

Not a single person came to my aid to assist me in this battle and so every Member of Parliamentrather went along with this elaborate conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE. Well, I amnot the one to let this issue go because IF WE ALLOW THIS THEN TYRANNY AND25

DICTATORSHIP IS THE ANSWER.

When Mr Keelty cannot detect such an elaborate deceptive conduct involving also the AEC andits lawyers then I wonder what he was really investigating.I for one take offence to his reported comment:30

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnQUOTE

"You could easily imagine with the money involved with some of the parties with some and the importanceof the Senate. I mean the importance of the Senate in the last couple of decades has really, just as an outsider,35has grown immensely. So if you could foul up the outcome, and think about the people who are involved inthis, we are talking up people who are lower income earners, I'm not being disparaging but I am sayingthe opportunity for something corrupt to happen is there. I don't think, I had no evidence of corruption in herewhatsoever. But the problem is I can't hand on heart stand here and say it didn't happen because the systemwas so parlous."40

END QUOTE

Well, considering what I have been setting out in my submission and supplements not once did Ihave any issue with some low income earner, and I do not think that Mr Peter Hanks QC, the

AEC commissioners, the judges, and other lawyers could be deemed law income earners.45While Mr Keelty may have perhaps some distain for low income earners it may rather be those

who are so to say filthy rich who are for greed willing to corrupt the system even more.Generally those who are low income earners are so because they are not willing to participate incorruption and other illegal activities. When I read this comment I viewed that Mr Keelty mayhave done anything but a proper investigation and may just be covering up for culprits or he50simply wasnt able to appropriately investigate matters.http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-

disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrn
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/05/parliamentary-inquiry-wa-senate-disaster?verification_code=273quaqtjq9xyj6ux928s4ywvvpaavrnhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


18/35

p18 8-3-2014



QUOTE

."So many elections have happened and so many elections appear to have gone well. Soit's hard to strike a balance with this. This was a disaster."

END QUOTE

To me this comment shows he merely assumed matters rather than giving his findings resulting5

from a thorough investigation. As after all when elections are but anything according to law andhe nevertheless make such a comment as if many elections appear to have gone well then this

reminds me on the Shapelle Corby saga where critical evidence was withheld from the trial to gether convicted.

I will now further address what was wrong with the 2001 federal election and what has persisted10ever since and yet the AEC seems to me to have successfully concealed this from the JSCEMAnd so it basically made ongoing a fool out of the JSCEM!

While the JSCEM may not like or may prefer not having to read extensive material, but that isthe easy part. I was the one doing the extensive research and compiling it all. And, if the JSCEMhad address these issue long ago we wouldnt still have the same problems reoccurring!And any15argument that Mr Keelty was only referring to the missing ballot papers in my view will not doas he didnt limit his comments as such and neither would be aware if ballot papers had not beenreplaced in past elections regarding Senate ballot papers where they were it seems insecurelystored and even found to have been mixed and placed next to rubbish bins. And for this we payan electoral commissioner an alleged $800.000,00 a year? If just the JSCEM had bothered to20appropriately investigate my complaints it may just then more than a decade ago have been ableto detect how incompetent the AEC was dealing with matters.

In my view, ballot papers should be used and only be permitted to be marked with a non-erasing

pen, to avoid fraudulent alterations, and each ballot paper must be scanned at the place they areentered into the ballot box, so that no one can substitute any box say containing 100 ballot papers25with another 100 ballot papers favouring a certain candidate.

Currently it appears to me anyone can grab a box and replace the content with ballot papers infavour of one particular candidate and no one would be the wiser because no copies are created.

As a matter of fact, if the ballot papers were scanned then modern technology would allow thecomputer to automatically count the votes and then it could confirm if the manual counting30correspond with the electronic counting.

I oppose of electronic voting because in the USA they found at time 50% more people hadelectronically voted then there had been registered voters having voted. Also in some voting

places all votes they claim by technical error by the computer went 100% to one candidate.

People like myself who have experiences the ort are generally in a better position to address the35rot that goes on, just not having the position to do so!

I have spent considerable time researching the wording SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN andbesides having a multitude of documentation setting out the difference of the meaning it is alsovery obviously clear from cases such as Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v

Balmford (1950) 81 CLR 161that the SHALL NOT BE LESS THANrefers to the period of 1040


19/35

p19 8-3-2014



days to commence at midnight of the day ending when the Writs were issued and completing atmidnight on the 10th day. As such the Writs having been issued on the Monday the 8 th day ofOctober 2001 then the following variations are applicable:

Re 2001 Federal electionTable A5Day is 24 hours from midnight to midnight calculated.1stday Tuesday 9thday of October, 2001 1stday after Writs2ndday Wednesday 10thday of October, 2001 2ndday3rdday Thursday 11thday of October, 2001 3rdday4thday Friday 12thday of October 2001 4thday105thday Saturday 13thday of October, 2001 5thday6thday Sunday 14thday of October, 2001 6thday7thday Monday 15thday of October, 2001 7thday8thday Tuesday 16thday of October, 2001 8thday9thday Wednesday 17thday of October, 2001 9thday1510thday Thursday 18thday of October, 2001 10thday

Table B

Day are 24 hours from midnight to midnight calculated.1stday Tuesday 9thday of October, 2001 1stday after Writs202ndday Wednesday 10thday of October, 2001 2ndday3rdday Thursday 11thday of October, 2001 3rdday4thday Friday 12thday of October 2001 4thday5thday Saturday 13thday of October, 2001 5thday6thday Sunday 14thday of October, 2001257thday Monday 15thday of October, 2001 6thday8thday Tuesday 16thday of October, 2001 7thday9thday Wednesday 17thday of October, 2001 8thday10thday Thursday 18thday of October, 2001 9thday

11th

day Friday 19th

day of October, 2001 10th

day30

1. The difference with Table A and Table B lies upon the application of the CREDIT ACT1984 - SECT 162 (Many other Acts have the same interpretation) combined with the

ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901.35

SECT 36 Reckoning of time(1)

Where in an Act any period of time, dating from a given day, act, or event, isprescribed or allowed for any purpose, the time shall, unless the contrary intention40

appears, be reckoned exclusive of such day or of the day of such act or event.(2)

Where the last day of any period prescribed or allowed by an Act for the doing ofanything falls on a Saturday, on a Sunday or on a day which is a public holiday or a

bank holiday in the place in which the thing is to be or may be done, the thing may45be done on the first day following which is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a publicholiday or bank holiday in that place.

ACTS INTERPRETATI ON ACT 1901SECT 37Expressions of time50


20/35

p20 8-3-2014



ASSOCIATED DOM INIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD . v. BALMFORD (1950) 81 CLR 161

QUOTE

The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period whichwas too short by one day, and theActs Interpretation Actdoes not affect this position.

END QUOTE5

That I was advised, and so have noticed notifications in the newspapers, that the AustralianElectoral Commission closed the nominations of candidates on Thursday the 18thday of October,

2001. This was well short of the SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 10 DAYS as it was in effectduring the 10thday of the excluded period and so after 9 days and 12 hours precisely, being 2410hours less then the minimum legislated requirement, as it denied the 12 hours of the 10 thday aswell as the 12 hours up till 12 noon on the nomination day.

That various legislations exist where the Sunday is excluded from calculating days, I can presentfurther documentation at the hearing to support the matters argued.15

I was advised, and so attended, to a draw of the candidates numbers and allotment upon theballot paper conducted shortly after 12 noon on Friday the 19thday of October 2001. This drawwas to be held AFTER 24 hours of the closing of the nominations and so mistakenly held upon

the incorrect closing of the nominations held on Thursday the 18th

day of October, 2001 and the20draw ought to have been held on the earliest on Monday the 22ndday of October, 2001 after 12noon as Sunday is a day the Australian Electoral Offices are closed, after closing of nominationsought to have been held (Table B) on Saturday 12 noon 20 th day of October, 2001. Even if

Nominations had closed upon Table A then still the draw ought to have been held no earlier thenSaturday the 20thday of October 2001.25

That with the provisions of a polling to be held not less than 23 days after the nomination

day then I view the following is applicable:To continue using Table A:10thday Thursday 18thday of October 2001 10thday after Writs issue.30

11thday Friday 19thday of October 2001 Nomination day12thday Saturday 20thday of October 2001 1stday for polling day13thday Sunday 21stday of October 2001 2ndday14thday Monday 22ndday of October 2001 3rdday15thday Tuesday 23rdday of October 2001 4thday3516thday Wednesday 24thday of October 2001 5thday17thday Thursday 25thday of October 2001 6thday18thday Friday 26thday of October 2001 7thday19thday Saturday 27thday of October 2001 8thday20thday Sunday 28thday of October 2001 9thday4021stday Monday 29thday of October 2001 10thday

22ndday Tuesday 30thday of October 2001 11thday23rdday Wednesday 31stday of October 2001 12thday24thday Thursday 1stday of November 2001 13thday25thday Friday 2ndday of November 2001 14thday4526thday Saturday 3rdday of November 2001 15thday27thday Sunday 4thday of November 2001 16thday28thday Monday 5thday of November 2001 17thday29thday Tuesday 6thday of November 2001 18thday30thday Wednesday 7thday of November 2001 19thday5031stday Thursday 8thday of November 2001 20thday32ndday Friday 9thday of November 2001 21stday
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


21/35

p21 8-3-2014



33rdday Saturday 10thday of November 2001 22ndday34thday Sunday 11thday of November 2001 23rdday35thday Monday 12thday of November 2001 first day clear.

Polling day Saturday 17thday of November 2001

5

That by Table B excluding Sundays and Melbourne Cup day the following applies;

11th

day Friday 19th

day of October 2001 10th

day after Writs12thday Saturday 20thday of October 2001 Nomination day13thday Sunday 21stday of October 20011014thday Monday 22ndday of October 2001 1stday for polling day15thday Tuesday 23rdday of October 2001 3rdday16thday Wednesday 24thday of October 2001 4thday17thday Thursday 25thday of October 2001 5thday18thday Friday 26thday of October 2001 6thday1519thday Saturday 27thday of October 2001 7thday20thday Sunday 28thday of October 200121stday Monday 29thday of October 2001 8thday

22ndday Tuesday 30thday of October 2001 9thday23rdday Wednesday 31stday of October 2001 10thday2024thday Thursday 1stday of November 2001 11thday25thday Friday 2ndday of November 2001 12thday26thday Saturday 3rdday of November 2001 13thday27thday Sunday 4thday of November 200128thday Monday 5thday of November 2001 15thday2529thday Tuesday 6thday of November 2001 Melbourne Cup day30thday Wednesday 7thday of November 2001 16thday31stday Thursday 8thday of November 2001 17thday32ndday Friday 9thday of November 2001 18thday

33rdday Saturday 10thday of November 2001 19thday3034thday Sunday 11thday of November 200135thday Monday 12thday of November 2001 20thday36thday Tuesday 13thday of November 2001 21stday37thday Wednesday 14thday of November 2001 22ndday38thday Thursday 15thday of November 2001 23rdday3539thday Friday 16thday of November 2001 Clear for election to occur.

40thday Saturday 17thday of November 2001 Polling day

That using either Table A or Table B the earliest election date (polling day) could be held fromthe day of the Writs issued on the 8th day of October, 2001 being Saturday the 17 th day of40

November, 2001.

That I requested personally for Mr M King, Divisional Returning Officer for me to be providedwith a list of all names of constituents in the electorate of Jagajaga this was declined. This has

prevented me to conduct my electioneering in a manner, as I desired such as posting out notices45etc.

That I was unable on Sunday the 20thday of October 2001 to obtain nomination documents andas such being finally able to obtain to get them on Monday the 21st day of October 2001 wasconsiderably disadvantage in canvassing for the election where first I needed to obtain 50 people50to nominate me, whereas the leaders of the parties were able to canvas from the time the Writs

were issued.


22/35

p22 8-3-2014



What I established was that the publication of a Gazette was depending upon if the particularState Commonwealth Government bookshop held it was profitable or not to order 1 copy.Hence, contrary to the Watson doctrine what proved was that the right of a citizen to know thelaw is dictated by what the Commonwealth government Bookshop held was suitable from its5

profit margin view.Forget about the rights of citizens to be able to know what is the law, because of this I wouldhave to wait up to several weeks before I finally was able to obtain a copy of a certain Gazette

what was purportedly published weeks earlier, this even so I paid for the gazette the day itwas deemed to have been published.10

Again where a Gazette stuipulated 28 days for a person to make a claim from the date ofpublication but then the Gazette is not available until perhaps the 28 days or nearly all of itwas already passed then clearly this was and remains to be a gross denial of a citizens rights..15

Chronology

1960 Clayton v Heff ron (1960) 105 CLR 214. High Court of Australiathe process prescribed must be followed.

201979 Watson v L ee (1979) 144 CLR 374Re; Publication Gazette1998 Federal Parliament reduces shall not be less than 11 days to shall not

be less than 10 days for House of Representatives closure of

nominations and for Senate polls closure of nominations held for the NT25and Act. Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australiahowever all maintain, shall not be less than 11 days for Senate

elections of closure of nominations, upon argument of AEC it needs moretime to check increase of signatures, it proposed itself. Increase number ofsignatures for nominations for independents from 6 to 50. Increase of30deposit for all candidates.

23 June 1999 Sue v Hil l(1999) HCA 30and not otherwise

2001 Australian Electoral Commission maintains to publish false andmisleading details as to how election time table is applicable, both on the35Internet and otherwise, also causes the printing of incorrect CandidateHandbooks as to contain deceptive details such as which State laws areapplicable in regard of Senate elections.

2001 The Gazette is ongoing and continues to be published in a manner of any40

disorganisation and so hundreds if not thousands of enactments, legalnotices, regulations, etc, are all invalid due to being published beyond thedate they were to come into force.

2001 Australian Electoral Commission maintains to publish false and45misleading details as to how election time table is applicable, both on theInternet and otherwise, also causes the printing of incorrect CandidateHandbooks as to contain deceptive details such as which State laws areapplicable in regard of Senate elections.

50


23/35

p23 8-3-2014



2001 The Gazette is ongoing and continues to be published in a manner of anydisorganisation and so hundreds if not thousands of enactments, legalnotices, regulations, etc, are all invalid due to being published beyond thedate they were to come into force.There appear to be no proper procedure to exist to ensure that any Gazette5is published on the date shown on the face of the Gazette in all States andTerritories are actually published on that day. Neither appears someGazette even being published on the date shown on the face of the Gazettein Canberra either on that date.

No proper record keeping seems to exist as to the times relevant to10ordering, complete printing and delivery of Gazettes either preventing any

check back to verify the validity of any publication.

5 October 2001 Governor-General sign 5 October 2001 dated Proclamation for Prorogueof the Parliament on 8 October 2001 at 11.59 am and dissolution of the15House of Representatives on 8 October 2001 at 12 noon. Proclamation notvalid until Published in Gazette.

5 October 2001 Australian Electoral Commission receives press release to prepareDRAFT writs for the Governor-General. The press release contains the20dates in regard of the election time table. The AEC doesnt check the

relevant dates, if applicable according to legislative provisions.

5 October 2001 The Prime Minister (His Office) notifies the Governors about the electiontime table. It appears no one bothered to check State legislation governing25Senate elections if the time table is relevant to Senate elections to befollowed.

8 October 2001 Special Gazette S421, containing the Proclamation to Prorogue the

Parliament and to dissolve the House of Representatives, ought to have30been published, to formally give effect to the 5 October 2001 signedProclamation, but not so published in Canberra, neither in all or any Stateor Territory.

8 October 2001 Defective Writs issue by Governor-General House of Representatives35

Defective Writs issue by Governor-General Senate ACT & NT.Defective Writ issue by Governor New South Wales Senate election.Defective Writ issue by Governor VictoriaDefective Writ issue by Governor TasmaniaDefective Writ issue by Governor South Australia40

Defective Writ issue by Governor Western AustraliaDefective Writ issue by Governor Queensland

8 October 2001 No actual publication of any kind of the Writs issued for the House ofRepresentatives, and the Senate elections in regard of the Territories!Albeit calculation of shall not be less than days still calculated as if45Writs were actually published.

8 October 2001 Due to the failure of publishing the Proclamation of the Prorogue of theParliament and the Dissolving of the House of Representatives, there wasno true vacancy of any seats. As such, even if writs were issued on 8October 2001 and actually published (this is contested) then the writs50


24/35

p24 8-3-2014



would be defective and null and void, as they can only be issued AFTER avacancy exist!

Writs published even so no proclamation published, as s421 printed

but left at printers till 9 and 10 October 20019 October 2001 Advise AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) change of address of5

elector G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA to House of Representatives seat ofJagajaga.

9 October 2001 CanPrint transfer Special Gazette S421 to Commonwealth GovernmentInfo Shops by using assignment noted dated 9 October 2001. Assignmentarrive however at different dates in the different States, such as in Perth10not until 15 October 2001, this also as the Despatch date shown on theconsignment note is false, as the document is not printed (in regard ofPerth, for example), until 10 October 2001.

9 October 2001 Publication Special Gazette S421 Canberra, ACT of Proclamation to15Prorogue the Parliament on 8 October 2001 and to dissolve the House ofRepresentatives on 8 October 2001.

10 October 2001 Publication Special Gazette S421 in Melbourne, Victoria ofProclamation to Prorogue the Parliament on 8 October 2001 and to20dissolve the House of Representatives on 8 October 2001.

10 October 2001 Government Notices Gazette GN40 published. S421 not included.

11 October 2001 Advise AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) change of address ofelector O. A. M. HLAVKA- SCHOREL to House of Representatives seat25of Jagajaga.

11 October 2001 Publication Special Gazette S421 in Adelaide, South Australia ofProclamation to Prorogue the Parliament on 8 October 2001 and todissolve the House of Representatives on 8 October 2001.

3012 October 2001 Publication Special Gazette S421 in Townsville, Queensland of

Proclamation to Prorogue the Parliament on 8 October 2001 and todissolve the House of Representatives on 8 October 2001.

13 October 2001 AEC offices closed to obtain material.35

14 October 2001 AEC offices closed to obtain material.

15 October 2001 Closure of Rolls40

15 October 2001 Publication Special Gazette S421 in Perth, Western, Australia ofProclamation to Prorogue the Parliament on 8 October 2001 and todissolve the House of Representatives on 8 October 2001.

16 October 2001 AEC refuses to accept G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA nomination for the45seat of Jagajaga (House of Representatives) in view of 42 of the 87signatures not held to be acceptable signatures. Insufficient signatures.

17 October 2001 Publication Government Notices Gazette GN41, which includesSpecialGazette S421, in Canberra, ACT, of Proclamation to Prorogue the50


25/35

p25 8-3-2014



Parliament on 8 October 2001 and to dissolve the House ofRepresentatives on 8 October 2001.

17 October 2001 AEC accept nomination of G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA for the seat ofJagajaga (House of Representatives) in view that of the 100 signatures 54are acceptable (50 required).5

17 October 2001 AEC provides G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA, being a candidate forJagajaga, with a booklet Electoral Pocket Book and also

CANDIDATES HANDBOOK which both later are found to contain

false and misleading information as to the application of relevant legalprovisions, as such is misleading candidates to their true legal rights.10

18 October 2001 Government Notices Gazette GN41 published, with attached SpecialGazette S421

18 October 2001 Publication Government Notices Gazette GN41, which includesSpecialGazette S421, in Adelaide, South Australiaof Proclamation to Prorogue15the Parliament on 8 October 2001 and to dissolve the House ofRepresentatives on 8 October 2001.

18 October 2001 Publication Government Notices Gazette GN41, which includesSpecial

Gazette S421, in Melbourne, Victoria of Proclamation to Prorogue theParliament on 8 October 2001 and to dissolve the House of20Representatives on 8 October 2001.

18 October 2001 Publication Government Notices Gazette GN41, which includesSpecialGazette S421, in Parramattaof Proclamation to Prorogue the Parliamenton 8 October 2001 and to dissolve the House of Representatives on 825October 2001.

18 October 2001 Closure of Nominations by AEC, on 9thday after issue of writs.18 October 2001 AEC refuses various prospective candidates to nominate for Senate,

claiming to late after 12 noon.

18 October 2001 AEC refusesMrs HEIDI HOLZ to obtain 1 more signature for Senate30nomination (Victoria) upon basis that 12 noon nomination closure, despiteVictorian Senate election legislation provides for 11 days for nominations,as such ample of timeanother 48 hoursfor nominations to be filed.

18 October 2001 AEC refuses EDWARD (NED) KELLY to pay for Senate nomination(NSW) for the nominations already faxed by the Divisional Returning35Officer upon basis that 12 noon nomination closure, and payment offeredin cash being 10 minutes too late, after DRO refused cash payment earlierat about 10, 30 am upon the basis that the payment had to be made to theAEC in Sydney, despite another 24 hours being by law entitled.

40

19 October 2001 Publication Government Notices Gazette GN41, which includes SpecialGazette S421, in Brisbane, Queenslandof Proclamation to Prorogue theParliament on 8 October 2001 and to dissolve the House ofRepresentatives on 8 October 2001.

19 October 2001 Declaration of Candidates by AEC.4519 October 2001 SIEVX lost at sea. 353 people drown. of which 146 children. Australia

fails to comply with international obligation to mount a rescue.

20 October 2001 Candidate G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA (INDEPENDENT) discovers thatclosure of Nominations ought to have been on 19 October 2001 for the50House of Representatives, and as such forwards by E-mail to the AEC, the


26/35


27/35

p27 8-3-2014



include Orders Sought and serve documents same day if possible. Caseadjourned until 7 November 2001.Documents served being Form 4 and Supportive affidavit sworn 2

November 2001.5

5 November 2001 Filed and served MENDED Form 4 with supporting affidavit sworn 5November 2001.

6 November 2001 Filed Affidavit sworn 6 November 2001.10

7 November 2001 Hearing before Marshall J, Federal Court of Australia. AustralianGovernment Solicitors now provide their material, at commencement ofhearing, disputing jurisdiction of the Federal Court. AGS making false andmisleading submissions and withholding relevant material from the Courtcausing to pervert the course of justice and a miscarriage of justice.15

7 November 2001 Letter faxed (via the office of the Governor-General) requesting HMQueen Elizabeth II for removal of Governor-General, for having acted in

breach of coronation pledge and Australian legal provisions etc

8 November 2001 Letter faxed to Governor-General requesting withdraw defective writs and20request Governors to do the same, and re-issue writs in appropriatemanner.

10 November 2001 Purported elections held.AEC marks of both elections with one mark rather then 2 separate marks,25

by this recording as if only on poll held.10 November 2001 G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA refuses to vote upon basis purported election

unconstitutional. (Wakim 1997 doesnt have to comply withunconstitutional orders)

3018 November 2001 Faxed letter requesting various matters to be clarified as to ensure any

appeal filed will be on correct details. AEC refusesto provide details.

21 November 2001 Faxing letter requesting the same of letter 18 November 2001 but nowwithin Freedom of Information Act. Upon this later AEC give part35response to request by way of 10 December 2001 letter.

22 November 2001 File and serve Notice of Appeal M 114 of 2001, High Court ofAustralia.

22 November 2001 Faxed letter to Kathy Mitchell (AEC), ought not proceed with declarations40

in view writs illegal.22 November 2001 Faxed letter to Kathy Mitchell seeking to clarify matters as to legal issues

between the parties, no response received.22 November 2001 Faxed letter to Stephen Lucas, Senior Australian government solicitors to

maintain STATUS QUOuntil appeal heard. No response received.45

2 December 2001 Request Kathy Mitchell for the AEC to fully investigate matters,including the alleged conduct of the Australian government solicitors to

pervert the course of justice on 7 November 2001 by allegedlywithholding relevant material from the Federal Court and to make false50and misleading submissions. No response received upon this.


28/35

p28 8-3-2014



4 December 2001 Request information when Special Gazette S421 was actually published.

21 December 2001 Refresh FOI 4-12-2001 request. First of various FREEDOM OFINFORMATION ACTrequest made.5

28 December 2001 Repeat FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTrequest made.

7 December 2001 Faxed letter to Australian Government Solicitors, to consent for the AGSto seek an appeal out of time, against Marshall J 7 November 2001 orders,10upon the ground that the AGS had misled the Court. Also advises abouttoo late publications of Proclamations of Special Gazette S421. Noresponse received upon this letter.

7 December 2001 Facsimile from Australian Government Solicitors disputing High Court15legal jurisdiction to hear appeal.

10 December 2001 Letter faxed to AEC, indicating seeking ROYAL COMMISSION.

10 December 2001 Letter faxed to AGS re 7 November 2001 letter and not having receivedany response for the AGS to notify Federal Court having been misled by20the AGS.

11 December 2001 Received 10 December 2001 response from AGS upon FREEDOM OFINFORMATIONrequest.

11 December 2001 Served upon All Attorney-Generals copies of Notice of Appeal M 114 of252001and all material filed in the Federal Court as V1145 of 2001.

15 December 2001 Faxed letter re clarifications of FOI material etc. No response received.

17 December 2001 Faxed letter re further clarifications of FOI material etc. No response30received.

18 December 2001 Letter to Electoral Commissioner seeking clarifications about matters indispute. No response received.

3529 January 2002 DCITA (Department of Communications Information Technology and

Arts) refused to accept FOI request claiming must identify documents.However, later, accept the same request but then dated 21-6-2002 as (theydeemed) being appropriate.

40

6 February 2002 David Smith, Principal legal officer makes claims about publication ofSpecial Gazette S421 (Proclamation for Prorogue the Parliament and thedissolution of the House of Representatives), but refuses subsequently to

provide supportive evidence.45

21 June 2002 Repeat FOI request of 21-12-2001, etc.

26 July 2002 Part response to 21 December 2001 FOI request.

30 July 2002 Further FOI request.50


29/35

p29 8-3-2014



9 August 2002 Australian Government solicitors claim not having acted for Governors,and not to have been able to obtain instructions of the Governor-Generalfor the 7 November 2001 proceedings.

12 August 2002 Appearance before JSCEM(Joint Select committee on electoral matters)5

4 November 2001 Attorney General claims through the Department of Justice. Australiancitizenship requires one to vote in Federal elections and in State/Territoryelections one reside.

1019 November 2002 Attorney General (Victoria) through Department of Justice claims State

citizenship does not exist!

4 December 2002 Proceedings Magistrates Court at Heidelberg, re not voting. S78BNOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER. Case adjourned pending15High Court of Australia decision. Re various electoral issues.Judith McGoillivray BA JBBfor the Commonwealth states that there isMERITS in the Appeal M114 of 2001

19 January 2003 Refugee/asylum seeker Fatima Erfani (Age 28) died on Sunday 19 January2003 at 10.30 am at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Western Australia,20amid claims she had been denied appropriate medical treatment. She had

been one of the persons kept for 11 days on board of on an unseaworthyboat known as SIEV4 at Ashmore Reef, during the election campaign forthe purported 10 November 2001 Federal election with her 3 children inappalling and inhumane condition on orders of the then Care Taking25Government by Australian military forces.

11 February 2003 Attended to the High Court of Australia to file case for Orders Nisi to stopany military build up of Armed forces against Iraq (withdrawal), release of

refugees/asylum seekers, etc.30Deputy Registrar advises that there is no judge available to hear case untilthe following week. All sitting in Sydney.

New judge is being sworn in for the High Court of Australia, all judges inSydney for a party.

11 February 2003 Mr John Howard declares he can still withdraw Australian troops.35

12 February 2003 Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia advises DRAFT ORDERNISI not in compliance to the Rules of the Court, not acceptable for filing.

13 February 2003 Media reports US Senate finds insufficient preparation to deal with40

humanitarian issues, as to follow up any invasion into Iraq.

14 February 2003 Chief Weapon Inspector Hans Brix reports to United Nations that there isno evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

14 February 2003 Mr John Howard makes clear it (report) doesnt change anything!45

17 February 2003 Filing amended DRAFT ORDER NISI.

Obviously, besides the fact that the time table in the writs were in violation to the time frameset out in the CEA1918 it also was in violation with constitutional requirements that one50cannot issue writs for a general election before the Parliament is prorogued.


30/35

p30 8-3-2014



.

IN RE WOOD (1988) 167 CLR 145 F .C. 88/018QUOTE

The return does not meet the exigency of the writ (Drinkwater v. Deakin, at p 638) becauseSenator Wood was incapable of filling the 12th place. That is not to say that, putting to5one side "a mere abuse of the right of nomination or an obvious unreality" (Harford v.Linskey (1899) 1 QB 852, at p 862 and cf. Pritchard v. Mayor, &c. of Bangor (1888) 13App Cas

241), the Electoral Officer who makes a return has authority himself todetermine the qualifications of a candidate (who declares and maintains that he is duly10qualified:s.170(a)(ii) of the Act) or to refuse to return the name of an otherwise successfulcandidate whose qualifications are in issue: see s.172of the Actand Evans v. Thomas(1962) 2 QB 350. But the performance by the Electoral Officer of his ministerial functionsin these respects does not determine the validity of the return or the efficacy of the electionof an unqualified person to a vacant place in the Senate.15

END QUOTE

Clearly, the declaration by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission itself did not purportedlyvalidate the election and neither any candidate declared elected where there was no valid

election.20

As I previously submitted:I have below set out to some extend to show that the date of the poll is incorrect.

While this can easily be overcome by having a proclamation issued by the Governor to

alter the dates of the writ according to what is required and so the poll to be held on 1225April 2014 instead of on 5 April 2014.Below I have quoted relevant Authorities how shall not be less than is to be counted!

There is another issue as I detected from the AEC website;30

http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/02-28e.htm QUOTE

Return of writs (latest date) 8 June 2014

END QUOTE

The writ therefore is not giving any particular returning date but merely that by latest the writ is35to be returned by 8 June 2014.The legislation states:Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

QUOTE

159 Date of return of writ40

The date fixed for the return of the writ shall not be more than 100 days after the issue of the writ.END QUOTE

The wording The date fixed therefore requires a precise dateand not something somewhere.After all those who were confirmed to have been elected have a right to know when they are to45attend for the return of the writ, if they want to attend for this.What appears to me is that the AEC has its modus operandi regardless how much it is inviolation to legislative provisions and it appears to me cannot bother to have the dates for thewrits checked by another person who may have a bit more intelligence to calculate the correctdates. And, as this has been litigated over years by me and the AEC didnt challenge me on 1950
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/s.170http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/s.170http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/s.170http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/02-28e.htmhttp://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/02-28e.htmhttp://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/02-28e.htmhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/s.170http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


31/35

p31 8-3-2014



July 2006 when I comprehensively defeated it in the County Court of Victoria then I view noexcuse can be accepted for it nevertheless to maintain this blatant disregard to legislative timeframe requirements.

http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/02-28e.htm 5QUOTE

Key dates for the 2014 WA Senate election

Issue of writ 28 February 2014

Close of rolls 8pm AWSTFriday 7 March 2014

Close of candidate nominations 12 midday AWST Thursday 13 March 2014

Declaration of candidate nominations 12 midday AWST Friday 14 March 2014

Election day Saturday5 April 2014

Return of writs (latest date) 8 June 2014QUOTE

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918QUOTE10

159 Date of return of wri t

The date fixedfor the return of the writ shall not be more than 100 days after the issue of the

writ.END QUOTE

15

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

QUOTE

153 Wr its for election of Senators

(1) A writ for the election of Senators shall be addressed to the Australian Electoral Officer for20the State or Territory for which the election is to be held.

(2) Where a writ for an election of Senators is received by the Australian Electoral Officer for a

State or Territory under subsection (1), the officer shall:

(a) endorse on the writ the date of its receipt;

(b) advertise receipt of, and particulars of, the writ:25

(i) in not less than 2 newspapers circulating generally in the State or Territory; or

(ii) if there is only one newspaper circulating generally in the State or Territoryin

that newspaper;

(c) take such steps as the officer considers appropriate to advise each Divisional Returning

Officer in the State or Territory of the dates fixed by the writ; and30

(d) give such directions as the officer considers appropriate to each Divisional Returning

Officer in relation to the holding of the election.END QUOTE

Commonwealth Electoral Act 191835QUOTE
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/02-28e.htmhttp://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/02-28e.htmhttp://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2014/02-28e.htmhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


32/35

p32 8-3-2014



155 Date for close of Roll s

The date fixed for the close of the Rolls shall be 7 days after the date of the writ.END QUOTE

Commonwealth Electoral Act 19185QUOTE

156 Date of nomination

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the date fixed for the nomination of the candidates shall not be less

than 10 days nor more than 27 days after the date of the writ.

(2) Where a candidate for an election dies, after being nominated and before 12 oclock noon on10the day fixed by the writ as the date of nomination for the election, the day fixed as the date

of nomination for the election shall, except for the purposes of section 157, be taken to be the

day next succeeding the day so fixed.

157 Date of poll ing

The date fixed for the polling shall not be less than 23 days nor more than 31 days after the15date of nomination.

158 Poll ing to be on a Satur day

The day fixed for the polling shall be a Saturday.

159 Date of return of wri t

The date fixed for the return of the writ shall not be more than 100 days after the issue of the20writ.

END QUOTE

The limitation of involvement/power of a Governor-General/Governor is shown with thefollowing quotation also.25

WESTERN AUSTRALIA v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ; NEW SOUTH WALES v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ;

QUEENSLAND v_ THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 201;

END QUOTE10. By the second paragraph ofs. 57his Excellency is empowered to perform30an executive act, namely, to convene a joint sitting of the members of the twoHouses of the Parliament. Once a joint sitting is convened the powers andduties of the members present are defined by and derived from the third

paragraph ofs. 57and his Excellency has no power to increase or diminishthose powers or duties. The section provides that the members present at the35

joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon "the proposed law",which means any proposed law which answers the requirements of the first two

paragraphs of the section (see Cormack v. Cope and Victoria v. The

Commonwealth). His Excellency is given no power to authorize or direct themembers present at a joint sitting to deliberate or vote upon any particular40

proposed law.END QUOTE

It seems to be clear that the validity of the issue of the writs isnt purely by the provisions ofSections 12 and 32 nilly willy but rather as Section 2 indicates that the Governor-General (and so45his/her request to a governor must likewise not violate statutory provisions of a time frame) shalluse the powers subject to this Constitution as such any legislated provisions under Until the

Parliament otherwise provides clearly is relevant as to the use of the powers of Section 12 and

32. The writs themselves acknowledge this by stating subject to the law and as such for all
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/Inspecto