WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 5 When I pursued to have the 2001 federal election to be held as to the constitutional

and other legal provisions I found that the courts made a mockery of my rights.
PAVLEKOVIC-SMITH v AEC (1993) 115 ALR 641, Dawson J; QUOTE If a challenge on justiciable grounds can be mounted to the validity of a general election a question that I need not consider such a challenge cannot be entertained by the Court of disputed Returns. It may be that the High Court has such a jurisdiction but that has not been decided; see the dicta of Gibbs CJ in McKenzie v Commonwealth. END QUOTE Hansard 4-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-Yes, it means a great deal. It means that no court, except the Federal High Court, or other courts under the Federal Constitution, shall have the power to entertain such an application. If this provision be not inserted, it follows that anybody who is discontented with something done by an officer of the Commonwealth in any state might apply to the court of the state for mandamus or prohibition. He might not get it, but be might apply for it, and there are cases in which be would get it. But if this provision be inserted the application would have to be made to the Federal Court. That, I take it, is a safeguard. END QUOTE

10

15

20

25 The federal court in this quotation was referring to the High Court of Australia. As I challenged the validity of the proclamation, all writs then clearly the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was not the right vehicle to use, as it was an issue to original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. However, what eventuated was that the High Court of Australia deceived me and sent me to the Federal Court of Australia that purportedly was within the 30 CEA1918 and then later I am told it had no jurisdiction. Clearly my initial issue to lodge the case with the High Court of Australia was the correct one. What we saw was what I consider a con-job, a deceptive conduct by the High Court of Australia to deliberately railroad my case to ensure I couldnt get anywhere. The judges went as far as to FRATERNISE with the first defendant the governor-General, which 35 I view invalidated its later decision to defeat my case.
QUOTE 29-1-2003 EMAIL Exhibit 004 The following was before Marshall J of the Federal Court of Australia on 7 November 2001. His Honour totally disregard this.

40
8. That I believe there should be a CASE STATED to the High Court of Australia as to determine: (a) Where the Electoral Act 1918 in Section 155 refers 7 days is it to be held that the reference of 7 days means/is intended to mean to 7 days the public is able to enrol for the electoral Rolls without being denied to do so on any Saturday and/or Sunday falling in those 7 days? (b) If the answer on (a) is in the affirmative then must it be held that the closure of the rolls on Monday the 15th day of October 2001 was contrary to the intentions of the legislators and the closure of the rolls on Monday the on that day was invalid? This document was reproduced from INSPECTOR-RIKATI & There is no Government to go to war, A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia (0-9580569-5-1 to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-5-3 p1 22-3-2014 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

45

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

(c) Where the Electoral Act 1918 in Section 156 refers to SHALL BE NO LESS THEN DAYS is it to be held that the reference of DAYS refers to the days the prospective candidate is able to obtain nomination forms and/or file nomination documents or attend for matters in regard of nominations to the offices of the Australian electoral commission being it a Divisional Returning Office or otherwise known? (d) If the answer to (c) is in the affirmative then must it be held that the number of days that the Australian Electoral Office had offices closed on certain days then the minimum days referred to shall be increased with such number of days that the offices of the Australian electoral commission were closed during the said minimum period? (e) Where the Electoral Act 1918 in Section 157 refers to SHALL BE NO LESS THEN DAYS is it to be held that the reference of DAYS refers to the minimum days of the polling after the closing of the nominations, being a period the electors can make a vote on their ballot paper as pre-voting or to obtain postal vote documents or attend for other voting matters to the offices of the Australian Electoral Commission (being it a Divisional Returning Office or otherwise known)? (f) If the answer to (e) is in the affirmative then must it be held that the number of days that the Australian Electoral Office had offices closed on certain days then the minimum days referred to shall be increased with such number of days that the offices of the Australian Electoral Commission were closed during the said minimum period after the closure of nominations and prior to the polling? (g) Is it to be held that the closure of the Rolls must be held on the 7 th day after the date of the Writs issued and during the counting of each day the relevant Australian Electoral Commissions offices for enrolling is to be held open? (h) Is it to be held that the closure of nominations can be no earlier then on the 11 th day after the date of the Writs issued? Further that the Australian Electoral Commission offices for the purpose of prospective candidates to enrol shall be open each day of the days counted? (i) Is it to be held that the closure of the nominations can be no later then the 28 th day after the date of the issue of the Writs. Further that the Australian Electoral Commission offices for the purpose of prospective candidates to enrol shall be open each day of the days counted? (j) Is it to be held that the formula to establish the minimum clear days prior to the polling day (election day) after the date the Writs are issued, ought to be; The number of days applied under Section 156 + number of days applied under section 157 + 1 (close of nomination day) with an election on the first Saturday on the calendar? (k) Is it to be held that the formula to establish the maximum clear days prior to the polling day (election day) after the date the Writs are issued, ought to be; The number of days applied under Section 156 + number of days applied under Section 157 + 1 day (close of nomination day) + the number of days the Australian Electoral Commission has its offices closed for the public/candidates/prospective candidates, with an election on the Saturday immediately following the last clear day and where the Saturday isnt the immediate following day then the Saturday prior to the total number of days shall be the last Polling day applied? (l) Is it correct that if the Saturday is directly following the maximum 31 days allowed for the polling (Section 157) then this still can be the polling day and where any other day follows the 31st day then the latest Poll that can be held is the last Saturday that is on the 31 day count or preceeding the 31st day Count? (m) Are the Writs defective for having been issued in breach of the legal provisions of Section 155 of the Electoral Act 1918? (n) Are the Writs defective for having been issued in breach of the legal provisions of Section 156 of the Electoral Act 1918? (o) Are the Writs defective for having been issued in breach of the legal provisions of Section 157 of the Electoral Act 1918? (p) Are the Writs defective for having been issued in breach of the combined legal provisions of Sections 155, 156 and 157 of the Electoral Act 1918? (q) If the Writs issued on the 8th day of October 2001 are held to be defective/void and of no effect, and new Writs to be issued then;

This document was reproduced from INSPECTOR-RIKATI & There is no Government to go to war, A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia (0-9580569-5-1 to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-5-3 p2 22-3-2014 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

Should the Australian Electoral Commission complete any registration of a political party that was stayed for process at the time the now defunct Writs were issued on the 8th day of October 2001? (II) Should the Australian Electoral Commission allow any candidate registered under the now defunct Writs that were issued on the 8th day of October 2001 be allowed, if they wish, to withdraw their nomination and have their deposit refunded? (III) Should the Australian Electoral Commission allow any candidate registered under the now defunct Writs that were issued on the 8th day of October 2001 be allowed, if they wish, to withdraw their nomination and have their deposit reduced against any deposit required where they elect to accept nomination for any seat in a different capacity? (E.G. may want to be a candidate for a now registered party or change from one House to be a candidate for another House - with the difference, is over paid, refunded) (IV) Should the Australian Electoral Commission allow for candidates to disclose electoral spending, gifts etc in regard of the now defunct Writs issued on the 8th day of October 2001 without limiting their rights of electoral spending, gifts received etc in regard of new Writs to be issued? (See also Sections; 303, 304, 305, 305A, 305B, 306, 306A, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 311A, 313, 314 of the Electoral Act 1918) (V) Where the Electoral Act 1918 (Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) such as in Sections 303, 304, 305, 305A, 305B, 306, 306A, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 311A, 313 and 314 relates to elections or Where an election has taken place.. but no election has in fact taken place in regard of the now defunct Writs issued the 8th day of October 2001 should it be held that the reference must be construed as if the election had taken place, regardless it hadnt? (VI) Whereas Section 89 of the Electoral Act 1918 refers to at least once during the period of 2 years should this not be held to prevent any person to enrol, who might have become eligible since the now defunct Writs issued on the 8th day of October 2001 and until and including the date of the closure of the Rolls as fixed by any new Writ to be issued)? And, should the Australian electoral commission then print out s supplement in regard of those who became eligible in the aforementioned stated period? END QUOTE 29-1-2003 EMAIL Exhibit 004

(I)

35 Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(

Our name is our motto!)

This document was reproduced from INSPECTOR-RIKATI & There is no Government to go to war, A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia (0-9580569-5-1 to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-5-3 p3 22-3-2014 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati