20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT Re VEC, Etc

1
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria

daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
10-6-2015
5
Cc:
10
michelle.ainsworth@news.com.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Ref;
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT re VEC, etc
Daniel,
this is a formal complaint against the VEC as to its conduct I view of terrorism and
extortion despite of my writings of 12-3-2015 (quoted below)
I do not accept the authority of the VEC to so to say overrule a County Court of Victoria
judgment and I view the conduct of G Fraser for the VEC (Who issued the purported 1-5-2015
Infringement Notice 3589969) is nothing less than CONTEMPT OF COURT.
I didnt provide any explain merely explained that it was CONTEMPT OF COURT for the
VEC to seek to undermine the rights and benefits I obtained in the County Court of Victoria as to
my right to vote or not to vote as I desire. As below is set out the than Attorney-General Robert
Hulls stated that the State of Victoria would abide by the court decision!
G Fraser (VEC) or for that anyone else has no legal authority to undermine the County Court of
Victoria decision to uphold my constitutional objections in both appeals that compulsory voting
is unconstitutional. I do not need to select to have the matter heard before a magistrate or other
court because the courts decision of 19 July 2006 cannot be re-visited because as the High Court
of Australia made clear in HCA 27 of 1999 Wakim that parties involved in a constitutional
matter are bound by the courts decision and cannot re-visit the same again.
As such there is NO CASED TO ANSWER and neither has the Magistrates Court of Victoria
nor the Infringement Court or for that the County Court of Victoria any judicial powers to seek to
undermine my legal rights obtained by the County Court of Victoria 19-7-2006 decision. As such
I object to the jurisdiction of any court to seek to re-litigate the constitutional issues that were
decided in my favour on 19-7-2006, to which the State of Victoria (so the Victorian Electoral
Commission) is bound by.
I request a full and independent investigation as to why the Victorian Electoral Commission
pursues this kind of terrorism/extortion to try to force me to pay monies, contrary to my rights?
Do keep in mind that to litigate against me may mean other electors may also become aware of
the County Court of Victoria 19-7-2006 ruling and then well electors may in droves decide to
exercise their constitutional rights not to vote either if they do not hold a suitable candidate is
standing to vote for.
As my 12-50-2015 correspondence was a COMPLAINT and not to pursue to provide some
excuse then it questions why G Fraser (for the V EC) instead has dealt with it as some excuse
and the VEC clearly failed to deal with the matter as a COMPLAINT, hence I view it no
longer should be permitted to investigate matters of COMPLAINTS internally (in house) because
clearly it is a scam and not properly considered and dealt with. One has to ask; How often the
VEC railroads complaints in this manner?
p1
10-6-2015
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
p2
10-6-2015
I take it very serious that as I view it the VEC is using terrorism and extortion to seek to
undermine my rights. Lets be clear about it, I challenged the validity of compulsory voting and
p3
10-6-2015
4
the County Court of Victoria in both cases upheld my constitutional based objections. The State
of Victoria or for that any other Electoral Commission cannot go behind this decision of the
County Court of Victoria. It should also be understood that where the State of Victoria were to
litigate against me then those involved could face CONTEMPT OF COURT proceedings
against them because it is a mere matter of fact that even an Attorney General (in the USA) was
held to be in CONTEMPT OF COURT when blatantly violating the rights of a successful
party.
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)-ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CONTEMPT
QUOTE
10
While there is no rule permitting a person to disobey a statute with impunity at least once for the purpose of
testing its validity, where such validity can only be determined by judicial investigation and construction, a
provision in the statute which imposes such severe penalties for disobedience of its provisions as to
intimidate the parties affected thereby from resorting to the courts to test its validity practically prohibits
those parties from seeking such judicial construction, and denies them the equal protection of the law.
15
The attempt of a State officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of, and
does not affect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity, and is an illegal act, and the officer is
stripped of his official character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
The State has no power to impart to its officer immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the
United States.
20
When the question of the validity of a State statute with reference to the Federal Constitution has been first
raised in a Federal court, that court has the right to decide it to the exclusion of all other courts.
It is not necessary that the duty of a State officer to enforce a statute be declared in that statute itself in order
to permit his being joined as a party defendant from enforcing it; if, by virtue of his office, he has some
connection with the enforcement of the act, it is immaterial whether it arises by common general law or by
25
statute.
Page 209 U. S. 125
While the courts cannot control the exercise of the discretion of an executive officer, an injunction preventing
such officer from enforcing an unconstitutional statute is not an interference with his discretion.
p4
10-6-2015
5
The Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, under his common law power and the state statutes, has the
general authority imposed upon him of enforcing constitutional statutes of the State, and is a proper party
defendant to a suit brought to prevent the enforcement of a State statute on the ground of its
unconstitutionality.
While a Federal court cannot interfere in a criminal case already pending in a state court, and while, as a
general rule, a court of equity cannot enjoin criminal proceedings, those rules do not apply when such
proceedings are brought to enforce an alleged unconstitutional state statute, after the unconstitutionality
thereof has become the subject of inquiry in a suit pending in a Federal court which has first obtained
jurisdiction thereover; and, under such circumstances, the Federal court has the right in both civil and
10
criminal cases to hold and maintain such jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
While making a state officer who has no connection with the enforcement of an act alleged to be
unconstitutional a party defendant is merely making him a party as a representative of the State, and thereby
amounts to making the State a party within the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment, individuals, who, as
officers of the State, are clothed with some duty in regard to the enforcement of the laws of the State, and
15
who threaten and are about to commence an action, either civil or criminal, to enforce an unconstitutional
state statute, may be enjoined from so doing by a Federal court.
Under such conditions as are involved in this case, the Federal court may enjoin an individual or a state
officer from enforcing a state statute on account of its unconstitutionality, but it may not restrain the state
court from acting in any case brought before it either of a civil or criminal nature, or prevent any
20
investigation or action by a grand jury.
An injunction by a Federal court against a State court would violate the whole scheme of this Government,
and it does not follow that, because an individual may be enjoined from doing certain things, a court may be
similarly enjoined.
No adequate remedy at law, sufficient to prevent a court of equity from acting, exists in a case where the
25
enforcement of an unconstitutional state rate statute would require the complainant to carry merchandise at
p5
10-6-2015
6
confiscatory rates if it complied with the statute, and subject it to excessive penalties in case it did not comply
therewith, and its validity was finally sustained.
While a common carrier sued at common law for penalties under, or on indictment for violation of, a state
rate statute might interpose as a defense the unconstitutionality of the statute on account of the confiscatory
character of the rates prescribed, a jury cannot intelligently pass upon such a matter; the proper method is to
determine the constitutionality of the statute in a court of equity in which the opinions of experts may be
Page 209 U. S. 126
taken and the matter referred to a master to make the needed computations and to find the necessary facts on
which the court may act.
10
END QUOTE

QUOTE
The Circuit Court of the United States having, in an action brought by a stockholder of the Northern Pacific
15
Railway Company against the officers of the road, certain shippers, and the Attorney General and certain
other officials of the State of Minnesota, held that a railroad rate statute of Minnesota was unconstitutional,
and enjoined all the defendants from enforcing such statute, and, the Attorney General having refused to
comply with such order, the Circuit Court fined and committed him for contempt, and this court refused to
discharge him on habeas corpus.
20
An original application was made to this court for leave to file a petition for writs of habeas corpus and
certiorari in behalf of Edward T. Young, petitioner, as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota.
Leave was granted and a rule entered directing the United States marshal for the district of Minnesota, third
division, who held the petitioner in his custody, to show cause why such petition should not be granted.
The marshal, upon the return of the order to show cause, justified his detention on the petitioner by virtue of
25
an order of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, which adjudged the petitioner
guilty of contempt of that court, and directed that he be fined the sum of $100, and that he should dismiss the
p6
10-6-2015
7
mandamus proceedings brought by him in the name and in behalf of the State, in the Circuit Court of the
State, and that he should stand committed to the custody of the marshal until that order was obeyed. The case
Page 209 U. S. 127
involves the validity of the order of the Circuit Court committing him for contempt.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
A temporary restraining order was made by the Circuit Court, which only restrained the railway company
10
from publishing the rates as provided for in the act of April 18, 1907, and from reducing its tariffs to the
figures set forth in that act, the court refusing for the present to interfere by injunction with regard to the
orders of the commission and the act of April 4, 1907, as the railroads had already put them in operation; but
it restrained Edward T. Young, Attorney General, from taking any steps against the railroads to enforce the
remedies or penalties specified in the act of April 18, 1907.
15
Copies of the bill and the restraining order were served, among others, upon the defendant Mr. Edward T.
Young, Attorney General, who appeared specially and only for the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill as to
him, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over him as Attorney General; and he averred that the
State of Minnesota had not consented, and did not consent, to the commencement of this suit against him as
Attorney General of the State, which suit was, in truth and effect, a suit against the said State of Minnesota
20
contrary to the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The Attorney General also filed a demurrer to the bill on the same ground stated in the motion to dismiss. The
motion was denied and the demurrer overruled.
Thereupon, on the 23d of September, 1907, the court, after a hearing of all parties and taking proofs in regard
to the issues involved, ordered a temporary injunction to issue against the railway company restraining it,
25
pending the final hearing of the cause, from putting into effect the tariffs, rates, or charges set forth in the act
approved April 18, 1907. The court also enjoined the defendant Young, as Attorney General of the State of
Minnesota, pending the final hearing of the cause, from taking or instituting any action or proceeding to
p7
10-6-2015
8
enforce the penalties and remedies specified in the act above mentioned, or to compel obedience to that act,
or compliance therewith, or any part thereof.
Page 209 U. S. 133
As the court refused to grant any preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of the rates fixed by the
railroad and warehouse commission, or the passenger rates under the act of April 4, 1907, because the same
had been accepted by the railroads and were in operation, the court stated that, in omitting the granting of
such preliminary injunction, the necessity was obviated upon that hearing of determining whether the rates
fixed by the commission, or the passenger rates, together or singly, were confiscatory and did not afford
reasonable compensation for the service rendered and a proper allowance for the property employed, and, for
10
those reasons, that question had not been considered; but inasmuch as the rates fixed by the act of April 18,
1907, had not gone into force, the court observed:
"It seems to me, upon this evidence of the conditions before either of those new rates were put into effect
(that is, the order of the commission of September, 1906, or the act of April 4, 1907) and the reductions made
by those rates, that, if there is added the reduction which is attempted to be made by the commodity act (April
15
18, 1907), it will reduce the compensation received by the companies below what would be a fair
compensation for the services performed, including an adequate return upon the property invested. And I
think, on the whole, that a preliminary injunction should issue in respect to the rates fixed by chapter 232 (act
of April 18), talked of as the commodity rates, and that there should be no preliminary injunction as to the
other rates, although the matter as to whether they are compensatory or not is a matter which may be
20
determined in the final determination of the action."
The day after the granting of this preliminary injunction, the Attorney General, in violation of such
injunction, filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus in one of the courts of the State, and obtained
an order from that court September 24, 1907, directing the alternative writ to issue as prayed for in the
petition. The writ was thereafter issued and served upon the Northern Pacific Railway Company,
25
Page 209 U. S. 134
p8
10-6-2015
9
commanding the company, immediately after its receipt,
"to adopt and publish and keep for public inspection, as provided by law, as the rates and charges to be made,
demanded, and maintained by you for the transportation of freight between stations in the State of Minnesota
of the kind, character, and class named and specified in chapter 232 of the Session Laws of the State of
Minnesota for the year 1907, rates and charges which do not exceed those declared to be just and reasonable
in and by the terms and provisions of said chapter 232. . . ."
Upon an affidavit showing these facts, the United States Circuit Court ordered Mr. Young to show cause why
he should not be punished as for a contempt for his misconduct in violating the temporary injunction issued
by that court in the case therein pending.
10
Upon the return of this order, the Attorney General filed his answer, in which he set up the same objections
which he had made to the jurisdiction of the court in his motion to dismiss the bill, and in his demurrer; he
disclaimed any intention to treat the court with disrespect in the commencement of the proceedings referred
to, but, believing that the decision of the court in the action, holding that it had jurisdiction to enjoin him, as
Attorney General, from performing his discretionary official duties, was in conflict with the Eleventh
15
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as the same has been interpreted and applied by the
United States Supreme Court, he believed it to be his duty, as such Attorney General, to commence the
mandamus proceedings for and in behalf of the State, and it was in this belief that the proceedings were
commenced solely for the purpose of enforcing the law of the State of Minnesota. The order adjudging him in
contempt was then made.
20
Page 209 U. S. 142
MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
We recognize and appreciate to the fullest extent the very great importance of this case not only to the parties
now before the court, but also to the great mass of the citizens of this country, all of whom are interested in
the practical working of the courts of justice throughout the land, both Federal and State, and in the proper
p9
10-6-2015
10
exercise of the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, as limited and controlled by the Federal Constitution and the
laws of Congress.
That there has been room for difference of opinion with regard to such limitations the reported cases in this
court bear conclusive testimony. It cannot be stated that the case before us is entirely free from any possible
doubt, nor that intelligent men may not differ as to the correct answer to the question we are called upon to
decide.
The question of jurisdiction, whether of the Circuit Court or of this court, is frequently a delicate matter to
deal with, and it is especially so in this case, where the material and most important objection to the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is the assertion that the suit is, in effect, against one of the States of the
10
Union. It is a question, however, which we are called upon, and which it is our duty, to decide. Under these
circumstances, the language of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264-404, is most
apposite. In that case, he said:
Page 209 U. S. 143
"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take
15
jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches
the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with
whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more
right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or
the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we
20
cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty."
Coming to a consideration of the case, we find that the complainants in the suit commenced in the Circuit
Court were stockholders in the Northern Pacific Railway Company, and the reason for commencing it and
making the railroad company one of the parties defendant is sufficiently set forth in the bill. Davis &c Co. v.
Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 189 U. S. 220; equity rule 94, Supreme Court.
p10
10-6-2015
11
It is primarily asserted on the part of the petitioner that jurisdiction did not exist in the Circuit Court because
there was not the requisite diversity of citizenship, and there was no question arising under the Constitution
or laws of the United States to otherwise give jurisdiction to that court. There is no claim made here of
jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and the claim, if made, would be unfounded in fact. If
no other ground exists, then the order of the Circuit Court assuming to punish petitioner for contempt was an
unlawful order made by a court without jurisdiction. In such case, this court, upon proper application, will
discharge the person from imprisonment. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713;
In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 123 U. S. 485. But an examination of the record before us shows that there are
Federal questions in this case.
10
It is insisted by the petitioner that there is no Federal question
Page 209 U. S. 144
presented under the Fourteenth Amendment, because there is no dispute as to the meaning of the
Constitution, where it provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; and whatever
15
dispute there may be in this case is one of fact simply, whether the freight or passenger rates, as fixed by the
legislature or by the railroad commission, are so low as to be confiscatory; and that is not a Federal question.
Jurisdiction is given to the Circuit Court in suits involving the requisite amount, arising under the
Constitution or laws of the United States (1 U.S.Comp.Stat. p. 508), and the question really to be determined
under this objection is whether the acts of the legislature and the orders of the railroad commission, if
20
enforced, would take property without due process of law, and, although that question might incidentally
involve a question of fact, its solution, nevertheless, is one which raises a Federal question. See Hastings v.
Ames (C.C.A. 8th Circuit), 68 Fed.Rep. 726. The sufficiency of rates with reference to the Federal
Constitution is a judicial question, and one over which Federal courts have jurisdiction by reason of its
Federal nature. Chicago &c. R.R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418; Reagan v. Farmers' &c. Co. 154 U.S. 154
25
U. S. 369-399; St. Louis &c. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649; Covington &c. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578; Smyth
v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 169 U. S. 522; Chicago, &c. Railway Co. v. Tompkins, 170 U. S. 167, 170 U. S. 172.
p11
10-6-2015
12
Another Federal question is the alleged unconstitutionality of these acts because of the enormous penalties
denounced for their violation, which prevent the railway company, as alleged, or any of its servants or
employees, from resorting to the courts for the purpose of determining the validity of such acts. The
contention is urged by the complainants in the suit that the company is denied the equal protection of the
laws. and its property is liable to be taken without due process of law, because it is only allowed a hearing
upon the claim of of
Page 209 U. S. 145
the unconstitutionality of the acts and orders in question, at the risk, if mistaken, of being subjected to such
enormous penalties, resulting in the possible confiscation of its whole property, that, rather than take such
10
risks, the company would obey the laws although such obedience might also result in the end (though by a
slower process) in such confiscation.
Still another Federal question is urged growing out of the assertion that the laws are, by their necessary effect,
an interference with and a regulation of interstate commerce, the grounds for which assertion it is not now
necessary to enlarge upon. The question is not, at any rate, frivolous.
15
We conclude that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction in the case before it, because it involved the decision of
Federal questions arising under the Constitution of the United States.
END QUOTE
20

QUOTE
We have, therefore, upon this record, the case of an unconstitutional act of the state legislature and an
intention by the Attorney General of the State to endeavor to enforce its provisions, to the injury of the
company, in compelling it, at great expense, to defend legal proceedings of a complicated and unusual
25
character, and involving questions of vast importance to all employees and officers of the company, as well
as to the company itself. The question that arises is whether there is a remedy that the parties interested may
resort to, by going into a Federal court of equity, in a case involving a violation of the Federal Constitution,
and obtaining a judicial investigation of the problem, and, pending its solution, obtain freedom from suits,
p12
10-6-2015
13
civil or criminal, by a temporary injunction, and, if the question be finally decided favorably to the contention
of the company, a permanent injunction restraining all such actions or proceedings.
This inquiry necessitates an examination of the most material and important objection made to the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court -- the objection being that the suit is, in effect, one against the State of
Minnesota, and that the injunction issued against the Attorney General illegally prohibits state action, either
criminal or civil, to enforce obedience to the statutes of the State. This objection is to be considered with
reference to the 11th and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment
prohibits the commencement or prosecution of any suit against one of the United States by citizens of another
State or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall
10
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall it deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Page 209 U. S. 150
The case before the Circuit Court proceeded upon the theory that the orders and acts heretofore mentioned
would, if enforced, violate rights of the complainants protected by the latter amendment. We think that,
15
whatever the rights of complainants may be, they are largely founded upon that Amendment, but a decision
of this case does not require an examination or decision of the question whether its adoption in any way
altered or limited the effect of the earlier Amendment. We may assume that each exists in full force, and that
we must give to the Eleventh Amendment all the effect it naturally would have, without cutting it down or
rendering its meaning any more narrow than the language, fairly interpreted, would warrant. It applies to a
20
suit brought against a State by one of its own citizens, as well as to a suit brought by a citizen of another
State. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1. It was adopted after the decision of this court in Chisholm v. Georgia,
(1792) 2 Dall. 419, where it was held that a State might be sued by a citizen of another State. Since that time,
there have been many cases decided in this court involving the Eleventh Amendment, among them being
Osborn v. United States Bank, (1824) 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 846, 22 U. S. 857, which held that the
25
Amendment applied only to those suits in which the State was a party on the record. In the subsequent case of
Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, (1828) 1 Pet. 110, 26 U. S. 122, 26 U. S. 123, that holding was somewhat
enlarged, and Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, while citing Osborn v. United States
p13
10-6-2015
14
Bank, supra, said that, where the claim was made, as in the case then before the court, against the Governor
of Georgia as Governor, and the demand was made upon him not personally, but officially (for moneys in the
treasury of the State and for slaves in possession of the State government), the State might be considered as
the party on the record (page 26 U. S. 123), and therefore the suit could not be maintained.
Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 83 U. S. 220, reiterates the rule of Osborn v. United States Bank so far as
concerns the right to enjoin a state officer from executing a state law in conflict with
Page 209 U. S. 151
the Constitution or a statute of the United States when such execution will violate the rights of the
complainant.
10
In Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270, 114 U. S. 296, it was adjudged that a suit against a tax collector
who had refused coupons in payment of taxes, and, under color of a void law, was about to seize and sell the
property of a taxpayer for nonpayment of his taxes was a suit against him personally, as a wrongdoer, and not
against the State.
Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52, 117 U. S. 67, decided that the bill was, in substance, a bill for the specific
15
performance of a contract between the complainants and the State of South Carolina, and, although the State
was not, in name, made a party defendant, yet, being the actual party to the alleged contract the performance
of which was sought, and the only party by whom it could be performed, the State was, in effect, a party to
the suit, and it could not be maintained for that reason. The things required to be done by the actual
defendants were the very things which, when done, would constitute a performance of the alleged contract by
20
the State.
The cases upon the subject were reviewed, and it was held, In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, that a bill in equity
brought against officers of a State who, as individuals, have no personal interest in the subject matter of the
suit, and defend only as representing the State, where the relief prayed for, if done, would constitute a
performance by the State of the alleged contract of the State, was a suit against the State (page 123 U. S.
25
504), following in this respect Hagood v. Southern, supra.

p14
10-6-2015
15
A suit of such a nature was simply an attempt to make the State itself, through its officers, perform its alleged
contract by directing those officers to do acts which constituted such performance. The State alone had any
interest in the question, and a decree in favor of plaintiff would affect the treasury of the State.
On the other hand, United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, determined that an individual in possession of real
estate under the government of the United States, which claimed to be
Page 209 U. S. 152
its owner, was, nevertheless, properly sued by the plaintiff, as owner, to recover possession, and such suit was
not one against the United States, although the individual in possession justified such possession under its
authority. See also Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204, to the same effect.
10
In Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 140 U. S. 9, a suit against land commissioners of the State was
said not to be against the State, although the complainants sought to restrain the defendants, officials of the
State, from violating, under an unconstitutional act, the complainants' contract with the State, and thereby
working irreparable damage to the property rights of the complainants. Osborn v. United States Bank, supra,
was cited, and it was stated:
15
"But the general doctrine of Osborn v. United States Bank, that the Circuit Courts of the United States will
restrain a state officer from executing an unconstitutional statute of the State when to execute it would violate
rights and privileges of the complainant which had been guaranteed by the Constitution and would work
irreparable damage and injury to him, has never been departed from."
The same principle is decided in Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 165 U. S. 67. And see Missouri &c. v.
20
Missouri Railroad Commissioners, 183 U. S. 53.
The cases above cited do not include one exactly like this under discussion. They serve to illustrate the
principles upon which many cases have been decided. We have not cited all the cases, as we have not thought
it necessary. But the injunction asked for in the Ayers Case, 123 U.S. (supra), was to restrain the state
officers from commencing suits under the act of May 12, 1887 (alleged to be unconstitutional), in the name
p15
10-6-2015
16
of the State and brought to recover taxes for its use, on the ground that, if such suits were commenced, they
would be a breach of a contract with the State. The injunction was declared illegal because the suit itself
could not be entertained, as it was one against the State, to enforce its alleged contract. It was said, however,
that, if the court had power to entertain such a suit, it would have power to grant the restraining order
Page 209 U. S. 153
preventing the commencement of suits. (Page 123 U. S. 487.) It was not stated that the suit or the injunction
was necessarily confined to a case of a threatened direct trespass upon or injury to property.
Whether the commencement of a suit could ever be regarded as an actionable injury to another, equivalent, in
some cases, to a trespass such as is set forth in some of the foregoing cases, has received attention of the rate
10
cases, so-called. Reagan v. Farmers' & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362 (a rate case), was a suit against the members
of a railroad commission (created under an act of the State of Texas) and the Attorney General, all of whom
were held suable, and that such suit was not one against the State. The commission was enjoined from
enforcing the rates it had established under the act, and the Attorney General was enjoined from instituting
suits to recover penalties for failing to conform to the rates fixed by the commission under such act. It is true
15
the statute in that case creating the board provided that suit might be maintained by any dissatisfied railroad
company, or other party in interest, in a court of competent jurisdiction in Travis county, Texas, against the
commission as defendant. This court held that such language permitted a suit in the United States Circuit
Court for the western district of Texas, which embraced Travis county, but it also held that, irrespective of
that consent, the suit was not, in effect, a suit against the State (although the Attorney General was enjoined),
20
and therefore not prohibited under the Amendment. It was said in the opinion, which was delivered by Mr.
Justice Brewer, that the suit could not, in any fair sense, be considered a suit against the State (page 154 U. S.
392), and the conclusion of the court was that the objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was not
tenable, whether that jurisdiction was rested (page 154 U. S. 393)
"upon the provisions of the statute, or upon the general jurisdiction of the court, existing by virtue of the
25
statutes of Congress, under the sanction of the Constitution of the United States."
Each of these grounds is effective and both are of equal force.

p16
10-6-2015
17
Page 209 U. S. 154
Union Pacific &c. v. Mason City Company, 199 U. S. 160, 199 U. S. 166.
In Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 (another rate case), it was again held that a suit against individuals for the
purpose of preventing them, as officers of the State, from enforcing, by the commencement of suits or by
indictment, an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff was not a suit against a
State within the meaning of the Amendment. At page 169 U. S. 518, in answer to the objection that the suit
was really against the State, it was said:
"It is the settled doctrine of this court that a suit against individuals, for the purpose of preventing them, as
officers of a State, from enforcing an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff, is
10
not a suit against the State within the meaning of that Amendment."
The suit was to enjoin the enforcement of a statute of Nebraska because it was alleged to be unconstitutional
on account of the rates being too low to afford some compensation to the company, and contrary, therefore, to
the Fourteenth Amendment.
There was no special provision in the statute as to rates, making it the duty of the Attorney General to enforce
15
it, but, under his general powers, he had authority to ask for a mandamus to enforce such or any other law.
State of Nebraska ex rel. &c. v. The Fremont &c. Railroad Co., 22 Neb. 313.
The final decree enjoined the Attorney General from bringing any suit (page 169 U. S. 477) by way of
injunction, mandamus, civil action, or indictment, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the act. The
5th section of the act provided that an action might be brought by a railroad company in the supreme court of
20
the State of Nebraska; but this court did not base its decision on that section when it held that a suit of the
nature of that before it was not a suit against a State, although brought against individual state officers, for the
purpose of enjoining them from enforcing, either by civil proceeding or indictment, an unconstitutional
enactment to the injury of the plaintiff's right. Page 169 U. S. 518.
Page 209 U. S. 155

p17
10-6-2015
18
This decision was reaffirmed in Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537, 188 U. S. 542.
Attention is also directed to the case of Missouri &c. Rwy. Co. v. Missouri R.R. &c. Commissioners, 183 U.
S. 53. That was a suit brought in a state court of Missouri by the railroad commissioners of the State, who had
the powers granted them by the statutes set forth in the report. Their suit was against the railway company, to
compel it to discontinue certain charges it was making for crossing the Boonville bridge over the Missouri
river. The defendant sought to remove the case to the Federal court, which the plaintiffs resisted, and the state
court refused to remove, on the ground that the real plaintiff was the State of Missouri, and it was proper to
go behind the face of the record to determine that fact. In regular manner, the case came here, and this court
held that the State was not the real party plaintiff, and the case had therefore been properly removed from the
10
state court, whose judgment was thereupon reversed.
Applying the same principles of construction to the removal act which had been applied to the Eleventh
Amendment, it was said by this court that the State might be the real party plaintiff when the relief sought
inures to it alone, and in whose favor the judgment or decree, if for the plaintiff, will effectively operate.
Although the case is one arising under the removal act, and does not involve the Eleventh Amendment, it
15
nevertheless illustrates the question now before us, and reiterates the doctrine that the State is not a party to a
suit simply because the state railroad commission is such party.
The doctrine of Smyth v. Ames is also referred to and reiterated in Gunter, Attorney General v. Atlantic &c.
Railroad Co., 200 U. S. 273, 200 U. S. 283. See also McNeill v. Southern Railway, 202 U. S. 543, 202 U. S.
559; Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Illinois &c. Railroad Co., 203 U. S. 335, 203 U. S. 340.
20
The various authorities we have referred to furnish ample justification for the assertion that individuals who,
as officers
Page 209 U. S. 156
of the State, are clothed with some duty in regard to the enforcement of the laws of the State, and who
threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against
p18
10-6-2015
19
parties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution, may be enjoined by a Federal court
of equity from such action.
It is objected, however, that Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, has somewhat limited this principle, and that,
upon the authority of that case, it must be held that the State was a party to the suit in the United States
Circuit Court, and the bill should have been dismissed as to the Attorney General on that ground.
We do not think such contention is well founded. The doctrine of Smyth v. Ames was neither overruled nor
doubted in the Fitts case. In that case, the Alabama legislature, by the act of 1895, fixed the tolls to be
charged for crossing the bridge. The penalties for disobeying that act by demanding and receiving higher tolls
were to be collected by the persons paying them. No officer of the State had any official connection with the
10
recovery of such penalties. The indictments mentioned were found under another State statute, set forth at
page 172 U. S. 520 of the report of the case, which provided a fine against an officer of a company for taking
any greater rate of toll than was authorized by its charter, or, if the charter did not specify the amount, then
the fine was imposed for charging any unreasonable toll, to be determined by a jury. This act was not claimed
to be unconstitutional, and the indictments found under it were not necessarily connected with the alleged
15
unconstitutional act fixing the tolls. As no state officer who was made a party bore any close official
connection with the act fixing the tolls, the making of such officer a party defendant was a simple effort to
test the constitutionality of such act in that way, and there is no principle upon which it could be done. A state
superintendent of schools might as well have been made a party. In the light of this fact it was said in the
opinion (page 172 U. S. 530):
20
Page 209 U. S. 157
"In the present case, as we have said, neither of the state officers named held any special relation to the
particular statute alleged to be unconstitutional. They were not expressly directed to see to its enforcement. If,
because they were law officers of the State, a case could be made for the purpose of testing the
constitutionality of the statute by an injunction suit brought against them, then the constitutionality of every
25
act passed by the legislature could be tested by a suit against the Governor and the Attorney General, based
upon the theory that the former, as the executive of the State, was, in a general sense, charged with the
p19
10-6-2015
20
execution of all its laws, and the latter, as Attorney General, might represent the State in litigation involving
the enforcement of its statutes. That would be a very convenient way for obtaining a speedy judicial
determination of questions of constitutional law which may be raised by individuals, but it is a mode which
cannot be applied to the States of the Union consistently with the fundamental principle that they cannot,
without their assent, be brought into any court at the suit of private persons."
In making an officer of the State a party defendant in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an act alleged to be
unconstitutional, it is plain that such officer must have some connection with the enforcement of the act, or
else it is merely making him a party as a representative of the State, and thereby attempting to make the State
a party.
10
It has not, however, been held that it was necessary that such duty should be declared in the same act which is
to be enforced. In some cases, it is true, the duty of enforcement has been so imposed ( 154 U. S. 154 U.S.
362, 154 U. S. 366, 19 of the act), but that may possibly make the duty more clear; if it otherwise exist, it is
equally efficacious. The fact that the state officer, by virtue of his office, has some connection with the
enforcement of the act, is the important and material fact, and whether it arises out of the general law or is
15
specially created by the act itself is not material, so long as it exists.
In the course of the opinion in the Fitts case, the Reagan and
Page 209 U. S. 158
Smyth cases were referred to (with others) as instances of state officers specially charged with the execution
of a State enactment alleged to be unconstitutional, and who commit, under its authority, some specific wrong
20
or trespass to the injury of plaintiff's rights. In those cases, the only wrong or injury or trespass involved was
the threatened commencement of suits to enforce the statute as to rates, and the threat of such commencement
was, in each case, regarded as sufficient to authorize the issuing of an injunction to prevent the same. The
threat to commence those suits under such circumstances was therefore necessarily held to be equivalent to
any other threatened wrong or injury to the property of a plaintiff which had theretofore been held sufficient
25
to authorize the suit against the officer. The being specially charged with the duty to enforce the statute is
sufficiently apparent when such duty exists under the general authority of some law, even though such
p20
10-6-2015
21
authority is not to be found in the particular act. It might exist by reason of the general duties of the officer to
enforce it as a law of the State.
The officers in the Fitts case occupied the position of having no duty at all with regard to the act, and could
not be properly made parties to the suit for the reason stated.
It is also objected that, as the statute does not specifically make it the duty of the Attorney General (assuming
he has that general right) to enforce it, he has, under such circumstances, a full general discretion whether to
attempt its enforcement or not, and the court cannot interfere to control him as Attorney General in the
exercise of his discretion.
In our view, there is no interference with his discretion under the facts herein. There is no doubt that the court
10
cannot control the exercise of the discretion of an officer. It can only direct affirmative action where the
officer having some duty to perform not involving discretion, but merely ministerial in its nature, refuses or
neglects to take such action. In that case, the court can direct the defendant to perform this merely ministerial
duty. Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531, 92 U. S. 541.
Page 209 U. S. 159
15
The general discretion regarding the enforcement of the laws when and as he deems appropriate is not
interfered with by an injunction which restrains the state officer from taking any steps towards the
enforcement of an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of complainant. In such case, no affirmative
action of any nature is directed, and the officer is simply prohibited from doing an act which he had no legal
right to do. An injunction to prevent him from doing that which he has no legal right to do is not an
20
interference with the discretion of an officer.
It is also argued that the only proceeding which the Attorney General could take to enforce the statute, so far
as his office is concerned, was one by mandamus, which would be commenced by the State, in its sovereign
and governmental character, and that the right to bring such action is a necessary attribute of a sovereign
government. It is contended that the complainants do not complain and they care nothing about any action
25
which Mr. Young might take or bring as an ordinary individual, but that he was complained of as an officer,
p21
10-6-2015
22
to whose discretion is confided the use of the name of the State of Minnesota so far as litigation is concerned,
and that when or how he shall use it is a matter resting in his discretion, and cannot be controlled by any
court.
The answer to all this is the same as made in every case where an official claims to be acting under the
authority of the State. The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so, the use of the
name of the State to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the
authority of, and one which does not affect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply
an illegal act upon the part of a State official in attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to enforce a
legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state Attorney General
10
seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment,
comes into conflict with the
Page 209 U. S. 160
superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative
character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no
15
power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See
In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S. 507. It would be an injury to complainant to harass it with a multiplicity of
suits or litigation generally in an endeavor to enforce penalties under an unconstitutional enactment, and to
prevent it ought to be within the jurisdiction of a court of equity. If the question of unconstitutionality, with
reference, at least, to the Federal Constitution, be first raised in a Federal court, that court, as we think is
20
shown by the authorities cited hereafter, has the right to decide it, to the exclusion of all other courts.
The question remains whether the Attorney General had, by the law of the State, so far as concerns these rate
acts, any duty with regard to the enforcement of the same. By his official conduct, it seems that he regarded it
as a duty connected with his office to compel the company to obey the commodity act, for he commenced
proceedings to enforce such obedience immediately after the injunction issued, at the risk of being found
25
guilty of contempt by so doing.
p22
10-6-2015
23
The duties of the Attorney General, as decided by the supreme court of the State of Minnesota, are created
partly by statute and exist partly as at common law. State ex rel. Young, Attorney General v. Robinson
(decided June 7, 1907),112 N.W.Rep. 269. In the above-cited case, it was held that the Attorney General
might institute, conduct, and maintain all suits and proceedings he might deem necessary for the enforcement
of the laws of the State, the preservation of order, and the protection of public rights, and that there were no
statutory restrictions in that State limiting the duties of the Attorney General in such case.
Section 3 of chapter 227 of the General Laws of Minnesota, 1905 (same law, 58, Revised Laws of
Minnesota, 1905),
Page 209 U. S. 161
10
imposes the duty upon the Attorney General to cause proceedings to be instituted against any corporation
whenever it shall have offended against the laws of the State. By 1960 of the Revised Laws of 1905, it is
also provided that the Attorney General shall be ex officio attorney for the railroad commission, and it is
made his duty to institute and prosecute all actions which the commission shall order brought, and shall
render the commissioners all counsel and advice necessary for the proper performance of their duties.
15
It is said that the Attorney General is only bound to act when the commission orders action to be brought, and
that 5 of the commodity act (April 18, 1907) expressly provides that no duty shall rest upon the commission
to enforce the act, and hence no duty other than that which is discretionary rests upon the Attorney General in
that matter. The provision is somewhat unusual, but the reasons for its insertion in that act are not material,
and neither require nor justify comment by this court.
20
It would seem to be clear that the Attorney General, under his power existing at common law, and by virtue
of these various statutes, had a general duty imposed upon him which includes the right and the power to
enforce the statutes of the State, including, of course, the act in question, if it were constitutional. His power,
by virtue of his office, sufficiently connected him with the duty of enforcement to make him a proper party to
a suit of the nature of the one now before the United States Circuit Court.
p23
10-6-2015
24
It is further objected (and the objection really forms part of the contention that the State cannot be sued) that a
court of equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin criminal proceedings, by indictment or otherwise, under the state
law. This, as a general rule, is true. But there are exceptions. When such indictment or proceeding is brought
to enforce an alleged unconstitutional statute which is the subject matter of inquiry in a suit already pending
in a Federal court, the latter court, having first obtained jurisdiction over the subject matter, has
Page 209 U. S. 162
the right, in both civil and criminal cases, to hold and maintain such jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other
courts, until its duty is fully performed. Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537, 188 U. S. 544. But the Federal court
cannot, of course, interfere in a case where the proceedings were already pending in a state court. Taylor v.
10
Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 83 U. S. 370; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148.
Where one commences a criminal proceeding who is already party to a suit then pending in a court of equity,
if the criminal proceedings are brought to enforce the same right that is in issue before that court, the latter
may enjoin such criminal proceedings. Davis &c. Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207. In Dobbins v. Los
Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 195 U. S. 241, it is remarked by Mr. Justice Day, in delivering the opinion of the
15
court, that
"it is well settled that, where property rights will be destroyed, unlawful interference by criminal proceedings
under a void law or ordinance may be reached and controlled by a decree of a court of equity."
Smyth v. Ames, supra, distinctly enjoined the proceedings by indictment to compel obedience to the rate act.
These cases show that a court of equity is not always precluded from granting an injunction to stay
20
proceedings in criminal cases, and we have no doubt the principle applies in a case such as the present. In re
Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 124 U. S. 211, is not to the contrary. That case holds that, in general, a court of equity
has no jurisdiction of a bill to stay criminal proceedings, but it expressly states an exception, "unless they are
instituted by a party to the suit already pending before it, and to try the same right that is in issue there."
Various authorities are cited to sustain the exception. The criminal proceedings here that could be
25
commenced by the state authorities would be under the statutes relating to passenger or freight rates, and their
p24
10-6-2015
25
validity is the very question involved in the suit in the United States Circuit Court. The right to restrain
proceedings by mandamus is based upon the same foundation, and governed by the same principles.
Page 209 U. S. 163
It is proper to add that the right to enjoin an individual, even though a state official, from commencing suits
under circumstances already stated does not include the power to restrain a court from acting in any case
brought before it, either of a civil or criminal nature, nor does it include power to prevent any investigation or
action by a grand jury. The latter body is part of the machinery of a criminal court, and an injunction against a
State court would be a violation of the whole scheme of our government. If an injunction against an
individual is disobeyed, and he commences proceedings before a grand jury or in a court, such disobedience
10
is personal only, and the court or jury can proceed without incurring any penalty on that account.
The difference between the power to enjoin an individual from doing certain things and the power to enjoin
courts from proceeding in their own way to exercise jurisdiction is plain, and no power to do the latter exists
because of a power to do the former.
It is further objected that there is a plain and adequate remedy at law open to the complainants, and that a
15
court of equity, therefore, has no jurisdiction in such case. It has been suggested that the proper way to test
the constitutionality of the act is to disobey it at least once, after which the company might obey the act
pending subsequent proceedings to test its validity. But, in the event of a single violation, the prosecutor
might not avail himself of the opportunity to make the test, as obedience to the law was thereafter continued,
and he might think it unnecessary to start an inquiry. If, however, he should do so while the company was
20
thereafter obeying the law, several years might elapse before there was a final determination of the question,
and, if it should be determined that the law was invalid, the property of the company would have been taken
during that time without due process of law, and there would be no possibility of its recovery.
Another obstacle to making the test on the part of the company might be to find an agent or employee who
would disobey
25
Page 209 U. S. 164

p25
10-6-2015
26
the law, with a possible fine and imprisonment staring him in the face if the act should be held valid. Take the
passenger rate act, for instance: a sale of a single ticket above the price mentioned in that act might subject
the ticket agent to a charge of felony, and, upon conviction, to a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for five
years. It is true the company might pay the fine, but the imprisonment the agent would have to suffer
personally. It would not be wonderful if, under such circumstances, there would not be a crowd of agents
offering to disobey the law. The wonder would be that a single agent should be found ready to take the risk.
If, however, one should be found, and the prosecutor should elect to proceed against him, the defense that the
act was invalid, because the rates established by it were too low, would require a long and difficult
examination of quite complicated facts upon which the validity of the act depended. Such investigation it
10
would be almost impossible to make before a jury, as such body could not intelligently pass upon the matter.
Questions of the cost of transportation of passengers and freight, the net earnings of the road, the separation
of the cost and earnings within the State from those arising beyond its boundaries, all depending upon the
testimony of experts and the examination of figures relating to these subjects, as well, possibly, as the
expenses attending the building and proper cost of the road, would necessarily form the chief matter of
15
inquiry, and intelligent answers could only be given after a careful and prolonged examination of the whole
evidence, and the making of calculations based thereon. All material evidence having been taken upon these
issues, it has been held that it ought to be referred to the most competent and reliable master to make all
needed computations, and to find therefrom the necessary facts upon which a judgment might be rendered
that might be reviewed by this court. Chicago, &c. Railway Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167. From all these
20
considerations, it is plain that this is not a proper suit for investigation by a jury. Suits for penalties, or
indictment
Page 209 U. S. 165
or other criminal proceedings for a violation of the act, would therefore furnish no reasonable or adequate
opportunity for the presentation of a defense founded upon the assertion that the rates were too low, and
25
therefore the act invalid.

END QUOTE
p26
10-6-2015
27
5
re- Sealed Case No. 99-3091(Office of Independent Counsel Contempt Proceeding)ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CONTEMPT
QUOTE
PER CURIAM:
10
15
The Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) seeks summary reversal of the district court's order to show
cause why OIC should not be held in contempt for violating the grand jury secrecy rule, and its order
appointing the United States Department of Justice as prosecutor of OIC in a criminal contempt proceeding.
In the alternative, OIC seeks a stay of those orders pending appeal. We conclude we have jurisdiction to
consider the interlocutory appeal and grant the motion for summary reversal.
END QUOTE
Those who further pursue CONTEMPT OF COURT may better consider the following
also:
Scott & Ors v Evia Pty Ltd & Ors (No. 2) No. 2010 of 2006
QUOTE
20
Costs of the contempt proceeding

34 Rule 75.14 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 provides:
The costs of an application for punishment for contempt shall be in

the discretion of the Court whether an order for committal is made or
not.
25
35 In a contempt proceeding, costs remain in the discretion of the Court but the usual order is that the
contemnor pay costs on a solicitor-client basis.

2
36 I refer to the analysis of Gillard J in Law Institute of Victoria v Nagle and Pico Holdings
37 In National Australia Bank Limited v Juric (No 2), Gillard J observed that it is only when special
30
circumstances are shown that costs should be paid on any basis other than that of solicitorclient, as a litigant who must come to court to enforce an order which has been breached by
contempt, or to have a person dealt with [for] contempt, should not be out of pocket. While
there is no binding rule, and the Courts discretion is unfettered, it is a common or usual
7
practice to order that the contemnor pay the plaintiffs costs on a solicitor-client basis.
35
40
38 In the present case, the plaintiffs estimated costs of the contempt proceeding are $290,000-
$300,000. There are no circumstances which would warrant an exercise of the Courts
discretion to order costs other than on the usual solicitor-client basis. The plaintiffs were
obliged to approach the Court in relation to the second and third defendants successive
breaches of its orders, in order to vindicate both the plaintiffs rights and the public interest in
maintaining the rule of law. The second and third defendants contempts have resulted in
complex and prolonged litigation. The second and third defendants should therefore pay the
p27
10-6-2015
28
plaintiffs costs of the contempt proceeding, including any reserved costs, on a solicitor-client
basis.
END QUOTE
5
10
QUOTE 12-3-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Victorian Electoral Commission
Level 8, 5050 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria
Email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au
Cc:
15
12-3-2015
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

Ref; 20150312-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Electoral Commission-COMPLAINT-CONTEMPT OF COURT-etc
20
COMPLAINT
Sir/Madam,
25
30
35
I on 12 March 2015 received from the Victorian Electoral Commission a, Apparent

Failure to Vote Notice dated 10 March 2015 alleging that I had failed to vote in the 29
November 2014 State election.
I have included below my previous 24-11-23014 correspondence (including the typing errors)
and view that therefore the Victorian Electoral Commission is in CONTEMPT OF COURT!
As I indicated the then Attorney-General Robert Hulls had indicated to abide by the decision of
the County Court of Victoria and therefore the VEC I view is blatantly in CONTEMPT OF
COURT. It should be clear that I had filed and served an s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and as such the State of Victoria accepted the courts
decision and didnt whatsoever challenge any of my submissions. As the State of Victoria is
created by s106 of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK))
subject to this constitution
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
106 Saving of Constitutions

The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue
as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State,
as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.
40
END QUOTE
.
45
50
55
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
p28
10-6-2015
29
10
15
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
Besides this, my 82 year old wife attended to the polling station accompanied by me and I did
enter the polling station albeit was not asked for my name and left through the other door
subsequently.
Below my wife walking to and entering the polling station.
20
Image taken 29-11-2014 1.11PM

25
The image taken at 1.22 was after I had walked through the polling station. Having spent about 8
minutes in the polling station itself.
p29
10-6-2015
30
While most people may vote for any crook I am very selective. As has now been proven Mr
Daniel Andrews deceived the electors to claim that the East West road link was not worth the
paper it was written upon, whereas now it is claimed a compensation bill (obviously at cost of
taxpayers) could be as high as $1.2 billion.
.
The Liberals were also misleading the electors by not having revealed that it signed a special
guarantee for compensation. As such swindling electors as to what they were facing.
.
10
I am neither for or against the East west road link but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST hold that
candidates must act honestly in election campaign and where there is any doubt then an elector is
entitled to exercise his/her liberty not to vote.
Will Tony Abbott show leadership in the Melbourne East West link debacle?
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
The document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/253135692/20150120-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-MrTONY-ABBOTT-PM-Re-Melbourne-s-East-West-Link-etc
While I hold that the Former Coalition Government failing to have obtained any Appropriation
Bill passed through the Victorian Parliament to legally provide for any compensation payment,
therefore legally had no basis to sign any agreement for compensation, I hold it to be my
constitutional right to express my dismay and disapproval as to this kind of conduct and to refuse
to give any vote to those I view are deceiving the electors.
The right to vote or withhold a vote is clearly as to the electors view who, if any, candidate can
be trusted, and earned the vote.
To force me to vote for anyone no matter my opposition to such contemptuous conduct to
deceive the electors in my view would be in violation of my constitutional rights as well as what
I have indicated a CONTEMPT OF COURT.
IT IS VERY CLEAR that the Victorian Electoral Commission is failing to pursue FAIR and
PROPER elections, where the major political parties can swindle/deceive electors without having
any accountability by the VEC as to this conduct. Hence, as an elector where I suspect there is a
gross deception going on than my right as an elector to withhold my vote is to show I disapprove
of this conduct. Because the preference requirements to vote would automatically ends up for the
coalition or the Labor/Green parties I have no desire to have my vote if cast to end up for either
combinations.
The Victorian electoral c omission has an obligation to hold FIAR and PROPER elections and I
view this includes to hold any candidate which may have been involved in
deceptive/misleading/fraudulent conduct accountable. Such as to have the election declared
invalid and a new election being called.
Where however the VEC fails to do so then ultimately the electors are left to cast or not to cast
their vote.
A compulsory vote would clearly undermine the right of the elector to disapprove of any
candidate and so his/her conduct and also would cause the elector to so to say financial
contribute towards the monies per vote paid to the primary selected candidate. As such this is a
financial reward for dishonesty. The associated payment per vote by this violate also my
constitutional rights to a FAIR and PROPER elections this is because generally INDEPENDENT
candidates cannot budget for a huge financial election campaign, whereas the major political
parties can expect millions of dollars and so spend ahead on the election campaign outdoing
ordinary candidates.
Further, where candidates must obtain a number of nominations to be accepted for nominations,
whereas a candidate for a political party needs no more but an endorsement by the party then I
p30
10-6-2015
31
view this also undermines a FAIR and PROPER election. As previously having been an
INDEPENDENT candidate in numerous elections I am aware that at times a prospective
candidate failed because either failing to have sufficient people nominating, even if only one
signature short, or failing to pay the monies allegedly at the correct office.
It is my right to vote in FAIR AND proper ELECTIONS and if I question the validity of how an
election is held then the legal principles in the constitution entitles me to withhold my vote as to
express my disapproval.
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
As I reported in the past I witnessed how an election official was taking ballot papers, not
belonging to him, and took it to his desk and then after being observed writing then deposited the
ballot papers in the ballot boxes. Despite my written complaint no response was received about
this. Again, this violates the legal provisions and also violates the principles of a FAIR and
PROPER election and clearly the Victorian Electoral Commission is incompetent to ensure FAIR
and PROPER elections are being held. The same with when as an INDEPENDENT candidate in
the 2010 State election I was advised I was not permitted to use a T-Shirt and other items for the
election, yet the next by-election I then was advised that I didnt need to register these items
because I could use them. Therefore, there is a lot wrong with how the Victorian Electoral
Commission as I view it manipulates its powers to undermine the rights of an INDEPENDENT
candidate in favour of political parties.
As I indicated also previously I view that the electoral commission should provide an A4
electronic display of How-To-Vote cards to ensure that when early voting centres commence to
allow for voting every candidate has an A4 display available, this as having the How-To-vote
card printed prevents them from doing so, due to the lack of sufficient time after closing of
nominations, the need to have How-To-Vote cards approved where the early voting commences
before a How-To-Vote card even can be approved let alone printed. This would then give every
elector an opportunity to check, if he/she desires to do so, what each candidate stands for and
avoid wasting paper on How-To-Vote cards and also reduce the rubbish around polling stations.
Again it would assist towards providing FAIR and PROPER elections, which currently are not
held in that regard.
I have provided in the past images to prove what I claimed to be genuine and the VEC simply
ignored it all. Well, the VEC has the onus to ensure there are FAIR And PROPER elections and
cannot force any elector to vote despite of the lack of any FAIR and PROPER election being
held, this as it would deny the elector his/her constitutional right to exercise the right to vote as
he/she may desire.
In view that I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia and so also all
Attorney-Generals , including of the State of Victoria, in my constitutional based submissions
that compulsory voting is unconstitutional then where the County court of Victoria upheld both
appeals without any reservations, then I am entitled to rely upon this and as the Victorian
Attorney General indicated to abide by the courts decision then again I view then Victorian
Electoral Commission is in CONTEMPT OF COURT to nevertheless pester me with its Failing
to vote correspondence dated 10 March 2015.
45
It must be clear that a magistrate couldnt invoke any jurisdiction, and neither could
overrule any decision of the County Court of Victoria!
QUOTE 20-1-2015 correspondence Re East West road link
50
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM
20-1-2015
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
p31
10-6-2015
32
Cc:
10
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
The mayor & councillors Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
The mayor & councillors Banyule City Council enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
James Campbell james.campbell@news.com.au
Ref; 20150120-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re Melbourne's East West link-etc
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tony,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that the commonwealth having originally pledged to
partial fund the Melbournes East west link then should step in and make this a Commonwealth
project with a requirement that the state shall contribute towards the cost.
In my view as much as the commonwealth was provided with powers for navigation in regard of
rivers the same should apply to the road system for inter-state travel of trucks, etc. As such
certain highways can be deemed to be of Commonwealth interest. By this the east West link
could be declared to be a vital link required for this.
It must not be perceived and neither is it intended by me to be so that I support an y east west
link or being opposed to it as simply I have not sufficient information at hand to make an
informed consideration of it all, and as such merely express my views as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST.
Perhaps what is displayed is the ridiculous conduct by an outgoing government and an incoming
government that they cannot even mutually agree if a certain costly project should be proceeded
with or not and then the taxpayers ending up having to foot the bill for their total incompetence
to act reasonable towards each other. While it might be commendable to some extend that
Premier Daniel Andrews desires to keep his promise to the electorate as too often politicians are
known not to do so, on the other hand it is absurd to burden the community with a hefty
compensation bill that could have been avoided had the then government and opposition worked
out a resolution suiting both. Perhaps the blatant disregard by Premier Denis Napthine (as he then
was) to proceed with signing contracts he knew were opposed by the opposition then the cost of
compensation should really be levied to them and not the taxpayers.
After all they were well aware of the imminent State election.
As for Premier Daniel Andrews, he should not be selective in what he states to enforce. After al;;
he did state in 2003:
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&date2=M
ay&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+%29
QUOTE
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.
The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by the Liberal and National
parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as much information as possible.
50
END QUOTE
Why then that we turning tomorrow into 2015 it is that 14 years later we still have large parts of
Victoria without safe drinking water?
In fact it appears there are at least 42 towns that are still denied safe drinking water.
p32
10-6-2015
33
Likewise in 2005:
5
10
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=42705&activity=Second+Reading&title=LAND+TAX+BILL&date1=8&date2=September&date3
=2005&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'land'%0a%09and+data+contains+'tax'+%29%0a%09and+%2
8+house+contains+'ASSEMBLY'+%29
QUOTE
Title
LAND TAX BILL
House
ASSEMBLY
Activity
Second Reading
Members
BRUMBY
Date
8 September 2005
Page
717
This bill provides that for the purposes of the Taxation Administration Act 1997, the Land Tax Act 2005 is a 'taxation law'. A
central purpose of this bill is to bring land tax under the Taxation Administration Act 1997.
END QUOTE
QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
LAND TAX ABOLITION.

15
No. 81 of 1952.
[Assented to 6th November, 1952.]
B E it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of
Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows :-
1. This Act may be cited as the Land Tax Abolition Act 1952.
20
2. This Act snall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, One thousand nine
hundred and fifty-two.
3. Land tax shall not be levied and paid for the financial year which commenced on the first day of July,
One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or for any subsequent financial year.
4. Section fifteen of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1952 does not apply in respect of the financial year
25
which commenced on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or in respect of any
subsequent financial year.

END QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
While the Commonwealth abolished the payment of land taxation it did however also show:
30
QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

3. Land tax shall not be levied and paid for the financial year which commenced on the first day of July,
One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, or for any subsequent financial year.
END QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081
35
40
This part of the law remains in force and so also the right of uniform taxation (land tax)
throughout the Commonwealth, and no land taxation can be applied and any State
(delegated municipal/shire council rates are therefore in violation of this part of the act!
Therefore, the State of Victoria clearly is in direct violation of Section 3 of the LAND TAX
ABOLITION. No. 81 of 1952.
p33
10-6-2015
34
And as the High Court of Australia in Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904]
HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi5
10
15
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=titl
e(Sydney%20Municipal%20Council%20v%20Commonwealth%20) stated:
QUOTE
In a constitutional instrument, therefore, defining and limiting the power of constitutional authorities,
the word "tax" must be construed in the wider sense, and a prohibition of the imposition of a tax must
be held to include a prohibition of any such imposition by a delegated authority, by whatever name the
tax is called.
END QUOTE
Then clearly municipal/shire council rates since 1910 when the Commonwealth created the Land
Tax Office (the forerunner of the ATO) then all council rates are unconstitutional since 11
November 1910. They also conflict with the Victorian Land Tax Act 2005.
The question then is: when will the Commonwealth act appropriately as a sentry?
QUOTE
20
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member
of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a
sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
25
30
35
40
45
50
END QUOTE
It is not for the Commonwealth to get involved in internal political mess created in Victoria but
at least it can address matters within its legislative powers and make clear that the East West link
is of Commonwealth interest (as if it never was the Commonwealth couldnt in the first place
have provided any funding for it) and the Commonwealth therefore will take over the conduct
and handling of project from the State of Victoria under Commonwealth legislation. It will then
be for the Commonwealth to provide appropriate legislation to ensure it can do so. As I wrote in
the pasty about Brisbane and the mess under the then Premier Peter Beattie where ships were on
anchor trying to load because of insufficient harbour provisions that this falls under
Commonwealth authority as it deals with navigation and access to the ports. I will refrain to yet
again quote extensively from the Hansard Debates where the Framers of the constitution made
clear that this was a principle embedded in the constitution that the Commonwealth had this
authority. Safe to say the commonwealth has such inter-state and external affairs powers
regarding trade and commerce.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/andrews-government-faces-massive-compensation-bill-to-axe-eastwest-link/story-fni0fit31227190062639?sv=fe00170200d2881318c3cae663d1221e&utm_source=Herald%20Sun&utm_medium=email&ut
m_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=88329125
QUOTE e.Herald article
Andrews Government faces massive compensation bill to axe East West Link
by: James Campbell, Matt Johnston and Ellen Whinnett
From: Herald Sun
January 20, 2015 9:33AM
(picture not included)
The government of Daniel Andrews could be forced to pay compensation for the scrapped East West Link.
Source: News Limited
p34
10-6-2015
35
UPDATE: THE State Government is bracing for a gigantic East West Link compensation bill,
running into the hundreds of millions of dollars, despite Premier Daniel Andrews insistence that
tearing up the contract wouldnt cost a cent.
Deputy Premier James Merlino told 3AW today: There will be a settlement reached with the consortium,
there was always going to have to be.
But he refused to reveal more details including possible financial costs, saying: Im not going to conduct
negotiations over the airwaves.
The Herald Sun can reveal that key members of the consortium that signed the contract to build the Link
want at least $1.2 billion to walk away from the dumped project.
Banks and superannuation funds that financed the deal are leading the hardline push.
COMMENT: EAST WEST PAYOUT A POLITICAL LANDMINE
EDITORIAL: CONTRACT COMPO IS A FARCE
BIG WIGS HIRED TO DUMP EAST WEST LINK CONTRACT
SECRET PAPERS REVEAL EAST WEST LINK DETAILS
But they are at odds with partner and construction giant Lend Lease, which is understood to be taking a
more cautious approach for fear a fracas may dent its chances for future government jobs in Victoria.
Its understood that Lend Lease favours a settlement amount in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
(picture not included)
An artists impression of the tunnels entrance.
The Herald Sun can confirm that, in the wake of weeks of frantic negotiations with the consortium, there is
a dawning acceptance within the Labor Government that it will have to write a taxpayer-funded cheque to
rip up the contract for the 6.6km road.
The Government has engaged businessman and former MCG Trust chairman John Wylie and gun Arnold
Bloch Leibler lawyer Leon Zwier to help it argue its case.
Mr Wylie was heavily involved in complex government business cases such as the privatisation of Qantas
and of the states power industry.
Uncertainty about the looming cost to taxpayers of compensation poses problems for Budget planning.
It could also embarrass Mr Andrews, who repeatedly said the contracts signed by the Napthine
Government in September were worthless.
Four days before the election, he said: Be very clear about this: there will be no compensation paid.
Mr Andrews revealed in September that he planned to dump the $6.8 billion toll road and said then he
expected some modest compensation.
Opposition Leader Matthew Guy said Labor only had itself to blame for the scale of the compensation
payout.
Labor knew their claim that (East West Link) had no binding contract was wrong. It will now cost $1
billion to scrap a roadway that Melbourne needs, Mr Guy said on Twitter today.
The consortium that won the contract for the $6.8 billion toll road includes Lend Lease, French group
Bouygues, and Spanish company Acciona.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
A complex network of institutions, including local and international banks and super funds, financed the
deal.
p35
10-6-2015
36
10
15
20
25
A source said CEOs of the major partners, including from overseas, came to Melbourne before Christmas,
and made clear they would be pursuing their legal rights as contained in the contracts.
This was understood to relate to the sum the group believed it would be owed.
Some CEOs expressed their displeasure.
It was a really ugly meeting, the source said.
Treasurer Tim Pallass office said commercial-in-confidence negotiations were under way.
Mr Wylie and Mr Zwier have agreed to work towards a fair and appropriate outcome for Victorian
taxpayers in the circumstances where the Government has decided that the project will not proceed.
A spokesman for the consortium declined to comment.
james.campbell@news.com.au
END QUOTE e.Herald article
It seems that we are ongoing subjected to irresponsible conduct by politicians merely so they can
try to get elected, no matter the financial and other cost to the community/taxpayers. In my view
politicians by this have set their selfish interest above that of the community they are to serve.
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE
In my view this East West link is an issue in which the Commonwealth can excise legitimately
legislative powers and in the process may even avert a costly financial blow out to Victorians,
pending how it deals with the matter.
What is required to be shown is LEADERSHIP, but which politicians can display this, that is
the question?
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
30
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!
Awaiting your response,
35
(
)
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
END QUOTE 20-1-2015 correspondence Re East West road link

40
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Cc:
45
24-11-2014

Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Geoff Shaw geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20141124-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Electoral Commission-various issues
50
p36
10-6-2015
37
COMPLAINT
10
Sir/Madam,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST my first concern always is the conduct is as per true
meaning and application of the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which in s106 the states are created subject to this
constitution.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
15
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
END QUOTE
I in 2001 refused to vote in the federal election upon a number of reasons which included that the
Framers of the Constitution provided political liberty and that is an elector chooses to vote
and in fact rebutted compulsory registration/voting. In 2004 I again refused to vote upon
numerous grounds as well as that John Howard and other Ministers had unconstitutionally
invaded Iraq, etc. I had at the time filed and serve a Section 78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, regarding about 50 constitutional issues. Including that s245
of the Commonwealth elect oral act 18918 regarding compulsory voting was unconstitutional.
The Commonwealth of Australia had me (twice) charged for FAILING TO VOTE, being the
2001 and 2004 federal elections. Various hearings were held in the Magistrates Court of Victoria
albeit in the end the magistrate on 1q7 November 2005 held me to be guilty of both charges,
having blatantly disregarded the rulings of earlier magistrates.
I lodged my appeal with the County court of Victoria and relied also upon my Section 78B
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
The then attorney General of Victoria Mr Rob ert hulls indicated to abide by the ruling of the
court. None of the Attorney Generals challenged any of my numerous written submissions and
on 19 July 2006 the County court of Victoria upheld both appeals unchallenged by any of the
other parties/Attorney Generals, setting aside both convictions.
To follow the High Court of Australia ruling in HCA27 of 1999 Wakim a dispute between the
same parties cannot be re-litigated once the court has handed down its decision previously on the
same issues.
It follows that the issue of an elector to vote or not to vote is a decision the elector is entitled to
make within the legal principles of the (federal) constitution and the states created within s106
are subject to this constitution and therefore bound by this.
Mr Michael King at the time the divisional officer for Jagajaga who had pursued albeit
unsuccessfully the FAILING TO VOTE charged against me, was most surprised to noticed that
in the 2013 federal election I attended and voted. In fact he came personally over to me to
p37
10-6-2015
38
express he was pleased I did so. I explained to him that I always maintained that I opposed
COMPULSORY VOTING but not voting itself, and as I held there was a worthy candidate
standing therefore I decided to vote.
Hence it should be clear I do not object to a democratic expression by an elector to vote if he/she
desires to do so but opposes compulsory registration/voting. And the County Court of Victoria
upheld my constitutional rights with none of the Attorney Generals opposing my submissions nor
the courts ruling. Again, not a single Attorney General appealed the decision of the County
court of Victoria since it handed down its decision on 19 July 2006, and by now any appeal time
is long passed and therefore the State of Victoria is bound by it.
10
One of the objections I also submitted to the Court was the religious exemption and relied upon
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970)
15
20
25
30
35
40
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
QUOTE
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it
being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the
words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to
formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is
contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those
whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should
extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage.
Pp. 361-367.
END QUOTE
I am also deeply concerned about the LACK OF PROPER MANAGEMENT of Victorian and
federal elections to mention a few by the relevant electoral commissions..
In fact during the 2013 Federal election I objected (130902-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to
Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS) to Mr Clive Palmer having a radio
advertisement to vote for Clive Palmer to be Prime Minister. I will quote my complaint in full
and it may be noted the offending advertisement was to my understanding withdrawn that very
day!
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
45
Australian Electoral Commission
2-9-2013
info@aec.gov.au
?
Cc: Mr Michael King, Returning officer, JAGAJAGA

Palmer United Party: candidates@palmerunited.com,
50
Mr Tony Abbott: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

p38
10-6-2015
39
Mr Kevin Rudd: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au
Ref: 130902-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS
10
Sir,
as you may recall from the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision to uphold both
appeals on FAILING TO VOTE, where I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth, on
that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I submitted that the Framers of the Constitution refused to
give the Commonwealth legislative powers to compel any person to register or to vote in
elections. As I submitted to the court, I am not against voting but against compulsory voting, and
the AEC didnt oppose this and other submissions based upon constitutional grounds.
http://aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#compulsory
QUOTE
Is voting compulsory?
15
Yes, voting is compulsory for every Australian citizen aged 18 years or older. If you do not vote and do not
have a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote, a penalty is imposed. For further information see
Compulsory Voting.
What happens if I do not vote?
20
Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either
provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.
If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or
declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in
court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $170 plus court costs.
25
30
END QUOTE
As I challenged the validity of the legislation as being ULTRA VIRES and the County Court of
Victoria upheld this and the AEC didnt oppose my submissions then I view the AEC is bound
by the court decision. It had the opportunity to challenge the submissions I made and by failing
to do so is bound by the decision of the court. Indeed, I view that the AEC must be independent
and shown to be independent and must not tow a government line where it clearly was
comprehensively defeated by me on 19 July 2006!
QUOTE
35
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.

END QUOTE
The constitution is the primary source of any legislative power and any legislation in violation to
the constitution therefore is ULTRA VIRES,
40
45
50
Uniform Tax case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942

QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a
decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.
The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
invalid ab initio.
END QUOTE
For the AEC nevertheless to persist in deceiving electors/people and enforcing this by what I
consider acts of terrorism, to fine people and litigate against them is making them also glorified
debt collects to aid the government in its debts rather then \to be and remain and be seen to
remain impartial. And in particular, accepts the courts decision and its implications of 19 July
2006!
p39
10-6-2015
40
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
I have a further complaint against what I view is false/misleading election advertising by Palmer
United Party and obviously the question may be asked if the AEC approved this advertising,
and if so, why?
On Monday Afternoon on 2 September 2013 between about 4 and 6 pm I heard over the radio a
political announcements by Palmer United Party, with various people, including a lawyer, to
say something like to vote for Clive Palmer as Prime Minister.
I must admit that also leaders of political parties tend to argue people are voting for who shall be
the next Prime Minister. I view the AEC has for too long failed to act against this kind of
deceptive conduct, even so this already was occurring even when former Queensland Jo BelkjePeterson was campaigning to become Prime Minister.
Constitutionally no one can vote for anyone to be voted in as Prime Minister. While there is a
convention that generally the Governor-General appoints the leader of the political party which
can have the support of most of the Members of the House of Representatives, this is nothing but
a convention and cannot override what is constitutionally applicable.
QUOTE
64 Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such
departments of State of the Commonwealth as the
Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the
Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal
Executive Council, and shall be the Queens Ministers of State for
the Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office
for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a
senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
END QUOTE
While the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has been created, it doesnt nor can
circumvent the fact that who shall or shall not be commissioned to become Prime Minister is a
decision the Governor-General makes and not subject to voting by the Australian electors. It
ought to be understood that the 2010 debacle came about where members elect (to the House of
Representatives) but had not been sworn in, were making deals to support Julia Gillard to remain
Prime Minister. In my view they had no such constitutional position.
Mr Edmund Barton, was commissioned on 26 December 1900, as to form a government for the
1 January 1901 Commonwealth of Australia. He did not have any one in the House of
Representatives, for the simple reason it didnt exist. Constitutionally, within Sec 64 the
Governor-General could commission me to form a government, regardless that I am not a
Member of the House of Representatives nor even a candidate. It should be clear that political
parties cannot amongst themselves overrule what is constitutionally applicable, only a s128 of
the constitution successful referendum can result to an amendment of the constitution!
While it may be argued that the majority of Members of Parliament of one political party or a
coalition generally has its leader to become Prime Minister, nevertheless, it is deceptive to claim
that somehow electors decide who shall become Prime Minister. In the end, it is the GovernorGeneral who decides which person shall be commissioned to form a government.
Fancy, for example that the leader of a political party, having attained the majority of seats in the
House of Representatives, then is declared bankrupt before being sworn in (again) as a Member
of the House of Representatives. It would be idiotic to hold that somehow the Governor-General
had to ignore s44 of the Constitution to commission a person to form a government, merely
because of some convention. Constitutionally, the Governor-General could still appoint this
person for up to 3 months without becoming a Member of the House of Representatives, but
unlikely would a Governor-General desire to act contrary to the public interest.
p40
10-6-2015
41
10
15
In my view the AEC should clamp down on false./misleading representation that the electors
vote who shall become the Prime Minister after the election, because as we saw in the 2010
debacle it could have been even either party leaders or neither of them, that is if the GovernorGeneral had not so to say bowed to pressure.
I am not standing as a candidate, and as such have in that regard no political interest in who shall
or shall not be voted for. However, I view the gross deception upon Australian electors should be
stopped. hence the AEC must take immediate action to stop any false/misleading claims as to
electors voting for a Prime Minister. Indeed, where the sitting Prime Minister is failing to
succeed in being re-elected, such as John Howard was in 2007, then clearly even if his party had
succeeded in gaining most of the seats it would be ridiculous to argue that somehow all
Australians nevertheless voted for John Howard to be again the Prime Minister.
It appears to me that the AEC for decades that is failed to ensure election(s) advertising and other
election claims were appropriately supervised, and this elaborate swindle upon the Australian
electors was stopped.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/palm
er-united.htm
QUOTE
20
Palmer United Party

Updated: 8 July 2013
In accordance with Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the political party whose details appear below
was registered on 05 July 2013. The current particulars of the party, as amended, are:Extract from the Register of Political Parties for Palmer United Party
Name of Party:
Palmer United Party
Registered Abbreviation:
Parliamentary Party:
No
Registered Officer of Party:

Name:
Address:
Peter Burke
127 Monaco St
BROADBEACH WATERS QLD 4218
Party wishes to receive election funding payments.

Party Correspondence Address:
GPO Box 1538

BRISBANE QLD 4000
Deputy Registered Officers:
25
END QUOTE
Another matter is that s41 of the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) is very clear:
30
QUOTE
41 Right of electors of States
No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for
the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while
the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth
from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the
p41
10-6-2015
42
Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
10
15
20
Yet, I understand that people who have no residential address in the Commonwealth of Australia
nevertheless somehow are permitted to vote in Federal Elections. In my view this is
unconstitutional, this is because the only qualification to be an federal elector is to be a State
elector. (Which includes also being a Territorian elector)
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,
which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.
END QUOTE
It is to me incomprehensible how the AEC specifically appointed as to conduct elections seems

to be so incompetent to supervise matters appropriately, and allowed this gross deception to be
ongoing continue upon the Australian electors.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
Our name is our motto!)
(
END QUOTE 2-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
25
QUOTE 130902-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Australian Electoral Commission
30
2-9-2013
info@aec.gov.au
?
Cc: Mr Michael King, Returning officer, JAGAJAGA

Palmer United Party: candidates@palmerunited.com,
Mr Tony Abbott: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
35
Mr Kevin Rudd: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au

Ref: 130902-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS
Sir,
40
45
as you may recall from the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision to uphold both
appeals on FAILING TO VOTE, where I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth, on
that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I submitted that the Framers of the Constitution refused to
give the Commonwealth legislative powers to compel any person to register or to vote in
elections. As I submitted to the court, I am not against voting but against compulsory voting, and
the AEC didnt oppose this and other submissions based upon constitutional grounds.
http://aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#compulsory
QUOTE
p42
10-6-2015
43
Is voting compulsory?
Yes, voting is compulsory for every Australian citizen aged 18 years or older. If you do not vote and do not
have a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote, a penalty is imposed. For further information see
Compulsory Voting.
5
What happens if I do not vote?
Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either
provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.
10
If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or
declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in
court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $170 plus court costs.
END QUOTE
15
20
As I challenged the validity of the legislation as being ULTRA VIRES and the County Court of
Victoria upheld this and the AEC didnt oppose my submissions then I view the AEC is bound
by the court decision. It had the opportunity to challenge the submissions I made and by failing
to do so is bound by the decision of the court. Indeed, I view that the AEC must be independent
and shown to be independent and must not tow a government line where it clearly was
comprehensively defeated by me on 19 July 2006!
QUOTE
END QUOTE
25
30
35
The constitution is the primary source of any legislative power and any legislation in violation to
the constitution therefore is ULTRA VIRES,
Uniform Tax case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a
decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.
The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
invalid ab initio.
END QUOTE
For the AEC nevertheless to persist in deceiving electors/people and enforcing this by what I
consider acts of terrorism, to fine people and litigate against them is making them also glorified
debt collects to aid the government in its debts rather then \to be and remain and be seen to
remain impartial. And in particular, accepts the courts decision and its implications of 19 July
2006!
40
45
50
I have a further complaint against what I view is false/misleading election advertising by Palmer
United Party and obviously the question may be asked if the AEC approved this advertising,
and if so, why?
On Monday Afternoon on 2 September 2013 between about 4 and 6 pm I heard over the radio a
political announcements by Palmer United Party, with various people, including a lawyer, to
say something like to vote for Clive Palmer as Prime Minister.
I must admit that also leaders of political parties tend to argue people are voting for who shall be
the next Prime Minister. I view the AEC has for too long failed to act against this kind of
deceptive conduct, even so this already was occurring even when former Queensland Jo BelkjePeterson was campaigning to become Prime Minister.
p43
10-6-2015
44
Constitutionally no one can vote for anyone to be voted in as Prime Minister. While there is a
convention that generally the Governor-General appoints the leader of the political party which
can have the support of most of the Members of the House of Representatives, this is nothing but
a convention and cannot override what is constitutionally applicable.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
QUOTE
64 Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such
departments of State of the Commonwealth as the
Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the
Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal
Executive Council, and shall be the Queens Ministers of State for
the Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office
for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a
senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
END QUOTE
While the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has been created, it doesnt nor can
circumvent the fact that who shall or shall not be commissioned to become Prime Minister is a
decision the Governor-General makes and not subject to voting by the Australian electors. It
ought to be understood that the 2010 debacle came about where members elect (to the House of
Representatives) but had not been sworn in, were making deals to support Julia Gillard to remain
Prime Minister. In my view they had no such constitutional position.
Mr Edmund Barton, was commissioned on 26 December 1900, as to form a government for the
1 January 1901 Commonwealth of Australia. He did not have any one in the House of
Representatives, for the simple reason it didnt exist. Constitutionally, within Sec 64 the
Governor-General could commission me to form a government, regardless that I am not a
Member of the House of Representatives nor even a candidate. It should be clear that political
parties cannot amongst themselves overrule what is constitutionally applicable, only a s128 of
the constitution successful referendum can result to an amendment of the constitution!
While it may be argued that the majority of Members of Parliament of one political party or a
coalition generally has its leader to become Prime Minister, nevertheless, it is deceptive to claim
that somehow electors decide who shall become Prime Minister. In the end, it is the GovernorGeneral who decides which person shall be commissioned to form a government.
Fancy, for example that the leader of a political party, having attained the majority of seats in the
House of Representatives, then is declared bankrupt before being sworn in (again) as a Member
of the House of Representatives. It would be idiotic to hold that somehow the Governor-General
had to ignore s44 of the Constitution to commission a person to form a government, merely
because of some convention. Constitutionally, the Governor-General could still appoint this
person for up to 3 months without becoming a Member of the House of Representatives, but
unlikely would a Governor-General desire to act contrary to the public interest.
In my view the AEC should clamp down on false./misleading representation that the electors
vote who shall become the Prime Minister after the election, because as we saw in the 2010
debacle it could have been even either party leaders or neither of them, that is if the GovernorGeneral had not so to say bowed to pressure.
I am not standing as a candidate, and as such have in that regard no political interest in who shall
or shall not be voted for. However, I view the gross deception upon Australian electors should be
stopped. hence the AEC must take immediate action to stop any false/misleading claims as to
electors voting for a Prime Minister. Indeed, where the sitting Prime Minister is failing to
succeed in being re-elected, such as John Howard was in 2007, then clearly even if his party had
p44
10-6-2015
45
succeeded in gaining most of the seats it would be ridiculous to argue that somehow all
Australians nevertheless voted for John Howard to be again the Prime Minister.
It appears to me that the AEC for decades that is failed to ensure election(s) advertising and other
election claims were appropriately supervised, and this elaborate swindle upon the Australian
electors was stopped.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/palm
er-united.htm
QUOTE
Palmer United Party
10
Updated: 8 July 2013

In accordance with Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the political party whose details appear below
was registered on 05 July 2013. The current particulars of the party, as amended, are:Extract from the Register of Political Parties for Palmer United Party
Name of Party:
Palmer United Party
Registered Abbreviation:
Parliamentary Party:
No
Registered Officer of Party:

Name:
Address:
Peter Burke
127 Monaco St
BROADBEACH WATERS QLD 4218
Party wishes to receive election funding payments.

Party Correspondence Address:
GPO Box 1538

BRISBANE QLD 4000
Deputy Registered Officers:

END QUOTE
15
Another matter is that s41 of the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) is very clear:
25
QUOTE
41 Right of electors of States
No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for
the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while
the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth
from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
30
Yet, I understand that people who have no residential address in the Commonwealth of Australia
nevertheless somehow are permitted to vote in Federal Elections. In my view this is
unconstitutional, this is because the only qualification to be an federal elector is to be a State
elector. (Which includes also being a Territorian elector)
35
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,
which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.
20
p45
10-6-2015
46
END QUOTE
It is to me incomprehensible how the AEC specifically appointed as to conduct elections seems

to be so incompetent to supervise matters appropriately, and allowed this gross deception to be
ongoing continue upon the Australian electors.
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
(
)
END QUOTE 130902-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission - COMPLAINTS
In my view the Victorian Electoral Commission has an obligation gto the electors (not being bias
towards any political party) as to ensure that all and any media advertising is done to reflect the
true application of the constitution, hence not allow any party to mislead/deceive that they vote
for a political party and/or vote for who shall be premier.
As was noted in 2007 electors around the Commonwealth of Australia were urged to vote for
John Howard rather than Kevin Rudd, but the moment he lost his seat it was clear he wouldnt be
elected as Prime Minister regardless how many people around the Commonwealth of Australia
may have voted in the hope he would remain to be Prime Minister
Mr Edmund Barton was commissioned to form a Government on 26 December 1900 even so the
Commonwealth of Australia didnt commence until 1 January 1901. He didnt have at all any
majority in either Houses of Parliament nor needed to because the commission is a decision by
the Governor-General and not as to whom may hold the most seats in the House of
Representatives. Likewise the Governor of Victoria is the person who exercises prerogative
powers to determine who he shall commission to be premier after the election. Albeit I no longer
stand as a candidate in political election the Governor nevertheless could decide to commission
me as premier if this was his decision.
It is nonsense to argue that the supply bills are decisive, this as the Federal budget problems
underlines that even where politicians promise to pass supply we now see that the Appropriation
Bills are far from having passed. This problem is the end result of ignoring the true meaning and
application of the constitution, this as if the budget had been presented before the end of the 21e3
year then 6 months would have been left for the parliament to pass the bills, and if it twice
refused the bills then fort the Governor-General to call for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION.
The Victorian Constitution Act indicates that there are only 21 persons as members of Parliament
to hold an Office of Profit, but one find that despite my extensive writings Mr Denis Napthine
Premier has still 22 persons. As such I view he is not worthy to be a Premier.
Mr Daniel Andrews also has his own serious problems for example staging a Frankston byelection campaign (which Mr Napthine also did) against sitting Member of Parliament Mr Geoff
Shaw. Yet, the Victorian Electoral Commission instead of stepping in about this deceptive
purported by-election let it go.
I wrote to Mr Peter Walsh Minister for Water and local member for Berriwillock where
untreated water is provided in clear violation to the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003
.
QUOTE 21-9-2014 correspondence
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=AS
SEMBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&da
te2=May&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+
%29
p46
10-6-2015
47
QUOTE
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.
The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by the Liberal and National
parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as much information as possible.
10
15
END QUOTE
Why then did you not pursue this matter where Berriwillock as an example is within your
electorate and still provided with untreated water, which is poison water. Many people
seem to take it that if you boil water it gets rid of impurities but reality is that mercury and
other chemicals do not get out of water by boiling. Why dont you sent your children and
grandchildren down for a drink of water at Berriwillock to see how they may suffer severe
illness and you can then watch them suffering, if not they die in the process. Nothing better to
learn but see your own family suffering till they die to what you ignore of others, so you may
just discover that you ignored others suffering even so you were paid to do a job.
END QUOTE 21-9-2014 correspondence
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Despite that both Mr Napthine and Mr Andrews were provided with copies of my writings
neither bothered to resolve this unlawful situation.
As such I view neither one of them can be credited to be as proper person to be premier because
leaving an health hazard in place with numerous electors and their family and friends at health
and other risk surely cannot be deemed to be the conduct of a fit and proper person.
.
Then we have for example Mr Daniel Andrews going around in a large bus to vote for Labor.
Why again didnt the Victorian Electoral Commission not step in making clear that electors
cannot vote for a political party but only for a candidate irrespective of the candidate at the time
may or may not be aligned to a particular political party. Not uncommon and Senator Jacqui
Lambie is a clear example a Member of Parliament changes party affiliation and may become an
independent, as did for example Mr Geoff Shaw.
Therefore I view the Victorian Electoral Commission has denied electors any fair and proper
election period by allowing this gross misleading conduct to go on.
It must be clear that other than those electors in the electorate of Mr Daniel Andres himself no
one else can actually vote for him. No one can anywhere in the Victorian election vote for Labor
or the Coalition as they are not registered candidates. The mere fact that candidates aligned
themselves with a particular political party cannot alter the fact that in the end they are
candidates and not the political party they are associated with.
.
We also have this discriminatory conduct that political parties can fund expensive advertisements
because they calculate as to how much monies they likely will receive from first preferences.
This, whereas most INDEPENDENT candidates have no such luxury, hence denies them a fair
and proper election.
Also, there is no equality in the media as if one check the daily newspapers they are generally
about the leaders of political parties even so the INDEPENDENTS who may hold balance of
power are ignored. As such a deceptive view to the electors and again the Victorian Electoral
Commission ignores this.
What we are presented with is what I view a corrupt form of election that one can so to say chose
between 2 leaders of major political parties even so constitutionally this is not all applicable.
p47
10-6-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
48
The Victorian Electoral Commission simply doesnt so to say have the balls to insist that
elections shall be conducted within the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
Ample of people attend to a polling booth only to scribble across the ballot paper or simply
leaving it blank (when then at times election officials illegally are filling in their ballot paper (as
I reported in the past). I deplore any of this conduct as the Framers of the constitution made clear
that when one participate in an election then one must follow the relevant requirements, being it
the hare or other system that is applicable. As such, if one doesnt want to vote, such as I
generally decide not to do, then that is a right one can legitimately exercise but if one go to a
polling station to accept ballot papers then one is bound to fill in the ballot papers according to
the rules.
While I am now retired, I used to assist/represent many parties in litigation (including
solicitors/barristers) and it was too obvious to me that many intervention orders were given out
by the courts like candies. As once a judge stated, as I recall; if there is no violence then why
not both agree to intervention orders as it wuill not harm either one? Well, what the judge didnt
understand is that court orders and in particular intervention orders should be issued sparingly
and only where there is an actual requirement for an intervention order and not on a flimsy basis
it doesnt do harm. Still we have intervention orders which includes at time the concealment of a
persons address. So, as I understand it, the State Government devices that any student enrolled
at a secondary school or has a driver license is automatically enrolled by the Victorian Electoral
Commission. Now, here we have the parent of the student having a undisclosed address on the
electoral roll and then the student has his/her address listed and so the parent with the
undisclosed address (for security) now can be traced by the students listed address. And, again
compulsory registration is unconstitutional.
Hey, are you so to say all deaf and blind? I succeeded on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of
Victoria after a 5 year protracted huge court litigation and so entitled to rely upon the court ruling
in my favour. By this every other elector likewise has the right to benefit for the same, as laws
are not just in regard of myself but for all electors.
Mr Andrew Carbines is I understand standing as a candidate for re-election, whereas he was
involved in undermining my election during the 2010 State election for Ivanhoe, when I stood as
an INDEPENDENT candidate where he then as councillor in Banyule City Council was using
council staff to interfere with my election campaign, etc. In fact the police became involved
investigating criminal actions against my campaign. I recall that 2 years earlier the then Member
of Parliament Mr Craig Langdon asked all candidates standing for council election if they would
give an assurance that if elected to council not to stand as a candidate in the next State election. I
recall all candidates, including Mr Anthony Carbines to make a statement not to stand for state
elect ion. Well, Mr Anthony Carbines in my view acted contrary to what he had stated and so
unreliable. Why on earth would I want to vote where my vote then by the system could be
counted in favour of Mr Anthony Carbines?
I recall in about 2000 to attend to a meeting at which Mr Craig Langdon assured people he
opposed any freeway through Banyule as he would father resign. Yet, years later I understood he
supported the freeway to go through Banyule, just didnt resign. Another person I understand
now to stand as a candidate for Ivanhoe. And when one considers the Australian Greens conduct
in the 2010 State election, claiming they were opposed to the freeway, as I was as an
INDEPENDENT candidate, but then in the end they gave their votes to Mr Anthony Carbines
who was in favour of the freeway. As such I view the electors voting for the green candidate
were conned! In my view without the green support (opposing the freeway) Mr Anthony
Carbines would not have gained the majority of the votes.
p48
10-6-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
49
With already 3 candidates in regard of which I do not desire to vote it is clear that any kind of
voting would likely end up for one of them. Well I rather give it a mist so no one either get an
unconstitutional first preference vote from voting.
My wife who just turned 82 years is scared that if she doesnt vote then they may drag her to
court. This is the form of terrorism that the Victorian Electoral Commission allows to be
perpetrated and so unconstitutionally upon an elderly citizen. And the major political parties are
partner in this because they should have stopped this rot long ago. Again, the County Court of
Victoria on 19 July 2006 made its decision and all electors are entitled to the benefits of this
ruling.
.
What fair and proper elections when Members of Parliament can use taxpayers monies to push
out election propaganda whereas INDEPENDENT candidates or other candidates not being
Member of Parliament cannot do so. So, we have Members of Parliament using taxpayers monies
to travel about as a candidate or to support another candidate in a different electorate, essentially
robbing monies from consolidated revenue. Indeed, when the writs are issued there are no
Members of Parliament left as all are unemployed (unless holding a position as minister or
private employment) and so not entitled whatsoever to use parliamentarian privileges, not even
email facilities associated with the Parliament.
As for anyone blinded by that Parliament can do what it likes lets make it very clear any
legislation that defies legal principle embedded in the constitution are ULTRA VIRES (NULL
AND VOID). The High Court of Australia in the Wakim case proved this.
As I indicated in the past in my view the election commission should make available to very
candidate the space of an A4 size page, for setting out his/her policies, etc, so that even with
early voting every elector can read on an electronic board in the polling booth what each
candidate stands for. Not the current system where INDEPENDENT candidates usually have no
way of having their How-To-Vote cards approved and printed before early voting commences,
and by this electors commence voting without having all information available.
There is a lot more to it all but while I am in no way required to give any reasons to why I do not
vote when I do not desire to do so, I held it appropriate for me to set out the above and publish
the same, as to enabled other electors to make an informed decision what to do as they desire.
And I request the Victorian Electoral Commission to advise my wife that indeed she cannot be
compelled to vote if she doesnt desire to do so as the County Court of Victoria by its 19 July
2006 decision clearly made its rulings to which the State Government is bound to comply with.
Lets make it absolutely clear I am not the least concerned as to what the Victorian Electoral
Commission may have as views as ultimately what is relevant is that I was involved in a 5 year
litigation and comprehensively defeated all involved. I am entitled to the benefits of that decision
and as like with the Wakim case where the High Court of Australia handed down its decision but
applicable to all people not just those directly involved in the Wakim case as parties, then all
electors are entitled to the benefits of my successful appeals.
Stop the unconstitutional/unlawful conduct and make sure that candidates do not misrepresent
what an election is about. Unless Labor, Coalition, Australian Greens or whomever uses a
party name has the party standing as a candidate in an electorate, which in my view is not legally
possible anyhow, then election propaganda must be conducted as to the candidates themselves
and as such asking people to vote for a premier or political party is deceptive/misleading, etc, and
each person involved should be charged accordingly for deceiving/misleading electors.
Those who prefer an American style of election are free to move to the U.S.A. but in Australia
they must be required to comply with what is constitutionally applicable and appropriate. And
the Victorian Electoral Commission should so to say be hands on to seek to stop any
p49
10-6-2015
50
false/deceptive/misleading advertising, this also as that is why they are being paid fro at
taxpayers expenses.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.

10
(
)

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
15

Cc:
20
3-12-2014

Ref; 20141203-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Electoral Commission-COMPLAINT
25
COMPLAINT(S)
30
Sir/Madam,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST my first concern always is the conduct is as per true
meaning and application of the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which in s106 the states are created subject to this
constitution.
35
40
On Sunday 30-11-2014 I happen to switch onto channel 7 news at 6 pm when I noticed that it
was announced that the new premier Mr Daniel Andrews was to speak. After the advertising
Mr Daniel Andrews did speak and on the screen it showed Premier elect.
Likewise, on Monday 1 December 2014 Channel & again reported about Premier elect.
While it may be argued that this was after the election and so couldnt in itself compromise the
election just held, the reality is that there that is constitutionally be no premier elected because
electors do not elect a premier. As I stated in my 24 November 2014 correspondence the
Governor determines who shall be commissioned as Premier. What we have is that electors
have been so to say brainwashed already for the next election that they elect a Premier.
In my view the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) failure to advertise appropriately to warn
electors they do not vote for a Premier and neither for a party but for a candidate in their
electorate in my view clearly has undermined and indeed denied a fair and proper election.
.
45
50
When I attended to the Banyule polling station (Banyule primary school) my wife gave her
name, whereas I walked through the polling station, and no one asked me anything. One enter on
one side and walk out on the other side of the building.
As such, anyone, elector or not, can enter the polling station and walk through without anyone
questioning the reason for doing so.
While I take no position as to the freeway link that the former coalition government allegedly
contracted into I do however respect that Mr Daniel Andrews made clear he has no intention to
p50
10-6-2015
10
15
20
25
51
breach any election promises. This, whereas Prime minister Tony Abbott now acknowledged that
he did breach his promises not to cut ABC funding, etc. While his argument is the financial
situation, I view this is a lame duck excuse as in fact during the federal election this this budget
issue was highlighted. As such he clearly deceived the electors as did Julia Gillard with her NO
CARBON TAX. While this might be a federal issues, nevertheless it is well overdue in both
state and Federal elections that where a candidate had made false/misleading statements during
an election period then by 10% of the electors signing a petition as by election can be held in
regard of the seat of the successful candidate who misled/deceived electors, and the candidate to
carry the cost of such by-election. Likewise, where a candidate who was successful in an election
within 12 months of the election having been held then this candidate to carry the cost of the byelection. Too often a candidate resigns after discovering that his political party didnt make it
into government, and I view this should be stopped. If a candidate doesnt desire to be in
opposition then let them pay the cost of the by-election. Likewise, there should be a ban on any
one who is a councillor with a city council to stand as a candidate for a State or federal election.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the political liberty of a person and do not
desire to interfere with this, however, if a person desires to stand as a candidate for a State or
federal political election then the person ought to resign first as councillor. After all the
councillor has clearly shown not really to be interested to remain councillor!
I recall where during the council election the then Member of parliament asked if anyone
standing would undertake if elected not then to stand for a State election while being councillor,
and everyone agreed to this. Yet following the then 2010 State election Mr Anthony Carbine who
was elected and a councillor then nevertheless stood for and was elected to state parliament. This
clearly contrary to his past assurance. And as such the electors had been deceived/misled.
What we need is honesty in elections and clearly this is not happening and I view the Victorian
Electoral Commission is much the blame for this also failing to ensure that inappropriate
advertising is not permitted.
.
30
35
40
Getting back to the 29 November 20914 State election, I noticed that around the school
perimeters on its fences there were an estimated 40 or more banners showing the then Premier
Denis Naptine. I view this is grossly misleading as Mr Denise Napthine clearly was not a
candidate in the Ivanhoe district election.
As was so often shown that a candidate claims to belong to a certain political party but after
being elected for whatever reason resigns from that political party and becomes INDEPENDENT
then clearly the seat is occupied by the candidate and not the political party.
Hence, while a candidate may ascribe to a certain political philosophy it is the candidate
regardless of political affiliation that is standing as a candidate in his/her own right.
Therefore, any advertising that purports for an elector to vote for a political party is
false/misleading/deceptive/fraudulent and must be stopped. Likewise, those who are
broadcasting about political matters should be trained or be required to be trained that they do not
mislead viewers to claim that some person is elected premier as electors do not elect a premier.
This gradually conditioning of electors to follow the USA kind of election process must be
deplored and prohibited as it is not what our constitution provides for.
.
45
50
My wife was sick and tired of having phone calls claimed to be for the Naphine government to
vote liberal. I explained to my wife that with political liberty there is little that can be done
against this. However, what should be an issue is that this cannot be deemed for public interest
and therefore the VEC should investigate if the phone calls were made at cost of taxpayers or by
the Liberal Party itself.
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE
p51
10-6-2015
52
Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal
political purposes rather than for a public purpose.
END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
We have that while when there is a general election effectively not as single person of both the
Legislative Assembly and/or the Legislative Council remains to be a Member of Parliament
nevertheless they continue to use their parliamentarian email facilities at cost of taxpayers
without declaring the same for their returns. They still use their other parliamentarian perks like
travelling, etc, even so no longer entitled to do so. Ministers can only use their ministerial offices
in regard of ministerial duties, not election matters, as while ministers may follow a particular
political philosophy in the end they are Ministers, advisors to the Governor, and cannot limit
their Ministerial offices and services to only their political party members as they are to serve all
citizens irrespective of any political association they may hold. This also means they cannot use
their ministerial offices for political purposes not the speaker of the legislative Assembly or the
President of the Legislative Council use the Parliament for political purposes of fund raising for a
political party.
QUOTE
Stanson v. Mott
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: A fundamental precept of this nations democratic
electoral process is that the government may not take sides in election contests or bestow
an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our
countrys founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would
use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson ...The selective use of public funds in election
campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the
democratic electoral process.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

35
There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal
use of public funds. This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot
measure campaigns. Following is a list of what well cover in this section.
Stanson v. Mott
Endorsements and Informational Materials
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines
40
45
Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns

The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the
expenditure of public funds in election campaigns.
In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks
and Recreation, challenging the directors expenditure of Department funds to support passage
of a bond act appearing on a statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the
director had acted unlawfully, concluding that in the absence of clear and explicit legislative
authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an
election campaign.
Stanson v. Mott
50
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: A fundamental precept of this nations democratic
electoral process is that the government may not take sides in election contests or
bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger
p52
10-6-2015
53
10
15
20
feared by our countrys founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental
authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in
office....
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson ...The selective use of public funds in
election campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of
the democratic electoral process.
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a
government agency may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not
expend funds to promote its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise,
but may not promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency
participation in ballot measure elections.
1. The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to
disseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the
public with a fair presentation of relevant information.
2. The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable
public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such
disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.
3. To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal
treatment to both sides of the issue.
25
30
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may
trigger fines from the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign
contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection
with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several ballot measures. The
Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a
neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Let's Review
TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
35
Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to
make a few telephone calls before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to
the incumbent Governors campaign fundraising dinner. Since the people she will be
calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues, may
she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.
40
Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal
political purposes rather than for a public purpose.
Let's Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational
materials to answer questions about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation
in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
45
b. The materials do not make false statements.
c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts
of the measure.
p53
10-6-2015
54
Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and
unfavorable impacts of the measure.
Remember These Points

Expenditures must be for a public purpose
Expenditures must be authorized

Public funds may not be expended for personal use
Information must be fairly presented
Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanction

END QUOTE
10
I am also concerned that far too often the Government uses excuses as to commercial
confidentiality as to disclose details of contracts, etc, which really appears to me to indicate
a likely ab use of power and may involve possible kickbacks, etc.
15
QUOTE
Ethics Orientation for State Officials
Misuse of Public Funds
Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

20
25
30
35
The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with
the principle that public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose.
An expenditure is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public
interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A
public official possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either
expressly or impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public
funds may not be expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such
expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no
personal benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.
For example, the payment of a public employees salary confers a personal benefit on the
employee, but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the
services of the employee for public purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public
expenditure is not merely incidental. The term public funds is not limited to money, but
includes anything of value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies,
compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other
equipment and resources.
40
Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to
purchase items for himself and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even
though those receiving the discount paid for the items with personal funds.
45
2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county

vehicle to transport a political candidate, his staff and family.
p54
10-6-2015
55
3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to
work on his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in
connection with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to
Great Falls, Montana and back.
Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to
criminal and civil sanctions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding
office.
10
15
20
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
The question also is if a particular person was eligible to be a candidate!

Version No. 204 Constitution Act 1975 No. 8750 of 1975
Version incorporating amendments as at 1 February 2014
QUOTE
50 Salaried officers in Parliament
(1) The Governor may from time to time appoint any number of officers so that the entire number
shall not at any one time exceed 22 who shall be entitled to be elected members of either House of the
Parliament and to sit and vote therein.
(2) Such officers shall be responsible Ministers of the Crown and members of the Executive Council,
and ten at least of such officers shall be members of the Council or the Assembly.
(3) Not more than six of such officers shall at any one time be members of the Council and not more
than 17 of such officers shall at any one time be members of the Assembly.
51 Ministers to be in Council or Assembly
A responsible Minister of the Crown shall not hold office for a longer period than three months unless
he is or becomes a member of the Council or the Assembly.
END QUOTE
25
30
35
40
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/members/ministers
QUOTE
Mrs Inga Peulich
Cabinet Secretary
END QUOTE
45
Despite that the Version No. 204 Constitution Act 1975 No. 8750 of 1975 limits the number of
officers (regardless if they are Ministers or secretaries) with a salary is limited to 22 we found
that Mrs Inga Peulich in violation was the 23rd person, and so disqualified by this from the
Parliament and so the seat, yet still somehow could use parliamentarian facilities for the election?
.
50
In my view the material that was published by the Premier Denis Napthine (as he then was)
clearly was a political publication where he used it for election as a major issue. This I view was
rorting of the public monies that should never be allowed to be ignored.
p55
10-6-2015
56
The same with any Member of Parliament who is on a superannuation scheme and or a
termination payment if not re-elected can only be so if deemed to be in an office for a salary and
hence then disqualified from the seat.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
It is not relevant if the Parliament legislated to allow for payments as if it isnt constitutionally
permissible then any legislation in violation to legal principles embedded in the constitution are
NULL AND VOID (ULTRA VIRES).
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
Constitution.
END QUOTE
As the states were created within s106 of the (federal) constitution subject to this constitution
then they are bound by the legal principles embedded in the (federal) constitution.
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There are, of course, many formal matters relating to both houses, such as the election of president and
speaker, disqualifications, the issue of writs, elections, and so on, with which I shall not on this occasion
trouble the Convention. It is provided, then, that each member of either house shall have an annual
allowance for his services, which is proposed to be fixed in the meantime at 500 a year. The ordinary
disqualifications are inserted as to members holding offices of profit, with the exception of ministers of the
Crown, or becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker 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 extent that really the
Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates,
and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the
p56
10-6-2015
57
Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think that
that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere.
QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
As such the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council are
not included in any counts as officers on a salary of Office for Profit.
It is clear to me that electors are conned into voting for a Premier even so they cannot do so and
the VEC clearly is aiding and abetting to this by allowing this fraud/deception/misleading/false
kind of election process to continue.
In my view the VEC cannot both conduct elections and supervise its own conduct and/or
misconduct. There ought to be an INDEPENDENT/IMPARTIAL supervision not
associated with the VEC as to ensure that elections are and remain to be fair and proper.
I for one cannot accept that the VEC is whatsoever pursuing fair and proper elections where it
failed to act to take action against misuse and abused such as those referred to above.
It own deceptive/misleading/fraudulent statement to electors that voting is compulsory underline
this because as I did set out previously also the Victorian Attorney General did make known to
abide by the decision of the county Court of Victoria in regard of both appeals I had before it on
19 July 2006, in which I challenged on constitutional grounds also that compulsory
registration/voting is unconstitutional. Therefore, the VEC cannot rely upon outdated legislation
because the court made its decision to uphold both my appeals and the Victorian Attorney
General clearly accepted its ruling!
As such not a single elector should be fined for allegedly FAILING TO VOTE because to
do so I view is a form of terrorism and extortion!
I urge you to ensure an impartial/independent investigation is conducted as to the VEC how it
conducts elections and also the issues referred to above, and so if relevant former members of
parliament at the time during an election were using their old parliamentarian not applicable
privileges to gain unfair advantage upon other candidates, as well as the failure of the VEC to
ensure that election s are conduct in a manner which avoids deceptive claims as to the election of
a Premier or election of a government when neither exist. The fact that a governor may likely
commission elected Members of Parliament is not excusing the deceptive/fraudulent/
misleading/deceptive conduct of candidates and others.

40
(
)
45
50
https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission
https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission/posts/510419275711079?notif_t=like
(Posted at about 3.06am Tuesday 3 September 2013 by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.)
QUOTE Posted at about 3.06am Tuesday 3 September 2013 by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Due to problems with posting I will placed it in parts, but it must be read as one statement.
Part 1 of 4
p57
10-6-2015
58
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
As I indicated (see also my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati) I am against "compulsory voting" and

not against voting itself. What we must accept is that we have a constitution, from which all legislative
powers is derived. We have courts that adjudicate, We had the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006
deciding to uphold my appeals against convictions of FAILING TO VOTE. The lawyers for the Australian
Electoral Commission submitted to the Court that it was not in the public interest for it to pursue the matter
further against my appeal, and failed to challenge any of my numerous submissions based upon constitutional
matters. The AEC clearly capitulated and it had at the time the opportunity to challenge my submissions but
clearly failed to do so. If it was not in the public interest to pursue convictions for FAILING TO VOTE, then
why this after about 5 years litigation when they are nevertheless pursuing hundreds of thousands if not
millions of FAILING TO VOTE issues against others? It, so to say, cannot have the cake and eat it. It was
left so to say with egg on its face, and its clear failure to pursue a conviction must be accepted as an
acknowledgement that it knew that it had no hope in the world to score a conviction in the County Court of
Victoria against me for numerous reasons.
Part 2 of 4
I have now already voted, this because I held there was a candidate who deserved my vote. that I view is what
voting should be about, candidates must earn the primary vote! And as on my blog set out, no elector can
ever vote for who shall be prime minister. As we saw with John Howard, he was defeated by Maxine McKew
and even if his party had succeeded in holding on to government, he would not have been prime minister.
This gross deceptive conduct upon electors that they vote for who shall be the next prime minister should
never have been tolerated let alone been allowed by the AEC. It must act responsible!
Palmer United party seems to also claim you can vote for him to become Prime Minister. You cannot. He can
only bed elected within his constituency by the electors to represent them in parliament. As a
CONSTITUTIONALIST I maintain it is the prerogative power of the Governor-General to decide who shall
be commissioned to form a government.
the Governor-General even could commission me even so I am not a Member of Parliament and n either a
candidate in the election! It should make not one iota of difference what legislation is on foot for the AECV,
if it is in conflict with the constitution.
Playing two faced as to concede defeat in court, when on the other hand defrauding electors by fines to me is
a serious matter that undermines the credibility of the AEC. I urge those who do exercise their right to vote to
do so in a proper manner, as to vandalize the ballot paper (as many do) isn't going to get you anywhere. it is a
childish prank at the very least and displays immaturity also. I urge that the legislation permits an elector to
mark only the number of candidates the elector desires to support and once those candidates no longer are in
the running then the ballot paper simply no longer is relied upon. it serve no elector that a vote is used for a
candidate which the elector simply didn't desire to vote for but is compelled to do so.
Part 3 of 4
As I made clear that I stood in the past as a candidate because I held no other candidate was suitable to obtain
my vote. Why on earth then should I be forged to vote for an opponent? Clearly, the court accepted this
reasoning also. If you like the rot you are now subjected to then vote as you did before but if you desire to
change matters then well you have the power to vote otherwise. Just don't complain afterwards, as quite
frankly I am sick and tired of people complaining afterwards that the politicians lied. Of course they do., and
you should know that their mantra about health, education, etc, is just that and nothing will be better in 3
years. un less you vote for those who can deliver, or proved to do their bit to assist society. The constitutional
right not to vote is what you may desire and then also accept that by this you withholding to vote may in fact
serve the party you may not like to gain government after the election!
We must also have the AEC to become independent, and not deceive electors, nor should it accept the
"deposit" as legal because the Framers of the constitution made clear that any elector was entitled to be a
candidate. they would be horrified and so to say turn in their graves to know that a huge deposit is required
and numerous signatures. it is unconstitutional and I view the AEC should challenge the validity of such
unconstitutional legal provisions rather then to tow the line regardless of being in violation to the legal
principles embedded in the constitution. the aim is to encourage electors to make informed decisions to vote
and for whom to vote, and cut out the false./misleading/deceptive political claims and also place candidates
on a contract that if they act as a member of parliament in violation of their election promises then by 10% of
their constitutions petitioning the court their seat can be declared vacant, as cost of the former member to
hold a by-election. That will teach them to be honest.
Part 4 of 4
If just we had the AEC with some so to say balls to stand up for the right of electors! Not, as I understand it
to make submissions to try to reduce the number of candidates by increasing the deposit, and number of
signatures, because this is counter productive and indeed in violation to any citizens constitutional right if
they are an elector. Elections can only be valid because of being held in accordance to what is permissible
within constitutional context, and as I proved on 19 July 2006, I knew the constitution better and how it
p58
10-6-2015
59
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
applied then the AEC. Well, it is long over due it finally became realistic and alter its modus operandi of
sheer ignorance, and seek to look after the rights of the electors and not act adverse to their rights. Ordinary
people would likely make far better Members of Parliament then those we now seem to get, just that those
surviving on the breadline and having all relevant experiences by the huge cost of deposit are prevented to
stand as a candidate.
Again, the lawyers were at court and merely had to present their case but instead claimed it was not in the
public interest to pursue to oppose my appeals. Neither did any State Attorney-General oppose my
submissions either, even so they were all informed about it. Therefore, lets get realistic and accept no one can
be forced to compulsory register/vote, but the AEC should divide a system that will attract more people to
register and vote and become candidates so that it becomes a truly national issue people desire to engage in
and not like slaves people as forced labour are subject to attend to a polling place regardless if they do or do
not formally fill in a ballot paper. My wife who dreads ordinary being forced to vote now could not wait for
the poling place to open up because there was a candidate she felt deserved to vote for. After decades of
retirement it was looking as if she was back at work again. This is the kind of excitement missing in general
from elections because generally is it a choice, so to say, between dud no1 and dud no 2by musical chairs and
very much the AEC has been an active participant to prevent ordinary people to just nominate themselves and
that is it. We do have a constitution and do not just seek but demand that finally the AEC adheres to the true
meaning and application of the constitution, and not despite of it
END QUOTE Posted at about 3.06am Tuesday 3 September 2013 by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
It should be clear that the Victorian Electoral Commission (as its counterpart the Commonwealth
Electoral Commission) disregards to maintain FAIR and PROPER ELECTIONS where
numerous posters and banners at polling stations refer to electing a Premier/Prime Minister this
even so constitutionally a elector can only vote for a candidate which is standing in a particular
seat, irrespective if this candidate belongs to a certain political party or not.
There is also an issue with that upon the Governor proroguing the Parliament or the GovernorGeneral proroguing the Parliament (general election or DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) then all State
Parliament seats/House of Representatives seats are vacant at that time when the writs are issued
and those who held any seat no longer do so. Yet, they still use their former parliamentarian
email addresses and free travel, etc, during the election period. Clearly this is misuse of their
former parliamentarian offices. All Members of Parliament parliamentarian/electorate offices
should be closed down when writ is issued regarding their seats being vacant. Again, I am not
aware the VEC ever having bothered about this issue of misusing former parliamentarian offices
during an election. It is not relevant if a person is re-elected as the usage of a parliamentarian
office cannot be used unless and until the person upon returning of the writs make the required
oath to take up the seat. Any person who is a Minister can only use the parliamentarian offices
for Ministerial business and not for electoral purposes. And any former Member of Parliament
standing for re-election cannot from the time the writs are issued receive any allowance
because from the time the writs are issues until the person makes an oath to take up the seat
elected for the person is NOT a Member of Parliament, and as such not entitled to an
allowance. Again the VEC allows this misuse and abuse of parliamentarian/electorate offices
during elections and so deny in that regard electors and other candidates a FAIR and PROPER
election.
I maintain that candidates who are proven to have misled the electorate should have their seats
declare vacant and a by-election to be held without the former successful candidate being entitled
to stand as a candidate. This, as to try to get some honesty in elections.
The following shows that the AEC finally did show PREVIOUS MEMBER on its website
during the 2013 Federal election this even so at the time Jenny Maclin was still a Minister. She
simply was no longer a Member of Parliament when the writs were issued. With Senators
standing for a half Senate they remain to be Senators and so members of parliament, but with a
DOUBLE DISSOLUTION they no longer remain to be Senators when the writs are issued.
p59
10-6-2015
60
10
15
In my view where I legally challenged the validity of compulsory registration/voting and the
County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 upheld both appeals then I view the legislation (THAT
REQUIRES COMPULSORY REGISTRATION/VOTING) by this clearly is and remains to be
ULTRA VIRES.
As I have written about in the past also, such as in my published books in the INSPECTORRIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues, I view that there should be an
impartial supervisor over any electoral commission as to avoid in-house cover ups, etc. This as I
view too often my complaints were railroaded (by the relevant electoral commission) and never
properly resolved.
p60
10-6-2015
61
Because the constitution was made long before I existed and was enacted not just for my sake but
to be applicable to whomever resides in the Commonwealth of Australia then where the
compulsory voting legislation is ULTRA VIRES then it applies to all electors, not just for me.
Hence, in regard of all electors any compulsory voting is and remains to be unconstitutional. Any
fines issued in my view then is a CONTEMPT OF COURT as the Attorney-General at the time
made known to abide by the courts ruling.
10

(
)
15
20
25
30
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I held that I understood my rights not to be compelled to vote if

I desired not to vote and presented my case in a comprehensive submission to the Court. The
County court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction upheld both my appeals and therefore the
State of Victoria (a party to the proceedings, in view an s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was served upon all Attorney-Generals Hence the response
by Attorney-General Robert Hulls to abide by the courts decision) is bound by this. It had the
opportunity on 129 July 2o006 to challenge any of my numerous submissions based on
constitutional provisions (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) b utu it
decided not to do so. Well it is as little bit rich for it then some 9 years later trying to erode my
legal rights. The fact that my 12-3-2015 correspondence did set out matters but nevertheless the
VEC (via G Fraser) blatantly disregarded this and the VEC failed to formally deal with my
COMPLAINT underline it has placed itself above the rule of law. Again an INDEPENDENT
investigation should be held why the VEC did fail to consider and respond to my
COMPLAINT and why the VEC (G Fraser) uses as I view it terrorism/extortion nevertheless
to seek to undermine the courts ruling, and so the legal rights I obtained by this court decision?
35

Our name is our motto!)
(
40
p61
10-6-2015

20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT Re VEC, Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT Re VEC, Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria

20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT re VEC, etc

Page 209 U. S. 125

investigation or action by a grand jury.

Page 209 U. S. 126

Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)-ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CONTEMPT

Page 209 U. S. 127

Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)-ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CONTEMPT

contrary to the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Page 209 U. S. 133

determined in the final determination of the action."

Page 209 U. S. 134

Page 209 U. S. 142

Page 209 U. S. 143

It is insisted by the petitioner that there is no Federal question

Page 209 U. S. 144

Page 209 U. S. 145

Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)-ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CONTEMPT

Page 209 U. S. 150

Page 209 U. S. 151

504), following in this respect Hagood v. Southern, supra.

estate under the government of the United States, which claimed to be

Page 209 U. S. 152

Missouri Railroad Commissioners, 183 U. S. 53.

Page 209 U. S. 153

Each of these grounds is effective and both are of equal force.

Page 209 U. S. 155

state court, whose judgment was thereupon reversed.

Page 209 U. S. 156

Page 209 U. S. 157

specially created by the act itself is not material, so long as it exists.

Page 209 U. S. 158

Page 209 U. S. 159

interference with the discretion of an officer.

Page 209 U. S. 160

guilty of contempt by so doing.

Page 209 U. S. 161

Page 209 U. S. 162

Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 83 U. S. 370; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148.

Page 209 U. S. 163

Page 209 U. S. 164

Page 209 U. S. 165

therefore the act invalid.

Costs of the contempt proceeding

The costs of an application for punishment for contempt shall be in

contemnor pay costs on a solicitor-client basis.

QUOTE 12-3-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

I on 12 March 2015 received from the Victorian Electoral Commission a, Apparent

106 Saving of Constitutions

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Image taken 29-11-2014 1.11PM

Image taken 29-11-2014 1.13PM

Image taken 29-11-2014 1.11PM

Image taken 29-11-2014 1.22PM

The document can be downloaded from:

Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

LAND TAX BILL

LAND TAX ABOLITION.

subsequent financial year.

QUOTE LAND TAX ABOLITION C1952A00081

by: James Campbell, Matt Johnston and Ellen Whinnett