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.

) Due to problems with posting I will placed it in parts, but it must be read as one statement. Part 1 of 4 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 submis-

sions 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 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.