FAILING TO VOTE successful grounds of appeals

In DPP (for the Australian Electoral Commission) v Schorel-Hlavka the County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. appealed convictions by the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Melbourne of 17 November 2005 for FAILING TO VOTE. On Appeal Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ( a CONSTITUTIONALIST) relied upon some of the following:

1. The Framers of the Constitution debated in 1897 if the Commonwealth of Australia should be provided with the legislative powers to compel registration and/or voting. This was abandoned.

2. As the Commonwealth Ele3ctoral Act 1918 provides for religious exemption then 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 applies. That this provision is unconstitutional unless it also applies for non-religious objections. (I view this indicates that Judd v McKeon was wrongly decided.)

3. As I was standing as a candidate I could not be forced to vote for any opponent, this as my standing in itself was to be accepted that I held none of the other candidates were credible to vote for.

4. I had also filed and served a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and none of the Attorney-Generals nor the DPP (for the Commonwealth of Australia) challenged and/or opposed any of the details stated in it. This included that the Commonwealth of Australia (contrary to the High Court of Australia Sue v Hill 1999 case stated decision for the Court of Disputed Returns) was a “POLITICAL UNION” and not a sovereign country, and the constitution didn’t permit to change this.

5. Also, that constitutionally Australians were and remained “British Subjects” as it was beyond the legislative powers of the Commonwealth to alter this. And many more constitutional issues, such as that a corporate Government and a corporate court have no constitutional powers, etc. Including that the provisions of “AVERMENT” in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 could not be enforced in a state Court exercising Federal jurisdiction and this was upheld by a Magistrate on 4 August 2005 in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg in King v Schorel-Hlavka (King being the AEC returning officer) being the cases against which the successful appeals were pursued.


If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.