Further Information supporting My Petition:

_____________________________________________

Notes:
* 'I Pray' is a legal requirement of a Petition to the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.

* S followed by a number is the Section of the stated legislation which is stated afterwards, 

* "Illegal Practice", as defined in the Act, “means a contravention of this Act or the regulations”, as per S 352 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

* Undue influence" means a contravention of section 327 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 Act or section 28 of the Crimes Act 1914 , as per S 352 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

* CEA - Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 Cth.

* CA - Crimes Act 1914

* Ab Initio (from the beginning) - i.e. Electoral Funding returned or not paid to Candidates for the voided election. This includes the money paid / to be otherwise paid currently just under $2.50 per vote if the Candidate receives more than 4% of First Preference Formal Votes. This amounts to around $61,320 'earned' by the Candidate, Kevin Baker, who withdrew from the election a few days after becoming a Candidate.

It was falsely claimed that I only had 99 of the required 100 Nominators (a list of around 117 from memory submitted), despite my car being tampered with - including a tyre with a nail being hammered into it, a deflated tyre, stolen number plates and potentially mechanical sabotage which disabled my vehicle for around 3 days, until just after the Close of Nominations. The AEC claimed that there was not 1 Federal Election - but 150 for the Lower House Seats alone.

The AEC, who refused to provide reasons why and who was rejected as Nominators which could have solved the issue, was furnished with my own confirmed list of Nominators using the Public Electoral Roll where deficits were found in the System but over the 100 Nominators were found and shown to the AEC.

This was ignored with a message from Mr Pirani that I had proven nothing, that he only pays attention to what the Divisional Returning Officer said. I requested that the list be gone through again by the DRO so that the AEC could prove it to themselves and admit me into the Election. Mr Pirani then claimed that no one can review the decision of the DRO, not even the AEC Commissioner, Mr Killesteyn.

It was claimed by the AEC that under no circumstances do they need to provide such information - before eventually changing the story to words to the effect of 'put in a FOI Request and we might provide you with something' and that it might occur after the Election.

My FOI request was eventually provided (part there of - as they ignored providing information on their Policies and Procedures) and showed that I had more than the required Nominators, even from the Division of Charlton.

One was rejected after they supposedly compared his handwriting now (on the form) to when he joined the Electoral Roll some 13 years ago, to be doubly sure that called his phone number from 13 years ago and was told that they had the wrong number. They did not bother to get his phone number from any phone company (where we must show 100 points of ID just to get a SIM Card), nor even bothered to physically check the gentleman's address, or to open the White Pages phone book. The gentleman was enrolled, in the same suburb, at the family home and just moved.

Further, another Nominator was Rejected as he supposedly is on the Roll for NSW and Council Elections only, despite us having Federal Compulsory Enrolment, and Ss 8, 30, 41, 118, & C5 of the Constitution of Australia; as well as Ss 84, 85, 93, 101.102, 103, 103B, 166, 230, 235, 388, & 391 CEA

Another gentleman had the code for Charlton enrolment next to his name - but also an asterisk excluding him for an unknown reason.

All Acts of Parliament in Australia are Subordinate Legislation to the Australian Constitution. Any and the law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency with the Constitution  & The Natural Law this includes Legislation that attempts to take away Political Franchise – both of Candidates, and of Nominators / Electors.

Or as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia at the time (Latham, CJ) put it:

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 favour—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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1942/14.html?query=

The Election for the Division of Charlton is hereby disputed, as per S 353 CEA.

I pray that the High Court of Australia / Court of Disputed Returns is to:

Declare that the Labor Party Candidate, Patrick Conroy, was not duly elected,

Declare that there is a vacancy in the House of Representatives for the Division of Charlton,

Declare that the September 2013 Division of Charlton election is absolutely void, ab initio, &

Declare that a new election for the Division of Charlton be held, as per Ss 360, 374, 379 CEA.

Declare that an extension of time for the Declaration of Nominations, as well as information as to which Nominators were rejected and why, should have been granted in order to resolve the problem before it became a problem, Ss 286, 365, 381A CEA.

Declare that Errors, Omissions, Illegal Practices, Interference with Political Liberty, Vote Influencing, Contraventions of the CEA, and Undue Influence, as defined in the CEA and CA, occurred by AEC Officers, which directly affected the results of the election. The findings should be reported to the relevant Minister. Ss 4, 215, 233, 324, 325, 327, 352, 362, 363, 365, & 386 CEA. S28 CA.

Declare that the discriminatory parts of the CEA are ultra vires and invalid, for instance the requirement for 'non-Parliamentary Independent Candidates' to 'jump through hoops' despite Australia's elections being made a farce with such things as International Conventions that Australia is signatory to, the concepts of the Secret Ballot, Responsible and Representative Governments, and various anti-discrimination laws (all are non-Parliamentary since Parliament is dissolved before an Election).

Furthermore, Misleading and Deceptive Publications were made by at least one AEC Officer specifically for the Charlton Electorate needs to be addressed. The AEC Officer in question published statements which she claims were made by another AEC Officer who was training the group on the 28th of August 2013. The AEC Office published false claims, allegedly just repeating what she was taught in the training, that in order to cast a valid (Formal) vote that the former Liberal Candidate's box must be numbered last or left blank. This contravenes various sections of the CEA including S 329. This was reported to the AEC by myself, Arjay Martin, when I completed Pre-Poll voting. I reported it as an official complaint, with proof of its occurrence, and was told to report it to the next level up multiple times, including to AEC Commissioner, Mr Killesteyn where it was answered with a simple 'vote how you wish to' E-mail (paraphrased). It was also observed by hundreds, if not thousands, of Divisional Office Pre-Poll voters that the combined Newcastle, Shortland and Charlton AEC Office was taking marked ballot papers from people to stick in ballot boxes behind the counter, with one gentleman complaining on the 20th of August that it was illegal (then being 'fobbed off' with some line like 'it's easier this way'), this contravenes S 233 of the CEA.

To ensure that, an extension of time for the Declaration of Nominations, as well as information as to which Nominators were rejected and why, is clearly written into the CEA / AEC Procedures in the case of disputed Rejections of Nominations into the future - in place of their false claims that this 'information is unavailable in all circumstances' - which was then changed to 'apply for a Freedom of Information Request and you might be provided with the information, perhaps after the election' (both paraphrased).

This is in the Public's Interest, both in Australia and abroad, and Real Justice is to be observed, in this case a fresh Free and Fair Election to be held, as per s 364 CEA

-------------------------------------------------------

The results of the election were especially affected due to the withdrawal of the Liberal Party Candidate, which when combined with the myself, the Independent Candidate Arjay Martin, being deprived from his Political Right to run for Office. This left only the Labor Party as the only 'large' Party leading to many Liberal Supporters to vote for Labor – due to lack of choice.

There was the potential that myself could have absorbed the votes disenfranchised Liberal Party supporter's, which could have enabled Arjay Martin to win the Seat of Charlton with or without Preferences. Many of the Liberal leaning voters at the election in question artificially boosted the Labor Party votes, and decreasing their decline, as many voters saw no suitable alternatives left, with no Liberal or Independent Candidates available to vote for, despite being disenchanted with Charlton's Labor Party performance. Equally importantly - the People of Charlton have been deprived of Choice and Freedom.

Form 60C - Nomination of a Member of the House of Representatives; Single Nomination of an Unendorsed Candidate by 100 Electors title is misleading and contradictory as clearly seen in the Title it refers only to Members of the House of Representative - which occurs after a vote in the relevant Division - as per the CEA and Australia's Constitution and System of Government. Form 60C does not comply with Form D, from Schedule 1 - forms, of the CEA - which is covered by S 392 of the CEA which points out the difference between Strict Compliance and Substantial Compliance. This contradicts false claims made on the 16th of August 2013 by AEC Chief Legal Officer, Paul Pirani, that 'Substantial Compliance' means 'Strict Compliance'. The CEA states, "(2) No nomination shall be rejected by reason of any formal defect or error in the nomination if the officer to whom the nomination is made is satisfied that the provisions of sections 166, 167, 170 and 171 have been substantially complied with." s172(2) - Section 166 is the section which states about 100 Nominators for the Election being required to sign the non-strict-complying form '60C'.

The ultra vires sections of Law, including Section 166 of the CEA, should be removed as they are discriminatory Barriers to Entry, and create Political Classes in our so-called 'Classless Society'. This is the case as only non-parliamentary Independent Candidates are required to spend weeks asking 100 plus eligible 'Nominators' for their personal details from full name, full address, date of birth and signature. This eliminates the existence of the 'Secret Ballot' as after spending 10 or 20 minutes discussing one's policies to convince someone to give their private details, the Nominator is more likely to vote for the Independent Candidate. It is also a terrible thing in the age of identity fraud - where people might well genuinely support the Candidate's right to contest the election, but may be encourage to give a slightly different birth date - or be in a rush and make an error in their haste. The point being that after jumping through the many hoops - that no one who contested the Election were required to do as there were no Independents running - I should have been allowed to risk my own $1000 Nomination Deposit and Marketing Costs to contest the Election.

If the point of the discrimination is not directly to hinder the efforts of Independent Candidates – and to get 100 voters to support a candidates nomination – then no defect in the nomination (e.g. old address, etc.) shall hinder a nomination. Hence S 172 of the CEA. Then surely the point is to ensure that the Candidate receives at least 100 votes in the election, based on previous elections.

This is countered by the fact that I received nearly three-thousand-five-hundred First Preference Primary Votes in the 2012 Lake Macquarie Mayoral Election – despite being out allegedly out-spend 200:1 by some of the groups alone. This Federal Election I was going to spend at a more competitive level – as obviously out of the few that knew about me, my policies and philosophies – my message ran true – with many more voters expected at this election as those that already knew about me, along with new people who didn't, could see real choice – and the truth is that I had the opportunity of vote splitting the Labor Party, and Liberal Party, to win and fulfil my desire to serve the all of the good people of Western Lake Macquarie and Newcastle, not just a Political Party, as well as Australian's in general.

Otherwise it therefore exists to attempt to eliminate competition for the Major Parties, who would need as a minimum 18,600 Members (100 for each Candidate, from the relevant Electoral Divisions) in place of the 500 that they currently require. I am not advocating this, however, as it will future entrenchment of the 'Big Two'. This Predatory Competition prevents the Major Parties from being held to account, and destroys Australia's chance of having genuine competition to their so-called 'Gentleman's Club' that is the Parliament.