Prior to the 2001 purported Federal election I challenged all writs on that they were defective and no valid election could be held, but the Federal Court of Australia refused to hear the matter. Likewise so the High Court of Australia subsequently. But as I held there was no valid election I stood my ground to refuse to vote.
I also made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to force anyone to vote. And a lot more. My website shows various books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® that have all relevant information, including copies of Court documents, in it. Because I was first convicted by a magistrate for twice FAILING TO VOTE, he refused to give a REASON OF JUDGMENT, on appeal I succeed and the convictions were set aside! Because I proved on all constitutional issues that I was right.

When I stand as a candidate I do not ask people at all to vote for me or anyone else. In fact people offered to run an election campaign for me but I refused this. I am very known by people, and even a successful candidate made known to me that people talk about it that I stand as a candidate but refuse to vote and do not campaign and refuse other to do so.
While it has cost me nevertheless a lot of money, it is my kind of campaign to expose the rot with elections. Why should a poor person be denied a reasonable opportunity to be a candidate if they cannot afford for example the $350.00?
Why should I as a candidate be forced to vote for my opponents, as is with preference voting?
As the Framers of the Constitution made known even the “POOR” should be able to be a candidate and my campaign is to highlight their denial to do so.

BECAUSE A PERSON CANNOT AFFORD WASTING $350.00 DOES NOT MEAN THIS PERSON MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD PARLIAMENTARIAN!
THE $350.00 WAS IMPLEMENTED TO SEEK TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE STANDING AS A CANDIDATE, WHICH TO ME IS AN ABSURDITY, IT-FAVOURS-THE-POLITICAL-PARTIES!

"THE $350.00 WAS IMPLEMENTED TO SEEK TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE STANDING AS A CANDIDATE, WHICH TO ME IS AN ABSURDITY, IT-FAVOURS-THE-POLITICAL-PARTIES! "

How does it favour the parties? If you had any hope of getting elected at all, the $350 would be a trivial expense.

Freedriver

Obviously you didn’t get my point. I have been standing as a candidate being able to afford the $350.00 but my issue is that many cannot and are wrongly denied doing so. In fact it was the AEC who pursued the deposit and also the 50 signatures. They also pursued the reduction from 11 to 10 days. Now, to me the AEC should be independent and not therefore be bias to what may suit them.

If you were to read the High Court of Australia judgments in
THE QUEEN v. PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254 and
JAMES ANDREW McGINTY AND OTHERS v THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA F.C. 96/001
Then you might just hold that voting is compulsory but I am about to publish Chapter 000J which sets out what really is applicable and that the judges fabricate their own version regardless how unconstitutional.

This, I succeed upon in the courts when raising those constitutional issues.

My issue is not that I can’t afford standing as a candidate but that the deposit denies certain people to stand as a candidate for financial reasons and that the 50 signatures required forces an INDEPENDENT candidate to do some mini election which in itself is unconstitutional.
If trade unions were to apply this kind of nonsense the Federal government would be the first to lag into the unions for unfair election practices.
Say a union official can stand without needing “x” amount of signatures but anyone not being a union official were to have to get “x” amount of nominations!

Then the Union could also introduce its above the line ballot that a Union official can use a box above the line but a non union official cannot and so those voting for a non official first will have to fill in all squares on the ballot paper, causing a more likelihood of errors being made.
“elections are to be free” has been embedded in the Constitution and they are not if special rules are made against INDEPENDENTS.

By-refusing-to-vote,-I-make-my-point. And-again,-the-Federal-Government-lawyers-lost-against-me-after-a-5-year-legal-battle,-on-all-constitutional-issues.

"but my issue is that many cannot and are wrongly denied doing so.

Why is it wrong? If you can't get together $350 in donations, you have no hope of governing effectively anyway.

"the 50 signatures required forces an INDEPENDENT candidate to do some mini election which in itself is unconstitutional

Again, if you can't get 50 signatures, you are wasting everyone's time.

Getting on the ballot is not a right that should be open to everyone. There is good reason to cut it back to serious candidates. Voting is a right we all have. If you want to get your name on the ballot, it is not unreasonable to be expected to demonstrate that you have a bare minimum capability of running something and that there are people willing to support you. If you cannot get together $350 in donations then there is no point asking people to trust you with millions of dollars in taxpayer's money.

You obviously can’t get it, do you?

A person can be poor, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear beyond his fault. It should not deny the person to then be a candidate as they made clear any elector, other then those in breach of Section 44 of the Constitution is entitled to be a candidate. Hence, any condition is unconstitutional.
Also, most people vote for a party and even if the candidate was a donkey they would still vote for it. Sure, they are stupid, but still the political parties get the deposits back but most independent don’t because they do not have the huge funds the political parties spend knowing they are going to get it back from the votings.

One party simply sells books and offer you for FREE 6-monthly issues of their newsletter if you sign for this. The signature is in fact that you are a member of their party. As such, the deception allows dishonest people to stand as candidates.
One person was refused by the electoral commissioner to be registered because it was claimed the person had only 49 valid nominations and she was not allowed to go out to get one more as it was claimed that nominations was just closed. However, as I proved years later the writs were defective and actually nominations were at the very least closed one day too early. As such, the women had at least another day coming to her but the electoral Officer simply did it his way.
There are other cases where people were wrongly denied to be a candidate!

As for 50 signatures, if you cannot get this. Well, why then not have all parliamentarians also doing so?
I have had no problem in the past to get 50 signatures but the issue is that it is unconstitutional as it is to create an obstacle course and denies a fair and proper election. Today it might be 50 and in time to come they may make it 500 or whatever. The point is that it robs everyone of fair and proper elections.

"You obviously can’t get it, do you?

I do get it. I just disagree with you. Got it?

"As for 50 signatures, if you cannot get this. Well, why then not have all parliamentarians also doing so?

I agree that it should be the same for all candidates. However, at least as far as the major parties are concerned, 50 signatures is trivial compared to what candidates have to do to achieve preselection.

"It should not deny the person to then be a candidate as they made clear any elector, other then those in breach of Section 44 of the Constitution is entitled to be a candidate

I prefer to rely on common sense. If candidacy was free, there would be a thousand nutcases on the ballot paper. I think it is perfectly reasonable to place conditions, provided that they are not so severe as to actually prevent a poor person from running who has a chance of winning, or even getting a significant percentage of the votes.

"There are other cases where people were wrongly denied to be a candidate!

Interpretting the rules incorrectly does not mean the rules themselves are wrong.