text:
Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra11121883roya).pdf/160

 which these phenomena seem naturally to fall, without any attempt at their scientific classification.

In this class, I would place those subjects who appear to be affected merely by such excess of nervous sensibility as is exemplified by starting unduly at the sound of an unexpected and loud noise, or at the sight of an unexpected and distressing or alarming incident.

So far, it might be said that, under parallel circumstances, a similar exhibition might be expected from any unit of any nation of the human race. But, having observed Malay latahs on numberless occasions under the above conditions, I have noticed two peculiarities which seem to differentiate the mental shock which they undergo from that which Europeans experience under like circumstances.

Firstly, their irresistible impulse seems to be to strike out at the nearest object, animate or inanimate, and, secondly, their involuntary exclamation is always characterised by what I must call obscenity.

I cannot here enter into any particulars of this latter characteristic, but, so far as I have observed, and I have observed with careful interest, this element is never absent from the cry of a startled latah, who may, on ordinary occasions, appear the essence of propriety.

I touch upon this point, because I believe it to be noteworthy, and when I come to speak of some of the peculiarities of latah women, I believe I shall be pardoned by those who may be interested in the pathological view of the question.

In this class, I would place those sufferers whose nervous emotions are unduly excited without apparent, or, at all events, without adequate cause.

To proceed at once to illustration. [{nop}}


text:
Page:Karl Liebknecht - The Future Belongs to the People - tr. Savel Zimand (1918).djvu/13

philosophy of Karl Liebknecht as revealed in these pages leaves but a narrow ledge for heroes to stand on. To him the significant thing in history is, and has always been, the stirring of the masses of men at the bottom, their unconscious writhings, their awakenings, their conscious struggles and finally their gigantic, fearsome upthrust, which overturns all the little groups of clever men who have lived by holding these masses down. In these conflicts, kings, priests, leaders, heroes count for no more than flags or flying pennants. All great leaders, Cæsar, Mahomet, Luther, Napoleon, are instruments of popular movements, or at best manuscripts upon which the messages of their class and age have been written.

To Liebknecht all that Carlyle has said about heroes is contrary to ideology and inversion of the truth. "As I take it," writes Carlyle, "Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked there. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing and accomplished in the world are properly the outward material result, the prac-

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra11121883roya).pdf/161

 I have more than once met with river boatmen, who, when the word buaya (alligator) was mentioned, even in the course of casual conversation after camping for the night, would drop what- ever they might have in their hands and retire cowering to the cover of the nearest kajang.

I have enquired into every case of this description which came under my notice, and in no ease could I learn that the man bad any special reason for his terror in the way of a personal experience. His friends explained that he was latah, and that to them explained everything.

On one occasion, after a curious exhibition of this description, I shot an alligator on the bank next morning. The latah was, Lo my surprise, the first to approach the saurian. Against my earnest entreaties, he proceeded to pull the creature about, and finally forced its mouth open with a piece of firewood.

His persecutors, his fellow-boatmen, stood at a respectful distance.

An hour afterwards, as he was poling up the river, one of the crew called out to this man buaya! He at once dropped his pole, gave vent to a most disgusting exclamation, and jumped into the river an act which shewed that his morbid terror was quite unconnected with what might be supposed to be its exciting cause.

More than one man have implored me not to mention the word harimau (tiger), and more than one have gone nearly insane with terror when the word ular (snake) was spoken "at" him.

In each case of this description, my Malay companions solved my perplexity, at times very great, by saying "dîa latah, tuan."

Similar cases must be familiar to many who read this Journal, but the instance I have quoted of the man who became limp and nerveless from terror at the mention of the word buaya and who afterwards was the first to handle a buaya, of whose death no one was assured, presents a curious mental contradiction, of which I await the explanation.

I may add that a pawang (medicine-man) who exhibited extreme distress at my mention of the word "tiger," was one of the few


text:
Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra11121883roya).pdf/162

 men I have met out here who habitually passed nights in the jungle alone. There was here no question of the superstitious reverence which Malays have for this animal, or of their dislike to hearing it called by its regular name. The man's fear was latah, and his friends, though apparently much amused, told me that this was his peculiarity, and I was careful not to offend again.

With regard to snakes, perhaps the horror with which these sufferers hear the word, is more marked still,

Such cases, however, as I say, must be familiar to most readers of these pages. The class of cases in which those afflicted are led to believe in the actual presence of a reptile, where the sane only see a bit of string, or a piece of rotan, belong to another—the fourth—division of my subject.

To this class seem to belong all those persons who, without encouragement, and involuntarily, imitate the words, sounds or gestures of those around them.

These latah subjects cannot, I think, be widely classed under the head of "village idiots."

Their disease is, I have gathered from experience, as a rule, spasmodic, by which I mean that it is marked by intervals of mental regularity, while all other phases of this complaint are, so far as I have observed, persistent.

This imitative propensity is often combined with the other characteristics of latah, but I have marked many cases in which it stands by itself.

I have tried, but tried in vain, to lay down any rule for the periodicity of these attacks. They appear to vary in the period of their recurrence, not only as regards one latah compared with another, but also in the case of any individual sufferer.

Here I may remark, that the Malays themselves draw a distinct line between latah and insanity proper.

Their definition of the narrow border line which separates madness and mental health, does not satisfy me, still less would it


text:
Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra11121883roya).pdf/163

 satisfy those kindly moralists who contend that all men are, to some degree, insanc. But I am dealing with a Malay subject as treated by Malays, and therefore draw attention to the fact that nothing can be more distinctly defined than their several attitudes towards an orang gila and an orang latah.

A strong case of this division of latah, which has come under my notice, was aa Kuâla Jumpol, when I was crossing the Malay Peninsula in 1875.

I there met a young Malay who was of material assistance to our party in pulling our boat across a narrow watershed into the Thi Sureting. His comrades told me the man was latah, but I could see nothing in his conduct or conversation which was not perfectly rational.

Some twenty-four hours after making his acquaintance, one night we let off a signalling rocket for the amusement of those who had given us assistance (none of those present had ever seen a rocket before). I was preparing to fire a second rocket myself, when the latah pushed me violently aside, snatched the torch from my hand, fired the rocket, and fell down on his face making an unintelligible noise, to all appearance the expression of fear.

I was somewhat startled, such rudeness and violence being quite foreign to the Malay character. When I sought an explanation from the by-standers, I was informed laconically "latah, tuan."

Next morning when I met this man, I found him perfectly rational and perfectly respectful.

I saw him standing alone on the bank as we put off down-stream, and I waved my hand to him. To my surprise he began waving his hand frantically in return, and continued to do so till I lost him at the first bend of the stream. I had began to whistlo an air. He also began whistling. His imitative faculty did not quite lead him to a reproduction of the tune, but the fact of an up-country Malay's whistling at all is sufficiently remarkable. As I rounded the bend, I saw him still waving and heard him still whistling. The steersman to whom I turned came out with the stereotyped formula "Dia buniak latah, tuan." I hope my poor friend's exertions ceased when their exciting cause passed out of sight.


text: Page:Karl Liebknecht - The Future Belongs to the People - tr. Savel Zimand (1918).djvu/149


text: Page:Karl Liebknecht - The Future Belongs to the People - tr. Savel Zimand (1918).djvu/150


text: Page:Karl Liebknecht - The Future Belongs to the People - tr. Savel Zimand (1918).djvu/155


text: Page:Karl Liebknecht - The Future Belongs to the People - tr. Savel Zimand (1918).djvu/156


text: Page:Karl Liebknecht - The Future Belongs to the People - tr. Savel Zimand (1918).djvu/157


text: Page:Karl Liebknecht - The Future Belongs to the People - tr. Savel Zimand (1918).djvu/158


text: Page:Karl Liebknecht - The Future Belongs to the People - tr. Savel Zimand (1918).djvu/159


text: Page:Karl Liebknecht - The Future Belongs to the People - tr. Savel Zimand (1918).djvu/160


text:
Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra11121883roya).pdf/164

 A Malay woman, of respectable position and exceedingly respectable age, was introduced to me some time ago as a strong latah subject.

I talked to her for at least ten minutes, without perceiving anything abnormal in her conduct or conversation. Suddenly her introducer threw off his coat. To my horror, my venerable guest sprang to her feet and tore off her kabayah. My entreaties came too late to prevent her continuing the same course with the rest of her garments, and in thirty seconds from her seizure the paroxysm seemed to be over.

What struck me most in this unsavoury performance was the woman's wild rage against the instigator of this outrage. She kept on calling him an abandonned [sic] pig, and imploring me to kill him, all the time that she was reducing herself to a state of nudity.

One more instance;

I have met a man several times lately who is a very strong latah subject. He is cook on board a local steamer, and is naturally (alas, for human nature!) the butt of all the crew, who daily and almost hourly exercise their clumsy wit—the wit of sailors plus orientals—at his expense.

All this skylarking, however, had a tragical ending the other day, which illustrates the point of which I am speaking.

This cook was dandling his child forward one day; one of the crew came and stood before him with a billet of wood in his arms, which he began nursing in the same way as the latah was nursing his baby. Presently he began tossing the billet up to the awning, and the cook tossed his child up also, time for time. At last, the sailor opened his hands wide apart and let the wood fall upon the deck, and the cook immediately spread out his hands away from the descending child, who never moved again after striking the boards.

A parallel case will at once suggest itself to all old residents in Singapore, where a Malay latah ayah, who saw her master tear up a letter and throw it out of the window, promptly threw a basket of clean clothes which she was carrying out of the opposite window, with the simple apology that she could not help doing so.


text:
Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra11121883roya).pdf/165

 These illustrations may be thought trivial and unworthy of a grave subject. I have not selected these four instances from a host of similar personal recollections without consideration.

Two exemplify the mental warp I have attempted to describe, as entirely upsetting all Malay ideas of decency and propriety.

The third seems to shew how this imitative impulse may, on occasions, override what is admittedly one of the strongest feelings in all matured minds.

And the fourth—well—the fourth is a true story, amusing, if embarrassing in its results, and illustrative of the same mental condition as that in the more tragical story which preceded.

The phenomena which belong to this division of my subject seem to call for the skill of a MESMER to elucidate.

I shall content myself, as before, with simply stating what I believe to be the facts of the case, and leave theory to those who come after me.

I have repeatedly been brought into contact with Malays afflicted with latah, who, without any effort on my part, have at once and completely abandoned themselves to my will and powers of direction.

I have, at different times, tested my power over many of these subjects, in every conceivable direction, and I have satisfied myself, in each case, that my influence over the diseased mind was practically without limit.

As I cannot claim for myself any special strength of will, I am consequently led to the conclusion that the abandonment of self-control depends upon the mental weakness of the patient and not upon the will-strength of the agent.

By this I mean to convey that every latah subject of this class is under influence of others, not so afflicted, to approximately the same extent, and that this influence is not proportional to the varying force of character of the different individuals who may choose to exert it.


text:
Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra11121883roya).pdf/166

 I am tempted to supply instances of this phase of latah, but I refrain from doing so advisedly. The proof of what I have stated is in every one's hands, but I much question the good taste of anything of the character of an experiment in this direction, unless for a purely scientific purpose.

I have not myself experimented upon a latah for some years, and I have never done so without subsequent regret.

For it must be remembered, that the patient who at one's bidding stands on his head, picks up a red-hot piece of iron, or strikes a bystander twice his own size in the face, is perfectly conscious of the mental abasement which he is exhibiting, and resents his degradation most intensely.

I have always felt, however, that such exhibitions degrade the European as much as they do the Malay.

The last division of the subject which I have to notice here, is the manifestation of the disease exclusively amongst women. The popular character of this Journal forbids my entering into details or illustrations under this heading.

Still I think I may, without seeming unduly realistic, so far touch upon sufferers of this class as to complete my review of the whole subject.

Latah, while happily rare amongst young women, is common amongst those of mature age, while of old women a largeish percentage is affected.

In the younger sufferers, as might be expected, there is found an entire absence of "virtue" and moral self-restraint (seldom a pro- minent characteristic of Malay belles).

But it is very startling to find that the disease, where present in females of advanced age, manifests itself, when set in action in the same direction, in a way which seems entirely to contradict the accepted laws of our bodily constitution.

That a word, a look, or a gesture can in a moment lead a woman of seventy-five to conduct herself like a hetaira of twenty, is a phe-


text:
Page:Hosseinzadeh v. Klein.pdf/8

 response, plaintiff amended his complaint to include a defamation claim. Following a period of discovery, both parties have now moved for summary judgment.

II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

 * a.

Summary judgment may be granted when a movant shows, based on admissible evidence in the record, “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and draws all inferences and resolves all ambiguities in its favor. , 604 F.3d 732, 740 (2d Cir. 2010). The Court’s role is to determine whether there are any triable issues of material fact, not to weight the evidence or resolve any factual disputes. , 477 U.S. 242, 248–49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

 * b.

Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. It “is a judicially created doctrine … first explicitly recognized in statute in the Copyright Act of 1976.”, 246 F.3d 152, 173 (2d Cir. 2001). In determining whether “the use of a work in any particular case” is fair use, courts must consider non-exhaustive factors: "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

17 U.S.C. § 107. No single factor is categorically determinative in this “open-ended and context-sensitive inquiry.”, 467 F.3d 244, 251 (2d Cir. 2006). The task of determining fair use “is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute … calls for case-by-case analysis.” (quoting, 510 U.S. 569, 577, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994)). The Second Circuit has held that when the material facts in the record are undisputed, the fair use factors are properly considered as a matter of law and therefore may be decided on motion for summary judgment. , 803 F.2d 1253, 1257–59 (2d Cir. 1986);, 467 F.3d at 250 (“Although fair use is a mixed question of law and fact, this court has on a number of occasions resolved fair use determinations at the summary judgment stage where … there are no genuine issues of material fact.”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); , 756 F.3d 73, 93 (2d Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s  grant of summary judgment for defendants on basis of fair use).

Although no factor is independently determinative, “[t]he heart of the fair use inquiry” is the first factor—whether the use is “transformative” by “add[ing] something new, with a further purpose or different character[.]”, 246 F.3d at 174 (quoting , 510 U.S. at 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164). “The central purpose of this investigation is to see … whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or instead adds

title: Page:Hosseinzadeh v. Klein.pdf/8


text:
Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra11121883roya).pdf/167

 nomenon so opposed to natural laws, that I seek in vain for its satisfactory explanation.

I have already remarked that the exclamation of a startled latah is always characterised by indecency, and connecting these two extremes of my subject, I cannot but think that the whole of this mental anomaly might possibly be traced to some structural peculiarity which has hitherto escaped the specialist's attention.

H. A. O'BRIEN.


text: Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra11121883roya).pdf/168


text: Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society/Volume 11/Latah


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/5

NECROMANCER.


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/7

NECROMANCER:

TALE

BLACK FOREST:

LAWRENCE FLAMMENBERG,

LONDON:

Minerva-Press


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/9

wonderful Incidents related in the following Sheets, not being made up of tiresome Love Intrigues, repeated again and again in almost every new Book of Amusement, will, as I flatter myself, not be quite displeasing to


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/10

 the reader, on account of the Novelty of the Subject. The strange mysterious Events which occur in this little Performance are founded on Facts, the authenticity of which can be warranted by the Translator, who has lived many Years not far from the principal Place of Action.

If the Subject of the following Tale should be thought interesting and amusing, the Public may expect a speedy Publication of a still more intricated and wonderful one, exhibiting a long Series of similar Frauds, perpetrated under the mysterious Veil of pretended supernatural Aid.


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/11

 The Publisher being sensible of the manifold Defects of his Translation, will acknowledge with Gratitude the gentle Corrections of the dread Arbiters of Literary Death and Life, and Promises carefully to avoid, in a future Publication, the repetition of any flips the Critick's Eagle Eye shall discover in the following Sheets.


text:
Page:CTRL0000034605 - Transcribed Interview of Angela McCallum, (December 8, 2021).pdf/121

121 And so this was the only type of project that you did?

Right. And then with this day Peter and Madison and myself would, you know, regroup and say, "Hey, you know, how much progress did you make?" things like that, during the day. But after that I never heard anything more about this project.

If you go to the second to last page, it's on Bates 1653. And if you look at Ms. Crawley's response towards the bottom of the chain, "Yeah, my volunteers just wrapped up 801 stuff, so I need to take care of that."

Do you know what "801 stuff" refers to?

That would refer—during this time period Madison was also a contractor with the National Republican Senatorial Committee. That would be related to work being done for the Georgia Senate runoff.

Okay. Great.

And to clarify, my message right before that was I said I have stuff to catch up on with Christina. Christina was also a contractor with the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Okay. So there was some overlap and you all were—

Correct, and I was working with Christina again on things solely related to the runoff at that point.

Understood.

Moving right along.

[Laughter.]

If you can turn to tab 21, and that's another text chain, just a couple of pages, Bates 1576,

Uh-huh.

Take some time to review it.


text:
Page:CTRL0000034605 - Transcribed Interview of Angela McCallum, (December 8, 2021).pdf/122

122 (Pause.)

Okay.

So my first question is, do you happen to—after reviewing this communication, da you have a sense of when this communication toak place? Because we don't have a date on this. We have—

I see that these messages on the second page, they have a time stamp of January 5th at 11 p.m. I believe that the messages sent before that were also from January 5th.

Okay. That's helpful.

But we can confirm that.

Mr. Yeah, that shouldn't be too hard to confirm.

Yeah, after if you want to just confirm the date, that'd be helpful.

Okay.

Thank you.

And in his first message, Mr. Brown says, "Mission accomplished. About to Uber home." Do you know what he was referring to when he said "Mission accomplished"?

I really don't.

Okay. And I see that—I believe it's—this communication is just between the two of you. Is that right?

Madison Crawley is also in this group message.

Okay. So it's three people.

Do you know, with—it looks like someone hearted that message.

Uh-huh.

Do you recall if that was you that hearted the message or Ms. Crawley?


text:
Page:CTRL0000034605 - Transcribed Interview of Angela McCallum, (December 8, 2021).pdf/123

123 If it's blue, that means that I put a heart on it; and if it's not, it means that someone else did, which would either be Madison or Michael.

So for maybe the, "This has got to be the cover a book"—I think he forgot "of"—"a book I write one day." You hearted that message.

I did.

Do you recall why you hearted the message?

I don't. And, you know, I responded after that and said, "Pretty freaking awesome. No joke." I was mostly referring to the photo. I thought the photo was cool, you know.

I'm a low-level campaign staffer. Anytime anyone goes to Capitol Hill I think it's cool, so—

So was it your understanding that when Mr. Brown took that photo he was in front of the Capitol in Washington, D.C.?

It looks like a selfie taken outside of the Capitol Building.

Did Mr. Brown ever tell you what he was doing in Washington, D.C., around January 5th?

Not specifically, no. I knew he was there. And part of my job with the NRSC is I helped Michael Brown with a lot of his expense reports. So I obviously knew he was there because he wasn't with me in Atlanta, and I was compiling expense reports for him. And did the same thing for James Fitzpatrick, basically just gathering up receipts and entering them into Concur, so—

So you don't know what mission he might have accomplished on January 5th?

I don't.

And you don't know what book he could potentially write and use that photo


text:
Page:CTRL0000034605 - Transcribed Interview of Angela McCallum, (December 8, 2021).pdf/124

124 of?

I do not, no.

Outside of this text communication with Mr. Brown and Ms. Crawley, do you recall having other conversations with Mr. Brown about what he did in Washington, D.C., on January 5th?

Really the only conversation I had with him is, you know, "Hey, while I'm gone, will you help with my expense report?" And somewhere in the document production I believe that there are messages related to that too, but I could be wrong.

So—

Yes, that would be the next tab, the message after the 22nd. Those, you know—when he gives me the date, January 2nd, I believe that this was referring to a missing date on a receipt, so—

Yeah, so we can turn to tab 22, which is Bates 1578, since you brought it up. And I wasn't sure if this related to the doc, the conversation in tab 21.

Yeah, I believe that these were going on around the same time as the group message with Madison.

Okay. In his—in that chain, if you look, he says, "Just landed. I've never flown clutching my bag before." And you write, "hahaha, that bad? Just finished it. Whenever you want to look over." And his response is, "Just didn't want to let the docs out of my sight. Thank you. I will look shortly." And you write, "Oh, duh. I assumed you were talking about turbulence."

Do you recall, did he ever—did Mr. Brown ever tell you why he was clutching his bag while he was flying to D.C.?

Well, he does say after that that he didn't want to let the docs out of his sight. I don't know what documents he's referring to, assuming he was flying with


text:
Page:CTRL0000034605 - Transcribed Interview of Angela McCallum, (December 8, 2021).pdf/125

125 whatever he was at the Capitol to do.

So he never—Mr. Brown never told you what documents he was bringing with him to Washington, D.C.?

No. I mean, the only context I have is the docs. I don't remember any conversations from that day or ever about, you know, what he's referring to.

So Mr. Brown never told you about any meetings that he had in Washington, D.C., around January 5th?

No.


text:
Page:CTRL0000034605 - Transcribed Interview of Angela McCallum, (December 8, 2021).pdf/126

126 :BY

Could we go back really quickly to the document behind tab 21, Ms. McCallum, on the second page—

Yes.

—that you produced?

So Michael Brown, after the exchange with the photo that was on the previous page, writes, "| should probably buy Roman a tie or something for sending me on this one."

Do you think that refers to his boss at the time on the Trump campaign, Mike Roman?

Yes.

Okay. And then he writes, "It hasn't been done since 1876, and it was only three States that did it."

What did you understand him to be referring to there?

I honestly have no idea.

I'll note, this is on—this exchange happened on January 5th, the day before the U.S. Congress was set to convene for a joint session to certify the outcome of the Presidential election on January 6th. That's right?

Yes.

Correct?

That's—yeah.

Yeah, okay. Does that help to jog your memory about what Mr. Brown was doing in D.C., what the documents were?

I mean, I think you'd have to talk to Michael Brown to ask him specifically


text:
Page:CTRL0000034605 - Transcribed Interview of Angela McCallum, (December 8, 2021).pdf/127

127 what he was doing there. You know, if these things are happen—if this conversation is happening on January 5th, I assume that it has something to do with what's happening the next day.

But like I said, I was working for the NRSC at that point in time. I had, you know, no job assignments related to the Trump campaign during the, you know—during January at all, so—

Okay. But you were still working with Michael Brown, right?

Yes, I was working with Michael Brown in the capacity of he was also a contractor with the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as was Mike Roman.

Did you understand Michael Brown to be focused exclusively on the Georgia NRSC work, or was he also—was he at that time still working for the Trump campaign?

I would assume, based on this message, he was still working on Trump campaign, you know, assignments, but I really can't confirm that.

Okay. I note in the context of January 6th that 1876 is the year of a contested Presidential election.

Okay.

Does that bring up any recollections for you about conversations that you had with Michael Brown about his trip to D.C. and the documents that he was bringing with him?

No. I mean, like I said, no one talked to me about anything related to that. And at that point I was working in Georgia, and at that point the only things that people talked to me about were volunteers coming in and out of the office and what we were having for lunch that day and, you know, if there was enough office supplies because the runoff was taking place on the 5th. So anything that I did on the 5th was related to the Georgia Senate runoff.


text:
Page:CTRL0000034605 - Transcribed Interview of Angela McCallum, (December 8, 2021).pdf/128

128 Okay.

 * BY

Do you know if Ms. Crawley traveled with Mr. Brown on—to D.C. on January 5th?

No. And to that, I'd paint you to—on it would be the second page on tab 21, where Michael says, "What's the mood in the room?" He's referring to the room that we were all in for—while we were working for the NRSC, so basically the headquarters office of the runoff. So, you know, Madi responds and says, "still pretty high." So Madison and myself were both in that room in Atlanta, Georgia.

Okay. And so did you have to expense this report—expense or help process Mr. Brown's expenses related to this January 5th trip to D.C.?

I wouldn't know that. I would assume, you know, that's obviously not something the NRSC would pay for.

Okay.

If you look at it, you know, on tab 22, he's talking about a receipt on January 2nd.

Yep.

I don't know if there are any receipts after that.

Okay.

 * BY

Do you know where Michael Brown works now?

I don't, no.

Okay. Are you still in touch with him?

Occasionally. I don't know if he's currently employed.

Okay. And now what about Mike Roman? Do you know where he works


text:
Author talk:Cutcha Risling Baldy

Name
Her website refers to her as Dr. Risling Baldy - http://www.cutcharislingbaldy.com/bio.html - so should her surname be treated as Risling Baldy ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Author talk:Cutcha Risling Baldy


text:
From the Ground Up: A Group Editorial on the Most Pressing Issues in Scholarly Communication

One of the joys of working with JLSC is the amazing community of intelligent, talented, and passionate people who make up its readers, authors, and reviewers. Nowhere is this more apparent than in its Editorial Board, which is currently made up of twenty-one professionals from across the scholarly communication landscape. Because their work usually happens behind the scenes, readers might not realize how influential they are in the life of the journal. They come from a wide range of organizations and backgrounds (not to mention three continents), but they all deal with scholarly communication issues on the ground, every day. There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about the future of scholarly communication in libraries (for an example, see Clifford Lynch’s guest editorial in the February issue of C&RL ), and we wanted to give our board a chance to weigh in. They were asked to share their take on the most pressing issues in scholarly communication today, in their capacity as Editorial Board members (rather than as representatives of their respective institutions), and the following six short pieces are the result. We hope their answers will help inspire the readers, authors, and editors of JLSC to think big, act strategically, and strengthen our growing network of peers.

Melanie Schlosser and Mark Newton

Editors-in-Chief

The authors were given the following questions for inspiration:
 * What do you see as the most pressing issue(s) in scholarly communication today?
 * What are we doing that’s important?
 * What aren’t we doing that we should be?
 * Who should we be working with?
 * What mountains should we try to move?
 * Where do you see challenges to be met and opportunities to be addressed?

Jen Waller, University of Oklahoma
The most pressing scholarly communication issue today is, unfortunately, the same issue that has been present for years: the inherent conflict between the goals of open access and the goals of commercial academic publishers. Scholars’ ideals include the advancement of knowledge through the open sharing of information, yet this is in direct conflict with the imperative for all businesses (especially publicly-held businesses beholden to their share-holders) to make money. Making money isn’t the problem here, but making money often depends on owning or controlling that which is sold. This, in turn, creates a multitude of other pressing issues for the scholarly community that ultimately harm the spread of ideas that are valuable, important, and perhaps even life-saving.

Sam Searle, Griffith University
Librarians involved in scholarly communication must move quickly beyond a limited set of formal publication types towards a wider range of more complex and arguably more at-risk research outputs. Repositories are still populated mostly by journal articles (whether pre- or post-print) and books. Open access university presses stick to publishing journals and monographs. Even where technology facilitates less traditional modes of publishing, conservative choices are still the norm: two-thirds of journal editors in a study published in JLSC (Cirasella and Bowdoin, 2013) agreed that discrete issues rather than rolling publi-cation make open access journals seem more ‘traditional’ and ‘respectable’ (p.5). Research data continues to ride the hype-cycle upwards—in attention, if not in demonstrable action —while grey literature struggles to find a place in library strategies despite the evidence of its high value to communities outside academia.

As librarians, we must also critically interrogate our own approaches and build more robust multilateral relationships with other types of information professionals. At the turn of the millennium, a Council on Library and Information Resources report (Gilliland-Swetland, 2000) argued that “The paradigms of any of the information professions come up short when compared with the scope of the issues emerging in the digital environment”; librarians, along with other constituent communities, must adopt, adapt, and discard principles and practices as required, to deal with issues of the heterogeneity, scale and accessibility of digital resources (p.v). To what extent has the ‘meta-community’ envisaged in the CLIR report materialised? Seventeen years later, productive cross-pollination across information specialisations is still a challenge. Scholarly communications librarians who have previously worked in cultural institutions, corporate information management, or government archives may be perplexed and concerned by the duplication of effort and lost opportunities to improve tools, services, and work practices that can result from too narrow an approach.

Other perspectives are invaluable. From archives and recordkeeping: understanding evi-dentiary requirements in corporate contexts might help us achieve better scientific repro-ducibility; adopting lifecycle models from recordkeeping encourages earlier intervention and engagement with content creators; reviewing the mature models for appraisal, description, and disposal at the level of the series or collection might spark ideas for more sustainable ways to deal with large volumes of content; and the concepts of distributed archival custodianship and in-place records management stand in stark counterpoint to library approaches that see researcher-controlled caches of content outside of library collections as a problem needing to be fixed. From information management / knowledge management come insights about the importance of tacit knowledge and the requirement to engage deeply with the social context in which information is created and consumed. The more we can work across boundaries between the different information professions and learn from each other, the better our methods, technologies, and services will be in support of scholarly communication.

Cirasella, J., & Bowdoin, S. (2013). Just Roll with It? Rolling Volumes vs. Discrete Issues in Open Access Library and Information Science Journals. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1086

Gilliland-Swetland, A. J. (2000). Enduring paradigm, new opportunities: the value of the archival perspective in the digital environment. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved from https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub89/pub89.pdf

Leah Vanderjagt, University of Alberta
The operational positions of scholarly communications librarians require them to think deeply about questions of success, resourcing, requirements, and gaps. They also are able to identify where their influence ends and where more senior and influential members of their organizations need to help build bridges between communities, both inside their institution and with other external organizations. Scholarly communications librarians have strong awareness of the opportunities and obstacles that are our collective work in this movement. Yet 15 years since the Budapest Open Access Initiative, it is still very common to meet scholarly communications librarians who are attempting to carry out this change individually as a “team” of one - even at large universities. Many of these librarians are carrying out multiple position roles relating to scholarly communications reform: running an institutional repository program as well as journal hosting and OA fund administration, advancing research data management and developing frameworks for research metrics services. It is not a reasonable organizational or broad expectation of our profession that one person can change the minds and sharing practices of faculty, fill the repository, lead systems conversations (whether with open source communities or with vendors), negotiate for borrowed staff time from other units, and in doing all this fundamentally change the landscape for scholarly communication and achieve meaningful and lasting change. Inherent to this situation are two fairly common business operations problems: 1) large goals with undefined objectives; and 2) responsibility without authority. Library organizations are responsible for resolving these business problems before scholarly communications initiatives are written off as unsuccessful.

Working in isolation with huge and vague expectations results - unsurprisingly - in burnout, position turnover, and lateral moves to unrelated positions. Since scholarly communications positions are new, problems integrating with other units within their libraries with no clear path to greater influence in the organization leaves these librarians with career advancement challenges. Career advancement blockers are a sustainability problem for OA - if those with most expertise in scholarly communications work are not moving to higher levels providing well-earned expert advice and building connections that will promote the success of initiatives, collaborative implementation strategies will remain mysterious, and the movement will not advance as quickly and effectively as it could. Worse, if talented people don’t stay in this work, local movements for change lose momentum and expertise as well as the ability to collaboratively advance solutions built from working relationships. Constant re-learning and re-training from the bottom up in this domain of practice will be the norm.

So it is very important to think about whether the change scholarly communications workers are being asked to enact is, in their opinion, adequately resourced. It is also very important to regularly revisit the goals of our scholarly communications initiatives. As those closest to the work, the voices of the scholarly communications librarians should be prominent, not peripheral.

One way that groups of scholarly communications librarians can combat isolation is to put active work into fostering and nurturing a community of practice. A community of practice is more than a listserv or a conference. It is a group of people actively engaged with one another who can safely rely on one another for support when trying to solve problems both large and small and who share a common agenda. Communities of practice can foster realistic goal setting; the formation of fast-acting, ad-hoc short-term working groups; identification of solvable problems that just need more hands; peer training; and the sharing of successful strategies for work. Scholarly communications librarians must carve out space for safe operational problem solving discussion which, while informed by important and influential ideas, is really focused on making incremental, meaningful changes on a daily basis and in the most practical of ways. Library administrators can help by funding travel for community-building work, or even offering to host regional or national meetings for operational meetings of scholarly communications workers.

In Canada in November of 2016, partly in response to Cliff Lynch’s post on IRs and their future, Canadian IR managers arranged for the first pan-Canadian meeting of all IR managers. Attendees discussed four topics: outreach, interoperability/discoverability of content, efficient workflows for populating the repository, and staffing the repository. A summary of the meeting and its conclusions has been released. Most notably though, attendees of the event reported great relief at having met together in person, noting how much the community of practice meant to them. Communities of practice should be important to the open access movement and all its leaders as well. If there is anything the movement has learned over the last 15 years, it’s that no one can make change in isolation.

Nicky Agate, Modern Language Association
One of the greatest challenges we face is the encroachment of capital and profit on all of our labor, whether we’re writing, peer reviewing, reviewing, authoring, editing, or teaching. It is increasingly ‘normal’ to give away one’s personal information, browsing habits, and even the content of one’s scholarly labor in exchange for black-box vanity metrics about who has viewed, downloaded, cited, and shared our work.

I’d like to see the community question what these metrics—and the ethics we’re promoting by accepting them—actually are, and why we are allowing the technologically feasible determine the academically desirable. What would it look like if we asked which behaviours and processes would be valuable to us as a community, would truly have a (positive) impact, and investigated how we might encourage people to inhabit and perform those?

As a community, we need to fight back against the co-option of truly open and accessible scholarship by major commercial publishers? There is no world in which global corporations making money off the backs of our labor should be acceptable, normalized, unquestioned. Where online privacy and security cease to exist. Where people are required to give away personal data in order to access scholarship. Not-for-profit alternatives exist, but in order for them to succeed we need, as a community, to vote with our feet and use them. Only when we share and download our materials via institutional and disciplinary repositories, build our software on open-source platforms, and use our collective voice to amplify the signal that alternatives are available will we be able to assert true, grassroots support of an open scholarly ecosystem.

Danny Kingsley, Cambridge University
It has become increasingly clear that academia is facing serious challenges, particularly in relation to the reproducibility of research. The single most important factor in improving the transparency and veracity of the academic record is the academic reward structure. Academia relies on the publication of novel results in high impact journals as the only means to measure researchers. While this remains the case we will continue to experience issues with reproducibility, hyperauthorship, retractions, hypothesizing after the results are known, and generally the publication of bad science.

The solution is to open up the scientific endeavour and to create the means and systems to allow researchers to ‘publish’ aspects of the research process as it occurs. Open lab books, publishing protocols and methods before the experiments are undertaken, publishing soft-ware, sharing underlying data and publishing null results will increase the transparency of the research process and reduce unnecessary duplication. But these are not activities that researchers will undertake without reward. Indeed under the current system, these activities can actively disadvantage individual researchers.

In addition, the current reward structure ties academia into a Faustian bargain with the established publishing industry. There will be no real traction in the area of open access and open science while we limit reward to a small proportion of the research output. So we need to change the way we reward research. And that’s where things get very difficult.

Scholarly communication by its nature takes a ‘meta’ view of the research ecosystem. The research community on the other hand, see the world from within their own discipline. They also think they understand scholarly communication because they are practitioners within it. This is the ‘I know teaching, I went to school’ position. Of course, some researchers do have a very good understanding of the big picture, but most don’t.

This is where it gets very challenging for people who work in scholarly communication. While generally working within administrative areas of research institutions, they often do very ‘academic’ activities—researching, experimenting, writing papers that are published, peer review, sitting on editorial boards, presenting at conferences and so on. Yet the area is not seen as an academic discipline and is certainly not afforded that type of respect from academic colleagues.

Things have to change. We need to address the reward system in academia, and for that to happen the academic community needs to recognise that work being done in scholarly communication is robust and valid. Credit where credit is due.

Gail Clement, Caltech
"“Stay faithful in things large and taking on the world, but stay faithful in those things small — because remember it’s the small things, the size of a mustard seed, that ultimately moves mountains.” –Cory Booker"

What do you see as the most pressing issue(s) in scholarly communication today?
In today’s vast, complex, and ethically ambiguous scholarly communication landscape, knowledge creators (i.e., authors) face a confounding array of considerations in making in-formed and effective authoring and publishing choices. To address the growing need for author support and services, a new industry has emerged that markets fee-based and free-to-customers guidance, support, and interventions directed at authors. Some illustrative (but by no means solitary) examples include Wiley Author Services offering “Everything you need to know to prepare, submit, publish and promote your next article”. Springer has paired up with Edanz, a commercial editorial services company, on an Author Academy with modules on choosing the right journal, understanding open access, overviews of submission procedures, and publication ethics. Competitors Wolters Kluwer and Editage advise authors on the best journal for their work (albeit, with a highly select set of titles highlighted!). At the same time, they offer free tips on avoiding rejection, advising prospective authors that only novel papers get published (adios, replication studies or published results from local field work!). No doubt these services find an appreciative paying audience, offering effective solutions for authors in some circumstances. Yet their limited scope and potentially-biased advice cannot alone address the concerns of knowledge creators. We need a bigger posse. To achieve a trusted, inclusive, findable, accessible, reuseable, and interoperable (FAIR) scholarly record on which science and scholarship advances, we need engagement and involvement of all stakeholders in the scholarly communication landscape. Research insti-tutions and their libraries; infrastructure providers such as the identifier agencies ORCiD, CrossRef, DataCite; research funders; government agencies; knowledge creator organizations (e.g., scholarly societies)—these are critical stakeholders with key roles in supporting and guiding authors. By working together in the scholarly commons—in collaborative fashion that demands openness, transparency, inclusivity, and, yes, benevolence—we sup¬port knowledge creators and bolster the strength and sustainability of their scholarship.

What are we doing that's important?
1. Maintaining a mindful point of view:

Librarians working in the commons bring a long-proven record of sustainable stewardship and a Code of Ethics that “embodies the ethical responsibilities of the profession in this changing information environment.” Particularly germane to the matter of supporting and guiding authorship and publishing choices, librarians: This robust community code of practice connects and undergirds our collaborative work on behalf of the authors we serve.
 * provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.
 * respect intellectual property rights and advocate balance between the interests of information users and rights holders.
 * do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions. (ibid)

2. Engagement with other commons communities Librarians work through myriad commons membership organizations to advance common goals and collaboratively develop best practices, standards, in research communication and knowledge management: the Committee on Publication Ethics; the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association; the Research Data Alliance; ICSTI, the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information; CASRAI, the Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration; NISO, the National Information Standards Organization; Force11, The future of research communications and e-scholarship; INASP, the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications, just to name a few. The rich array of mission-driven research communities dedicated to improving knowledge management and access for global users worldwide is a powerful force for librarians to join.

3. Reconstructed Library Instruction

The shift in library instruction focusing on “users as knowledge creators” positions librarians to reach and teach content that authors need: from legal issues in sharing and reusing others’ works; to using CrossRef APIs to harvest open citation data; to writing collaboratively in semantically rich formats such as LaTeX or XML. Uptake of researcher-initiated curricula beyond the library domain, such as Data-, Software-, and Author Carpentry, offers an additional instructional framework to support effective knowledge management while reducing cognitive load for overstretched, time-pressured professional learners.

4. Modelling effective and ethical authorship and publishing practices in our own work

Do we write substantive peer reviews we’d be comfortable posting publicly (perhaps if anonymized)? Are we publishing our papers and data sets in open, reuseable ways to invite further interrogation and reuse? Do we comply with time reporting requirements, follow IRB protocols, and adhere to other standards of responsible conduct of research?

Are we complicit in upholding unfair open access policies that expect free distribution for some authors (e.g., faculty) while remaining complicit in demanding paywalled access for others (graduate theses and dissertations)?

Mindfulness is “the basic human ability to be fully present, aware of where we are and what we’re doing, and not overly reactive or overwhelmed by what’s going on around us.” A mindful approach to the complex issues, conflicts, and conundrums facing knowledge creators can, over the wash of time, move mountains.”


text:
Page:CTRL0000034605 - Transcribed Interview of Angela McCallum, (December 8, 2021).pdf/129

129 now?

No clue.

Okay. Are you still in touch with him?

No.

Okay.

Not regularly at all.

Okay.

Maybe we can just ask, Ms. Lofgren, before we conclude, any questions from you?

Ms. No. Thank you very much for asking.

 * BY

So we just wanted to just turn to January 6th.

Where were you on January 6th, 2021?

In Atlanta, Georgia, at the Georgia Republican Party headquarters office.

Did you get a chance to watch the rally that took place or the event that took place on the Ellipse on January 6th in Washington, D.C.?

There was—in the room that we were working out of there was a projector that had some media station on, FOX News, C-SPAN, something of that nature. So I would've watched is whatever was being broadcasted on the news.

I don't remember watching any part of the rally specifically. I obviously remember looking at the TV and seeing, you know, what was going on on January 6th.

And when you say what was going on on January 6th, are you referring to the attack on the Capitol Building? Is that what you're referring to, or you're referring—

Yeah, I remember seeing that on TV, you know, media reporting on that, and obviously the building was shut down, things like that, updates that were media


text: Talk:From the Ground Up: A Group Editorial on the Most Pressing Issues in Scholarly Communication


text:
Author:Nicky Agate

Works

 * From the Ground Up: A Group Editorial on the Most Pressing Issues in Scholarly Communication, with Gail Clement, Danny Kingsley, Sam Searle, Leah Vanderjagt, and Jen Waller (2017)

title: Author:Nicky Agate


text:
Author:George Morley

Works

 * The Bishop of Worcester's Letter to a friend for Vindication of himself from the Calumnies of Mr Richard Baxter (London, 1662)

title: Author:George Morley


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/11

Hayne J

successful candidates for the fifth and sixth Senate places. That margin was assessed on the fresh scrutiny to be 14 votes in favour of one candidate and, on the re-count of available ballot papers, 12 votes in favour of the other. Without evidence of the voting intentions recorded in the lost ballot papers, the conclusion that the result which was declared was likely affected by the loss of the ballot papers is inevitable.

It may be noted, however, that, if the Court could admit such records, three of the respondents to the petitions assert (and no other party denies) that the records would demonstrate that the result of the election was likely affected. Combining what was recorded about the lost ballot papers with what was ascertained in the re-count would have led to a different result.

The result of the election being likely affected by the loss of ballot papers, what orders should the Court make?

Mr Wang and Mr Mead (with the support of several other parties) submitted that the Court should use the records which were made about the lost ballot papers in the original and fresh scrutinies to decide that Mr Wang and Senator Pratt should now be declared to have been duly elected. These claims depend upon the petitioners demonstrating not only that Mr Dropulich and Senator Ludlam were not duly elected but also that the Court can and should decide who would have been elected if the re-count had been conducted in accordance with the Act.

The choice of senators must be made and ascertained in accordance with law. For present purposes, that means in accordance with the Act. The Act requires that the result of the election be ascertained by scrutiny of the ballot papers. Once a re-count was directed, the process of scrutinising the ballot papers which were to be re-counted had to begin afresh. There was not in the re-count, and there cannot now be, scrutiny of all of the relevant ballot papers to ascertain the result of the election. There was not then, and cannot now be, any opportunity for any of the lost ballot papers to be reserved for decision (in accordance with s 281) or for this Court to consider (in accordance with s 281(3)) any of the ballot papers which were reserved.


text:
Author:Gail Clement

Works

 * From the Ground Up: A Group Editorial on the Most Pressing Issues in Scholarly Communication, with Nicky Agate, Danny Kingsley, Sam Searle, Leah Vanderjagt, and Jen Waller (2017)

title: Author:Gail Clement


text:
Author:Danny Kingsley

Works

 * From the Ground Up: A Group Editorial on the Most Pressing Issues in Scholarly Communication, with Nicky Agate, Gail Clement, Sam Searle, Leah Vanderjagt, and Jen Waller (2017)

title: Author:Danny Kingsley


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/12

Hayne J

Mr Wang and Mr Mead (and those who supported this aspect of their arguments) ask the Court to construct a result of the polling from a combination of scrutiny of votes on the re-count, consideration of some of the votes reserved in the course of that re-count and consideration of records made in the course of the original and fresh scrutinies about the lost ballot papers which should have been, but were not, included in the re-count.

The Act does not permit the construction of a result in that way. It is not now possible for the Court to combine the result of so much of the re-count as was undertaken (whether revised to correct what are said to be errors made with respect to some ballot papers, or not) with records made in the original and fresh scrutinies about the lost ballot papers. The results of the original and fresh scrutinies must be disregarded and the result of the election ascertained in accordance with a re-count conducted according to law. Ballot papers having been lost through official error, it is not possible to ascertain "the valid choice of the electors" by a re-count. The loss of the ballot papers (which constituted and occasioned contraventions of the Act) cannot be dismissed as immaterial.

The fifth and sixth candidates returned as elected (Mr Dropulich and Senator Ludlam) were not duly elected. It is not possible to determine who was duly elected because ballot papers have been lost. All parties rightly accepted that, if the Court declares that Mr Dropulich and Senator Ludlam were not duly elected, and cannot declare who was duly elected, the only relief appropriate is for the election to be declared void.

On 13 December 2013, I ordered that the three petitions were to be heard and determined together, with the evidence, findings of fact and decisions in one petition also being evidence, findings of fact and decisions in the others.

On the same day, I ordered that three questions of law be set down for trial separately from other issues raised by the petitions. Those questions are:

1. Did the loss of the 1,370 ballot papers between the fresh scrutiny and the re-count mean that the 1,370 electors who submitted those ballot papers in the poll were 'prevented from voting' in the


text:
Author:Sam Searle

Works

 * From the Ground Up: A Group Editorial on the Most Pressing Issues in Scholarly Communication, with Nicky Agate, Gail Clement, Danny Kingsley, Leah Vanderjagt, and Jen Waller (2017)

title: Author:Sam Searle


text:
Author:Leah Vanderjagt

Works

 * From the Ground Up: A Group Editorial on the Most Pressing Issues in Scholarly Communication, with Nicky Agate, Gail Clement, Danny Kingsley, Sam Searle, and Jen Waller (2017)
 * Advancing Open: Views from Scholarly Communications Practitioners, with Lindsey MacCallum, Ann Barrett, and Amy Buckland (2020)

title: Author:Leah Vanderjagt


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/13

Hayne J

1. Is the Court of Disputed Returns precluded by s 365 or otherwise from admitting the records of the fresh scrutiny, or original scrutiny, that bear on the 1,370 missing ballot papers as evidence of the way in which each of those voters intended to vote, or voted, in the Election for the purposes of each of the petitions filed in the matter, including in so far as those petitions seek relief under ss 360 and 362?

2. On a proper construction of the Act, including the re-count provisions, is any further inquiry regarding the manner in which the [Australian Electoral Officer for Western Australia] dealt with the ballot papers reserved for decision pursuant to s 281: 1. permitted under any, and if so which, provision of the Act;

2. relevant to the disposition of any, and if so which, petitions before the Court of Disputed Returns;

3. necessary to the disposition of any, and if so which, petitions before the Court of Disputed Returns?"

Those questions should be answered as follows:

1. Yes.

2. The Court of Disputed Returns is precluded by s 365 from admitting the records of the fresh scrutiny and the original scrutiny that bear on the 1,370 missing ballot papers for the purpose identified in the proviso to s 365, namely, determining whether the loss of the ballot papers did or did not affect the result of the election. Further, the records of the original scrutiny and the fresh scrutiny that bear on those missing ballot papers are not admissible for the purpose of the Court determining that it should declare any candidate duly elected who was not returned as elected.

3. 1. Yes, s 281(3).

2. No.

3. No.

In order to understand the questions and the answers which are given, it is necessary to say something further about the relevant provisions of the Act and


text:
Author:Jen Waller

Works

 * From the Ground Up: A Group Editorial on the Most Pressing Issues in Scholarly Communication, with Nicky Agate, Gail Clement, Danny Kingsley, Sam Searle, and Leah Vanderjagt (2017)

title: Author:Jen Waller


text: Author:Le Roy Phillips

title: Author:Le Roy Phillips


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/14

Hayne J

about the facts and circumstances which have been agreed or assumed for the purposes of the determination of the questions.

Part XIII of the Act (ss 151–161) provides for the issue of writs for the election of senators and members of the House of Representatives. The writ fixes the dates for the close of the rolls, the nomination of candidates, the polling and the return of the writ. The dates which may be fixed for those steps are prescribed by ss 155–159.

Part XVI of the Act (ss 202A–245) provides for the conduct of the polling. Provision is made for the form and printing of Senate ballot papers and for group voting tickets and individual voting tickets, which are steps necessary to permit electors to vote "above the line" in a Senate election.

An elector claiming to vote in an election (and who does not take advantage of the provisions for postal or pre-poll voting) must attend a polling place and, upon answering certain questions, has the right to receive a ballot paper. Subject to some exceptions which are not material, the voter, upon receipt of the ballot paper, marks "his or her vote on the ballot paper", folds the


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/13

HE hurricane was howling, the hailstones beating against the windows, the hoarse croaking of the raven bidding adieu to autumn, and the weather-cock's dismal creaking joined with the mournful dirge of the solitary owl, when Herrman and Hellfried, who had been united by the strongest bonds of friendship from their youthful days, were seated by the chearing fire side, hailing the approach of winter. Thirty long years were elapsed since they had been separated by different


text: Page:The Cumulative Book Review Digest, Volume 1, 1905.djvu/1


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/240

Just published, Price 17s. 6d.

A NOVEL,

IN FIVE VOLUMES.

DELIA.

A GERMAN STORY:

IN TWO VOLUMES.

AND

A NOVEL

IN TWO VOLUMES.

BY MRS. PARSONS.


text: Page:The Cumulative Book Review Digest, Volume 1, 1905.djvu/2


text: Page:The Cumulative Book Review Digest, Volume 1, 1905.djvu/3


text:
Page:Education Ordinance 1971 (Cap. 279).pdf/23

A278

37. The Director may withdraw his approval of the supervisor of a school if it appears to the Director that the supervisor—
 * (a) is no longer a fit and proper person to be the supervisor;
 * (b) is not performing the duties of the supervisor satisfactorily;
 * (c) has ceased to perform the duties of the supervisor, or
 * (d) is no longer acceptable as such to the majority of the management committee.

38. (1) If in the case of any school which is registered or provisionally registered—
 * (a) the Director refuses under section 35 to approve a person who has been recommended to be the supervisor;
 * (b) the supervisor ceases under section 36 to hold office;
 * (c) there is for any other reason no supervisor;
 * (d) the supervisor ceases to perform the duties of the supervisor; or
 * (e) the supervisor is no longer acceptable as such to the majority of the management committee,

the management committee shall within one month recommended for the approval of the Director another registered manager of the school to be the supervisor.

(2) Subject to section 35, the Director shall approve as the supervisor of the school the registered manager who is recommended under subsection (1).

39. (1) Subject to any other provision in this Ordinance, all correspondence between a school and the Director or any public officer concerning the management of the school shall be conducted on behalf of the school by the supervisor.

(2) The supervisor of a school shall within one month after the happening of such event give notice in writing to the Director if—
 * (a) any person ceases to be a manager of the school;
 * (b) the supervisor ceases to perform the duties of the supervisor;
 * (c) the principal ceases to perform the duties of the principal;
 * (d) any teacher commences to teach or is employed to teach at the school;
 * (e) any teacher ceases to teach or ceases to be employed to teach at the school;


text: Page:The Cumulative Book Review Digest, Volume 1, 1905.djvu/4


text:
Page:Education Ordinance 1971 (Cap. 279).pdf/24

Rh

(3) A notice under subsection (2) shall specify—
 * (a) the full name and address of the person to whom the notice relates and, if he is a registered or permitted teacher, his registration number of permitted teacher reference number; and
 * (b) the date of the event referred to in the notice.

40. Without prejudice to subsection (1) of section 38, if at any time there is no supervisor of a school, the duties of the supervisor under this Ordinance shall be performed by the management committee until a supervisor is approved by the Director, and in such case any notice which is to be served or which may be served under this Ordinance on the supervisor may be served on any registered manager of the school. Additional managers.

41. (1) If it appears to the Director—
 * (a) that a school is not being managed satisfactorily or that the education of the pupils is not being promoted in a proper manner; or
 * (b) that the composition of the management committee of a school is such that the school is not likely to be managed satisfactorily, or is such that the education of the pupils is not likely to be promoted in a proper manner,

he may appoint one or more persons to be additional managers of the school for such period as he thinks fit.

(2) A person who is appointed by the Director under subsection (1) to be a manager of a school—
 * (a) shall be deemed to be approved to be a manager under subsection (1) of section 24 and to be registered as a manager of the school under subsection (1) of section 29;
 * (b) shall perform his functions in accordance with any directions given to him by the Director; and
 * (c) may enter the school premises at all reasonable times.

(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), no person who is appointed by the Director under subsection (1) to be a manager of a school shall participate in any of the profits of the school or shall be liable for any financial obligations incurred by the management committee in respect of the operation of the school.


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/239

 tell where he came from, or whither he was travelling so often, but that it was universally known that he possessed houses in most of the adjacent towns, where he was living in the same retired and harmless manner as here."

The Lieutenant, highly pleased when I told him, that the Austrian had consented to be present at our nocturnal meeting, went now to the other associates, in order to settle every thing, and invited myself and my friend to supper, which I readily consented to.


text: Report of The Inter-Governmental Committee, Malaysia/Introduction


text:
Page:Hamlet (1917) Yale.djvu/20

8

Do you consent we shall acquaint him with it,

As needful in our loves, fitting our duty?

Mar. Let's do 't, I pray; and I this morning know

Where we shall find him most conveniently.

King. Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother's death

The memory be green, and that it us befitted

To bear our hearts in grief and our whole kingdom

To be contracted in one brow of woe,

Yet so far hath discretion fought with nature

That we with wisest sorrow think on him,

Together with remembrance of ourselves.

Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,

The imperial jointress of this war-like state,

Have we, as 'twere with a defeated joy,

With one auspicious and one dropping eye,

With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,

In equal scale weighing delight and dole,

Taken to wife: nor have we herein barr'd

Your better wisdoms, which have freely gone

With this affair along: for all, our thanks.

Now follows, that you know, young Fortinbras,

Holding a weak supposal of our worth,

Or thinking by our late dear brother's death

 4 brow of woe: aspect of woe

9 jointress: joint possessor, or, dowager

10 defeated: disfigured

11 auspicious: happy

dropping: tearful

13 dole: grief

18 weak supposal: low opinion

title: Page:Hamlet (1917) Yale.djvu/20


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/37

Hayne J

regarding the manner in which the AEO dealt with reserved ballot papers is permitted, relevant or necessary.

No party submitted that inquiry regarding the manner of dealing with reserved ballot papers was not permitted and, in terms, s 281(3) provides that if the validity of an election is disputed the Court may consider any ballot papers which were reserved for the decision of the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory. Whether ss 353(1) and 360(1) are additional sources of power need not be decided.

Question 3(a) should be answered "Yes, s 281(3)".

Having regard, however, to the rejection of the submissions made by Mr Wang, Mr Mead and others that the Court can determine who should have been elected by constructing a result from a combination of the records made at the original and fresh scrutinies about the lost ballot papers with the results of the re-count of available ballot papers and the results of the scrutiny of those ballot papers which were not within the re-count, it is neither relevant nor necessary to the disposition of any of the three petitions to consider the reserved ballot papers. It is neither relevant nor necessary to undertake that consideration because the Court must find that Mr Dropulich and Senator Ludlam were not duly elected, but cannot declare who was duly elected. The only relief appropriate is for the election to be declared void.

For these reasons, the separate questions should be answered in the manner set out earlier in these reasons.

The costs of the trial of separate questions should be reserved. The petitions should be stood over for argument about any remaining issue (including what order, if any, should be made for the costs of the trial of separate questions) on Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 12 noon in Melbourne.


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/15

 tentment, and filled his soul with inward bliss. Ten years of congenial happiness were now sunk down into the endless gulph of time, when his aged father died, closing a well-spent life in his seventy-second year: The guardian angel of virtue carried his unspotted soul to the cheerful mansion of everlasting peace; the gentle simile of a good conscience sat still on his wan lips, when his sainted spirit arrived in heaven, hailed by millions of holy angels.

Hellfried now enjoyed twelve years longer the bliss of soothing the sorrows of his mother, and of supporting her under the heavy load of ever increasing infirmities, before she went over to the sacred abode of peace, to be re-united to the dear companion of all her earthly joys and cares. He dropped a tear of filial affection on her tomb, where he rested by her departed husband's side, and directed now all his care and tenderness towards the promoting of his only sister's happiness. The apprehension of draw-


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/15

Hayne J

ballot paper and either deposits the paper in the ballot-box or, if voting as an absent voter, returns it to the presiding officer.

The effect of the detailed provisions made by s 273 is to provide for a single transferable vote system of proportional representation by which a candidate, at a half-Senate election, must obtain a quota of one-seventh of the available formal votes cast in the State, plus one, in order to be elected. If all available vacancies are not filled on a count of the first preferences, or on the transfer of the surplus votes of elected candidates beyond their quotas to the candidates next in the preferences indicated by the ballot paper, there is progressive exclusion of candidates with the fewest votes and the distribution of those candidates' preferences until six candidates have the required quota of votes.

Electors may express their preferences, "below the line", by writing the number "1" in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom the person votes as his or her first preference and successive numbers in the squares opposite the names of all remaining candidates so as to indicate the order of the person's preferences.

Electors may express their preferences by voting "above the line", thus adopting a group or individual voting ticket lodged with the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory in accordance with s 211 or s 211A. The order of the electors' preferences is then determined in accordance with the relevant ticket.

Section 263 of the Act provides that "[t]he result of the polling shall be ascertained by scrutiny".

Section 273 provides for the manual scrutiny of votes in Senate elections and s 273A provides for the computerised scrutiny of votes in Senate elections.


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/16

 ing a blank in the great lottery of matrimony, strengthened by some terrifying examples within the circle of his friends, made him hesitate so long to choose a partner in his joys and cares, 'till he felt himself too infirm for the toils inflicted on the beasts of burthen, yoked to the cart of matrimony.—But he became, alas! too late, sensible of the bad consequences of his cowardice, when he began to want a tender nurse, a soother in his gloomy hours, and a sweet comforter amidst the self-created cares of hoary age. In order to disperse the clouds of gloomy dismal fancies, the usual companions of solitary bachelors, he took the resolution of undertaking a journey as far as the duty incumbent on his office would allow him, and left the care of his house to his maiden sister.

He was so fortunate as to meet, on his journey, with many friends of his earlier days, the companions in his former studies, and the partners of his academical life: At


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/16

Hayne J

Section 273B permits a scrutiny of votes for a Senate election to be conducted partly under s 273 and partly under s 273A.

Section 273(2) requires Assistant Returning Officers to conduct an original scrutiny of votes. Each Assistant Returning Officer, in the presence of a polling official and of such authorised scrutineers as may attend, must reject all informal ballot papers "and arrange the unrejected ballot papers under the names of the respective candidates by placing in a separate parcel all those on which a first preference is indicated for the same candidate". Each Assistant Returning Officer must seal up the parcels of ballot papers and transmit the parcels to the Divisional Returning Officer with the least possible delay.

Upon receiving the sealed parcels of ballot papers from Assistant Returning Officers, the Divisional Returning Officer is required to make a fresh scrutiny of the ballot papers contained in the parcels, "and for this purpose the officer shall have the same powers as if the fresh scrutiny were the original scrutiny, and may reverse any decision given by an Assistant Returning Officer in relation to the original scrutiny". The procedures which must then be followed are similar to those for the original scrutiny. The Divisional Returning Officer, having completed the fresh scrutiny, must place all informal ballot papers in a separate parcel and bundle the unrejected ballot papers under the names of the respective candidates. The officer must place in separate parcels all the ballot papers on which a first preference is indicated above the line for a candidate and all the ballot papers on which a first preference is marked below the line for that candidate. The Divisional Returning Officer must count the first preference votes given for each candidate and transmit information, this time to the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory, about the number of first preference votes given for each candidate (distinguishing between those votes cast above the line and those cast below the line) and the total number of ballot papers rejected as informal.


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/17

 length he also traced out his dear Herrman, the most beloved among his youthful friends. Though Hellfried was, at first, angry with him, for having neglected writing to him in the course of so many years; for having omitted to ascertain him of his still being alive; and for his not having answered the letter he had wrote to him many years ago, in order to enquire after his health and happiness; yet he forgot at once all his anger, anticipating the pleasure of pressing him once more to his bosom, and got into his carriage with cheerfulness to hasten to his embraces. After a short and pleasant ride, he hung on Herrman's neck, a gentle tear of joy sparkled in his eye, as he pressed him tenderly to his bosom.

He found his worthy friend a favorite of fortune, blest in the lap of sweet contentment and unadulterated happiness.—A loving wife, who was a tender guardian of his tranquillity, and a careful mother to the pledges of their mutual love, was crowning


text: Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 2.djvu/1


text: Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 2.djvu/2


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/17

Hayne J

At any time before the declaration of the result of a Senate election the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory may, on the written request of any candidate "setting forth the reasons for the request", or of the officer's own motion, direct or conduct a re-count of the ballot papers contained in any parcel or in any other category determined by the Australian Electoral Officer. If the Australian Electoral Officer refuses the request of a candidate for a re-count, the candidate may, in writing, appeal to the Electoral Commissioner to direct a re-count. The Electoral Commissioner has a discretion either to direct a re-count of the ballot papers or to refuse to direct a re-count.

Section 279B regulates the conduct of a re-count. It requires the opening of the sealed parcels of ballot papers which are to be re-counted and the counting of the votes in the parcels. Section 280 provides that:

"The officer conducting a re-count shall have the same powers as if the re-count were the scrutiny, and may reverse any decision in relation to the scrutiny as to the allowance and admission or disallowance and rejection of any ballot paper."

Section 281 provides, in part, that:

1. The officer conducting a re-count may, and at the request of any scrutineer shall, reserve any ballot paper for the decision of the Australian Electoral Officer.

2. The Australian Electoral Officer shall decide whether any ballot paper so reserved is to be allowed and admitted or disallowed and rejected."

Section 279B(7) requires the Australian Electoral Officer to scrutinise the ballot papers which are reserved for decision and mark each as "admitted" or "rejected" according to his or her decision.

On 5 August 2013, the Governor-General in Council issued writs for the election of members of the House of Representatives for the States and


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 2.djvu/3

NECROMANCER.


text: Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 2.djvu/4


text: Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 2.djvu/6


text: Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 2.djvu/256


text: Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 2.djvu/257


text: Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 2.djvu/258


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/18

Hayne J

Territories and for the election of senators for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. On the same day, pursuant to the Election of Senators Act 1903 (WA), the Governor of Western Australia issued a writ for the election of six senators for Western Australia. The writ fixed dates for the close of the rolls, nominations, polling and return of the writ. The date fixed for the return of the writ was on or before 13 November 2013.

There were 62 candidates for election as a senator for Western Australia. The candidates were divided into 27 groups or political parties, with one "ungrouped" candidate. Each group or political party registered a group voting ticket pursuant to's 211 of the Act. Under their respective registered group voting tickets, preferences from Group G (Shooters and Fishers), Group K (Australian Independents) and Group V (Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party) flowed to Mr Murray Bow of the Shooters and Fishers. Under their respective registered group voting tickets, preferences from Group C (Australian Christians) and Group O (No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics) flowed to Mr Jamie van Burgel of the Australian Christians.

On 7 September 2013, after the close of the poll, Assistant Returning Officers at each of the appointed polling places conducted, in accordance with s 273(2) of the Act, an original scrutiny of the ballot papers cast at the election except for declaration votes.

The fresh scrutiny required by s 273(5) of the Act began on about 9 September 2013.

On 2 October 2013, the Australian Electoral Officer for Western Australia ("the AEO") announced that, for the purposes of s 273A(5) of the Act, he had ascertained that the successful candidates at the election, in order of their election, were Senator David Johnston, Mr Joe Bullock, Senator Michaelia Cash, Ms Linda Reynolds, Mr Wang and Senator Pratt.

All parties accept that the 50th exclusion point in the process required by's 273 of the Act was critical to the determination of who were the last two successful candidates at the election. At the 50th exclusion point, either Mr van Burgel (representing the Australian Christians) or Mr Bow (representing the Shooters and Fishers) was to be excluded according to who then had the lower number of votes.

The Wang petition and the Mead petition allege that who had the lower number of votes was affected, in the case of Mr Bow, by votes validly cast for Mr Daryl Higgins (Australian Independents) and Mr Jay Edwards (Australian


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/19

Hayne J

Fishing and Lifestyle Party) and, in the case of Mr van Burgel, by votes wrongly accepted as cast for Mr Adrian Byass (No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics).

According to the fresh scrutiny, at the 50th exclusion point Mr Bow had 23,515 votes and Mr van Burgel had 23,501 (a difference of 14 votes in favour of Mr Bow). All parties accept that if, at the 50th exclusion point, Mr van Burgel had more votes than Mr Bow (with the consequence that Mr Bow was excluded and his votes transferred in accordance with s 273), Mr Dropulich and Senator Ludlam (not Mr Wang and Senator Pratt) would have been the fifth and sixth candidates elected as senators for Western Australia.

Mr Dropulich and Senator Ludlam each requested a re-count. The AEO refused those requests. Senator Ludlam–and, later, Mr Dropulich–appealed to the Electoral Commissioner against the decision to refuse the requests for a re-count. On 10 October 2013, the Electoral Commissioner directed the AEO to conduct a re-count of a category of ballot papers submitted by voters in the election of senators for Western Australia. The category of ballot papers which was to be re-counted was described as:

"All the Senate ballot papers marked above the line together with those informal ballot papers that have been determined as obviously informal by Divisional Returning Officers in accordance with section 273A(3) of the Electoral Act."

The re-count related to about 96 per cent of the votes that had been cast at the election. The Electoral Commissioner gave as his reasons for ordering a re-count that "the criticality of the particular Senate candidate exclusion together with the small margin leads me to conclude that it is prudent to confirm the result in the interests of the electorate's confidence in the outcome".

During the re-count, 949 ballot papers were reserved for the decision of the AEO in accordance with s 281(1). Both Mr Wang and Mr Mead seek, by their petitions, to dispute some of the decisions which were made by the AEO in respect of reserved ballot papers.

In his petition, Mr Mead alleges that the AEO wrongly rejected at least 87 ballot papers and wrongly accepted at least 90 ballot papers, which affected whether Mr Bow or Mr van Burgel was excluded at the 50th exclusion point. In his petition, Mr Wang alleges that the AEO wrongly rejected at least 56 ballot papers and wrongly accepted at least 18 ballot papers, which affected the 50th exclusion point.


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/20

Hayne J

It is likely that there is at least some, perhaps very substantial, overlap between the allegations made in the Wang and Mead petitions about wrongful rejection and wrongful acceptance of votes. It is not necessary, however, to decide whether or to what extent this is so. Argument proceeded on the assumption that, together, Mr Wang and Mr Mead seek to demonstrate error in the treatment of at least 250 ballot papers reserved for the decision of the AEO.

During the course of the re-count, it emerged that 1,370 ballot papers for votes which had been cast in either the Division of Forrest or the Division of Pearce (said, in the records of the fresh scrutiny, to be 120 informal votes and 1,250 unrejected above the line votes) could not be located and brought within the re-count. Those ballot papers have not since been found and it is accepted that it is unlikely that they will be found. Because these ballot papers were lost, the re-count directed by the Electoral Commissioner could not, and did not, take place in accordance with the Act. But those of the ballot papers which were to be re-counted and were available were scrutinised.

Before the re-count, the AEO ascertained that a total of 1,349,635 ballot papers were submitted at the election of senators for Western Australia, of which 1,311,440 were unrejected votes and 38,195 were informal votes.

Re-counting those votes which were the subject of the Electoral Commissioner's direction and were available for re-count revealed that, at the 50th exclusion point, Mr van Burgel had 23,526 votes and Mr Bow had 23,514 (a difference of 12 votes in favour of Mr van Burgel). (As noted earlier, the fresh scrutiny had found Mr van Burgel to have 23,501 votes and Mr Bow 23,515.)

The fresh scrutiny and the re-count arrived at different tallies of votes. The parties accept that 532 ballot papers were counted on the re-count which had not been counted in the fresh scrutiny. The parties further accept that the numbers of ballot papers (both in parcels of above the line votes and in parcels of informal votes) counted at the re-count differed from the numbers counted at the fresh scrutiny. Some of these differences in counting were due to miscounts of the number of ballot papers in some parcels at the fresh scrutiny; some were due to counting about 80 blank ballot papers as informal votes on the re-count. And some were due to movement of ballot papers between parcels at the re-count (for example, from one registered group voting ticket to another). Each transfer of ballot papers between parcels was counted as two movements (one addition and one subtraction). There were 7,826 movements of ballot papers. That is, on the re-count, 3,913 ballot papers were assigned to parcels different from the parcels to which they had been assigned at the fresh scrutiny.


text:
Page:The Necromancer, or, The Tale of the Black Forest Vol. 1.djvu/18

 the favors which fortune so abundantly had blessed him with: Kind Providence had surrounded him with an hopeful circle of promising children, two of whom had happily been married, and blessed him with two grand-daughters and three grandsons—Heaven's greatest blessings smiled upon him wherever he went, contentment and joy, sat upon his reverend brow, and peace of mind had taken her abode within his heart.

"Good God!" exclaimed he, as soon as he could find words to give vent to the rapture of his soul, "do I then behold, once more before I die, the dear companion of my youthful days? Heaven be praised for that unexpected happiness! Now all my wishes are fulfiled—Oh, Hellfried! Hellfried! The separation from thee, the apprehension of seeing thee no more, was the only bitterness mixed in the cup of bliss, which providence has kindly administered to thy friend. Thou art alive—thou art alive, now I have nothing else to wish, than that


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/21

Hayne J

If it were proper to take account of the information about the number of first preference votes given for each candidate and the total number of ballot papers rejected as informal which, following the fresh scrutiny, the relevant Divisional Returning Officers transmitted to the AEO in accordance with s 273(5)(d), and treat that information as accurately recording the effect properly to be given to those ballot papers which should have been, but were not, scrutinised in the re-count, the AEC calculates that Mr Bow would have been one vote ahead of Mr van Burgel at the 50th exclusion point. (Mr van Burgel would have had 23,531 votes and Mr Bow 23,532.)

On 4 November 2013, the AEO declared, under s 283(1)(a) of the Act, that the first to sixth respondents to the AEC petition were elected in that order. The declaration reflected the results revealed by the re-count, which had been conducted without the 1,370 lost ballot papers. That is, the result which was declared depended upon excluding Mr Bow at the 50th exclusion point.

On 6 November 2013, the AEO returned the writ for the election of senators for Western Australia to the Governor of Western Australia.

Section 360 of the Act gives the Court of Disputed Returns power to declare that any person who was returned as elected was not duly elected and to declare any election absolutely void. These powers may be exercised "on the ground that illegal practices were committed in connexion with the election".

"Illegal practice" is defined to include "a contravention of [the] Act". That expression means a failure to comply with a provision of the Act. The Court also has the power to declare any candidate duly elected who was not returned as elected. But it could not exercise that power in this case without first declaring that someone returned as elected was not duly elected.


text:
Page:Timon of Athens (1919) Yale.djvu/12

of Athens

one of Timon*s false Friends

a churlish Philosopher

an Athenian Captain

Poet, Painter, Jeweller, Merchant [and Mercer]

Certain Senators

Certain Masquers [Ladies dressed as Amazons]

Certain Thieves

[ Steward to Timon]

With divers other Servants and Attendants

[Servants of Ventidius, and of Varro and Isidore (two of Timon's Creditors)

Three Strangers

An Old Athenian

A Page

A Fool]

Dramatis Personæ; cf. n.


text:
Page:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston.pdf/22

Hayne J

Section 362(3) of the Act places two conditions on the exercise of the Court's power to declare an election void, and the Court's power to declare that a person returned as elected was not duly elected, on the ground of certain illegal practices. The Court must be satisfied, first, "that the result of the election was likely to be affected" (scil by one or more of the illegal practices alleged) and, second, "that it is just that the candidate should be declared not to be duly elected or that the election should be declared void". The "result of the election" means the result as it was declared. And "result" in the Act means the return of a particular candidate, not the number of the candidate's majority.

Section 365 of the Act places limits on the evidence the Court may admit to determine whether the result of an election was affected by certain illegal practices. If any elector was prevented from voting in an election on account of an error of, or omission by, an officer, the section prohibits the Court from admitting, for the purpose of determining whether the error or omission affected the result of the election, any evidence of the way in which the elector intended to vote in that election.

All three petitioners seek relief under s 360(1) and (3) on the ground that illegal practices were committed in connection with the election. All three petitioners allege that the loss of the ballot papers and the consequent failure to conduct the re-count in accordance with the Act were illegal practices.

It is not necessary to identify more precisely which provisions of the Act were contravened. It is sufficient to proceed on the footing adopted in argument that the loss of the ballot papers both constituted and occasioned one or more contraventions of the Act. It is to be noted, however, that because ballot papers were lost, there was not the scrutiny required by ss 279B and 280 of all the ballot papers which were to be re-counted. There was not the opportunity for the officer conducting the re-count to allow and admit, or disallow and reject, any of the lost ballot papers. There was not the opportunity for a scrutineer to require reservation for the decision of the AEO of any of the lost ballot papers which were disputed.

So much was accepted by all parties to the petitions. Each petitioner and each respondent accepted, correctly, that the loss of ballot papers and the failure to have available at the re-count all of the parcels of ballot papers which were to