p1 9-6-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE
Mr Geoff Shaw MP 9-6-2014
geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
5
Cc: Christine Fyffe, Speaker christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Treasurer Michael OBrien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au 10
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au

20140609-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Geoff Shaw-etc
Geoff, 15
I came ac cross a comment on an arfticle relating to yourself in the Herald Sun:
QUOTE COMMENT ON AN ARTICLE IN THE Herald Sun
Shaw was saved from criminal prosecution when charges were dropped.
Parliamentary rules were changed after criminal charges were laid changing the wording from "shall not" to
"must not" in relation to the use of government cars for commercial activities. 20
It should have been obvious that a change to the original wording could affect the prosecution then in
progress given that Shaw was publicly arguing there was ambiguity in the original wording and that he was
therefore entitled to use the car as he chose.
Who made this change to the wording and why?
END QUOTE COMMENT ON AN ARTICLE IN THE Herald Sun 25

It appears to me that any alteration may not be able to be used against you. The Framers of
the constitution specifically objected to retrospective legislation, likewise then retrospective
rules of the Parliament.
. 30
RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION

Hansard 19-4--1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship of the 1891 Bill, 35
there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be well to alter their order. The
Drafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end of the proceedings will ask hon. members to
give their attention to such alterations as they may suggest. It will be better to transpose some of the clauses.
With reference to Sir Edward Braddon's amendment, which is put in a better form than that suggested
by Mr. Symon, I do not think there is any actual necessity for it. I find in Maxwell on "Interpretation of 40
Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage:



p2 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
It is where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights, or the legal character of past Acts,
that the presumption against a retrospective operation is strongest. Every Statute which takes away or
impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, or imposes a new duty,
or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be
presumed, out of respect to the Legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation. Thus 5
the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no action should be brought to charge any person on any
agreement made in consideration of marriage, unless the agreement were in writing, was held not to
apply to an agreement which had been made before the Act was passed. The Mortmain Act, in the
same way, was held not to apply to a devise made before it was enacted. So it was held that the Act of 8
& 9 Vict., c. 106, which made all wagers void, and enacted that no action should be brought or 10
maintained for a wager, applied only to wagers made after the Act was passed.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: There is no doubt about those cases, I should say.
Mr. BARTON: In subsequent editions these examples are multiplied. The principle underlying the
matter is this: that a court in construing an Act assumes that Parliament never intended to do a thing
which is unjust. I am quite sure that Mr. Symon will agree that the provision is not necessary. 15
Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear.
END QUOTE

In my view, the retrospective application to your alleged misconduct may be deemed a
denial of NATURAL JUSTICE and FAIR AND PROPER HEARING. 20

As you may be aware from the Kabledecision of the High Court of Australia the court held
that the legal principles in the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) within which in s1906 the States were created subject to this constitution), are
also applicable to the States. 25

As I indicated in previous correspondence such as to Mr Michael OBrien, treasurer, I view
that where the Legislative Assembly provided jurisdiction for the Victorian Police to deal
with the matter then the Legislative assembly no longer could deal with the case.
As such I view there is what one may call a NO CASE TO ANSWER, regarding the 30
Privilege Commission because I view it had no legal authority to deal with the matter any
further where the matter was referred to the Victorian Police to deal with it on behalf of
the Legislative Assembly.

It is my view, as the Framers of the Constitution debated) that the Speaker of the 35
Legislative Assembly should consult with the Supreme Court of Victoria and/or the High
Court of Australia as to what it holds to be appropriate in regard of the issues. However,
even if the Supreme Court of Victoria and/or the High Court of Australia were to provide
its advice it nevertheless may subsequently overturn this advice upon any application you
may make with regard to evidence/arguments you may present. 40

It would be in my view ill-advised for anyone to seek to use the legislative assembly to what
Premier Denis Napthine referred to punish you for crimes because as I have indicated
in various previous correspondences I view (and it is my view not a legal decision by a
court) that the legislative assembly has no such powers in the circumstances and no 45
crime could be deemed to have been committed.
A very important issue that must not be overlooked is that where any Member of
Parliament commits a crime against legislative provisions then the Police has jurisdiction
to deal with this and the relevant House of the parliament likewise may deal with the
person After the criminal case has been completed regardless if there was or was not a 50
conviction. This, because there are then two separate cases to consider, one the ordinary



p3 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
authority of the Police to investigate and prosecute crimes that were incurred under state
laws and the other being that a Member of Parliament having committed a serious offence
which may be to require to expel the Member of Parliament, such as in case of armed
robbery, murder, etc.
In your case however, as I understand it the matter was one not against the laws of Victoria 5
but one allegedly against the Rules of the Parliament. As such, the Police had no legal
authority to get involved unless the speaker of the House of Representative had given
authorisation for the policed to take over the case for and on behalf of the Parliament.
Irrespective if the police pursued criminal charges to a conviction or not is irrelevant
because once the Parliament transferred its powers to deal with you to the police it no 10
longer could deal with the matter. The Court itself has dealt with it and I view you are
entitled to the benefits of the result, even so the police withdrew its charges, at least that is
what I understand eventuated. You were caused through considerable cost in litigation and
this for charges which I understand were withdrawn. As such you already suffered
considerable financial, emotional and mental HARM HAVING BEEN FACED WITH 15
CHARGES.

In my view the speaker Christine Fyffe may leave herself as the speaker, being the
employee of the Parliament having the duties to manage the Parliament open to be sued by
you likely very successfully were the speaker permit in the circumstances to have a motion 20
to proceed to somehow as Premier Denis Napthine referred to punish you for your
(alleged) crimes. I for one have not detected any statement/conduct by Speaker Christine
Fyffe that in anyway may indicate that she will fail to resolve the issues in an appropriate
manner and in all fairness to the speaker it must be left to her to make the appropriate
decision. 25
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Speaker can refused a motion (including
submission of a legislation) where there is a doubt or objection even by a single Member of
Parliament that it might be un constitutional.
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 30
QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.-
Surely there would be at least one representative out of the whole Senate and one member of the House
of Representatives, who would have individuality enough, and strength enough, to get up and challenge
the order of any particular measure which might be disorderly under this clause of the Constitution.
Mr. ISAACS.-They would not all sit on the same side of the House. 35
Mr. HOLDER.-I should think not. They would not all be Ministerialists, or all members of the Opposition,
or all members of any particular party; and I cannot believe that any Bill which contained anything
objectionable at all could pass through both Houses of the Federal Legislature without finding some one
member of either of the two Houses who would rise to a point of order, and have such a Bill laid aside of
necessity as being out of order under this provision. 40
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law has 45
to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the Executive to call
attention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a majority of the members
of the House of Representatives to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; it
only requires one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legal
interpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call the attention of 50
the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the Constitution for that proposed law to
be ruled out of order. It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the Constitution shall be



p4 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither House
could pass the standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the Speaker's or
President's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power. They give no power to either House
to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution.
END QUOTE 5

Perhaps Treasurer Mr Michael OBrien seems to be concerned that matters are dealt with
appropriately and he may hold it responsible to object to a motion against you to be placed
before the Legislative Assembly.
10
If therefore the Legislative Assembly has no legal powers to so to say punish you because
it was handed over to the police and it dealt with the matter, even so perhaps not to the
liking of Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr Denis Napthine and Mr Ken Smith, nevertheless they
ought to have enough understanding that there are legal processes to be followed.
In my view you may have a case for libel etc, against Mr Daniel Andrews and Premier 15
Denis Napthine to mention some for their conduct that vilified your person, this even if the
Legislative Assembly were not to proceed with any motion against you.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-04/geoff-shaw-timeline/5485568?section=vic
QUOTE
May 2012 20
Allegations emerged that Mr Shaw's parliamentary vehicle has been misused to run deliveries for his private hardware business.
Ted Baillieu, who was premier at the time, asks the speaker to investigate.
The Opposition called for allegations made against Mr Shaw to be referred to the police.
Mr Shaw has got some explaining to do and the real question here is, rather
than Ted Baillieu referring this to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, 25
this should be given to Victoria Police.
Daniel Andrews, Opposition Leader
Mr Shaw says the expense sheet was signed by an employee who was listed as a nominated driver in accordance with
parliamentary guidelines. He says the driver has offered to repay the expenses.
END QUOTE 30

I for one do not accept that Mr Ted Bailieu at the time was entitled to refer the matter to
the speaker as being as Premier delegates to the State Executive (Government) and it is the
Speaker of the legislative Assembly who cannot be some kind of lapdog for the Premier to
do as he may dictate. 35
However it appears to me that Mr Daniel Andrews was so to say playing with the
Parliament by insisting that the matter was to be handed over to the police and yet when he
didnt like the end result he now wants to so to say play another game.
.
What Members of Parliament also must realise that if this kind of harassment upon you 40
can be done because Mr Daniel Andrews so to say likes to make political millage from this
(considering also he reportedly already paraded a candidate for the non-existing
Frankston by-election and as such seems to have made clear that not the Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly but he decides/dictates what will eventuate regarding the seat of



p5 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Frankston) then if any of them subsequently may have been deemed to have
inappropriately advanced themselves financially by being it in correctly claiming expenses ,
even if they are members of his own political party, then they too may face to be expelled,
this even if he fails in his attempt to oust you from the Parliament.
After all Mr Daniel Andrews is so to say setting a precedent that any Member of 5
Parliament held to have inappropriately gained financial gain by whatever method can be
expelled from Parliament, this even if this may have been accidental.

Now, there is something else about all this, as being a CONSTITUTIONALIST I for one
(and I likely speak for most Victorians) am sick and tired of the politicians robbing 10
ordinary taxpayers blind and it is time that both the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
and the President of the Legislative Council how anyone can be receiving any kind of
monies one having left the seat of the Parliament.
In my view, once you are so to say booted out of the Parliament t then all payments to you
must stop. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that only one person can be paid for 15
a seat in the Parliament and the Senate was referred to as an example;
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOHN BRAY: What the hon. gentleman has said is quite right so far as the purposes of this section are 20
concerned as regards reckoning the time of retirement. But in another part of the bill it is provided that the
senators are to be paid for their services, and the question arises, does the term of service of a senator for the
purposes of payment begin from the date of his election, from the date when he is sworn in, or from the first
day of January?
HON. MEMBERS: On the day when he is sworn in! 25
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Surely when his
service begins!
Sir: I think we ought to have that fixed. It seems to me very undesirable to provide, as suggested by Colonel
Smith, that although a senator is elected in June, his term of service and payment for service shall not begin
until the following January. 30
Mr. CLARK: He will not do anything until the following January!
Sir JOHN BRAY: For the purposes of retirement, a date should be fixed from which the time should be
reckoned; but for all other purposes a senator ought to be a senator from the day he is chosen.
Mr. BAKER: How can he be when there is another man in his place?
Sir JOHN BRAY: I can quite see that for the purposes of this section the provision as contained in the 35
clause is right; but, as regards other portions of the bill, it seems to me that it is not right, and the question
ought to be clearly understood.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned, there is a good
deal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals with the first senators. Afterwards
the term of service begins on the 1st of January. I suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the 40
1st of January arrives. He will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If
parliament is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man will walk
out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon. member has pointed out a blot with
respect to the first senators. A man might be elected in December and claim twelve months' pay, dating from
the previous January. This, I think, would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the words "for 45
the purposes of his retirement."



p6 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a man is not a senator until
he presents himself and takes the oath.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why not?
Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from the beginning. It is not
until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is 5
not completely clad in that position until he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and I
apprehend he is not entitled to payment until that takes place. I would suggest that it is somewhat hazardous
to make an amendment at the table in a bill of this kind, which has been carefully considered; and if these
matters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the draftsman. I would deprecate any hurried
amendment on the spot, where it may not be required. 10
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: The clause states that the term of service of a senator shall not begin until the
1st January following the day of his election. If a vacancy occurs, and a senator is elected in June, he then
becomes a senator; but, according to this part of the clause, he cannot become an actual senator until the
following January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his seat. I would
suggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this point, and consider it. I do 15
not think we could make any amendment here that would meet the case. For the purposes of this particular
clause the provision is right enough; but I think there will be a difficulty in regard to payment, and also as to
vacancies occurring.
Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook this question
entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon. gentleman sees no strong objection to 20
such a course I shall move the insertion at the beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the
purposes of this section." It would be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if
a man is elected in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January, and
that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite possible that this may not be
the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems to me clear that the second paragraph was 25
drawn with the idea, that it applied to this section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to
move as an amendment:
That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this section" be
inserted.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is quite correct: those are the right words! 30
Amendment agreed to.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member, Sir Harry Atkinson, in
regard to vacancies occurring by death, the difficulty would be met by substituting for the words "retiring
senators" the words "senators retiring by rotation."
Amendment (by Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH) proposed: 35
That the words retiring senators," line 17, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "senators
retiring by rotation."
Mr. MARMION: Is this intended to refer to senators retiring by rotation throughout, or only in the first
instance?
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Always! 40
Mr. MARMION: It seems to me that there are two portions of the bill which may be affected by the
proposed amendment. In the first place, unless it is distinctly laid down in the bill that a senator, though
elected, does not become a senator until the 1st of January, there will be during that interval twelve senators
instead of eight; because there will be four who will not retire for some considerable period after the election.
There is another view of the case. A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the local 45



p7 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
house of representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any longer in the state house of
representatives, and if his election to the senate takes place some time prior to the end of the year, unless it is
distinctly laid down that the mere fact of his election [start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will be
obliged to retire from the local house of representatives.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: There is no doubt a little difficulty. In the cases of which we have experience, 5
members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to be in permanent session. Here we
have to deal with the case of a constituency which is in session only sometimes. We must, therefore, deal
specially with it. There cannot be more than eight senators at a time. There will be eight senators and four
senators elect; for a senator elect is not a senator until his term begins. There is no reason why a member of
the house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June; next January he becomes a senator 10
and ceases to be a member of the house of representatives.
Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to.
END QUOTE
Therefore, if there is a by-election then I view the moment the writ is issued by the Speaker
or the Governor for a by-elect ion for the seat of Frankston then there is no legal basis to 15
continue to pay you anything. While it might be open to you to sue for the loss of payments
as an allowance it would be up to the court to consider upon the evidence if the conduct
of certain persons unduly deprived the constituents of you to continue to represent them. In
my view Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr Ken Smith and Premier Denis Napthine may not have the
protection of the Parliament but may be personally liable for their conduct. After all Mr 20
Daniel Andrews so to say parading with a purported candidate in Frankston cannot be
deemed to have acted as a Member of Parliament b ut may rather be deemed that he acted
in defiance of proper procedures of the parliament and so not shielded by his
parliamentarian privileges. I could envisage that the court may even end up awarding a
multi-million dollar damage against Mr Daniel Andrews if the court held that his conduct 25
was beyond reasonable conduct in view that he so to say could be deemed to have stalked
you in a manner that may be deemed also to be in breach of the crimes act. (You may
desire to check what s21 of the Crimes Act stands for). And considering what conspiracy
stands for:
. 30
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy.
END QUOTE 35

I view that you might have a case against Mr Ken Smith and Premier Denis Napthine as
after all Premier Denis Napthine accusing you of having committed crimes and claiming
publicly that you must be punished then if a court of competent jurisdiction finds that
the Privileges Committee had no legal authority to pursue the case against you as the 40
matter had been transferred to the Victorian Police then his conduct to make such public
statements against your person cannot be deemed to be covered by parliamentarian
privileges and so he could be made personally accountable. Likewise I view with Mr Ken
Smith pursing matters in conjunction with Mr Daniel Andrews and Premier Denis
Napthine may be deemed a part of a conspiracy. 45
.
The Herald Sun 8-6-2014 (SHAW ME THE CASH) refers to Base pay alone but
constitutionally no member of parliament can receive a PAY for being a Member of
Parliament but only an allowance, as otherwise it would constitute an Office of Profit and
would make the member of Parliament ineligible to continue to hold the seat. Hence I view 50
this cannot eventuate. Nor any electoral allowance this as when writs are issued then all



p8 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Members of State Parliament seize to be Members of Parliament irrespective if they are
subsequently re-elected or not. As an election takes place many weeks after they seize to be
Members of Parliament they cannot therefore somehow receive any kind of payment in
regard of a seat they no longer hold. Neither has the Parliament any constitutional powers
to make a payment to non-Members of Parliament as such. 5
As I understand it even if so to say you were booted out of the Parliament, (not that I seek
to imply this will eventuate) nothing could stop you to be re-elected and become again a
Member of Parliament. As I understand it many constituents do not appreciate that Mr
Denis Napthine, Mr Denial Andrews and Mr Ken Smith have been so to say dictating that
they cannot have their elected Member of Parliament. 10
I also view that the herald Sun ongoing referring to you as a rough person itself may be
deemed to be a form of harassment. I was also concerned noticing the cartoon that seemed
to imply you to be an outlaw.
QUOTE
15
END QUOTE

In my view the speaker ought to demand the herald Sun to answer what I view might be
CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT by publishing this kind or cartoon and ongoing referring
to a Member of Parliament as being rough. 20
The Framers of the Constitution did make known that the press should be allowed to
publish matters, but I view this is beyond being FAIR publication.
Perhaps a deformation lawyer may check the number of times the Herald Sun uses the
term rough in regard of your person and if this is not generally done with other politicians
regardless that they may have actually been convicted of misuse of parliamentarian 25
privileges by the courts, etc, while being as Member of Parliament then this also may be
a matter of harassment, etc, against your person.
.
I have considerable concern as to what appears to me inappropriate reporting and by this
it may unduly cause electors so to say turn away from you. 30

As for the resettlement allowance in my view this would be unconstitutional for any
person to receive, not just you, because again it is based not upon a person having his/her



p9 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
seat declared vacant by writs issued but rather if the person some time afterwards when
already no longer being a Member of Parliament is or is not re-elected. If a former
Member of Parliament nominates but his nomination was defective then why should
taxpayers have to pay this person say $ 36,124.00? Likewise why should a former Member
of Parliament who may have nominated but then say becomes bankrupt and cannot take 5
up a seat in the Parliament be paid out $36,124.00? It should be clear that Parliament
cannot authorise payments that do not relate to Members of Parliament as such. To even
hold that such payment can be made is to make it an Office of Profit. And again this I view
would place the person ineligible to hold a seat in the Parliament. Consider also the
following. Say that you or for that any other former Member of Parliament stood for re- 10
election but fails to succeed in obtaining the majority of votes and the Parliament then
hypothetically pays out the so called $36,124.00 resettlement allowance and then
subsequently the person who was declared the successful candidate were to be found
ineligible to have been a candidate and so the Court of Disputed Returns declare that the
former Member of Parliament now is deemed to be the successful candidate only then has 15
to declare that because of the $36,124.00 payment as a purported resettlement allowance
then this constitutes an Office of Profit and so this former member by this now neither is
entitled to b e a Member of Parliament. And because the person was declared to have been
the successful candidate after all should have to repay the $36,134.00 and so this nonsense
of the resettlement allowance is not only unconstitutional but I view a gross stupidity. 20
Just that all those so to say legal eagles in the Parliament seemed to have lacked the brains
to understand this. And any payment of superannuation to a Member of Parliament would
constitute an Office of Profit because one doesnt pay superannuation to volunteers who
receive an allowance. Therefore any Member of Parliament who receives any financial
benefits as a Member of Parliament in the form of a superannuation payment/contribution 25
by this is automatically deemed to be in an Office of Profit.
In my published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and
other legal issues I have canvassed such similar issues regarding the federal parliament
extensively.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, as you appeared to do correctly at the time, 30
despite that there were people arguing you acted wrongly doing so, Members of Parliament
are elected and to compensate them towards the cost of travelling to and from the
Parliament and loss of income while they are attending to the Parliament they are provided
with an allowance. The Framers of the Constitution acknowledged that most Members of
Parliament despite working in their ordinary employment when not attending to the 35
parliament would likewise loosed in the overall as the allowance likely would not cover
all of the cost and loss of income but that the honour to represent constituents would be the
real issue. As such where you were conducting business affairs while not attending to the
parliament then I view you actually did what the Framers of the Constitution all along
intended a Member of Parliament to do. 40
While the parliament seems to have altered the rules that a motor vehicle that is provided
for at cost of taxpayers must not be used for commercial purposes, in my view this is a very
horrendous issue. After all say the Premier uses a government vehicle to travel to a
particular location on his way to the destination of his constituents he, so to say, stepped off
to check, on his race horse. Then the trip could be deemed a commercial travel for so far it 45
was to the checking of the horse. Other absurd situations could emerge. Say the a Member
of Parliament was to drive his taxpayers funded vehicle from Melbourne to say Mildura to
attend to his constituents but then has a family member joining in Melbourne but the
person is dropped off in say Swan Hill to attend to this persons business activities. Again
this could be considered that the trip from Melbourne to Swan Hill was for commercial 50
purposes and the Member of Parliament is no more.



p10 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Likewise, the usage of mobile, telephone and internet paid for by taxpayers for usage by the
Member of Parliament would technically breach the rules where it is used to deal with any
business affairs. Such as Premier Denis Napthine if he used his mobile, telephone, internet,
computer, etc, to deal with his horse he co-owned, if all this was at cost of taxpayers.
Say a Member of Parliament drives from Melbourne to say Gippsland on a trip within the 5
rules of parliament and then receives a call from say his wife that there is an urgent issue
relating to their farm and so he better call a particular person. The Member of Parliament
if using his time, mobile, etc, for making the call then technically is engaged in business
activities and so violates the rules of Parliament, when using a taxpayers funded car for
commercial purposes. This in particularly if he makes a stop, perhaps at his lawyers office 10
for a few minutes if just to drop of a document regarding his business even so not detouring
with the taxpayers motor vehicle.
In my view the reported $2,000 a week or say for not using a taxpayers funded motor
vehicle is not an allowance but must be seen as being for an Office of profit.
15
Also any Member of Parliament who serves as a President of the Legislative Council or as a
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly must be deemed to be in an Office of Profit where this
allows financial benefits after having left this position. In my view a President of the
Legislative Council and a Speaker of the Legislative Assembly are employees of the
Parliament and can only receive payments for when they serve in that respective e office 20
and no more. Once someone else serves in that office then that is the end of all payments.
And as the constitution doesnt recognise any shadow Minister then any so called
shadow Minister who receives financial benefits in regard of being a shadow Minister
in my view occupies an Office of Profit as it is not excluded as liked a Minister of the
Crown, and hence his/her seat become vacant the moment the person accepts such a 25
payment as a salary, etc. As such I view that Mr Daniel Andrews if receiving payments for
being a Shadow Minister then he is no longer legitimately a Member of Parliament. In
that regard I for one cannot see how any vote, even if this was pursued against you, could
be carried where neither Mr Daniel Andrews or anyone else receiving payments as a so
called Shadow Minister are constitutionally no longer entitled to be a Member of 30
Parliament. And if then the so called opposition were to lose all those persons who were
paid as shadow Ministers then any vote to of no confidence against Premier Denis
Napthine would fail as clearly it would make no iota of difference if you were to vote for or
against because the opposition would lac k sufficient Members of Parliament.
In my view any vote involving those who are receiving financial benefits for being shadow 35
Ministers and as such I view deemed in an Office of profit would more than likely I
anticipate be ruled by a court not to have had a standing to vote and so Premier Denis
Napthine then could very well sue the pants of those who sought to get rid of him.
Even if Mr Daniel Andrews so to say came to his senses that he would no longer desire a
vote against you, the horse so to say has already bolted because I view his own position as a 40
Member of Parliament is now in question and so many others.
.
In my view the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly couldnt allow this matter to go
unattended as she has her duties to the Parliament and now I view has no alternative but to
have matters investigated appropriately. 45
.
There is a lot more to this all, as I have extensively canvassed in regard of the Federal
Parliament already.
For example I view that constitutionally a former Premier cannot have any benefits paid
for by taxpayers after leaving office because he was never employed by the taxpayers was 50
in the employ by the Queen, by having been a constitutional advisor to the Governor.




p11 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
As I view it a legal principle that a dissenting opinion cannot be binding also may question
why on earth Mr Daniel Andrews seeks to pursue a minority conclusion of the privileges
committee and indeed Mr Ken Smith as a former speaker surely ought to have understood
such a legal principle.
5
Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Limited [2010] HCA 47 (15 December 2010)
QUOTE
The reasoning of the majority rests on the proposition that the first respondent's failure to adopt the third
course was fatal. It thus constitutes a binding decision of this Court that the third course is compulsory in this
Court. There is no point in a detailed consideration of the difficult question whether the proposition should 10
attract support or disagreement. An expression of disagreement would not undercut the status of the
majority's proposition as a binding decision. That is so partly because it would be a dissenting opinion,
and the binding status of a precedent in this Court is not affected by the existence of dissenting
opinions.
END QUOTE 15

Regardless of my self-professed crummy English it seems that all those lawyers involved
with designing the rules of Parliament obviously seems to have a considerable lack of
education in constitutional matters. If I without any native English and without any formal
education in the English language can nevertheless comprehend what is constitutionally 20
applicable then surely one would expect better form a former Speaker, Premier and a
former Minister of the Crown.

In my view the attack upon you as was originally made was ill conceived and misconceive d
and now that the has been so to say a blood bath they now have to face that it only gets 25
worse. They have drawn attention to their own positions and any abuses regarding their
own persons.

Again, irrespective if the Parliament made certain rules to authorise payments and all kind
of junky trips overseas, etc, in the end is bound by the constitution and cannot disregard 30
this and therefore any rules as like any act of Parliament that is beyond power is no rule at
all. Therefore any rules allowing payment to a so called Shadow Minister in my view is
beyond the parliament ability and hence is and remains unconstitutional
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax- 35
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
QUOTE
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes
the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be
in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. 40
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in
reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a 45
statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no
rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies
no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede 50
any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is
superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
END QUOTE
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 55
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)





p12 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not
merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is
as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle 5
just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. 'Such an unconstitutional law is void', the general
principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or
authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed under it . . . 'A void act
cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any
existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is 10
superseded thereby. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to
enforce it." . . . The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudged
unconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility ....
I will now quote some articles I downloaded with the relevant web references:
QUOTE ARTICLES (with web addresses) of the Herald Sun 15
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/geoff-shaw-could-be-entitled-to-150k-windfall-
before-tax-if-suspended-from-parliament-for-2014/story-fni0fit3-1226946950295
News
HS State News and Galleries
Geoff Shaw could be entitled to $150k windfall before tax if suspended from Parliament for 20
2014
by: Matt Johnston, Michelle Ainsworth
From: Herald Sun
June 08, 2014 12:00AM
25

Frankston MP Geoff Shaw. Source: News Limited



p13 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
A TAXPAYER-funded windfall worth almost $150,000 before tax could be awaiting
embattled Frankston MP Geoff Shaw if he was suspended from parliament for the rest of
the year.
Part of the money he would be entitled to would be $8400 worth of gross fortnightly payments
because he no longer has a taxpayer-funded car. 5
This is about $2000 more than the fine the Privileges Committee recommends he pay for the
misuse of his former parliamentary car although it would be taxed.
The Sunday Herald Sun understands that if an MP is suspended from parliament without being
named by the Speaker, he or she would be eligible for full pay and entitlements.
This would enable Mr Shaw to work in his electorate if he was suspended. 10
MORE: Voting is divided on the great split: Geoff Shaw
KENNETT: Ex premiers plan to deal with rogue MP
Base pay alone between June and his final week after the November 29 election would be about
$70,000, before tax.
On top of this, Mr Shaw would be eligible to keep collecting an electorate allowance, which can 15
be effectively collected in cash, worth about $1400 a fortnight, and a separate supplement worth
more than $430 a fortnight before tax.
If he was not expelled from parliament, and recontested the next election as he plans to do, Mr
Shaw would get a $36,124 resettlement allowance if he lost his seat.
Superannuation entitlements and the car allowance which is worth $632 a fortnight and rises to 20
$651 a fortnight from July would push gross benefits and pay up to about $150,000.
Opposition leader Daniel Andrews said he would move a motion to expel Mr Shaw from
parliament on Tuesday, when Parliament next sits.
Frankly sending Geoff Shaw with full pay off on gardening leave for the rest of the term of this
parliament is not a punishment, Mr Shaw needs to be expelled, thats the right thing to do. 25
Treasurer Michael OBrien said the government was still assessing legal advice and warned that
unless the punishment was handed out carefully, Mr Shaw could end up walking away scot-free.
Like it or not Mr Shaw was elected by the people of Frankston, it is a very serious step to say
were going to countermand that decision of the people of Frankston in a democratic election and
boot somebody out of the parliament. 30
He said the Governments first priority when Parliament resumed on Tuesday would be to pass
the budget.
Were very happy to turn our attention to Mr Shaws issues once weve received the advice, but
only after the budgets been passed.



p14 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
The budget is a million times more important than Geoff Shaw.
matthew.johnston@news.com.au

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/voting-is-split-on-the-great-divider-mp-geoff-
shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226946371919 5

Voting is split on the great divider, MP Geoff Shaw
by: DAVID HURLEY AND JADE GAILBERGER
From: Herald Sun
June 07, 2014 12:00AM 10


Geoff Shaw has been described as a complex character. Source: HeraldSun
IT was April Fools Day when former Frankston mayor Christine Richards found a note
taped to her front door. 15
Over the years she has had various run-ins with Geoff Shaw, the rogue MP who has dominated
Victorian politics for the past two years. But until April 1 she had never felt threatened by him.
In the months before, the relationship between the two had become strained after Ms Richards
penned a newspaper editorial criticising Mr Shaw for his controversial conduct.
The MP for Frankston threatened to sue for defamation. So when she saw the With 20
Compliments slip from Mr Shaws office with a handwritten note signed by him saying Sorry I
missed you on her front door, her heart skipped a beat.



p15 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
To get to her 10th-floor apartment in St Kilda, an unauthorised person would have had to sneak
through security gates and a secured door and both require swipe-card access.
The whereabouts of my familys home is well known but there are not many people who
know the address to this apartment, Ms Richards said.
To deliver this note, someone had to pass through security gates, then a security door. Mr Shaw 5
has my mobile number. My question is, why was someone there? Deliberately or otherwise, it
was intimidating.
If a person was to wait long enough, someone with a pass would go through both the gate and
the door, and they could follow them in.
However, its quite clear that security is in place and those without the appropriate electronic 10
pass shouldnt enter, she said.
Simeon Lawson, a spokesman for Mr Shaw, told the Herald Sun it was all a simple
misunderstanding. He believed Mr Shaw did not personally deliver the note and it must have
been done by a member of staff.
15
MP Geoff Shaw leaving the State Parliament after the tabling of the Ombudsman's report on his
care use.
Mr Lawson could not explain why a member of Mr Shaws staff would be dropping off notes in
St Kilda.
But this type of controversy seems to follow Mr Shaw wherever he goes. 20



p16 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
This week the independent Frankston MP, who holds the balance of power in Victoria thanks to
his desertion of the Coalition amid a probe over his rorting of his taxpayer-funded car for
business use, threatened to bring down the Naphine Government.
Just over a year ago, his resignation as a Liberal MP was a key factor in the fall of former
premier Ted Baillieu. 5
And in the ensuing months he has wreaked havoc in the House with outlandish demands, spiteful
battles with colleagues and even a punch-up with taxi drivers.
Several of those who have had run-ins with him speak of an unforgiving man.
While a few say he is a caring and committed MP who fights passionately for his constituents,
more describe him as a one-man wrecking ball driven by ego and an insatiable lust for power. 10
One Liberal backbencher summed up Mr Shaw as cruel and conniving, with a habit of spreading
vicarious gossip to deflect attention from his own escapades.
Unfortunately, I took him into confidence about some personal things going on in my life and
Mr Shaw betrayed that, the backbencher said.
15
Geoff Shaw during question time in State Parliament. Picture: Ian Currie
Within weeks, what I had told him was pretty much common knowledge. I was exceptionally
upset and I dont trust him at all now.
He did it to deflect attention away from his own problems. I considered confronting him about it
but decided against it. It is disappointing. He certainly has passion and drive it just would be 20
nicer if he focused those in the right way.



p17 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
MS Richards, who was mayor of Frankston in 2010 when Mr Shaw won election, said it was
time for him to step away from the limelight.
She believes that if Mr Shaw were to stand for re-election as he currently intends to do he
would suffer a humiliating defeat.
As Mr Shaw is the state member for our area, media reports have continually linked the name of 5
Frankston with a range of reprehensible conduct, including bullying, violence and the misuse of
public funds conduct that repels the overwhelming majority of Frankston people.
I work across a wide range of Frankston issues I have yet to talk with one person who
intends to vote for him.
Another former mayor, Kris Bolam, said Mr Shaws real problem was his lack of clout with 10
parliamentary colleagues which meant he ultimately failed to deliver for his constituents.
My impression was that he commanded very little influence among his parliamentary
colleagues and the state bureaucrats, Mr Bolam said.
A friend of Mr Shaw described him as a complex character who, on occasions, could be quite
smooth and charming. 15

Geoff Shaw's sign to his ex-wife.
He has a sense of humour he likes to stir and doesnt mind being stirred. A lot of people are
deferential to him and I dont think that sits well with him.
But Mr Shaw did have a superstar ego, the friend said. When he walks into a room people 20
look he has a magnetic presence.



p18 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Parliamentary colleagues speak of a man who is quick to retreat to his modest office with views
of the MCG when the going gets tough.
They say he often hides out there during Question Time and can be heard listening to his
favourite songs from the 1980s to pump himself up.
FRIENDS say the MP who rarely drinks alcohol and prefers hot chocolate to coffee is still 5
scarred by the breakdown of his marriage to ex-wife Sally shortly after he came to power.
Not long after she kicked him out of the family home in Frankston South he erected a sign over a
busy road nearby pleading for her forgiveness and referencing a passage from the Bible.
After Sally refused to take him back he moved on and found happiness with another woman
whom he recently took on a trip to Japan. 10
Bryan Mace, operations manager at the Frankston Dolphins where Mr Shaw plays footy
has praise for his local MP.
He has always helped secure state grants. I speak quite highly of him and what he has done for
Frankstons sporting and business communities. In my experience he has always been very
helpful and welcoming. 15

A Mark Knight cartoon on Geoff Shaw.
I have no problem in saying I would vote for Geoff Shaw at a re-election.
Yet the MPs conduct since election points to a quick temper, a nasty streak and a very firm
desire for revenge. When taxi drivers were protesting on the steps of Parliament it ended with a 20
fist fight and a police probe.



p19 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
After a disabled teenagers mother pleaded for help in finding accommodation for her son, Mr
Shaw rudely hung up the phone, telling her: I have given you more than enough of my time.
When he spotted a motorist getting a telling-off from a policeman close to his office, he saw fit
to intervene with the end result once again an unseemly scuffle.
And long before he was elected he was charged with assault while working as a bouncer in 5
Frankston.
When former Speaker Ken Smith suggested he be punished over his rorting, Mr Shaw made it a
personal goal to remove him from his powerful position which is exactly what happened.
His party resignation is said to have been driven by a feeling that Mr Baillieu did not support him
enough amid the rorting scandal. 10
Now his threats to vote with Labor in a no-confidence motion against the Government could be
his final act of vengeance.
Because the Coalition and Labor now agree on something the need to get Mr Shaw out of
politics once and for all.
15
Another Mark Knight cartoon on Geoff Shaw with Denis Napthine and Daniel Andrews.
david.hurley@news.com.au


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff- 20
shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503




p20 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
News
HS State News and Galleries
Jeff Kennetts plan to deal with rogue MP Geoff Shaw
by: Matt Johnston, Annika Smethurst and Andrea Hamblin
From: Herald Sun 5
June 05, 2014 8:14PM

Vic govt getting legal advice on Shaw 5:39

Denis Napthine says the coalition is getting constitutional advice about rogue independent Geoff 10
Shaw.
Sky News
04 Jun 2014
News
15
To access our premium content,
please subscribe. It's quick and easy.
Vic govt getting legal advice on Shaw
Denis Napthine says the coalition is getting constitutional advice about rogue independent Geoff
Shaw. 20
Sky News



p21 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
04 Jun 2014

Geoff Shaw. Source: News Limited
Vic govt getting legal advice on Shaw
Geoff Shaw. 5
DENIS Napthine should consider scrapping the last few parliamentary sitting weeks before
the November election once the State Budget is passed, Jeff Kennett says.
Mr Kennetts proposal, which is understood to have been raised within sections of the
government, is a radical approach to dealing with the parliamentary chaos surrounding rogue MP
Geoff Shaw. 10
Professor of Political Science at Swinburne University, Brian Costar, said it is quite possible to
shut down parliament early, once the government decides its legislative agenda is largely dealt
with for this term.
Liberal MP Ken Smith told the Herald Sun he would not back away from his bid to see Mr Shaw
removed from parliament in some way, because of his misuse of a taxpayer-funded car. 15
I certainly dont want him back before the election, he said.
Mr Shaw is now understood to be examining options to respond to government and Labor moves
to get rid of him from parliament via expulsion or suspension.
Top legal advice is being explored by Cabinet, while Labor is convinced Mr Shaw could be
expelled and that the decision would be final. 20



p22 9-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
However, some Labor MPs have raised concerns about the precedent it would set, and a special
caucus meeting was held yesterday to try to quell angst.
The Coalition is scrutinising suspension options, which may removed the need to hold Mr Shaw
in contempt of parliament.
Mr Kennett said the parliament would be ill-advised to expel Mr Shaw and there were other 5
options.
They have got to consider closing down the parliament after these two weeks and focus on the
election, he said.
Get the Budget through, then close the parliament down.
A Coalition source said if Mr Shaws punishment left the Legislative Assembly with an equal 10
number of government and Labor members: in that situation you could cancel sitting weeks.
State Parliament has two sitting weeks in June, and five further scheduled sitting weeks from
August 5.
Premier Denis Napthine met with Governor Alex Chernov on Thursday, in what his office said
was a routine meeting. 15
He said the government was seeking advice on the situation but said: Mr Shaw needs to be held
to account.
The Herald Sun was unable to contact Mr Shaw.
matthew.johnston@news.com.au
END QUOTE ARTICLES Herald Sun 20

I would like to see that all those special rules are immediately dropped and Members of
parliament ensure they are only receiving monies that they rightfully, considering legal
embedded principles) are entitled to receive.
25
In my view the treasurer has an obligation to refuse any funding for these unconstitutional
antics to the Parliament.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to be legal advice and
may not be the same were factual details be different than those understood to be by the 30
writer.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(Our name is our motto!) 35