p1 10-6-2014

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 D. Napthine Premier of Victoria 10-6-2014
denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
5
Cc: George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@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 10
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
Christine Fyffe, Speaker christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
15

20140610-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Mr Dernis Naspthine Re Mr Geoff Shaw-etc
Denis,
I urge you to ensure that a copy of this correspondence is provided to all Members of
Parliament (including the Legislative Council). 20

As you are/could be aware of my previous correspondences I dealt with as CONTEMPT OF
COURT application (similar to a CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT motion) where Mr Frank
Colosimo while represented by a barrister had appeared some 5 times before Her Honour Harbison
and had also been placed under administration as it was held he was unable mentally to accept the 25
legal issues. When then I commenced to represent Mr Frank Colosimo as a Professional Advocate
(not being a legal practitioner) & CONSTITUTIONALIST and faced that more than 20 lawyers so
far had been dealing with the case, and Mr Frank Colosimo was warned by Her Honour Harbison
he could face a term of imprisonment, then Mr Frank Colosimo attended court with a toothbrush
expecting to be imprisoned that day. After all how could a non-lawyer know legalities better then 30
more than 20 lawyers, including the Office of the Public Advocate.
That very day the prosecutor sought to withdraw the CONTEMPT OF COURT application which I
opposed and her Honour Harbison ruled that I was correct that once the application had been filed
it was beyond the party which filed it to withdraw.
Likewise, where I opposed certain evidence to be used as being inadmissible, I realised that if the 35
contempt application was withdrawn the prosecution would simply arrange new evidence and file
for a new contempt application and therefor sought an d obtained a stay of the contempt
application preventing it to be reactivated as Her Honour Harbison ruled unless Mr Frank
Colosimo applied for this. The administration orders were also set aside upon appeal as I
challenged the expert witnesses competence where they had provided their evidence upon that Mr 40
Frank Colosimo refused to accept that he was convicted of CONTEMPT OF COURT, where I
checked transcripts of all contempt hearings (6) and discovered he was never even formally charged
with contempt. As such despite more than 20 lawyers having been involved in the case, so to say, I
taught them a lesson how to deal appropriately with a CONTEMPT case. Her Honour Harbison
judgment is on the record about this and I have the transcript of the proceedings and as such not so 45
to say making it up.
.
Well, to me the simply issue was that as like the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) ever lawyer,
including the judges had been looking at matters without realising the real legal issues.
In my view we have the same kind of conduct where it comes to Mr Geoff Shaw. 50



p2 10-6-2014
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
.
There can be absolutely no doubt that the Parliament (either House of Parliament) is a sovereign
entity within the State separated from the Judiciary and the executive. If any person acts in
violation of the Rules of the Parliament then this may result in CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT.
However, contempt powers should be used in the extreme. 5

Hansard 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. O'CONNOR:
The very principle of the Federal Constitution is this: that the Constitution is above both Houses of 10
Parliament. That is the difference between it and our Houses of Parliament now. The Federal Parliament
must be above both Houses of Parliament, and they must conform to it, because it is in the charter
under which union takes place, and the guarantee of rights under which union takes place; and, unless
you have some authority for them to interpret [start page 592] that, what guarantee have you for
preserving their rights at all. It is very necessary to insert this provision in the Constitution, because if you 15
do not do that then these questions are questions of procedure between the two Houses in which undue
pressure may be brought to bear at any time on one House or other for the purpose of vetoing a law and doing
injustice to the States represented in that House in the different ways in which the States are represented.
END QUOTE
20
QUOTE In the Marriage of Helliar (No 3) 5 FLR 756 at 758/759
That qualification is hat the spirit and philosophy of the Family Law Act, as evidenced by s70, s107,
and s114, as well as many provisions aimed at encouraging conciliation, discourage resort to
contempt power where it is appropriate to use other remedies first: Sahari and Sahari (1976) 2 Fam
LR 11,126; ALR 679; (1976) FLC 90-086, at 75 and 407;. Legal Practitioners who have their own 25
duties under the Act, should be loathe to advise the invoking of the contempt power until all other
avenues of compliance or agreement have been reasonably considered and explored. Never the less
cases will remain where invocation of the contempt power is the only appropriate course. Where such
a course is necessary, the relevant procedures must be strictly complied with.
END QUOTE 30
.
QUOTE Sahari and Sahari (1976) 2 FLR 11,126 ;ALR 679;(1976) FLC 90-086 at 75,407
On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the respondent has disobeyed the order of the Court. Can it
be said then, that such disobedience is more than casual or accidental and unintentional? It seems to me that
I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this is so. The parties are in dispute about the meaning 35
of the order .... In any event suspicions, however grave, do not form a sufficient basis upon which a
committal for contempt can be made". However, before the respondent can be committed for contempt, I
must be satisfied that contempt is constituted by 'Willful disobedience ' of a decree.
END QUOTE
. 40
QUOTE Stancomb v Trowbridge Urban District Council (1910) 2 Ch 190
"On the evidence before me in this case I am satisfied that the respondent has disobeyed the order of
the court. Can it be said then, that such disobedience is more than casual or accidental and
unintentional?. It seems to me that I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this is so. The
parties are in dispute about the meaning of the order...". "In any event, suspicions, however grave, do 45
not form a sufficient basis upon which a committal for contempt of court can be made".
END QUOTE

QUOTE
However, before the respondent can be committed for contempt, I must be satisfied that contempt is 50
constituted by ' willful disobedience' of a decree.
END QUOTE

In LEWI S v. J UDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 (15 May 1984 High Court of Australia
Mason(1), Murphy(1), Wilson(1), Brennan(1) and Dawson(1) JJ. 55
QUOTE
At common law words or conduct in the face of the court or in the course of proceedings, in order to
constitute contempt, "must be such as would interfere, or tend to interfere, with the course of justice"



p3 10-6-2014
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
(Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. King-Emperor (1945) AC 264, at p 268 ). Instead of making
interference, or tendency to interfere, with the course of justice an element in the offences which it created,
subs. (1) introduces the new element of conduct which is wilful in pars. (a) and (c). In these two paragraphs
the word "wilfully" means "intentionally", or "deliberately", in the sense that what is said or done is intended
as an insult, threat, etc. Its presence does more than negative the notion of "inadvertently" or "unconsciously" 5
(Bell v. Stewart (1920) 28 CLR 419, at p 427 ). The mere voluntary utterance of words is not enough.
"Wilfully" imports the notion of purpose. (at p688)
END QUOTE

Again: 10
In LEWI S v. J UDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 (15 May 1984 High Court of Australia
Mason(1), Murphy(1), Wilson(1), Brennan(1) and Dawson(1) JJ.
QUOTE
At common law words or conduct in the face of the court or in the course of proceedings, in order to
constitute contempt, "must be such as would interfere, or tend to interfere, with the course of justice" 15
END QUOTE
As such one may hold that contempt proceedings in the Parliament must be dealing with where
there is a breach of rules with the Parliament where it interferes with the Parliaments ability to
debate and legislate as to legislative provisions.
While my information derives from the media is very limited I for one am not aware that there 20
were allegations against Mr Geoff Shaw that he prevented the Parliament to carry out its core
business of debating and legislating. Hence, I view the CONTEMPT powers sought to be used
against him (Mr Geoff Shaw) is defective from onset.

I understand from media reports that you attacked Mr Geoff Shaw about having sought a judicial 25
appointment and that you would refer this matter to the ICAC, I now understand from media
reports that you have now claimed that Mr Geoff Shaw actually inquired about past judicial
appointments having been made. In my view this is a very serious matter as one cannot have a
Member of parliament making a claim against another member of parliament, and notably in
public, making clear also that the other Member of Parliament ( in this case Mr Geoff Shaw) had 30
committed crimes and must be punished. In my view the parliament cannot ignore this kind of
attack in this case upon the member for Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw as it undermines the credibility
of the Parliament.
The States are created within s106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
subject to this constitution and therefore the States are bound by the legal principles embedded 35
in this constitution.
Therefore it is a very serious allegation to claim Mr Geoff Shaw requested a judicial appointment,
as this implied he was willing to give up his being a Member of Parliament for a judicial position.
This as I understand from the Framers of the Constitution would constitute a bribe and be
unlawful. 40
In my view, the issue therefore is that you cannot pursue Mr Geoff Shaw for being suspended from
parliament or otherwise being as you referred to punish unless you either prove that Mr Geoff
Shaw did in fact made such a demand for a judicial appointment or you acknowledge that as
premier you vilified Mr Geoff Shaw in the public and I view you ought to resign as premier and
accept to be subjected to an investigation by the privileges committee as to an appropriate sanction 45
having vilified another Member of Parliament in such severe manner, including to alleged he
committed crimes for which he must be punished. In my view the privileges committee should
hold you accountable as to your claim that Mr Geoff Shaw committed crimes which were
punishable by the Parliament.
50
I have represented over the decades many parties including a lawyer who was a solicitor and
barrister for more than 22 years and as such learned that you do not go about making allegations
that can be without legal basis.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too well aware that the Parliament is a structure within 55
constitutional context and therefore must conduct matters similar was is applicable in a Court of
competent jurisdiction.



p4 10-6-2014
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
In LEWI S v. J UDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 (15 May 1984 High Court of Australia
Mason(1), Murphy(1), Wilson(1), Brennan(1) and Dawson(1) JJ.
QUOTE
At common law words or conduct in the face of the court or in the course of proceedings, in order to
constitute contempt, "must be such as would interfere, or tend to interfere, with the course of justice" 5
(Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. King-Emperor (1945) AC 264, at p 268 ). Instead of making
interference, or tendency to interfere, with the course of justice an element in the offences which it created,
subs. (1) introduces the new element of conduct which is wilful in pars. (a) and (c). In these two paragraphs
the word "wilfully" means "intentionally", or "deliberately", in the sense that what is said or done is intended
as an insult, threat, etc. Its presence does more than negative the notion of "inadvertently" or "unconsciously" 10
(Bell v. Stewart (1920) 28 CLR 419, at p 427 ). The mere voluntary utterance of words is not enough.
"Wilfully" imports the notion of purpose. (at p688)
END QUOTE

In my view, your attempt to have Mr Geoff Shaw suspended for a certain period may be seen as a 15
CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT if not CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE PARLIAMENT in
view that a suspension of Mr Geoff Shaw will directly affect the ability of the Government
associated Members of Parliament to have bills passed without the consent of non-Government
associated Members of Parliament.
Back in 1985, then already Walsh J gave me the nickname TRAPDOOR SPIDER because of the 20
manner in which I conducted cross-examination using the witnesses of the opponent party against
the opponent party. And not long ago a barrister argued, as I recall; Mr Schorel-Hlavka is
surgically taking apart my witness affidavit. Where time and time again the witness during my
cross-examination conceded that the paragraph in the affidavit was in correct.
. 25
CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT could be such as the taxi drivers preventing Mr Geoff Shaw to ac
cess the Parliament in a free manner, similar where CONTEMPT OF COURT is when one harass
another party, its lawyer or the judicial officer in the lift or to or from the court.
CONTEMPT IN THE FACED OF THE PARLIAMENT as like CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF
THE COURT where a person (including a member of the legal profession) makes 30
harassing/derogative comments upon another person in the court room/parliament chamber and or
file a document not ordinary permitted to be filed, etc.
While Members of Parliament ordinary do have a certain freedom within the Parliament to name
persons and make claims against them (without being subjected to be sued by the person named) it
should not be construed that a Member of Parliament then can make all kind of derogative 35
comments against another Member of Parliament.

Ione a judge held med in contempt of court and convicted me and fined me $2,500 but I appealed it
and the Full Court set aside the conviction as I had not been charged, read my legal rights and
neither had been allowed to place my case, even so I twice reminded the judge of this. 40
What this judge did was simply convict me without a trail. Then not long ago a judicial officer had
sought the assistance of 3 lawyers from the Government Solicitors Office to have me being dealt
with for CONTEMPT OF COURT. Well, the judicial officer read out the relevant legislative
provisions and then I read out precisely the same but explaining that she totally misunderstand and
misconstrued what the section stood for. So, she abandoned the contempt proceedings against as it 45
became clear I acted within my rights as a Professional Advocate representing as party. Despite my
self-professed crummy English it turned out I understood the application of the legislative
provisions better than the lawyers involved in the case.
.
And that brings me to Mr Geoff Shaw, he seems to me to have been so to say convicted by the 50
privileges committee but without a trial.
.
Firstly as I understand it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-04/geoff-shaw-timeline/5485568?section=vic 55



p5 10-6-2014
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
QUOTE
May 2012
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. 5
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,
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 10
parliamentary guidelines. He says the driver has offered to repay the expenses.
END QUOTE


The legal issue that the parliament has to deal with uis who referred the matter to the Victorian 15
Police in the first place?
The premier (then Mr Ted Baillieu) has no constitutional powers as to interfere with the powers of
the Speaker of the legislative Assembly or the President of the Legislative Council and as such
couldnt refer the matter to the Victorian Police.
The Victorian Police had no legal powers to investigate matter where they were issues regarding 20
internal Parliamentarian matters unless and until if ever at all the Speaker of the Legislative
assembly or the president of the legislative Council referred the matter to the Victorian Police.
One either one of them refers a matter to the Victorian Police or other authority then the
parliament has no business further to investigate as the Victorian Police does so on its behalf. The
same with when an electoral matter is disputed before a Court of Disputed Returns. Then even if 25
the parliament dislikes the decision of the Court of disputed returns it is bound by its decision.
Likewise, I view that the Parliament in the issues regarding Mr Geoff Shaw is bound by the
Victorian Police/Prosecutor decision to withdraw charged.
While the charges against Mr Geoff Shaw were still pending I as a concerned citizen and
CONSTITUTIONALIST wrote to Chief Commissioner of police Mr Ken Law regarding certain 30
matters and to me it was no surprise at all that subsequently the charges were withdrawn, and the
court accepted this.

If the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly (I understood Mr Ken Smith) at the time never
authorised for the Victorian Police to investigate matters then clearly the Victorian Police never 35
had any legal basis to pursue charges regarding an internal Parliamentarian matter to which it
never had obtained due and proper authorisation from the Speaker. In my view Mr Ken Smith by
de facto allowed the Victorian Police without legal powers to pursue Mr Geoff Shaw. In that case I
view Mr Ken Smith as Speaker by this voided any ability for the privileges committee then to
investigate Mr Geoff Shaw for the same. Moreover I view that all and any admissions made by Mr 40
Geoff Shaw, if he made any, cannot be used by the privileges committee to find any contempt of
parliament, etc.
While Mr Ken Smith may desire to hold Mr Geoff Shaw accountable in the end as I understand it
he himself failed to ensure that the legal processes were appropriately followed. Hence I view his
time as Speaker had to end as he was employed by the Parliament to manage the Legislative 45
Assembly and I view he seemed to have allowed the then Premier Ted Baillieu to take over albeit
unconstitutionally his position regarding Mr Geoff Shaw.



p6 10-6-2014
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 for Mr Daniel Andrews, he got essentially what he demanded for the Police instead of the
privileges committee to deal with the matter but he doesnt to me appear to like the outcome and
then insist the privileges committee has to do the job. So to say he wants to eat the cake and have it.
It was as I understood it Mr Daniel Andrews whop insisted that nor the speaker refer the matter to
the Victorian Police but instead the Premier (at the time Mr Ted Baillieu) did so. As if Mr Ted 5
Baillieu as Premier (member of the state Executives) overrides the Parliament and so the Speaker
Mr Ken Smith at the time. In my view Mr Ken Smith should have addressed this matter then.
.
It appears to me that Mr Daniel Andrews having been commissioned as a constitutional advisor
top the Governor when being a Minister of the Crown may not understand/comprehend what is 10
constitutionally appropriate and I am concerned that he as a purported alternative Premier fails to
understand what is appropriate in the circumstances.
.The constitution doesnt allow for payments of a so called shadow Minister as the shadow
Minister is not part of the State executive and as such any payment received for being a shadow
Minister I view would constitute an Office of Profit which would automatically terminated this 15
Members of Parliaments right to hold a seat in the Parliament. In that regard it could be deemed
CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT and/or CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE PARLIAMENT
for a person to continue to sit in the parliament as a Member of Parliament while receiving monies
that could be construed as being in an Office of Profit. So to say, people who throw stone could
expect they can be hurt themselves by t. 20

As such, Mr Daniel Andrews himself and others may actually have no legal position to submit any
motion in the Legislative Assembly, nor vote, where he and others were to be engage in an Office of
Profit.
25
What we should look upon is as to the privileges committee having the powers to deal with any
contempt of Parliament what was the evidence before it and what were the legal proceedings it
followed?
.
Firstly, it should have charged Mr Geoff Shaw precisely with the breaches he was accused off. 30
Then have read him his legal rights that he didnt have to answer any questions but may do so and
anything he stated may and could be used against him.
It had to ignore ordinary personal conflicts between Mr Geoff Shaw and say Mr Ken Smith as that
cannot be construed evidence.
It neither could allow fo any admission of inadmissible evidence that was obtained by the police. 35
It neither could re-investigate the claims against Mr Geoff Shaw regarding the alleged misuse or
inappropriate use of a taxpayers funded vehicle as this was referred out of the Parliaments power
to the police and the courts had dealt with this.
.
As such, the privileges committee to pursue any case against Mr Geoff Shaw in my view was limited 40
as to any final court determination that may have found Mr Geoff Shaws guilty. Failing such court
fining then nothing as such relating to the usage of the taxpayers funded vehicle could be used
against Mr Geoff Shaw for any contempt proceedings.
Obviously the privileges committee itself couldnt be the informant and so Mr Geoff Shaw could
only be held in contempt, or whatever where there was a known prosecutor. 45

Only when the prosecutor who pursued a CONTEMPT case against Mr Geoff Shaw had presented
all relevant evidence but excluding any alleged evidence obtained by the police, could the privileges
committee consider if Mr Geoff Shaw was or was not in Contempt of Parliament or otherwise had
breached the Rules of Parliament. However, the mere fact that it as I understood ordered Mr Geoff 50
Shaw to pay a certain fine regarding the cost of the vehicle in itself appears to me that the privileges
committee erred in law to consider details of the police case on behalf of the parliament that had
been withdrawn.

In my view the Supreme Court of Victoria and/or the High Court of Australia would not likely be 55
willing to intervene in what essentially would be a political matter, however I view it can and will



p7 10-6-2014
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
intervene in a privileges committee hearing that denied NATURAL JUSTICE and a FAIR AND
PROPER HEARING.

In my view, despite the very limited details available to me, I view that the privileges committee
dealing with the issue of the alleged misuse of the vehicle was beyond its power and couldnt have 5
been part of the consideration.
.
Now that we know what the Framers of the Constitution held about conviction, etc, we
may also now understand that the Parliament itself cannot punish a person for any alleged
crime. A breach of Rules of the Parliament cannot be deemed a crime unless it was 10
resulting to a conviction before a court of law.
.
HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
There is only one other point which I will mention-it is perhaps more a matter of verbiage than anything else- 15
that is, the clause which provides that a convicted criminal shall not be entitled to sit in the new parliament
until he is discharged or pardoned. That is rather an unhappy clause. It is not a cardinal principle of the bill;
but it is an unhappy provision, and I should be glad to see it omitted altogether.
END QUOTE
20
In my view a convicted criminal refers to a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction, not
something about a breach of Rules of the Parliament. And considering that the rules were amended
from shall not to must not then this is an implied admission by the Parliament that there was a
dubious meaning to the wording shall not and so I view it would be absurd to pursue for this also
any contempt case against Mr Geoff Shaw. 25

While Mr Dennis Napthine as Premier may make statements alleging crimes committed
by Mr Geoff Shaw, as a Member of Parliament of the Legislative Assembly making such a
statement in public without the protection of the Parliament I view makes him liable to
libel. But, I view the Speaker cannot tolerate to allow any Member of Parliament to make 30
allegations against another Member of Parliament of having committed crimes where as
I understand it no such crimes were held by any court of jurisdiction to have been
committed in regard of which Parliament has power to inflict any kind of punishment.
Ordinary, the Courts apply a punishment upon a person convicted and I know of no
provision that allows the Parliament to inflict a punishment in addition of what a Court 35
may have applied. Breaches against Rules of the Legislative Assembly (of the Parliament)
cannot be considered to be crimes as such as is understood to be against enacted laws.
Hence, I view in that regard there can be no issue as to refer to crimes as such.

Why on earth Mr Geoff Shaw is referred to as a rough Member of Parliament also ought to 40
be questioned as to what I understand Members of Parliament are ordinary about I for one
would not consider that Mr Geoff Shaw could be rightfully referred to as being a rough
Member of Parliament. Again I will quote the previous email I received already quoted in
my previous correspondence:
QUOTE EMAIL 11-5-2014 45
Fw: NRL... ??This will open your eyes... - read to the end..
Hans Mitterer The Trash that floats upon DemoCrazy - - greetings Hans I wonder if this
can possibly be true? CAN IT ALL BE TRUE? I hope it's not true! AFL vs NRL...This will
open your eyes... 36 have been accused o
To Undisclosed-Recipient@ 50
11 May




p8 10-6-2014
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 Trash that floats upon DemoCrazy - - greetings Hans
I wonder if this can possibly be true? CAN IT ALL BE TRUE? I hope it's not true!


AFL vs NRL...This will open your eyes...



36 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the
last year




p9 10-6-2014
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
Can you guess which
organization this is?
AFL? NRL?
Give up yet? . . .. .
Scroll down


Neither,
it's the 535 members of
theAUSTRALIAN
PARLIAMENT


in CANBERRA

The same group of Idiots that
crank out hundreds of new laws
each year, designed to keep the
rest of us in line.



p10 10-6-2014
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

You've got to pass this
one on!




END QUOTE EMAIL 11-5-2014

Again, we should have a register of past and (during the lifetime of the Parliament) current
convictions of all Members of Parliament both in State and Federal Parliament so we all
can consider what really might be referred to as a rough Member of Parliament, albeit 5
considering that only convictions obtained during the life of the parliament can be
considered to be relevant as any convictions existing prior to the election having been held
cannot be relied upon this as the electors clearly voted for this person, irrespective if they
knew or didnt know about any convictions. After all, many who migrate to Australia and
subsequently are elected Members of Parliament may have a hidden criminal record they 10
may have been able to conceal since arriving in the Commonwealth of Australia. That is
also why the Framers of the Constitution held that it must relate to crimes committed and
convicted of within the Commonwealth of Australia. After all a person might be convicted
in another country of what is deemed to be a crime whereas within the Commonwealth of
Australia it might not be a crime at all. It is only relevant to the Commonwealth of 15
Australia if a person had hidden a criminal record and naturalised and afterwards the
Commonwealth of Australia held that the naturalisation having been the product of gross
deception cannot stand. Then automatically the person loses any rights as to franchise and
so to sit in a Parliament within the Commonwealth of Australia, being it state or Federal.
Consider also what I wrote about the legal principles applied in the Colosimo case before Her 20
Honour Harbison J. Despite the opponent council claiming otherwise Her Honour Harbison J held
up my submission regarding contempt legal principles and procedures. Hence, I know from real
experiences!

For the above stated it is my view that any kind of punishment by the parliament in regard 25
of the alleged misuse of vehicle would be swiftly dealt with by the courts as having been in
excess of power failing to follow proper procedures and cannot stand. Well, if you desire to
make a further mockery of the Parliament and its processes then we see what you will do
on Wednesday 11-6-2014.
I for one hold that any action against Mr Geoff Shaw would be a DENIAL OF NATURAL 30
JUSTICE also and in the end should fail. Dont continue as if it is the WMD affair as we
had enough of lies and deceit!

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 writer. 35
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

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