p1 11-6-2014

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 Ken Smith 11-6-2014
ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
5
Cc: Christine Fyffe, Speaker christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.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 denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au 10
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au

20140611-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Ken Smith -etc 15
Sir,
just switching on television I noticed you making a statement to the Parliament, as I
understood it, warning that it could set a precedent and could harm future Parliaments
when a Member of Parliament for any minor infringement could be expelled. I welcome
this kind of statement, as we are human and can make errors and in particular where a 20
party has the majority in both houses they could crucify a Member of Parliament for any
minor issue using a precedent if Mr Geoff Shaw was expelled. At times a Member of
Parliament may engage in a conduct which may to this Member of Parliament to be within
the Rules of Parliament only to discover afterwards that it was not, and such error hardly
ought to result to leave a stain upon the Member of Parliament. It is in line with what I 25
raised in past correspondences.
.
It appears to me that the Parliament deals ad hoc with breaches of the rules of parliament
where it concerns an alleged CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT and I would like to see that
Parliament set in placed a narrow prescribed system that if any Member of Parliament 30
pursues a CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT then a proper legalistic process is followed
where the accused person, being a member of parliament or not, is formally charged with
the alleged offence(s) and is advised of the nature of alleged CONTEMPT OF
PARLIAMENT and then is permitted to have his/her reply statement. Only after this
could any House consider the pros and the cons and then vote for any particular 35
punishment. Where the person who submitted the CONTEMPT OF COURT matter must
be deemed the Prosecutor and cannot vote on the matter and is to conduct the matter as
such to ensure the accused is provided NATURAL JUSTICE and a FAIR AND PROPER
HEARING.
40
While I noticed that a statement was made by a Member of Parliament that Mr Geoff Shaw
should be expelled for having misused his taxpayers funded vehicle, I maintain that in view
that the courts on behalf of the Parliament dealt with the issues then it is beyond the power
of the Parliament re so to say to re-litigate then this defies NATURAL JUSTICE and also
could set a dangerous precedent that could have a long term harm effect upon Members of 45
Parliament.



p2 11-6-2014
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

I maintain that one cannot hold that the conduct by the Parliament FAIR, JUST AND
APPROPRIATE where it seeks to punish a person who already had been dealt with by
the Courts, and was not convicted. Only if there had been a conviction could the parliament
have relied upon this to build a case against Mr Geoff Shaw. 5
It is in my view not relevant if most or all Members of Parliament considers Mr Geoff
Shaw to be guilty of misusing his vehicle, he has faced the courts and so to say defeated the
charges and is entitled to the benefit of this.
As much as we need to respect the Parliament, the Parliament needs to respect the decision
of the judiciary and not engage in a conduct to ignore/circumvent or otherwise undermine 10
the courts decisions, in this case to have accept the charges were withdrawn.
In my view it could be deemed CONTEMPT OF COURT for the Parliament to victimise
Mr Geoff Shaw for something the courts decided the charges to be withdrawn.

Do keep in mind that if Mr Geoff Shaw were to pursue any kind of punishment before 15
the courts I expect the courts will set aside the punishment as having been in defiance of
Parliaments limitations as it had been dealt with by the courts and Mr Geoff Shaw has the
right and entitlements to be deemed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
Just consider what this would make of those Members of Parliament who voted for a
punishment, and now so to say will have egg on their faces. It is the Parliament itself and 20
not Mr Geoff Shaw who makes a mockery of 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
writer. 25
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

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