p1 6-6-2014

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 6-6-2014
denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
5
Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@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
Christine Fyffe, Speaker christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
10
20140606-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier D Napthine-Re conspiracy against Geoff Shaw MP-etc

Sir,
.I express hereby my concern that it appears to me that you, Mr Ken Smith and Mr Daniel
Andrews may be engaged in a conspiracy against Mr Geoff Shaw. 15

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. 20
END QUOTE

http://click.e.heraldsun.com.au/?qs=9f815d25a885d7116b7a3e76c22a3602db71e94926a1a367fef9506235de4ac
039ac2e38c985e5a4
QUOTE 25
Premier Denis Napthine seeks legal advice in bid to dump rogue MP Geoff Shaw from Parliament, and
punish his crimes
END QUOTE

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/premier-denis-napthine-seeks-legal-advice-in-bid-to-dump-rogue-mp- 30
geoff-shaw-from-parliament-and-punish-his-crimes/story-fni0fit3-
1226943529873?sv=119162a70f2e421121e31b3c50c2dd5
QUOTE
However, he has spent the day reassuring the electorate that Mr Shaws crimes will be met with the
appropriate punishment. 35
END QUOTE

Moment, since when is a person deemed to have committed crimes when not convicted
by a court of law?
40
I understand from media reports that Mr Ken Smith has indicated to vote with what is
called the Opposition to deal with Mr Geoff Shaw, as I understood it to oust him from
Parliament. I understood from the reports that you also now have decided to so to say get
rid of Mr Geoff Shaw. It is noticeable that you referred to crimes. It is my view that the
conduct of the three of you may amount to a conspiracy to harm Mr Geoff Shaw. 45
It cannot be denied that e very member of Parliament may vote in as manner as he/she
decides to do on any motion in the Parliament, however to make clear to support some



p2 6-6-2014
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
motion that doesnt exist at the time and which has not even been formulated clearly
cannot be deemed to be the exercise of lawful voting.
Further, as I understand it as a CONSTITUTIONALIST Parliament has no powers to
punish any person convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for any crimes
committed as that remains for the relevant court to do. Parliament may hold a person 5
convicted of serious crimes by a court of law to be denied to remain in a seat but only if this
was a serious crimes and the rule applies to every Member of Parliament and only in
regard of crimes committed during the life of the Parliament to which it relates.
I for one cannot see any justification for as what was reported:
10
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/premier-denis-napthine-seeks-legal-advice-in-bid-to-dump-rogue-mp-
geoff-shaw-from-parliament-and-punish-his-crimes/story-fni0fit3-
1226943529873?sv=119162a70f2e421121e31b3c50c2dd5
QUOTE
However, he has spent the day reassuring the electorate that Mr Shaws crimes will be met with the 15
appropriate punishment.
END QUOTE

As a Premier you are part of the Executive and should be well aware that the government
cannot punish a person for alleged crimes as only the judiciary can do so if a person is 20
convicted. If you do not understand the separation of powers then I view you are
incompetent to be a Premier (constitutional advisor to the Governor).
As for the Parliament to deal with b reached of Rules of the Parliament that is not a matter
for the Executive (Government) but rest purely where it relates to a Member of the
Legislative assembly upon the Speaker to provide for the appropriate process. 25
Without implying that Mr Geoff Shaw committed any crimes in his life, the issue is and
remains that if the Rules of the Parliament (in this case the Legislative Assembly) or the
constitution provides for the person convicted of a crime by a court of competent
jurisdiction to have his seat declared vacant, where the offence may carry a minimum
sentence applicable to the removal of this person from the seat in the Parliament then this 30
is not a matter upon which the parliament can vote as it is legally applicable.
If Mr Geoff Shaw since having taken up the oath of office in the Legislative Assembly has
not been convicted of any breach of laws then there is no issue as to alleged crimes
committed. If nevertheless you refer to crimes and the Parliament to deal with this, even
so no known crimes were committed during the life of the current Parliament by him 35
upon which the Parliament can vote as to sanction(s), then I view you have scandalised the
person known as Mr Geoff Shaw and tainted his position as a Member of the Legislative
Assembly uncalled for.

It appears to me you had the benefit of Mr Geoff Shaw to remain in parliament when he 40
was critical for you to remain in Government but now that there is a forthcoming election
due he so to say is now disposable and may be deemed a liability in electoral matters. To me
it may be an offence for you to label a sitting Member of Parliament to have committed
crimes and to insinuate that the Parliament will punish Mr Geoff Shaw for this and
promoting this to the electorate. 45
As a Premier you do not have any electorate, but as a Member of Parliament you were
elected to serve certain constituents. Premiers do not elected as it is the Governor who
ultimately decide who he shall commission to be Premier. If the Governor were to desire to
commission me to be a Premier then he could rightfully do so regardless that I am not a
Member of Parliament. 50
I am not one of your constituents as I do not reside in your electorate.
I find it offensive that you as a Premier then accuses a Member of Parliament having
committed crimes to which the Parliament will be dealing with.



p3 6-6-2014
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
Where the Liberal Party was so much about Law and Order in the last State election I
then find it utterly deplorable that you as the leader of the political party disregard the
rights of another Member of Parliament and as I view it vilifies him at large, using your
position as Premier.
5
In my view you better get yourself legal advisors who understand matters appropriately,
both constitutional issues as well as other legal issues.

In my view you ought to make an unreserved apology to Mr Geoff Shaw both as Premier
and in the House (Legislative Assembly) and I view Mr Ken Smith and Mr Daniel Andrews 10
would do better likewise to make unreserved apologies as failing this I view Mr Geoff
Shaws lawyers may have so to say a field day in court suing you all for deformation of
character, etc.
.
If people like yourself cannot manage to settle personality differences and go all out in a 15
slanging match and scandalising a Member of Parliament regardless there may be no legal
basis for it, then how on earth can you consider to be competent to deal with matters of
legislation to avoid citizen s to do the same or to manage the important matters of the State
of Victoria. Is this a reflection as to the best way you can perform at cost of taxpayers I
wonder? 20

There is a lot of talk and speculation as I understand it that members of the ALP will vote
for the expulsion of Mr Geoff Shaw, and one then has to ask have we elected separate
Members of Parliament to represent various elect orates or are they just dictated by Mr
Daniel Andrews and so we might as well save ourselves a lot of monies by getting rid of all 25
those Members and just have the one person representing all those electorates, where they
appear to me to be all mindless and not understand what is constitutionally applicable.
We need a robust Parliament where any member can cast his/her views regardless if others
may or may not agree with it. However, to label such a member, no matter how outspoken
to be a rough Member of Parliament being it by the media or others I view may constitute 30
CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

Even the courts recognise this:
.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335 35
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of
everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE
40
No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:
LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRI NI DAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good 45
faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the
wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper
motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of 50
ordinary man
END QUOTE
.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W. 55
LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE



p4 6-6-2014
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 right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE 5
.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
(b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537 10
(d) SOLI CI TOR-GENERAL v RADI O AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
.
However, to label a person to have committed crimes as was reported, I view is going
beyond fair comment it is to scandalise a Member of Parliament and to then claim that
Mr Geoff Shaw needs to be punished by the Parliament for this I view is taking it to 15
the absurdity. In my view the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly should call all three to
answer for inappropriate conduct towards the Member of Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw as to
justify why no disciplinary action should be taken by the Speaker, being it suspension and
or expulsion from the Legislative Assembly, etc) against each of you for scandalising and
placing in question the credibility of the Legislative Assembly by the ferocious attack upon 20
Mr Geoff Shaw.
.
In my view the comments reported via the media, including videos, of the three of you may
constitute CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT, LIBEL, CONSPIRACY, ETC, and I view it
would be better for the three of yours to stop this nonsense against the Member for 25
Frankston and address the real issues concerning Victorians. I look forwards to the
speaker dealing with the 3 of you severely as to indicate to the community as well as to
other Members of Parliament that this kind of conduct against a Member of Parliament
cannot and will not be tolerated.
As far as I view it Mr Geoff Shaw if recontesting the seat of Frankston and were to lose the 30
election may very well have an issue to sue for deformation of his character causing loss of
the election by you having alleged he committed crimes for which he needed to be punished
by the parliament, and so un duly undermined his ability to be re-elected. At least from the
various media reports I understood that constituents were influenced as to the crimes
and other matters alleged against Mr Geoff Shaw. Is this how you pursue to conduct an 35
election?

The above quoted correspondences may be helpful and I would like to see that taxpayers
will now see that Members of Parliament are not placing themselves above the law.
40
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to be legal advice and may
not be the same where facts were to be different then what is understood by me to be.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL 45
(Our name is our motto!)



50