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
George Williams 9-6-2014
george.williams@unsw.edu.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
Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au

20140609-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr George Williams Re Mr Geoff Shaw-etc 15
Sir,
Whi8le you may b e a professor, I view that you may be mistaken in that Mr Geoff
Shaw may have no legal standing to have any decision by the Legislative Assembly to be
expelled overturned.
In my various writings which can also be downloaded from my blog 20
www.scribd.com/inspectorrfikati I have set out what I understand are the relevant issues.
This includes the fact that the parliament having ordinary the right to deal with a Member
of Parliament in this case as I understand upon the demands of Mr Daniel Andrews the
matter was to be handed over to the Victorian Police on behalf of the Parliament. In that
case, the Victorian Police. As with a electoral matter where the matter is dealt with by the 25
Court of Disputed Returns the Parliament cannot afterwards take the matter back as it has
been dealt with, even if the outcome may not be of the parliaments liking.
.
As the Victorian Police had no original jurisdiction to deal with the internal affairs of the
Parliament (such as the Legislative Assembly) then where it was requested to deal with it 30
then that is the end of the matter for the Parliament itself.
While the courts ordinary would not get involved in political matters however if there was
a denial of NATURAL JUSTICE then the court may very well strike down any unfair
conduct and hold that in the circumstances this was not a matter which could have been
pursued by the Parliament. 35
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE 40

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, 45
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE



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
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE 5

Hence Parliament is bound to apply legal principles embedded in the constitution and any
defiance of this I view the court can then deal with the matter.
I do not know how much you really understand about the legal principles embedded in the
constitution but as I understand it the Framers of the Constitution specifically debated that 10
the High Court of Australia couldnt interfere in as political matter but could deal with a
matter where there was a failure of proper process. In the circumstances, I view it ill
advised to proceed with a dubious matter and place at risk that the Parliament will be so to
say dragged further unto the gutter.
Again, you may desire to read up on the various documents I published at my blog 15
www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati to see how I have set out various issues. It is not relevant to
me if you may or may not agree with me but rather that the parliament will not engage in a
very dubious conduct that afterwards may and I view likely could be overturned by the
courts were Mr Geoff Shaw be expelled from Parliament in regard of the alleged misuse of
taxpayers funded car. 20
.
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House
of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)
Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking
consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient 25
in law.
END QUOTE

Is it really worth it to embark on Tuesday 19-6-2014 upon trying to expel Mr Geoff Shaw
without appropriately considering all relevant issues such as those I canvassed in my 30
various published correspondences? (www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati)
This is a matter I view of a very dirty business, mote one of some Members of Parliament
seeking a form of retribution rather than to pursue an ordinary parliamentarian processes,
and the vilification that has as to my understanding been associated with it may indeed be
rebukes by a court as not constituting the ordinary processed Parliament could have the 35
sovereignty to deal with but rathe it was a exploitation and abuse of powers.
Citizens are now subjected to an avalanche of misinformation, deceptive claims, vilification
upon a Member of Parliament and this should stop in its track as people quite frankly are
fed up with it all. It is as if the Iraq lies to invade to justify the unconstitutional murderous
invasion has now possessed some member of the parliament that no matter what they are 40
determine at all cost to expel Mr Geoff Shaw even if this were to undermine the credibility
of the Parliament, and the long term harm flowing from this.


This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to be legal advice and 45
may not be the same were factual details be different than those understood to be by the
writer.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL 50
(Our name is our motto!)