20140609-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Geoff Shaw-etc

8/12/2019 20140609-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Geoff Shaw-etc

1/22

p1 9-6-2014INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI seriesby making a reservation, See also

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WITHOUT PREJUDICEMr Geoff Shaw MP [email protected]

5Cc: Christine Fyffe, [email protected]

Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria,[email protected] Andrews leader [email protected] Michael [email protected] D. Napthine Premier of Victoria [email protected] Johnston [email protected] Hurley [email protected]

20140609-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Geoff Shaw-etcGeoff,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 inprogress 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 Sun25

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--1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON:I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship of the 1891 Bill,35there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be well to alter their order. TheDrafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end of the proceedings will ask hon. members togive 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 of40Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage:
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


2/22


3/22




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 Victoria5but 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 no10longer 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 WITH15CHARGES.

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 motion20to 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.25As 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 8-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates30

QUOTEMr. 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 anythingobjectionable at all could pass through both Houses of the Federal Legislature without finding some onemember 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 8-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. CARRUTHERS(New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law has45to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the Executive to callattention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a majority of the membersof the House of Representatives to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; itonly requires one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legalinterpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call the attention of50the 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
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


4/22




obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither Housecould pass the standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the Speaker's orPresident's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power. They give no power to either Houseto pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution.

END QUOTE5

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 Premier15Denis 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 201220

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,25this 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 withparliamentary guidelines. He says the driver has offered to repay the expenses.

END QUOTE30

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 todo as he may dictate.35However 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 you40can 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
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-04/geoff-shaw-timeline/5485568?section=vichttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-04/geoff-shaw-timeline/5485568?section=vichttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-20/liberal-mp-investigated-over-expenses/4022054http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-20/liberal-mp-investigated-over-expenses/4022054http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-20/liberal-mp-investigated-over-expenses/4022054http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-04/geoff-shaw-timeline/5485568?section=vichttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


5/22




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 of5Parliament 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 CONSTITUTIONALISTI for one(and I likely speak for most Victorians) am sick and tired of the politicians robbing10ordinary 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 for15a seat in the Parliament and the Senate was referred to as an example;Hansard 2-4-1891Constitution 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 are20concerned as regards reckoning the time of retirement. But in another part of the bill it is provided that thesenators 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 firstday 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 ColonelSmith, that although a senator is elected in June, his term of service and payment for service shall not beginuntil 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 bereckoned; 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 the35 clause is right; but, as regards other portions of the bill, it seems to me that it is not right, and the questionought to be clearly understood.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned, there is a gooddeal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals with the first senators. Afterwardsthe term of service begins on the 1st of January. I suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the401st 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 walkout, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon. member has pointed out a blot withrespect to the first senators. A man might be elected in December and claim twelve months' pay, dating fromthe previous January. This, I think, would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the words "for45the purposes of his retirement."


6/22




Mr. WRIXON:The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a man is not a senator untilhe 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 notuntil be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is5not completely clad in that position until he[start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and Iapprehend 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 thesematters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the draftsman. I would deprecate any hurriedamendment 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 the1st 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 thefollowing January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his seat. I wouldsuggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this point, and consider it. I do15not think we could make any amendment here that would meet the case. For the purposes of this particularclause the provision is right enough; but I think there will be a difficulty in regard to payment, and also as tovacancies occurring.

Sir JOHN BRAY:I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook this questionentirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon. gentleman sees no strong objection to20such 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 ifa man is elected in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January, andthat he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite possible that this may not bethe best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems to me clear that the second paragraph was25drawn with the idea, that it applied to this section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, tomove as an amendment:

That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this section" beinserted.

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, inregard to vacancies occurring by death, the difficulty would be met by substituting for the words "retiringsenators" 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 firstinstance?

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:Always!40

Mr. MARMION:It seems to me that there are two portions of the bill which may be affected by theproposed amendment. In the first place, unless it is distinctly laid down in the bill that a senator, thoughelected, does not become a senator until the 1st of January, there will be during that interval twelve senatorsinstead 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 local45


7/22




house of representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any longer in the state house ofrepresentatives, and if his election to the senate takes place some time prior to the end of the year, unless it isdistinctly laid down that the mere fact of his election[start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will beobliged 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,5members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to be in permanent session. Here wehave to deal with the case of a constituency which is in session only sometimes. We must, therefore, dealspecially 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 ofthe house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June; next January he becomes a senator10and 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 to15continue 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 Mr20Daniel 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 conduct25was 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 Actstands for). And considering what conspiracystands for:.30QUOTESorell 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 givegood cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of theconspiracy.

END QUOTE35

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 the40matter 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 Profitand

would make the member of Parliament ineligible to continue to hold the seat. Hence I view50this cannot eventuate. Nor any electoral allowance this as when writs are issued then all


8/22




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.5As 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.10I 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

15END QUOTE

In my view the speaker ought to demand the herald Sun to answer what I view might be

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENTby publishing this kind or cartoon and ongoing referring

to a Member of Parliament as being rough.20The 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 parliamentarian25privileges 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


9/22




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 take5up 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-10election 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 has15to 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 nonsenseof the resettlement allowance is not only unconstitutional but I view a gross stupidity.20Just 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/contribution25by 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,30despite 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 the35parliament 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 providedfor 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 it45was 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 commercial50purposes and the Member of Parliament is no more.


10/22




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 the5rules 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 office10for 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 office20and 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 a25payment 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 of30 Parliament. And if then the so called opposition were to lose all those persons who werepaid 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 shadow35Ministers 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 a40

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 was50in the employ by the Queen, by having been a constitutional advisor to the Governor.


11/22




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 L imi ted[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 thirdcourse was fatal. It thus constitutes a binding decision of this Court that the third course is compulsory in thisCourt. There is no point in a detailed consideration of the difficult question whether the proposition should10attract support or disagreement. An expression of disagreement would not undercut the status of themajority'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 QUOTE15

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 constitutionally20applicable 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 gets25worse. 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 disregard30this 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 unconstitutionalThe following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does tofederal laws in the USA;http://familyguardian.tax-35tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm QUOTE

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutesthe law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must bein agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.40This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is inreality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates fromthe 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 a45 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 norights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifiesno acts performed under it. . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede50any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it issuperseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. END QUOTESixteenth American Jurisprudence55Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


12/22


13/22




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 paymentsbecause he no longer has a taxpayer-funded car.5

This is about $2000 more than the fine the Privileges Committee recommends he pay for themisuse of his former parliamentary caralthough it would be taxed.

The Sunday Herald Sununderstands that if an MP is suspended from parliament without beingnamed 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 can15be effectively collected in cash, worth about $1400 a fortnight, and a separate supplement worthmore than $430 a fortnight before tax.

If he was not expelled from parliament, and recontested the next election as he plans to do, MrShaw would get a $36,124 resettlement allowance if he lost his seat.

Superannuation entitlements and the car allowancewhich is worth $632 a fortnight and rises to20$651 a fortnight from Julywould push gross benefits and pay up to about $150,000.

Opposition leader Daniel Andrews said he would move a motion to expel Mr Shaw fromparliament 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 saywere 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 passthe budget.

Were very happy to turn our attention to Mr Shaws issues once weve received the advice, but

only after the budgets been passed.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/voting-is-split-on-the-great-divider-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226946371919http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/voting-is-split-on-the-great-divider-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226946371919http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/voting-is-split-on-the-great-divider-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226946371919http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


14/22




The budget is a million times more important than Geoff Shaw.

[email protected]

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 12:00AM10

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 dominatedVictorian 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 Richardspenned a newspaper editorial criticising Mr Shaw for his controversial conduct.

The MP for Frankston threatened to sue for defamation. So when she saw the With20Compliments 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.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/voting-is-split-on-the-great-divider-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226946371919http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/voting-is-split-on-the-great-divider-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226946371919http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/voting-is-split-on-the-great-divider-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226946371919http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/voting-is-split-on-the-great-divider-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226946371919http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/voting-is-split-on-the-great-divider-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226946371919http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


15/22




To get to her 10th-floor apartment in St Kilda, an unauthorised person would have had to sneakthrough security gates and a secured doorand 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 Shaw5has my mobile number. My question is, why was someone there? Deliberately or otherwise, itwas 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 electronic10pass shouldnt enter, she said.

Simeon Lawson, a spokesman for Mr Shaw, told theHerald Sunit was all a simplemisunderstanding. 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 hiscare 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


16/22




This week the independent Frankston MP, who holds the balance of power in Victoria thanks tohis 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 formerpremier Ted Baillieu.5

And in the ensuing months he has wreaked havoc in the House with outlandish demands, spitefulbattles 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 spreadingvicarious gossip to deflect attention from his own escapades.

Unfortunately, I took him into confidence about some personal things going on in my life andMr 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 exceptionallyupset 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 be20nicer if he focused those in the right way.


17/22




MS Richards, who was mayor of Frankston in 2010 when Mr Shaw won election, said it wastime for him to step away from the limelight.

She believes that if Mr Shaw were to stand for re-electionas he currently intends to dohewould suffer a humiliating defeat.

As Mr Shaw is the state member for our area, media reports have continually linked the name of5Frankston with a range of reprehensible conduct, including bullying, violence and the misuse of

public fundsconduct 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 whointends to vote for him.

Another former mayor, Kris Bolam, said Mr Shaws real problem was his lack of clout with10parliamentary colleagueswhich 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 quitesmooth 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 people20look he has a magnetic presence.


18/22




Parliamentary colleagues speak of a man who is quick to retreat to his modest office with viewsof the MCG when the going gets tough.

They say he often hides out there during Question Time and can be heard listening to hisfavourite songs from the 1980s to pump himself up.

FRIENDS say the MPwho rarely drinks alcohol and prefers hot chocolate to coffeeis still5scarred 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 abusy 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 womanwhom he recently took on a trip to Japan.10

Bryan Mace, operations manager at the Frankston Dolphinswhere Mr Shaw plays footyhas praise for his local MP.

He has always helped secure state grants. I speak quite highly of him and what he has done forFrankstons sporting and business communities. In my experience he has always been veryhelpful 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 firmdesire for revenge. When taxi drivers were protesting on the steps of Parliament it ended with a20fist fight and a police probe.


19/22




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 fitto intervenewith the end result once again an unseemly scuffle.

And long before he was elected he was charged with assault while working as a bouncer in5Frankston.

When former Speaker Ken Smith suggested he be punished over his rorting, Mr Shaw made it apersonal goal to remove him from his powerful positionwhich is exactly what happened.

His party resignation is said to have been driven by a feeling that Mr Baillieu did not support himenough amid the rorting scandal.10

Now his threats to vote with Labor in a no-confidence motion against the Government could behis final act of vengeance.

Because the Coalition and Labor now agree on somethingthe need to get Mr Shaw out ofpolitics once and for all.

15

Another Mark Knight cartoon on Geoff Shaw with Denis Napthine and Daniel Andrews.

[email protected]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff-20shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/jeff-kennetts-plan-to-deal-with-rogue-mp-geoff-shaw/story-fni0fit3-1226944972503mailto:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


20/22




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 Sun5 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 Geoff10Shaw.

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 GeoffShaw.20

Sky News
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoriahttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoriahttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoriahttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


21/22


22/22


A 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR RIKATI series by making a reservation See also

However, some Labor MPs have raised concerns about the precedent it would set, and a specialcaucus meeting was held yesterday to try to quell angst.

The Coalition is scrutinising suspension options, which may removed the need to hold Mr Shawin contempt of parliament.

Mr Kennett said the parliament would be ill-advised to expel Mr Shaw and there were other5options.

They have got to consider closing down the parliament after these two weeks and focus on theelection, 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 equal10number 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 saidwas a routine meeting.15

He said the government was seeking advice on the situation but said: Mr Shaw needs to be heldto account.

TheHerald Sun was unable to contact Mr Shaw.

[email protected]

END QUOTE ARTICLES Herald Sun20

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.

25In 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 the30writer.

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

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

Documents

20140609-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Geoff Shaw-etc