20200327-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Unconstitutional Coronavirus Army Deployment in States, Etc

20200327-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
ISSUE –
Re Unconstitutional Coronavirus army deployment in States
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, what is this about the State of Victoria allegedly going to make a declaration of
Emergency to call out the armed forces?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I understood that the Victoria might consider to do so but
reality is that our constitution specifically limit the involvement of the Australian Army when
there is a “domestic violence” meaning civil war if so called in by the Executive of the State. I
recently did write that the Army could participate in bushfire emergencies as this is then a
peaceful service. However to argue that the Australian Army should get involved to deal with
people to stop them moving freely around within a state to me is lunacy.
The Stated within Section 106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
are “subject to this constitution” and so all embedded legal principles.
And
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
END QUOTE
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
The question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more
repulsive than the question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the
existence in our midst of a certain number of idle men-men sharpening their knives
and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of fleshing them on the people of
their own country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australia-federated
Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the whole-have no
enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the
soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for
the territory the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves. We have no enemies
within, and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of any assault on the
mother country by her enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a standing
army proves a menace to the people of Australia by the existence of an armed force
for unlawful purposes.
END QUOTE
No national emergency can rob you of your constitutional rights. Not even a war can do so. If say
the armed forces during a war were to destroy your property then you are constitutionally entitled
to compensation, even if this is after the war has already concluded. While in a war the army may
p1 27-3-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
just not be able to avoid destruction of someone’s property and courts would unlikely hold their
conduct to be criminal but the courts nevertheless can award compensation for any destruction
you may have incurred.
With this Novel Coronavirus the State can make whatever declaration it desires but it cannot
overrule your constitutional rights. Calling in the Armed Forces to control your freedom of
movement would be unconstitutional as there is no “domestic violence”. As such, the army
cannot participate in some law enforcement against State citizens.
Consider this also:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid-19
QUOTE
Status of COVID-19
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases

(HCID) in the UK.
The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify
COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the
disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about
COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-
19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in
particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical
awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no
longer be classified as an HCID.
The need to have a national, coordinated response remains, but this is being met by the government’s
COVID-19 response.
Cases of COVID-19 are no longer managed by HCID treatment centres only. All healthcare workers
managing possible and confirmed cases should follow the updated national infection and prevention (IPC)
guidance for COVID-19, which supersedes all previous IPC guidance for COVID-19. This guidance includes
instructions about different personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles that are appropriate for different
clinical scenarios.
END QUOTE
This means the UK is downgrading the dangers relating to COVID-19!
If you bother to check the publication of NEXUS MAGAZINE it had an article that in 2017-
2018 16-week period some 80,000 Americans died of the flu. That is about 5,000 a week.
No pandemic was declared. The USA didn’t close down. People simply went on with their lives.
Politicians will use any kind of publicity stunt, if one can call it that, to invoke special powers to
rob citizens of their constitutional rights. Just that I am not going to stand for this.
No government can overrule the constitution.
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/nsw-health-let-people-off-cruise-ship-abf/ar-
BB11F1uX?ocid=spartandhp
NSW Health let people off cruise ship: ABF

While I understand that Federal Minister Peter Dutton seeks to make out as if it was mere error
of judgment due to pressure, I for one do not accept this. If you got people in charge who are
buckling under pressure then they do not belong in those positions. How on earth can it be
pressure to make some simple decision that those leaving a ship must first be checked for the
virus. If such a simple decision is too complicated then do not delay the removal of such I view
grossly incompetent person. Peoples lives re at stake and that seems to be ignored.
QUOTE
So it certainly appears, listening to certain actual scientists (see below) that coronavirus 2019 is quite likely
just another flu, although perhaps a little worse for Chinese (or Asians generally) and older people such those
who live in Northern Italy and have circa 300,000 Chinese nationals ("cheap labour" for Gucci, Prada and
other top shelf brand factories) live amongst them.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/international/covid-19-did-you-know-about-italys-china-
connection/videoshow/74694266.cms
https://www.rebellionresearch.com/blog/northern-italy-wuhan-partners-for-better-or-worse
Yet we also appear to witness one awesome global lock down, and the cusp of the looming financial reset.
Time for some more science to stoke the snide superiority ethic in the empathically challenged:
12 Experts Question The COVID-19 Panic

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/12-experts-question-covid-19-panic
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-
panic/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=b8c4b9684ccde5078c692095952e03cbb1f16786-1585171445-0-AVoAyzoLi-
MXau8bqa_UgPHqWmgSyK6daZso-UA6SX3KWhsmTCy30O15qb_vuSLW6WfpKINC4giKtxuglgWb-
TBbfZW9wfS2jRFBQWge20LBjrux7PDTs9bSbocMxmmVMt5Su12h0RQe5JhgT7pgTXkb_g2uUusksrNhb
BVLkViaORfANzktUqyhW_eFW5jfP9JVQMZfiHkbAquIz7BEG9cVJBKAr7wStHfKjBPPgrCs1lug6MGoc
9CWdwln8D6zeiOaS6QITM49i-6SBuraAxK153WLZk3SQEWlNzrdGG7fgst8miqQWUuSHiwF_hR6Ju-
OxnKtCI67XFIhbLqFPVzfbEXX5IEfdPS5sDGeUCd-
.. Dr Joel Kettner s professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former
Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for
Infectious Diseases.
What he says:
I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic,
because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we
don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why.
.. Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry. He
also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented
the science-based television show Tatzpit.
What he says:
Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other
European country. In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have
died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.
END QUOTE
As I previously wrote about in October 2019 in the UK there was this 201 meeting about some
hypothetical pandemic coronavirus. Considering that Bill Gates own interest in a company that is
promoting 5G as well as holds the patent rights about coronavirus. In October 2019 the Chinese
Government went full blast with G5 Notably at Wuhan and held special gatherings for this. Well
we know now where it all started, don’t we? (See also below for further details)
In Victoria there has been a massive influx of new arrivals. One then has to look at did the State
Government maintain the same percentage of hospital beds, education facilities, police, and such
things as ventilators? I doubt it. And if you need to have ventilators then you also need trained
staff to be able to properly use the ventilators. So calling out or considering calling out the armed
forces to subdue citizens is grossly incompetent and cannot neither should be permitted. We
cannot turn our own fellow citizens against each other. If we had a competent government than it
should have been prepared for sufficient medical training and support, as after all we have every
couple of years another kind of illness doing its round.
* What happened if the army ignores the constitution?

**#** Then the relevant soldier and the Federal Government besides the State Government could
be sued. No one is above the law and so if they blatantly violate the constitution then they should
face the legal consequences for this.
* Do you go out?
**#** Well Olga likes baking cakes and so thick cream is something that you cannot keep for
long. And, some other food staples are needed to be fresh and so I go out for that and usually
combine this with other thing I do. If it was not for that and obviously medical appointments
Olga and I could be spending months at home. For me to do the shopping is getting some
physical exercise in getting about the stores. Unlike most other people I always have ample of
items stocked up just in case and so this so called “panic buying” really is not a problem to us as
whatever is sold out we already got plenty of it since at least 2019.
* Are you aware of immunization that could be harmful?
**#** Actually, for a few years I have been reading up on this. When the elderly get immunized
and again and again it actually can be lethal because they are overdosed with it. You do not
really know what is in the stuff they inject and so fool you if you accept immunization without
knowing it content and any harm and side effects it can have.
* Do you accept the State Parliament can legislate as to emergencies?
**#** Of course it can but if it is actually constitutionally valid is another matter. It can legislate
that the Sun should be shining for 12 hours a day and no more but I doubt the sun would care less
about that. Likewise, it can legislate whatever but if it violates my constitutional rights of
freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc, then without a specific
court order against me then it is worthless. For sure, the Government may terrorize people to
subject themselves such reign of terror but I would stand my grounds, so should others.
*.Does those restrictions that are announced make sense to you?
**#** Some might be good intended but when you had this 30 minutes with a hair dresser and
about 1½ metres keeping a distance, then ask yourself how is a hairdresser going to cut your hair
from 1½ metres distance? How is a dentist going to perform dental work staying 1½ metres
Away?
Remember that cigarette companies denied smoking was a health hazard. Likewise did other
companies with other products. Now if this 5G really is behind it all or somehow associated
because it is a weaponized system that is known to cause harm to people then if this is the real
cause behind the Novel coronavirus then it should have a moratorium applied to it. I have read
and watched numerous videos about it and while I have my concerns I am not so to say sold
either way. Still I would prefer that governments would take the approach that its first duty lies
towards its citizens to protect them from harm and so no 5G roll out unless it has been
appropriately tested and cleared of causing any harm to the general public.
The same with the GM (Genetically Modified) food. We cannot allow people being subjected to
changes of DNA, etc, because of Genetically Modified food sources.
And, talking about food, we have really no system in place to ensure that those directed to self-
isolate are then provided with sufficient emergency provisions and assisted with obtaining any
required medication, etc. As I understand it the Novel Corona virus actually started in Wuhan in
about November 2019 (albeit kept secret by the chinse Government for some weeks) and yet
Australian politicians didn’t bother the then make sure that there was sufficient medical supplies
in stock or on order. No set out in writing, what either the State and/or the Federal Government
was doing. Not a single letter did I receive as to what was going to be done, etc. It has been an
appalling conduct and this is why people then aware of their responsibilities towards the family
then purchase big time and that is not panic buying but responsible buying to make sure once
family is first provided for. It is the gross lack of government(s) information, the uncertainty it is
causing that people are left to make their own decisions on not knowing relevant details from any
government. How can you follow rules on social gatherings if the Government expects you to log
into a website? Not every senior citizen access the website. And, it is neither the Federal
government territory to dictate about social gatherings!
*. What would you like to see as information?

**#** Why can’t the State and Federal Governments work out some written pamphlets that
details what is say “Stage 1”, “Stage 2”, etc, and list the items with noting which are Federal
powers and which are State/Territorial powers. If then the is an announcement say “Stage 2” then
a person merely looks upon the details shown on the pamphlet under “Stage 2” and will know
precisely what this entails. No Government can expect a citizen to gather from small news
bulletins what is or isn’t applicable.
*. It there anything positive you can think of because of the Novel Coronvirus?
**#** Yes, politicians instead of traveling the world at taxpayers expenses now are forced to
spend more time within Australia. Obviously how beneficial for the people they are using their
time is another issue.
NSW and Victoria reportedly wants stricter isolation provisions however when one consider the
disastrous conduct by NSW to let thousands of people unchecked from the Ruby Princess despite
more than 140 being contaminated with the virus then obviously who can trust politicians
mantra? Let us not forget the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) mantra backed up by
different countries intelligence services when in reality they didn’t exist. Politicians then blame
ordinary people for being conspiracy theorist while they contemplate themselves mass murder,
war crimes and crimes against humanity at a large scale. In Victoria you need permission to cut
down certain trees, and no doubt there is some justification for it to protect certain species, but
then the State Government goes ahead to cut down a reported 25,000 plus trees for the sake of a
freeway. That is why the so-called social distances is reportedly being ignored by many. How
can you trust the mantra of the Government when it is the worst offender?
Consider the video’s and various other written articles such as “The Coronavirus - David Icke”
https://michael-mannheimer.net/2020/01/29/englischer-mi5-agent-ich-habe-prinzessin-diana-im-
auftrag-von-prinz-charles-und-koenigin-elizabeth-ermordet/
English MI5 agent: "I have Princess Diana murdered by order of Prince Charles and Queen
Elizabeth"
Contained the following:
QUOTE
Bernhard Leopold Friedrich Eberhard Julius Kurt Karl Gottfried Peter Prince of Lippe-Biesterfeld (born
June 29, 1911 in Jena,. Died December 1, 2004 in Utrecht) was a German nobleman, member of the SS,
after Allied bomber pilot and Prince Consort of Juliana of Orange-Nassau, Queen of the Netherlands.
Bernhard was from 1934 member of the SA, and after their deposed by Hitler member of the SS-tab,
also a member of the NSDAP and the National Socialist Motor Corps. The Nazi Party membership
Bernhard has always denied publicly, even after the end of 1995 to access documents in US archives
had been found. [1]

END QUOTE
I grew up in The Netherlands and was aware of the claims at the time being denied by Prince
Bernard. Since then decades later to discover they were lies. And this is effectively all around.
Governments making contracts which should be transparent because they are after all using the
peoples monies are being made in secret with kick backs, etc.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/top-doctor-sensationally-claims-everyone-in-australia-will-contract-
coronavirus-as-scott-morrison-warns-the-threat-is-upon-us-and-launches-emergency-plan/ar-
BB10tBCC?ocid=spartandhp
Top doctor sensationally claims EVERYONE in Australia will contract coronavirus - as Scott Morrison warns the
'threat is upon us' and launches emergency plan
QUOTE
A top doctor has claimed everyone in Australia will get coronavirus as the government launches a pandemic
plan.
Professor Ian Mackay from the University of Queensland said it's unlikely the deadly virus will ever be
contained and all countries should prepare for the worst.
The doctor's claim came after Prime Minister Scott Morrison told the nation a coronavirus pandemic was
'very much upon us' and detailed a plan to stockpile medicines, create fever clinics and lock age-care homes
down.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
'At some point in the coming months or years we're all going to get infected because we've all been infected
by these other endemic viruses,' the virologist added.
END QUOTE
Because of the lies and deception, for so long practiced by so many governments, it is not some
conspiracy theory but rather a factual issue that governments will lie and deceive.
You have government to spreading comments like that “If some offer is too good to believe then
it likely is.” As such, be warned against deceptive conduct.
And this is underlining what governments in general are about all around the world. The cheat,
deceive, etc.
http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/heiner_affair_quotes.html
“…Whether we are all equal before the law is a first-principle which free men and women
everywhere want answered before they bow to those placed in positions of authority over their
lives and liberty to administer the law entrusted to them either through the ballot box or by
appointment. It is the ultimate contract of trust in any democracy, but it has limits because we
know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. “
Kevin Lindeberg’s Opening Statement to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs in Brisbane on 23 October 2003.
There can be no secrecy and any Government of the Day involved in dirty business will claim it
is for the best interest of the general community that matters remain secret, but it undermines the
very constitutional principles of being able to hold a Government of the Day accountable.
Indeed, how can an elector pursue the local Member of Parliament to do something
appropriate when the Government of the Day conceals relevant details?
As such, any notion of confidentiality of commercial dealing also is utter and sheer nonsense
because any contracts that involved the spending of public monies must be open for scrutiny. If a
business doesn’t like to deal with the Government of the Day because it seeks to avoid scrutiny
then so be it and it stays out of being awarded any contracts but if it desires to gain contracts then
there is no such as commercial confidentiality as that can never exist when it involved public
monies.
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Bassat, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's Warehouse Sales Pty
Ltd, [2012] HCA 7, 8 March 2012, M128/2010, M129/2010, M130/2010, M131/2010 & M132/2010
QUOTE
1. More recently, in Yaxley v Gotts[182] the English Court of Appeal considered the requirement now made in
absolute terms by s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (UK) that a contract for

sale of land can only be made in writing which incorporates all the terms the parties have expressly agreed.
It was held that an oral agreement nevertheless might give rise to a constructive trust because such trusts
were saved by s 2(5) of that Act. But the Court of Appeal saw no scope for the doctrine of proprietary
estoppel. Robert Walker LJ said[183]:
"Parliament's requirement that any contract for the disposition of an interest in land must be made in a
particular documentary form, and will otherwise be void, does not have such an obviously social aim as
statutory provisions relating to contracts by or with moneylenders, infants, or protected tenants.
Nevertheless it can be seen as embodying Parliament's conclusion, in the general public interest,
that the need for certainty as to the formation of contracts of this type must in general outweigh
the disappointment of those who make informal bargains in ignorance of the statutory
requirement. If an estoppel would have the effect of enforcing a void contract and subverting
Parliament's purpose it may have to yield to the statutory law which confronts it, except so far as the
statute's saving for a constructive trust provides a means of reconciliation of the apparent conflict."
END QUOTE
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
Ethics Orientation for State Officials

Misuse of Public Funds
Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public
funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when
its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses
only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be
expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are
they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may
result from an expenditure of public funds.
For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is
an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public
purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely
incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a
public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and
fax machines and other equipment and resources.
Examples of Misuse of Public Funds
1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase items for himself
and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those receiving the discount paid for the
items with personal funds.
2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to transport a
political candidate, his staff and family.
3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on his political
campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection with official
business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and back.
Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanct ions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds.
This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of what
we’ll cover in this section.
 Stanson v. Mott
 Endorsements and Informational Materials
 Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines
Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns

The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public
funds in election campaigns.
In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a
statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that “in
the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a
partisan position in an election campaign.”
Stanson v. Mott
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that
the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing
factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental
authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course,
raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.”
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency may
endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not
promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure
elections.
1. “The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate information
relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair presentation of relevant
information.”
2. “The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public agencies from
disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is fu ll and impartial and does not
amount to improper campaign activity.”
3. “To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both sides of
the issue.”
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the
Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a
$10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several
ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a
neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Let's Review
TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
 Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls
before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governor’s campaign fundraising
dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues,
may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.
 Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes rather
than for a public purpose.
Let's Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about
the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
b. The materials do not make false statements.
c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.
 Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of
the measure.
Remember These Points
 Expenditures must be for a public purpose

 Expenditures must be authorized
 Public funds may not be expended for personal use
 Information must be fairly presented
 Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions
END QUOTE
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081015&filename=led&sec_id=3&sid=1
QUOTE
Travesty of public purpose
State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata
IN THE last few days Maharashtra and West Bengal witnessed two diametrically opposite developments. In
Maharashtra, for the first time in the history of this country, affected farmers voted in a referendum on the
upcoming Reliance special economic zone (SEZ). Initial results suggest that the majority voted against the
SEZ. In Singur, Tata’s plans kept slipping into a deeper imbroglio by the day. Several state governments
lined up to lure the company as Tata seriously considered moving out—each one trying to outdo each other in
terms of offering incentives and freebies. Soon as West Bengal made some parts of the ‘secret’ deal between
the state and the company public, Tata Motors moved the High Court obtaining a restraining order.
Tata’s lawyers argued that basically the agreement between them and the state government was a trade secret.
This means that the Nano project is private commercial venture. Ironically the state government had acquired
land for the project invoking the “public purpose” law. The state government and company will have to come
clean about what exactly is the Nano project. If it is a commercial venture the company must directly need
deal with the farmers. And if it is indeed a project meant to serve the public purpose, details of the
agreement must be immediately made public.
What is clear from the deal between the West Bengal government and Tata motors is that state government
are trying to outdo each other to attract investments. This is a race right to the bottom. The moment Tata
Motors threatened to walk away from Singur, several state governments came forward. The lure of big-ticket
project is such that governments are willing to forgo taxes, forcibly acquire land, give subsidized water and
electricity, give capital subsidies and put thousands of security personnel to man the project. In all this,
industries are having free ride on public money. This is cheap industrialization. Where not only states are
giving fiscal subsidies, they are subsidizing the natural resources—land, water, and energy. In a single
economic entity that India is, competition between states, by the way of subsidizing industrialization, is
neither good for economy nor is it good for environment. And it surely is not for ‘public purpose’.
END QUOTE
I may add that I view toll roads that are for private gain but using public build roads must be
deemed unconstitutional
http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678
(1872) Olcott v. The Supervisors 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 678
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
QUOTE
What was considered was the uses for which taxation generally, taxation by any government, might
be authorized, and particularly whether the construction and maintenance of a railroad, owned by a
corporation, is a matter of public concern. It was asserted (what nobody doubts), that the taxing
power of a state extends no farther than to raise money for a public use, as distinguished from
private, or to accomplish some end public in its nature, and it was decided that building a railroad, if
it be constructed and owned by a corporation, though built by authority of the state, is not a matter
in which the public has any interest, of such a nature as to warrant taxation in its aid.
Page 83 U. S. 690
For this reason it was held that the state had no power to authorize the imposition of taxes to aid in the
construction of such a railroad, and therefore that the statute giving Fond du Lac County power to
extend such aid was invalid.
END QUOTE
Who can ignore the Red Shirt debacle where those involved were defrauding the taxpayers. What
was notably ignored was that the very politicians in government pursued me through the courts
for failing to file a declaration , this even so there was nothing to declare and I made clear to the
court that I didn’t want to file a false/fraudulent declaration not knowing if I was to be paid any
claimed compensation for unlawful conduct against my election campaign. Yet, when so many
of the Government themselves filed false/misleading declarations then somehow there was no
case to be pursued against them.
Therefore we have DOUBLE STANDARDS that those in government can deceive, steal, etc,
and make secret contracts while ordinary persons are pursued through the courts for whatever.
Who can forget the ALP (Australian Labor Party) claim (then in opposition) that the contracts to
build the East West connection were not worth the paper it was written upon only then when they
by this fraudulently obtained government to pay out a reported $1.1 billion not to build a
freeway! It are things like that as a background that many do not trust politicians and aware they
will conceal whatever to hide their real agenda.
Now reportedly suburbs can be locked down, and this underlines in Victoria and NSW. Which
underlines that those accused of “panic buying” actually were smart enough to prepare for this
kind of lockdown.
While Governor of New York Cuomo argues politicians should “Do their job” and for federal
politicians not to pay party politics, reality is that in 2015 when it came to purchasing ventilators
he decided, rightly or wrongly, that other issues had priority, and now blames the Federal
Government about the shortcomings of about 20,000 odd ventilators. But, even if they were
provided the lack of training sufficient persons to manage the ventilators is still a state issue.
We have as referred to above the same in NSW where the Minister of Health presides over the
disastrous Ruby Princess debacle and yet suffers no consequences at all and yet wants further
lock downs of citizens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=65SpH3rDgZE&feature=emb_logo
WORLD'S GREATEST HOAX Revealed ! ~YOU CANNOT SPREAD THE C _VIRUS_ FROM PERSON
TO PERSON
Regardless if one agrees or disagrees what is promoted/stated in articles/video’s it is nevertheless

essential for every person to the best of his/her ability to explore all the information so as to
make an “INFORMED” decision as to what once conduct ought to be from time to time.
If politicians are peddling untruths, hide relevant details all so they can clampdown on the rights
of citizens then they are the real danger to society.
When you got this utter nonsense to issue restrictions as to maximum 30 minutes in a hairdresser
salon only then later this to be changed to unlimited time then surely this underlines the
incompetence of politicians to first properly consider what they are on about to seek to safeguard
the general community.
Let us be clear about it that it was established that those children who grew up in remote area’s
where hygiene was less of an issue were in fact much healthier than their counter parts living in
cities. This because their bodies used to all kinds of “germs” were able to build their natural
resistance which the city children generally lacked to have. Those who are immunized far too
often are more vulnerable to fall ill of a certain decease then those who have build their own
natural resistance. It doesn’t mean immunization cannot be helpful as some are very much at the
forefront of seeking to protect those most vulnerable however, to pump into children’s bodies all
kinds of cocktails to protect them against certain illnesses actually can have the reverse outcome.
The same with the elderly, when you keep pumping the same kind of ingredients into the body
such as regular immunizations then you more than likely, at least in my view, will weakening the
persons immunization system. When then something new comes around as some virus, etc, the
persons immune system may no longer have the ability to respond as it is for one reason or
another too reliable on regular immunizations to do the work for it. Besides the build-up[ of the
toxins of the numerous immunizations causing themselves health issues.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-19/what-is-herd-immunity-and-could-it-stop-coronavirus/12059968
What is herd immunity and could it slow the spread of coronavirus COVID-19 around the world?
What I found remarkable in numerous articles referring to “herd immunity” is that the health
system cannot cope with it. That far too often seems the real issue. Not that the “herd immunity”
itself might really in the long term cause a build-up of resistance against something and so better
for those infected or likely to be infected.
This means really that the politicians, such as eventuated in October 2019 with the 201 issue they
ignore the lessens they were supposed to have learned and did nothing to address the then
mentioned short comings only to be so to say caught with their pants down with the Novel
Corronavirus.
https://www.davidicke.com/article/564306/coronavirus-5g-connection-coverup
The Coronavirus 5G Connection and Coverup
“5G – A Type of Directed Energy Weapon”
http://themillenniumreport.com/2020/03/coronavirus-hoax-fake-virus-pandemic-fabricated-to-cover-up-global-
outbreak-of-5g-syndrome/?fbclid=IwAR3YHayf1Bfgzge3MIJmq00Tl7pVU4CBvuI26Endbf7_SFP9cUXojGJ-
2NQ
CORONAVIRUS HOAX: Fake Virus Pandemic Fabricated to Cover-Up Global Outbreak of 5G Syndrome
https://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2020/02/the-deadly-hidden-formula-behind-the-
coronavirus-5g-common-cold-cc-33-covid-19-2640987.html
The Deadly Hidden Formula Behind the Coronavirus: 5G + Common Cold (CC-33) =
Regardless if you do or don’t accept the reasoning of those video’s at least accept that those
creating those videos are trying to present information that may inform a person about matters,
whereas our governments are fiddling about as to what to hide and what to claim to be relevant in
a usual distorted manner. And with intelligence services and many in the medical profession
spruiking (promoting as a mantra) what suits the politicians then the general community likely
will ignore what is being claimed by them. Blame the politicians for their ongoing dishonesty!
QUOTE
sci study: the flu shot ("vaccination") increases risk of coronavirus by 36% - avoid the flu shot -
[PEACE]
27 Mar at 8:01 pm
Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>

To: CypherPunks <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>
Take notice, "lame stream media" recommendations to get a flu shot (NYT) or in the (near?) future to get a
coronavirus "vaccination" shot, may be exactly the thing to NOT do.
(Your circumstances may vary, I am not a doctor, if pain persists, see your doctor.)
A scientific study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31607599

says:
.. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus.”
.. Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus
in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36
and 1.51, respectively)”
In other words, the flu shot is known to INCREASE your risk of contracting coronavirus by 36% (and
increases risk of pneumonia by over 50%).
END QUOTE
Above is a copy of the email I received. Obviously, the various Governments should check if this
indeed is an issue that it is recommending for people to get a flu shot (injection) and in effect
causes those people, in particular the elderly to have a weaker immune system that may
contribute to the death of many of the elderly.
Likewise if the 5G roll out indeed has an effect to weaken a person’s immune system.
.
We cannot have this arrogance that there is no link as that might be a mere cop out by politicians
worried to lose funding from certain financial contributors and willing to ignore indeed place
constituents at the peril of dangers that could be avoided.
.
If it is justified for the sake to contain the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) to shut down business
all in the name of protecting the vulnerable then why not put everything on the table and make
sure that 5G, immunizations, etc, all are appropriately checked for any adverse health issues?
When I was in management and advised that the factory had to be closed because we could not
get steel deliveries due to a strike at the suppliers end I made clear that my workers had to put
food on the table, had to pay mortgage/rent, etc and so I would convert machine production to
what we had on materials in stock. I did so. Not a single worker lost even 1 hour of work. And
that is management and leadership. The workers trusted me and their trust was found to be
justified.
Proper leadership is to plan ahead for the unexpected so that in a time of crisis one can show
leadership without panicking. But, when you got a premier who is all about increasing
populations but totally ignores to maintain the percentage of required services, etc, then you have
no leadership at all.
Why is it that there are no restrictions against say bread being displayed only in plastic or other
bags, but not to be left in the open that anyone can breathe over it? Why is it that in the Deli you
have ample of food out in the open, and this means that the person who purchase it can get more
than just what was intended to be purchased. I received various emails from supermarkets all
claiming they are practicing special cleaning conduct because of the coronavirus. Well when I
see all that food stuff out in the open not covered at all for anyone to sneeze, cough, etc, over it
then I view there is a real failure by those supermarkets is to maintain a hygiene standard
appropriate in the circumstances now prevailing.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


20200327-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Unconstitutional Coronavirus Army Deployment in States, Etc

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

20200327-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Unconstitutional Coronavirus Army Deployment in States, Etc

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

20200327-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

p1 27-3-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases

This means the UK is downgrading the dangers relating to COVID-19!

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p2 27-3-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

12 Experts Question The COVID-19 Panic

* What happened if the army ignores the constitution?

*. What would you like to see as information?

p5 27-3-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p6 27-3-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Ethics Orientation for State Officials

Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns

 Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.

Remember These Points

 Expenditures must be for a public purpose

State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata

Regardless if one agrees or disagrees what is promoted/stated in articles/video’s it is nevertheless

Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>

p11 27-3-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p12 27-3-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Potrebbero piacerti anche