You are on page 1of 2

ISSUE: 20180326- Re: The media and politicians to be held legally accountable, etc & the constitution

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

As a constitutionalist I very much value the right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH but I also hold that
those who incite or otherwise participate in disinformation to pursue warmongering and innocent
persons by this are harmed or even killed then it no longer can be considered to be an exercise of
FREEDOM OF SPEECH but a deliberate conduct to defy the rights of others. When it comes to
politicians such as those involved in the unconstitutional murderous invasion into Iraq then I
view a life sentence of hard labour would be appropriate for each and every one. It is in such
manner that politicians and the media will be more careful not to spread deliberately
disinformation to try to present a case for war. When a person claims to use FREEDOM OF
SPEECH but in fact makes himself liable within the provisions of the law of Tort then it will be a
criminal offence. When a person makes a statement that is in the circumstances a fair and
reasonable statement then this can be deemed the exercise of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
However, when a person deliberately spread disinformation such as to justify war where if the
truth had been stated no such case would have been made out then I view this must be regarded
as TREASON also as politicians are bound to act for the peace, order and good government and
that I view doesn’t include disinformation to achieve the contrary to this.
Skripal, Salisbury And The Propaganda Story
This article very much sets out how the media is complicit to try once again a case for
Let’s try to make an hypothetical example. I demand that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull
explains why he caused it to rain in Watsonia, causing my windscreen to get wet. For argument
sake Malcolm Turnbull would either ignore such silly and ridiculous question or might simply
state he had nothing to do with it. Well, I would then claim that proves he was behind it as his
explanation is not sufficient. That is the ridiculous kind of claim by PM Theresa May about the
Russians not have to her satisfaction explained their involvement in poisoning Skriptal. Never
mind Skiptal could have accidentally caused his own poisoning and if spilled on his clothing
could have affected others who were near him. After all he was about 10km from the chemical
plant of the British Government where poison is manufactured and as a chemist he likely may
have been involved working there. How on earth PM Theresa may could immediately establish
what was used when the experts still have not been able to determine as I understand it even at
time of my writings what it was is beyond me. As like the WMD it is a gigantic set up to
manipulate reality to a thesis that is unrealistic but serves for warmongering.
Could former soldiers now Members of Parliament really betray their former fellow soldiers to
send them in harm’s way and even into their deaths merely because it serves them politically?
Are they so morally bankrupt?
Adam Creighton (the Australian)
An important article. this is why we need a reduced size in the government...It is just one big gravy train.
He indicates that the Prime minister has some 50 odd staff. Well considering also the not so
intelligence services such as ASIO there obviously is a sheer waste of taxpayers monies when
you end up with a Prime Minister who cannot even understand that Australian legal system
embedded in the constitution is, that both sides has to be heard. With other words the PM should
p1 26-3-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
demand from Theresa May where is her factual evidence to blame the Russians? Surely he would
have learned in being at the bar table that anyone who makes allegation has to come up with
evidence as otherwise there is NO CASE TO ANSWER.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 554, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1876)-proper description of
criminal charges required!
Why is it that now blood test will be taken of the Skriptal as to assess their mental status, if their
brain might have been affected, where I understand that should have been done (the taking of
blood) in the first place to establish what possible affect any alleged poison gas or other chemical
may have caused as harm to them.
'Novichok' Could Only Come From Russia...or Anyone Who Bought This $8.16 Book on Amazon
Why would the government allow the sale of a book about the manufacture of ‘Novichok‘ and so
since 2008 written by Skriptal allegedly including the way how to manufacture if it was such
dangerous chemical combination one has to ask.
What we have as I understand it is a spy/defector who work with the British Government on
creating poisonous items so this may suit in war or otherwise to kill opponents even civilians and
may have in error become contaminated and spread this out to others. It happened before!
On 1 August 1962, Geoffrey Bacon, a scientist at the Microbiological Research Establishment, died from an
accidental infection of the plague bacterium Yersinia pestis. In the same month an autoclave exploded,
shattering two windows. Both incidents generated considerable media coverage at the time.[5]
Also consider:
The Novichok Story Is Indeed Another Iraqi WMD Scam
To summarise:
1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK
government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information such as impurities that can safely attribute this
substance to Russia.
2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.
3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.
4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any
scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is
completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.
5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans
during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.
Politicians who stood by and did nothing to try to effectively prevent the unconstitutional
murderous invasion into Iraq I view are as much legally liable as those who approved/supported
the armed murderous unconstitutional invasion.
Charles Krauthammer's interesting take on Mr. Trump
Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He's a "Pragmatist."
(Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist
usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him or her.)
Any newspaper who deliberately publish deceptive/false details should in my view be held
legally liable. Likewise so politicians as they obligated to act for peace, order and good
government! Politicians acting as a pragmatist may need to do so when in Government! This, as
after all they are to govern for all Australians and not for their party supporters! Or for that
matter for business interest to repay in kind for the kickbacks/donations/bribes they received.
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!)
p2 26-3-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://