In the meantime, sharing my recent article for consideration, about my email to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus: Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
Fundamentally, the medical profession should have challenged the mandates, as they violate voluntary informed consent.
Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination.
So what to do about all the individuals who coerced, intimidated and mandated people to submit to COVID-19 vaccination against their free will, under threat of deprivation of their livelihood and liberty for non-compliance - ‘No Jab, No Job’ to ‘No Jab, No Life’?
There's quite a long list of perpetrators to consider!
Thanks for your explanation Peter. It's amazing that a country with as small a population as Australia can have different laws in different states. Australia's population is less than many states in the US and same as some cities in China! And in particular that there is no harmonisation of human rights laws is dumbfounding.
Australia has only a few states ... the USA also has lots of states (some of them with less people than some Australian cities), all of which have different laws. It's not clear why Australia is especially 'amazing'. When states reserve their right to have different laws, it would be dumbfounding if they were harmonised ... as surely people would then argue that he states were unnecessary.
I take your point, It was a Human Rights Act, that Peter mentioned some states in Australia don't have, and that doesn't seem right. You could be on one side of the Qld/NSW border (in Twin Towns) and be covered by a Human Rights Act and then walk across the road and not be covered. That shouldn't be the case in Australia. I can understand that States might want to have their own traffic laws for example and that may make sense. But fundamental things like human rights should be harmonised. Maybe the legal system doesn't allow that?
We have a government approved COVID Inquiry that does not cover the actions of the States, and it was States that did a lot of the damage.
I think it really brings into question the purpose of States.
Hi Andrew. I don't think states having different traffic laws makes sense, either, in fact. (E.g., drive on the left in NSW and on the right in Qld?) Or other laws ... but Australia is a federation of states that agreed to come together, despite their different origins and perspectives. Not everyone will agree on what is fundamental (is health fundamental?education? human rights? social services? regardless of the issue, some will argue that it is fundamental, I suspect. I used to think that we had one more level of government than necessary, but having seen our nation taken over by a uniparty (Labor moving rightwards to the centre and conservative parties moving leftwards to do likewise, in each case for greater electoral appeal), I'm now not so sure. At least there is a chance that different states would do things differently and - in theory - we might then learn what is best. Some states will do things badly - but we might learn that's a bad idea without inflicting it on everybody first. One of the problems of Covid was the invention of a National Cabinet by the previous government - lead by our worst prime minister for as long as most people can remember - to persuade everyone to do the same thing (which, in hindsight, turned out to mostly be the wrong thing). I agree that the PM&C inquiry is pretty useless, partly for the reason you state, and partly because of the people conducting it (at least one Covid insider ...); A properly constituted Royal Commission could come out of the Senate discussion on the matter, albeit unlikely. The AMPS submission at https://amps.redunion.com.au/proposed-terms-of-reference-for-the-covid-19-royal-commission makes clear what that might look like, but I'll be surprised (although pleased) if a genuine inquiry of that kind is attempted.
"One of the problems of Covid was the invention of a National Cabinet by the previous government - lead by our worst prime minister for as long as most people can remember"
Crikey, to think a handful of people in National Cabinet were making decisions impacting on 27 million people, with no transparency and no accountability.
Every thinking person knows that the fake "National Cabinet" was hastily arranged as a smokescreen to give the Premier's/ Chief Minister's carte blanche to create their own type of tyranny then pass it on down the line to their accomplices in all types of industries to do the dirty work. Millions of Australians should be DEMANDING those documents unredacted, then you'll most definitely find out who was in on it from the get go, fact. The rest of this stuff is fluff.
The 'National Cabinet' is beyond the pale...a small group of politicians stitching things up among themselves, with no checks and balances, and no accountability.
Thanks so much for your initial analysis of this case, very interesting and useful.
I think it will do a good job in changing public perception at least on a small level as it has been reported by media outlets such as The Guardian and ABC and may be the first time their readers/listeners have heard anything like this. Hoping it may apply in Victoria where so many people have suffered because of these mandates, even now with the Victorian firefighters.
Seriously...it's stunning that people are coerced into submitting to vaccination, that this mass population medical intervention is foisted upon people...even MANDATED!
And when you really look into the vaccination schedule, and push aside the propaganda, the injections are for diseases that aren't a serious threat to most people. Really.
Think...flu...chickenpox...HPV...etc... Even, dare I say it, the blessed measles, which has been beaten up as a killer disease. (I'm speaking as a 'measles survivor' from 1961...)
Of course, who knows what injecting live measles, mumps and rubella vaccine might do to people, given it contains exposure to bovine derived materials, chick embryo tissue and MRC5 human diploid cells[1], which are derived from embryonic lung tissue of a 14 week old Caucasian male foetus in 1966[2].
I wonder if parents have any clue about what is being injected into their children?
I wonder if doctors, nurses and pharmacists have any clue about what they're injecting into people? In Covid-19 vaccine products for example?
And then there are judges who appear to have no clue about the obligation for voluntary informed consent for vaccination...how bad is this?
Thanks for your excellent clarification and for taking the time to do this presentation for so many people who are supported by your expertise. I have referred people who have been pondering the court decision to your video and they will be able to educate many with whom they have contact. This is another step in the right direction for human rights, and these facts you have clarified will add to the soup that is being cooked up, and that soup will feed the world population, and give them added strength to continue forward until bodily autonomy is the first choice legally available to every human being. "First, Do No Harm."
Yes, but I doubt if due process can be deemed to have been followed if employers did not do their due diligence under the WHS Act. They forced people to do something that 1. was evidently unsafe in its own right, given well-known absence of long-term safety data and high number of adverse event reports to DAEN and VAERS etc, 2. against a virus that was evidently not serious for healthy young employees, and 3. for the purpose of preventing transmission, when a light reading of the AusPARs would have shown that the injections were not designed, tested, or even approved for that use.
Correct. Incidentally, what evidence did they provide in order to declare covid as a pandemic and justify their never ending "state of emergency". It concerns me that there are certain influential people who believe there is justification for forcing "countermeasures" (mandated as vaccines ) upon the people was appropriate for population reduction? I would like to see our human rights enshrined in a "bill of rights" or I would expect this type of tyranny will be revisited.
As a legal expert, do you mind if I ask you whether the current constitution has any provisions for complete dissolution of the Commonwealth and passing its sovereign powers to the states and territories?
Is there a legal mechanism that realistically provides for the kneecapping of the federal government and its institutions?
For decades I understand lawyers/judges claiming that the Commonwealth of Australia has no ‘Bill of Rights’ and this may underline their incompetence in understanding what is constitutionally applicable because the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) itself has legal principles embedded in it being a ‘Bill of Rights’ and providing legal issues such as FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Also, since 11 November 1910 all State land Taxation (including “council rates” became unconstitutional! Despite that lawyer Anne Twomey appears to claim in a video that States do not have “separation of powers” (see her video about a Tasmania judge) reality is that States/Territories are subject to separation of powers and for example the so called “infringement Court” is unconstitutional. (see: In my view Professor Anne Twomey is wrong to claim that “separation of powers” doesn’t exist regarding the states, as the Letters Patent dictates an “IMPARTIAL administration of justice”!
Are you aware the State of Victoria never had/has a valid State constitution?
Did you now that the 2001 purported federal election never was lawful? (I proved that in court!)
Did you know that the invasions into Afghanistan and/or Iraq by Australian Troops were unconstitutional?
Did you know there is no such thing as a “Labor Government” and/or a “Coalition Government” this as electors never can elect who shall be in Government?
Did you know that Ministers are to be “constitutional advisers to the Governor-General and on his/her behalf manage certain portfolios?
Did you know that any purported commission by the governor-General as to portfolios only become valid if published in the Gazette. With former pm Scott Morrison the purported additional portfolios (in secret) were and remains without legal basis and were NULL AND VOID!
Did you know that any child (regardless of race) within the legal provisions of the constitution are equal and so also any person naturalised?
Did you know that as a ‘quid pro quo’ Australians are entitled to FREE education where then they are (if needed) serve in the Australian Defence force, and as such compulsory/conscripted enlistment is constitutionally valid?
Did you know that dual citizenship is a legal principle within the constitution, as it is not a “nationality” but means the abode of the person regardless of his/her nationality?
Did you know that the Brits never invaded New Holland (now referred to Commonwealth of Australia)? This as the Dutch already in 1658 claimed New Holland for the Dutch Government! As such, the alleged “invasion day” never occurred!
Did you know that the about $39 Billion a year for Australian Aboriginals is unconstitutional as it violates Subsection 51(xxvi) of the constitution?
Did you know that “land rights” are a fabrication by the High Court of Australia and not a legal principle in the constitution?
Did you know that there is no such country called “Commonwealth of Australia, as it is and remains no more but to be a “political union”! Hence, Australians are and remain to be by nationality “Subjects of the British Crown”?
Did you know that a Governor-General can only be appointed by the Monarch on advice of the Home Office or in the alternative is elected by Australians?
Did you know that Australia’s financial/armed support for Ukraine is unconstitutional and constitute TREASON, FRAUD, etc?
Did you know that when the Governor-General leaves the Commonwealth of Australia then he/she must pay the person serving as ‘acting Governor-General’?
Did you know that the Governor-General cannot represent the British Crown outside the Commonwealth of Australia?
Did you know that the purported prime Minister Anthony Albanese was not sworn in with a portfolio of “cabinet” but only for the “office of the Prime minister” and as such is no more but a Minister like anyone else in the cabinet?
Did you know that “Cabinet” cannot make any decisions regarding any portfolio as only the “responsible Minister” commissioned for a particular portfolio can make the final decision? For this also there is no provision for an “assistant Minister” and/or for a “shadow Minister” within constitutional context!
Did you know that to follow the doctrine/legal principles embedded in the constitution the financial Bills (Appropriation/Taxation Bills) should be presented to the Parliament about 6 months before they become applied to the next financial year?
Did you know that the so called “mini budget” is unconstitutional?
Did you know that constitutionally “income tax” can only be applied as to stages of income on a sliding scale and hence no such thing as ‘non-profit’ and/or ‘not-for-profit’ exclusions can be applied?
Did you know that Australia’s purported membership with the World Health Organisation (WHO) with the attached conditions is unconstitutional?
So much more to state but you may get the gist that our constitutional rights are squandered by those in the legal profession far too often and twisted and perverted for political purposes!
You may find extensive set out at my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and I do not charge for downloading my published documents. As such, it is not for me a money-making scheme!
In my view those who presented the case before the Queensland Supreme Court as well as the judge(s) themselves obviously lacked the knowledge and competence to prosecute the case appropriately. After all, the States/Territories (quasi states) lack the legislative/executive and/or the administrative powers to deal with “man-kind” infectious diseases as they are since 1908 within the exclusive legislative powers of the Commonwealth, and therefore all and any MANDATES were unconstitutional. Moreover, the same applies to measles, polio, influenza (now named by the fake name covid-19). The Commonwealth can only petition a Court of competent jurisdiction AFTER hearing both sides that the Court issue orders against a opponent to require a certain vaccination to be administered. As covid-19 vaccine never was a vaccine in the first place but a “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION “bioweapon” then in reality ever chemist/pharmacist, medical doctor, nurse, etc who injected a person with the fake covid-19 vaccine I view committed violations against bio security legislation this because to use a bioweapon one must be provided with special permission for this! You may find extensive set out at my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and I do not charge for downloading my published documents. In August 2005 I (representing myself) defeated in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka the Commonwealth DPP as to “AVERMENT” that the Commonwealth cannot rely upon this and the Court then ordered the Commonwealth to “file and serve” all material it sought to rely upon as “evidence”. On 19 July 2006 Iain representing myself) on 19 July 2006 comprehensively defeated both the Commonwealth DPP as well as the 9 Attorney Generals in both appeals, without any of them to challenge my NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER and/or the 409 pages written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT. This included that the “compulsory” part of voting is unconstitutional! That Section 116 of the constitution regarding religion also applies to secular objections, etc.
⚖️💉”They changed the name from a genetic therapeutic to a vaccine, and because it’s a vaccine, you don’t have to do the normal trials of genetic therapeutics…” ~ Dr David Bell, ex-WHO physician and scientist (1 hour interview, posted 22 April 2024 in Facebook): https://fb.watch/rBqsE-Erfg/?
Talking human rights:how did we all get trapped here in Oz. Even dual citizenship holders were contained til the government deemed it safe to reopen borders.millions of people suffered (elderly particularly) as they had no way of seeing their loved ones again. Denying a UK passport holder whilst in the UK must be a contravention in international law as well as subjugating human rights?
For background, the assumptions and assertions she made when deciding to suspend her staff included a set of baseless statistics on police officer deaths from covid in the UK.
As part of the disclosure process she was asked multiple times to present that data. She failed to do so. She claimed that 91 serving UK police officers had died of or with Covid-19. No such data exists and she has never explained why she used that statistic.
She was either very badly advised, rash, a liar or stupid (or a combination of any of those things).
We're all aware of the dangers regarding these experimental injections - however- I'd like to know where the author stands regarding the existence of Sars-Cov-2 and if he believes if it has been proven to exist or not.
Thanks for the video, will watch with interest.
In the meantime, sharing my recent article for consideration, about my email to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus: Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
Fundamentally, the medical profession should have challenged the mandates, as they violate voluntary informed consent.
A great article, Elizabeth. I agree with the premise that valid consent for Covid-19 vaccination was impossible in the circumstances. - Peter
Thanks Peter
I think this is very simple...
Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination.
So what to do about all the individuals who coerced, intimidated and mandated people to submit to COVID-19 vaccination against their free will, under threat of deprivation of their livelihood and liberty for non-compliance - ‘No Jab, No Job’ to ‘No Jab, No Life’?
There's quite a long list of perpetrators to consider!
Thanks for your explanation Peter. It's amazing that a country with as small a population as Australia can have different laws in different states. Australia's population is less than many states in the US and same as some cities in China! And in particular that there is no harmonisation of human rights laws is dumbfounding.
Australia has only a few states ... the USA also has lots of states (some of them with less people than some Australian cities), all of which have different laws. It's not clear why Australia is especially 'amazing'. When states reserve their right to have different laws, it would be dumbfounding if they were harmonised ... as surely people would then argue that he states were unnecessary.
I take your point, It was a Human Rights Act, that Peter mentioned some states in Australia don't have, and that doesn't seem right. You could be on one side of the Qld/NSW border (in Twin Towns) and be covered by a Human Rights Act and then walk across the road and not be covered. That shouldn't be the case in Australia. I can understand that States might want to have their own traffic laws for example and that may make sense. But fundamental things like human rights should be harmonised. Maybe the legal system doesn't allow that?
We have a government approved COVID Inquiry that does not cover the actions of the States, and it was States that did a lot of the damage.
I think it really brings into question the purpose of States.
Hi Andrew. I don't think states having different traffic laws makes sense, either, in fact. (E.g., drive on the left in NSW and on the right in Qld?) Or other laws ... but Australia is a federation of states that agreed to come together, despite their different origins and perspectives. Not everyone will agree on what is fundamental (is health fundamental?education? human rights? social services? regardless of the issue, some will argue that it is fundamental, I suspect. I used to think that we had one more level of government than necessary, but having seen our nation taken over by a uniparty (Labor moving rightwards to the centre and conservative parties moving leftwards to do likewise, in each case for greater electoral appeal), I'm now not so sure. At least there is a chance that different states would do things differently and - in theory - we might then learn what is best. Some states will do things badly - but we might learn that's a bad idea without inflicting it on everybody first. One of the problems of Covid was the invention of a National Cabinet by the previous government - lead by our worst prime minister for as long as most people can remember - to persuade everyone to do the same thing (which, in hindsight, turned out to mostly be the wrong thing). I agree that the PM&C inquiry is pretty useless, partly for the reason you state, and partly because of the people conducting it (at least one Covid insider ...); A properly constituted Royal Commission could come out of the Senate discussion on the matter, albeit unlikely. The AMPS submission at https://amps.redunion.com.au/proposed-terms-of-reference-for-the-covid-19-royal-commission makes clear what that might look like, but I'll be surprised (although pleased) if a genuine inquiry of that kind is attempted.
"One of the problems of Covid was the invention of a National Cabinet by the previous government - lead by our worst prime minister for as long as most people can remember"
Crikey, to think a handful of people in National Cabinet were making decisions impacting on 27 million people, with no transparency and no accountability.
Every thinking person knows that the fake "National Cabinet" was hastily arranged as a smokescreen to give the Premier's/ Chief Minister's carte blanche to create their own type of tyranny then pass it on down the line to their accomplices in all types of industries to do the dirty work. Millions of Australians should be DEMANDING those documents unredacted, then you'll most definitely find out who was in on it from the get go, fact. The rest of this stuff is fluff.
The 'National Cabinet' is beyond the pale...a small group of politicians stitching things up among themselves, with no checks and balances, and no accountability.
Crikey...
Thanks so much for your initial analysis of this case, very interesting and useful.
I think it will do a good job in changing public perception at least on a small level as it has been reported by media outlets such as The Guardian and ABC and may be the first time their readers/listeners have heard anything like this. Hoping it may apply in Victoria where so many people have suffered because of these mandates, even now with the Victorian firefighters.
Seriously...it's stunning that people are coerced into submitting to vaccination, that this mass population medical intervention is foisted upon people...even MANDATED!
And when you really look into the vaccination schedule, and push aside the propaganda, the injections are for diseases that aren't a serious threat to most people. Really.
Think...flu...chickenpox...HPV...etc... Even, dare I say it, the blessed measles, which has been beaten up as a killer disease. (I'm speaking as a 'measles survivor' from 1961...)
Of course, who knows what injecting live measles, mumps and rubella vaccine might do to people, given it contains exposure to bovine derived materials, chick embryo tissue and MRC5 human diploid cells[1], which are derived from embryonic lung tissue of a 14 week old Caucasian male foetus in 1966[2].
I wonder if parents have any clue about what is being injected into their children?
I wonder if doctors, nurses and pharmacists have any clue about what they're injecting into people? In Covid-19 vaccine products for example?
And then there are judges who appear to have no clue about the obligation for voluntary informed consent for vaccination...how bad is this?
References:
1. https://au.gsk.com/media/6785/priorix_pi_au.pdf
2. https://www.neuromics.com/MRC001
An excellent summary and a terrific video analysis, especially for those of us less versed in the nuances of the law. Thanks very much, Peter.
Thanks for this helpful summary Peter. Do you feel like they're throwing us the bare minimum of crumbs and watching us gaggle?
Thanks for your excellent clarification and for taking the time to do this presentation for so many people who are supported by your expertise. I have referred people who have been pondering the court decision to your video and they will be able to educate many with whom they have contact. This is another step in the right direction for human rights, and these facts you have clarified will add to the soup that is being cooked up, and that soup will feed the world population, and give them added strength to continue forward until bodily autonomy is the first choice legally available to every human being. "First, Do No Harm."
So basically something along the lines:
It's ok for employers to force their employees to undergo a medical procedure provided 'due process' is followed.
Would that be an accurate understanding by me of what you said in this post?
In QLD, pursuant to the Human Rights Act and what that allows, yes, that is an accurate albeit simplified version of it. - Peter
Yes, but I doubt if due process can be deemed to have been followed if employers did not do their due diligence under the WHS Act. They forced people to do something that 1. was evidently unsafe in its own right, given well-known absence of long-term safety data and high number of adverse event reports to DAEN and VAERS etc, 2. against a virus that was evidently not serious for healthy young employees, and 3. for the purpose of preventing transmission, when a light reading of the AusPARs would have shown that the injections were not designed, tested, or even approved for that use.
Correct. Incidentally, what evidence did they provide in order to declare covid as a pandemic and justify their never ending "state of emergency". It concerns me that there are certain influential people who believe there is justification for forcing "countermeasures" (mandated as vaccines ) upon the people was appropriate for population reduction? I would like to see our human rights enshrined in a "bill of rights" or I would expect this type of tyranny will be revisited.
Thanks for that Peter. Much appreciated.
Pretty grim!
As a legal expert, do you mind if I ask you whether the current constitution has any provisions for complete dissolution of the Commonwealth and passing its sovereign powers to the states and territories?
Is there a legal mechanism that realistically provides for the kneecapping of the federal government and its institutions?
For decades I understand lawyers/judges claiming that the Commonwealth of Australia has no ‘Bill of Rights’ and this may underline their incompetence in understanding what is constitutionally applicable because the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) itself has legal principles embedded in it being a ‘Bill of Rights’ and providing legal issues such as FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Also, since 11 November 1910 all State land Taxation (including “council rates” became unconstitutional! Despite that lawyer Anne Twomey appears to claim in a video that States do not have “separation of powers” (see her video about a Tasmania judge) reality is that States/Territories are subject to separation of powers and for example the so called “infringement Court” is unconstitutional. (see: In my view Professor Anne Twomey is wrong to claim that “separation of powers” doesn’t exist regarding the states, as the Letters Patent dictates an “IMPARTIAL administration of justice”!
You can download the document from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/781993946/20241020-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Professor-Anne-Twomey)
Are you aware the State of Victoria never had/has a valid State constitution?
Did you now that the 2001 purported federal election never was lawful? (I proved that in court!)
Did you know that the invasions into Afghanistan and/or Iraq by Australian Troops were unconstitutional?
Did you know there is no such thing as a “Labor Government” and/or a “Coalition Government” this as electors never can elect who shall be in Government?
Did you know that Ministers are to be “constitutional advisers to the Governor-General and on his/her behalf manage certain portfolios?
Did you know that any purported commission by the governor-General as to portfolios only become valid if published in the Gazette. With former pm Scott Morrison the purported additional portfolios (in secret) were and remains without legal basis and were NULL AND VOID!
Did you know that any child (regardless of race) within the legal provisions of the constitution are equal and so also any person naturalised?
Did you know that as a ‘quid pro quo’ Australians are entitled to FREE education where then they are (if needed) serve in the Australian Defence force, and as such compulsory/conscripted enlistment is constitutionally valid?
Did you know that dual citizenship is a legal principle within the constitution, as it is not a “nationality” but means the abode of the person regardless of his/her nationality?
Did you know that the Brits never invaded New Holland (now referred to Commonwealth of Australia)? This as the Dutch already in 1658 claimed New Holland for the Dutch Government! As such, the alleged “invasion day” never occurred!
Did you know that the about $39 Billion a year for Australian Aboriginals is unconstitutional as it violates Subsection 51(xxvi) of the constitution?
Did you know that “land rights” are a fabrication by the High Court of Australia and not a legal principle in the constitution?
Did you know that there is no such country called “Commonwealth of Australia, as it is and remains no more but to be a “political union”! Hence, Australians are and remain to be by nationality “Subjects of the British Crown”?
Did you know that a Governor-General can only be appointed by the Monarch on advice of the Home Office or in the alternative is elected by Australians?
Did you know that Australia’s financial/armed support for Ukraine is unconstitutional and constitute TREASON, FRAUD, etc?
Did you know that when the Governor-General leaves the Commonwealth of Australia then he/she must pay the person serving as ‘acting Governor-General’?
Did you know that the Governor-General cannot represent the British Crown outside the Commonwealth of Australia?
Did you know that the purported prime Minister Anthony Albanese was not sworn in with a portfolio of “cabinet” but only for the “office of the Prime minister” and as such is no more but a Minister like anyone else in the cabinet?
Did you know that “Cabinet” cannot make any decisions regarding any portfolio as only the “responsible Minister” commissioned for a particular portfolio can make the final decision? For this also there is no provision for an “assistant Minister” and/or for a “shadow Minister” within constitutional context!
Did you know that to follow the doctrine/legal principles embedded in the constitution the financial Bills (Appropriation/Taxation Bills) should be presented to the Parliament about 6 months before they become applied to the next financial year?
Did you know that the so called “mini budget” is unconstitutional?
Did you know that constitutionally “income tax” can only be applied as to stages of income on a sliding scale and hence no such thing as ‘non-profit’ and/or ‘not-for-profit’ exclusions can be applied?
Did you know that Australia’s purported membership with the World Health Organisation (WHO) with the attached conditions is unconstitutional?
So much more to state but you may get the gist that our constitutional rights are squandered by those in the legal profession far too often and twisted and perverted for political purposes!
You may find extensive set out at my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and I do not charge for downloading my published documents. As such, it is not for me a money-making scheme!
In my view those who presented the case before the Queensland Supreme Court as well as the judge(s) themselves obviously lacked the knowledge and competence to prosecute the case appropriately. After all, the States/Territories (quasi states) lack the legislative/executive and/or the administrative powers to deal with “man-kind” infectious diseases as they are since 1908 within the exclusive legislative powers of the Commonwealth, and therefore all and any MANDATES were unconstitutional. Moreover, the same applies to measles, polio, influenza (now named by the fake name covid-19). The Commonwealth can only petition a Court of competent jurisdiction AFTER hearing both sides that the Court issue orders against a opponent to require a certain vaccination to be administered. As covid-19 vaccine never was a vaccine in the first place but a “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION “bioweapon” then in reality ever chemist/pharmacist, medical doctor, nurse, etc who injected a person with the fake covid-19 vaccine I view committed violations against bio security legislation this because to use a bioweapon one must be provided with special permission for this! You may find extensive set out at my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and I do not charge for downloading my published documents. In August 2005 I (representing myself) defeated in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka the Commonwealth DPP as to “AVERMENT” that the Commonwealth cannot rely upon this and the Court then ordered the Commonwealth to “file and serve” all material it sought to rely upon as “evidence”. On 19 July 2006 Iain representing myself) on 19 July 2006 comprehensively defeated both the Commonwealth DPP as well as the 9 Attorney Generals in both appeals, without any of them to challenge my NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER and/or the 409 pages written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT. This included that the “compulsory” part of voting is unconstitutional! That Section 116 of the constitution regarding religion also applies to secular objections, etc.
⚖️💉”They changed the name from a genetic therapeutic to a vaccine, and because it’s a vaccine, you don’t have to do the normal trials of genetic therapeutics…” ~ Dr David Bell, ex-WHO physician and scientist (1 hour interview, posted 22 April 2024 in Facebook): https://fb.watch/rBqsE-Erfg/?
Talking human rights:how did we all get trapped here in Oz. Even dual citizenship holders were contained til the government deemed it safe to reopen borders.millions of people suffered (elderly particularly) as they had no way of seeing their loved ones again. Denying a UK passport holder whilst in the UK must be a contravention in international law as well as subjugating human rights?
What a great summation of the findings, clear and concise. Thank you so much Mr Fam
This is a very good summary.
For background, the assumptions and assertions she made when deciding to suspend her staff included a set of baseless statistics on police officer deaths from covid in the UK.
As part of the disclosure process she was asked multiple times to present that data. She failed to do so. She claimed that 91 serving UK police officers had died of or with Covid-19. No such data exists and she has never explained why she used that statistic.
She was either very badly advised, rash, a liar or stupid (or a combination of any of those things).
Brilliant article.
We're all aware of the dangers regarding these experimental injections - however- I'd like to know where the author stands regarding the existence of Sars-Cov-2 and if he believes if it has been proven to exist or not.