20221209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To IBAC - Complaint Part 8

Page 1
2 Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission 9-12-2022

3 Address: GPO Box 24234, Melbourne VIC 3001
4 Telephone: 1300 735 135
5 Email: info@ibac.vic.gov.au
6
7 COMPLAINT
8
9 20221209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC – COMPLAINT Part 8
10
11 THE ELEBORATE FRAUD PURPETRATED BASED ON A HOAX
12
13 Sir/Madam,
14 in this COMPLAINT ( which will be in several parts) I will address various matters
15 albeit not stated in any order of importance, while some must be considered also as to my past
16 complaints provided to IBAC.
17
18 The question has to be asked has IBAC, Victorian
19 Ombudsman (17 pages), Victorian Human Rights
20 Commissioner (97 pages), Supreme Court of Western
21 Australia, High Court of Australia, Victorian
22 Government, Victorian Attorney General, Supreme
23 Court of Victoria, AFP, VP, and others (such as their
24 minions/media, etc), actually directly/indirectly
25 facilitated not just harm to many victims but even many
26 ending up to be killed? This by failure to act
27 appropriately since I commenced to file my complaints
28 with them starting 8 April 2020.
29
30 The more I research the more what appears to me to be wrongdoings is detected. Australians
31 who lived their lives to build up this country are as it appears to me plainly murdered while
32 under (medical) care, etc. The judiciary seems to be failing terribly that as was shown in the
33 Palmer case the courts rather than to rely upon FACTS seem to be going along to deal with
34 illusions such as those claimed by the medical profession without any real scientific data to
35 prove their line of arguments. I am proud not to be corrupted in that manner and for Mary and
36 numerous other victims willing to a stand. May their deaths not have been in vain.
37
9-12-2022 Page 1 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation,
or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 Are patients still effectively killed by the medical profession?

2
3 Mary, a former legal secretary who became my wife’s eye specialist Dr Rasalam
4 Ophthalmologist (Eye Specialist) at Rosanna receptionist had cancer at least that is what she
5 conveyed to us. She was waiting to be admitted to a hospital for it. While my wife was being
6 seen by her eye specialist Mary and I had a conversation and she made clear she didn’t want the
7 so called COVID-19 vaccination, even so the hospital insisted she had to have it. On the next
8 visit Mary gave me the understanding she was in remission as she had been in hospital but they
9 coerced her to be vaccinated (well it is a “gene therapy”) as otherwise they would refuse to
10 assist her. I recall my wife then even commenting to me that obviously Mary had no problem
11 being vaccinated (jab). The next visit Norma was the receptionist and explained Mary was sick.
12 And then on about 16 November 2022 Norma explained that Mary’s body was riddled by cancer
13 and she was not given long to live. Actually, she died that day. As I all along suspected from the
14 numerous reports, I had read, that Mary would likely die soon because of the cancer as she did.
15 The question now is if the hospital responsible for her death in view of enforcing Mary to be
16 having the jab she opposed?
17
18 My view is that the first point of call is if the legislation that at the time was under consideration
19 first by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, subsequently by the High Court of Australia
20 and the Supreme Court of Victoria, etc, were in fact constitutionally valid.
21
22 My answer is: NO!
23
24 Obviously, merely stating NO doesn’t mean anything at all as I would have to prove this. And
25 this I intend to do in this and subsequent part. It will take many pages but then I have the benefit
26 of having written so much already that I can rely upon and it then may be questioned of the
27 Victorian Government and so also the Victorian Attorney-General knew or should have known
28 that it was concealing from the High Court of Australia relevant details in the Palmer case and if
29 so what might be done to rectify any of it, if any rectification will be made at all?
30 In my view, a Court can always rectify a judgment that might have been obtained by
31 concealments/deception/fraud, etc. Not to allow for that would make a mockery of the legal
32 processes and so the Administration of Justice.
33
34 THE EPOCH TIMES December 1-7, 2022 NATION A3
35 Organ Transplant Still Denied to Unvaccinated Patients in Queensland.
36 Daniel Y. Teng
37 QUOTE
38 A year on, unvaccinated patients will still be unable to access transplant surgeries for
39 kidneys, lungs, or hearts in Queensland.
40 In a statement to The Epoch Times, Queensland Health confirmed the ban was ongoing,
41 saying the “safety and wellbeing” of patients was the department’s priority.
42 “A recipient is highly immunosuppressed post-transplant, which is why it’s incredible
43 important for the person to be vaccinated prior to transplant. Queensland Health prioritises
44 safety before, during, and after a transplant,” a spokesperson said on 23 Nov.23.
45 “That is why the Queensland Kidney Transplant Service has endorsed a minimum
46 requirement of two doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine mprior to receiving a kidney,
47 lung, or heart transplant.
48 “Prior to transplant and as per normal process, the recipient must ensure all of their
49 vaccinations are up to date. The COVID19 vaccination is no different.”
50 Unvaccinated renal patients are placed “On Hold” until they are fully vaccinated, or the
51 current policy settings are changed.
Page 3
1 Queensland Health monitors and reviews advice around vaccinations, noting that its
2 decisions, was backed by clinicians, consumers, and Indigenous groups.
3 Australia has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world now, with 95.9 percent of
4 those over 16 having two doses of the vaccine and 72.3 percent with the booster (the third
5 dose).
6 Christopher Burroughs contributed to this article.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 https://www.wnd.com/2022/12/unvaxxed-14-year-old-rejected-top-hospital-lifesaving-
10 surgery/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=wnd-breaking&ff_campaign=breaking&ff_content=breaking
11 Unvaxxed 14-year-old rejected by top hospital for lifesaving surgery
12 QUOTE
13 'A horrible injustice in itself'
14 By Bob Unruh
15 Published December 7, 2022 at 5:08pm
16
17 Yulia Hicks
18 A problem that already has become so severe in America's health care industry that a
19 physicians' group has launched a campaign demanding that Congress intervene has flared
20 again.
21 This time it is affecting the life of a 14-year-old girl who needs a lifesaving kidney
22 transplant – but has been refused medical care by Duke University Hospital because
23 she is unvaccinated.
24 WND reported earlier that situation had developed so often that the Association of
25 American Physicians and Surgeons created an online process to allow Americans to email
26 their members of Congress.
27 The AAPS is demanding that transplant centers be legally prohibited from "treating
28 an individual as ineligible to donate or receive an organ" or assign "a lower priority
29 to an individual waiting to receive an organ" if that individual has declined to receive
30 a COVID-19 vaccine.
31
32 TRENDING: House intends to revoke military vaccine mandate in defense spending bill
33
34 Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., said his proposal to do just that is in response to "several reports
35 from across the United States of individuals being removed from the organ transplant list
36 or moved to 'inactive' status as a result of being unvaccinated."
37 It is the Gateway Pundit that has reported on the most recent travesty, involving Yulia
38 Hicks, 14.
39 She was adopted by North Carolina Army Veterans Chrissy and Lee Hicks in 2021 after
40 being brought from Ukraine to the United States in December 2018. But she has a genetic
41 kidney condition and now Emily Grace, who has created a fundraising campaign to help
42 with the costs, confirmed the hospital's refusal to even treat her.
43 Has Duke University abandoned all its beliefs from its Christian founding?
44 "Duke University Hospital REFUSED to conduct Yulia’s kidney transplant surgery
45 because she is not vaccinated. A horrible injustice in itself, now the Hicks family must
46 pay for out-of-state travel and lodging expenses for not only Yulia and her mother but also
47 her potential donor! The transplant process is not easy nor quick. Between the numerous

Page 4
1 pre-surgery tests, the procedure itself, recovery, and the years of regular appointments, the
2 whole endeavor is now financially IMPOSSIBLE for the large Hicks family," Grace said.
3 Chrissy Hicks, on social media, confirmed.
4 "Today we were told that Yulia cannot have a transplant at Duke even if we have a
5 live donor for her because of our refusal of the HPV and Covid vaccines. The HPV is
6 new, we just learned of it yesterday. So here we sit contemplating our next steps."
7
8 She continued, "Today we are sad. Tomorrow is a new day, and God is there with an
9 answer for us."
10 Previous cases have been so numerous some don't even make headlines any more.
11 But WND reported over the summer when a judge in Alberta, Canada, ruled that a woman
12 did not have her rights violated when she was denied an organ transplant due to not being
13 vaccinated against the Wuhan coronavirus.
14 Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Paul Belzil ruled that Edmonton, Alberta woman Annette
15 Lewis had not had her fundamental character of Rights and Freedoms rights violated by
16 being denied an organ transplant over her vaccination status.
17 And there was the case of DJ Ferguson, who needed a heart transplant.
18 "But since he has not been vaccinated against COVID-19, he has been removed from
19 the transplant list at a Boston hospital," a report said.
20 Also, an entire health system in Queensland, Australia, announced those not vaccinated
21 won't get potentially life-saving treatments there.
22 Back in the U.S., officials at health organizations in the leftist state of Colorado took an
23 especially harsh course.
24 They told Dawn McLaughlin, a woman with polycystic kidney disease, she was being
25 kicked off the wait list to receive a transplant because she hadn’t gotten the COVID
26 vaccine.
27 Just days earlier, another Colorado woman, Leilani Lutali, despite having stage 5
28 kidney disease, found out her hospital won't approve her kidney transplant surgery
29 until she's gotten the COVID-19 vaccine.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 I respond to this from my understanding of numerous reports and watching video’s.
33 As for the statement “Queensland Health monitors and reviews advice around vaccinations,
34 noting that its decisions, was backed by clinicians, consumers, and Indigenous groups.” That to
35 me is just rubbish, because if they were monitoring and reviews advice it would have been well
36 aware that there is no one can prevent spread of any infection from another unvaccinated person
37 to a vaccinated person (I understand all medical staff has to be vaccinated). Rather that an
38 unvaccinated person cannot infect another person unless the person is infected already, and then
39 the vaccination will essentially be useless because of the unvaccinated having gotten “natural
40 immunity”. However the vaccinated can infect an unvaccinated by shedding. Moreover in my
41 view the so called misnamed vaccination (really being a “gene therapy” can only undermine the
42 immune system of the unvaccinated. It should be understood that Moderna in 2017 had a video
43 that the mRNA would be able to address cancer and so get patients to a better health. Mary is a
44 clear example the reverse eventuated and so many reports likewise, as I refer to below.
45 The last thing one should do is to weaken a patient’s immune system prior to an operation and in
46 particular with some “gene therapy” that actually has not been proven to be beneficial in the long
47 term. I understand that the TGA never even did all testing and it merely relied a lot upon what

Page 5
1 (deceptive) information it was provided by for example Pfizer. (see below also) This, as while
2 Pfizer CEO claimed it would protect against infection reality is that Pfizer Director Janine Small
3 when questioned by EUMP Rob Roos about testing against infection she acknowledged it had
4 not been done. As such the nonsense about “Do it for your mum and dad, grandparents and
5 others” was always a lie.
6
7
8
9
10
11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EXQmP5b_Kc&list=PLtlB5X7s54oW0D9bJF5E-JPdLkFZ-YZBw&index=7
12 Recent CMAJ study vilifying the unvaccinated is unwarranted | Julie Ponesse & Denis
13 Rancourt
14 QUOTE
15 The Democracy Fund
16 20.3K subscribers
17 Subscribe
18 545
19 Share
20 5,345 views 27 May 2022 CANADA
21 On April 25, 2022, the following study was published in the Canadian Medical Association
22 Journal(CMAJ): “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated
23 subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2
24 transmission.” The mainstream news stories that resulted from this study emphasized that
25 the unvaccinated are dangerous and should be feared, which further strengthened the
Page 6
1 COVID-19 narrative. Ethics Scholar Dr. Julie Ponesse spoke with Denis Rancourt, former
2 physics professor and current researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
3 (OCLA), to get a better understanding of the study and to learn whether or not the
4 statements being made by the mainstream media were correct. Denis, along with Joseph
5 Hickey, wrote an article published on the OCLA website critiquing what they believe are
6 some fundamental flaws in the study. CMAJ article:
7 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/194/... Denis Rancourt's response to the CMAJ article:
8 https://ocla.ca/ocla-statement-on-cma... If you believe civil liberties are important, then
9 please check out the new book by The Democracy Fund's Ethics Scholar, Dr. Julie
10 Ponesse. The book is called "My Choice: The Ethical Case Against Covid-19 Vaccine
11 Mandates" VISIT: https://www.mychoicebook.ca
12 END QUOTE
13
14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaQ1krMbZKA&list=PLtlB5X7s54oW0D9bJF5E-JPdLkFZ-
15 YZBw&index=34
16 25 Oct 2022 – Absurdity of Canadian government’s claim that it prevented 1 million deaths
17
18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SWqEbLaHlE&list=PLtlB5X7s54oW0D9bJF5E-JPdLkFZ-
19 YZBw&index=10
20 Analysis and explanations on the extraordinary mortality in the US since 2020
21
22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GosuhCrSxRw&list=PLtlB5X7s54oW0D9bJF5E-JPdLkFZ-
23 YZBw&index=13
24 Why COVID-19 pandemic vaccines are a reckless experiment
25
26 I understand some businesses were selling 2 of the test for about $45.00. Little wonder that
27 COVID019 was a good business fearmongering.
28
29
30
31 As such, Queensland Health can claim to review but what are they really reviewing? Are they
32 just ignoring up to date information and only review what they already had before?
33 What The Epoch Times article however exposes is that indeed as I understood from Mary that
34 hospital are forcing patients to be vaccinated with something that is not even a vaccine but a
35 “gene therapy”. To me the “gene therapy” misnamed vaccine is as useful as the mask. There
36 never was any scientific data to support compulsory mask, social distancing, lockdowns, QR
37 code, lockout, curfew, etc.
Page 7
2
3
4 Video: “The Damning Truth of What is Going on in Australia”
5
6 (NEW WORLD ORDER) NSW MOH (NEW WORLD ORDER) NSW CHO
7
8 QUOTE 20200820-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE -COVID-19 & Lung strain
9 from aborted foetus used for WI-38 flu vaccination
10 Let us look as Deagel.com (http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx) population forecast
11 and in particular, the current countries hit with COVID-19!
12
13 Name Country 2017 2025 Reduction %
14
15 United Kingdom 65,650,000 14,517,860 51,132,140 77.886%
16 Ireland 5,010,000 1,318,740 3,691,260 73.678%
17 Germany 80,590,000 28,134,920 52,455,080 65.089%
18 Spain 48,960,000 27,763,280 21,196,720 43.294%
19
20 France 67,100,000 39,114,580 27,985,420 41.707%
21 Switzerland 8,240,000 5,342,540 2,897,460 35.163%
22 Denmark 5,600,000 3,771,760 1,828,240 32.647%
23 Belgium 11,490,000 8,060,900 3,429,100 29.844%
24
25 Italy 62,140,000 43,760,260 18,379,740 29.578%
26 Austria 8,750,000 6,215,000 2,535,000 28.971%
27 Ukraine 44,030,000 31,628,980 12,401,020 28.165%
28 Norway 5,320,000 3,833,960 1,486,040 27.933%
29
30 Portugal 10,840,000 8,113,860 2,726,140 25.149%
31 Poland 38,480,000 33,230,780 5,249,220 13.641%
32
33 TOTALS 462,200,000 254,807,420 207,392,580 44.871%
34
35 United States of America 326,620,000 99,553,100 227,066,900 69.520%
36
37 Australia 23,230,000 15,196,600 8,033,400 34.582%
38
39 The website makes clear no “pandemic” was included into the forecast!
40 While India appears to gain population there is however no apparent increase to show where the
41 about 500 million people moved to, if it was claimed they merely moved to other countries.
42 It is therefore important to consider the issue of vaccinations and the issue of a planned world
43 reduction of population and how this might be achieved. However, considering that there is only
44 about 4 years left to decimate the population by about 500 million people, it might be that
Page 8
1 vaccinations are to be the tool to commit genocide at a large scale. COVID-19 may not have
2 achieved what it were to have caused to dramatically reduce world population.
3 Prime minister Scott Morrison already has been peddling the COVID-19 vaccine (that doesn’t
4 exist as yet) for “measures” to be taken to ensure that about 95% of the population will be
5 vaccinated. I will now delve more into vaccination issues.
6 END QUOTE 20200820-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE -COVID-19 & Lung
7 strain from aborted foetus used for WI-38 flu vaccination
8
9 It seems to me that it is really about DEPOPULATION (and making a lot of monies) and
10 nothing to do with health.
11
12 https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/941509
13 How Do You Distinguish COVID-19 From Flu in Kids?
14 QUOTE
15 The CDC recommends testing to differentiate between symptoms of flu and COVID-19.
16 Key symptoms cited to be different between the two are the the presence of loss of taste or
17 smell as COVID-19 symptoms.
18 Table. Similarities and Differences Between Flu and COVID-19
Symptoms Flu COVID-19
Fever (or feeling feverish) ✓ ✓
Cough ✓ ✓
Shortness of breath/difficulty breathing ✓ ✓
Fatigue (tiredness) ✓ ✓
Sore throat ✓ ✓
Runny or stuffy nose ✓ ✓
Muscle pain or body aches ✓ ✓
Headaches ✓ ✓
Possible vomiting and diarrhea* ✓ ✓
Change in or loss of taste ✓
Change in or loss of smell ✓

19 *More common in children than adults.
20 CDC website.[3]
21 One key thing to note is that people with COVID-19 do not develop symptoms right away
22 as compared to those with the flu. Persons with the flu are contagious for about one day
23 before they show symptoms. In contrast, persons with COVID-19 may be contagious for a
24 longer period of time before showing symptoms.
25 Study Highlights

Page 9
1 The study by Song and colleagues[2] compared children diagnosed with COVID-19
2 between March and May with children diagnosed with flu between 2019 and 2020. All
3 data came from one major US children’s hospital.
4 The main study outcomes were children’s symptoms at presentation and the course of
5 illness for the two infections.
6 Investigators compared 164 children who tested positive for COVID-19 with 1402
7 children who had flu. The median ages of patients with COVID-19 and flu were 8.4 years
8 and 3.9 years, respectively, and there was a slight preponderance of males in both groups.
9 Researchers observed no significant difference in the rates of hospitalization (COVID-19:
10 17%; flu: 21%); ICU admission (COVID-19: 6%; flu: 7%); or mechanical ventilation
11 (COVID-19: 3%; flu: 2%) between groups.
12 No patient was found to have coinfection with both flu and COVID-19, at least in part
13 because of a sharp decline in cases of flu after schools closed on March 15, 2020.
14 Two patients with influenza A infection died. There were no deaths among patients with
15 influenza B or COVID-19.
16 Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were generally older than children hospitalized for
17 flu (median ages: 9.7 and 4.2 years, respectively). Adolescents older than age 15 years
18 accounted for 37% of hospitalized patients in the COVID-19 cohort.
19 Rates of underlying medical conditions among pediatric patients hospitalized for COVID-
20 19 and flu were 65% and 42%, respectively (OR = 2.6 [95% CI: 1.4, 4.7]). Neurological
21 disease such as epilepsy or developmental delay were the most common comorbid
22 illnesses recorded.
23 Fever and cough were the most commonly reported symptoms among hospitalized patients
24 in both groups; however, fever, diarrhea/vomiting, headache, chest pain, and myalgia were
25 more commonly reported in cases of COVID-19 vs flu. This difference was significantly
26 pronounced in comparing COVID-19 and influenza A.
27 Rates of cough, sore throat, dyspnea, and congestion were similar in the flu and COVID-
28 19 cohorts.
29 The CDC recommends testing to differentiate between symptoms of flu and COVID-19.
30 Key symptoms cited to be different between the two are the presence of loss of taste or
31 smell as COVID-19 symptoms.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 The above seems to indicate that the flu symptoms and the claimed COVID-19 symptoms are
35 identical other than for the loss of smell and/or taste. Then again prior to the claimed COVID-19
36 existing the loss of smell and/or taste was also contributed to:
37
38 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/smell-and-taste-disorders
39 Smell and Taste Disorders | Johns Hopkins Medicine
40 Anosmia. Loss of sense of smell · Ageusia. Loss of sense of taste · Hyposmia. Reduced ability
41 to smell · Hypogeusia. Reduced ability to taste sweet, sour, bitter, ...
42 QUOTE
43 Smell and Taste Disorders
44 Ear Nose and Throat Pediatric ENT (Otolaryngology)
45 What are smell and taste disorders?
46 The most common smell and taste disorders are:
47 Anosmia. Loss of sense of smell
48 Ageusia. Loss of sense of taste
49 Hyposmia. Reduced ability to smell
50 Hypogeusia. Reduced ability to taste sweet, sour, bitter, or salty things

Page 10
1 In other disorders, odors, tastes, or flavors may be misread or distorted. They may cause you to
2 detect a bad odor or taste from something that is normally pleasant to taste or smell. These
3 disorders can affect quality of life. They may also be a sign of underlying disease.
4 Problems with taste and smell can suggest certain health problems, such as:
5 Obesity
6 Diabetes
7 High blood pressure
8 Poor nutrition
9 Nervous system diseases, such as:
10 Parkinson disease
11 Alzheimer disease
12 Multiple sclerosis
13 What causes smell and taste disorders?
14 Some people are born with these disorders, but most are caused by:
15 Illness (for example, cold or flu, sinus infection, and allergies)
16 Head injury
17 Hormone changes
18 Dental or mouth problems
19 Nasal polyps
20 Exposure to certain chemicals
21 Certain medicines
22 Exposure to radiation therapy for head or neck cancer
23 Cocaine snorted through the nose
24 Cigarette smoking
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Other than the loss of smell and taste it seems other symptoms of the claimed covid-19 is the
28 same as the flu! And as people long before the fearmongering covid came around had loss of
29 taste and smell then really how would anyone know what is what?
30
31 Covid Lung Ultrasound Course?
32 OK, I have no medical or science study at any education facility but it seems to me that where
33 the alleged difference between the flu and covid is smell and taste then unlikely would a “Covid
34 Lung Ultrasound Course” be able to teach what is what, even if one were to accept that flu and
35 covid is not the same thing.
36 https://litlf.com/high-lateral-stemi-ecg-library/
37
38
Page 11
1 Let us consider what the nasty bits could be from getting a jab of the “gene therapy”.
2 I understand the following was published already in October 2020! Yet, when did anyone hear
3 Premier Daniel Andres or his minions warn about this?
4
5 https://www.fda.gov/media/143557/download
6
7
8
9
10 The person pushing the mandates without scientific data now somehow cannot recall most
11 details when questioned under oath.
12
13 https://www.wnd.com/2022/12/fauci-deposition-released-replied-dont-recall-174-
14 times/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-
15 breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking&ats_es=%5B-MD5-%5D
16 Anthony Fauci deposition released: Replied 'I don't recall' 174 times!
17 QUOTE
18 Attorneys extract contradictions in 7-hour conversation under oath
19 By Art Moore
21 Dr. Anthony Fauci at Spotlight Health Aspen Ideas Festival 2015 (Wikimedia
22 Commons)
23 The official transcript of the seven-hour deposition of Dr. Anthony Fauci in a lawsuit
24 alleging the federal government colluded with social media companies to censor speech
25 has been released.
26 Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who joined in the lawsuit with Louisiana
27 Attorney General Jeff Landry, noted via Twitter on Monday that the Nov. 23
28 transcript shows Fauci said "I don't recall" 174 times.
29 Schmitt spotlighted a Feb. 4, 2020, email advising former Health and Human Services
30 Secretary Sylvia Burwell not to wear a mask when traveling. On March 8, he told "60
31 Minutes" there's "no reason to be walking around with a mask. However, less than one
32 month later, he was advocating universal mask mandates.
Page 12
1 After saying he didn't recall the Burwell email, Fauci, when prompted with more
2 information, said," I vaguely recall talking to [Burwell] about certain safety issues
3 regarding masks."
4 The email, however, had been publicized after it was obtained through a FOIA request
5 because it undermined Fauci's claim that he was telling a noble lie to the "60 Minutes"
6 audience to ensure frontline workers didn't run out of masks.
7 When he came out on April 3, 2020, in favor of universal masking, Fauci also contended
8 the science had changed regarding the effectiveness of masks in curbing the spread of
9 SARS-CoV-2.
10 However, in the deposition, he was unable to cite any study backing his sudden change of
11 position.
12 Further, the counsel for the state AGs, Missouri Solicitor General John Sauer, referenced a
13 March 31, 2020, email from Fauci – just four days before he advocated universal masking
14 in a White House press conference – in which he forwarded a review of masking studies
15 indicating they were not effective.
16 Asked about the email and the masking review, Fauci said, "Yeah, I don't recall that, so I'm
17 not able to answer accurately, I believe."
18 🚨BREAKING: Here is the full transcript of the Anthony Fauci
19 deposition: https://t.co/IN3pjYcK2m
20 https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-
21 releases/135885afauci112322_full_redacted.pdf?sfvrsn=35f4a425_2
22
23 A few takeaways… pic.twitter.com/oQUjO8Fp5w
24 — Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) December 5, 2022
25 END QUOTE
26
27 https://t.co/IN3pjYcK2m
28 QUOTE
29 A clue as to what may have changed Fauci's mind about masking was reported in June
30 2021 by the New York Post.
31 Eight days after the "60 Minutes" interview aired, Fauci received an email from a man
32 named Michael Liu with the subject line: "Great advice from Chinese expert."
33 Liu cited Dr. Wenhong Zhang, the head of the infectious disease unit at Huashan Hospital
34 in Shanghai.
35 The Post noted that the email did not mention that Zhang was a
36 Communist Party official who drew attention in China early in the pandemic when he
37 announced he would send doctors and nurses who were Communist Party members to
38 frontline hospitals.
39 Liu wrote to Fauci: "According to Dr. Zhang’s video … COVID-19 can really be
40 prevented with 3 key measures, i.e. to keep social distancing , wash hands frequently and
41 wear masks."
42 "I strongly suggest American people should wear masks like Chinese, South Korean
43 people, etc., because even China's highest leader, Mr. Jinping Xi, wears masks."
44 "Liu concluded his email with: "God bless you! God bless America, China and the whole
45 world!"
46 Fauci replied: "Thank you for your note. We indeed have learned much from our Chinese
47 colleagues. I appreciate your bringing these issues to our attention. Tony."
48 'Very impressed' with China's 'handling' of pandemic
49 In the deposition, Fauci was asked about a trip by one of his deputies, Dr. Chris Lane, to
50 China in February 2020 with a WHO delegation.
Page 13
1 Fauci testified that Lane "was very impressed about how from a clinical public health
2 standpoint, the Chinese were handling the isolation, the contact tracing, the building of
3 facilities to take care of people."
4 Significantly, just days after Lane returned from China, WHO published a report praising
5 China's "uncompromising and rigorous use of non-pharmaceutical measures (lockdowns)
6 to contain transmission of the COVID-19 virus in multiple settings provides vital lessons
7 for the global response."
8 "This rather unique and unprecedented public health response in China reversed the
9 escalating cases," the report claimed.
10 Implementation of lockdowns quickly spread from China to the West, with Italy, the
11 United States and the United Kingdom leading the way until virtually the whole world was
12 locked down.
13 In the joint lawsuit by Missouri's Schmitt and Louisiana's Landry, a federal court in
14 October granted the states' request to depose Fauci and other top Biden administration
15 officials, including former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki and the current White House
16 spokeswoman, Karine Jean-Pierre.
17 Fauci is retiring as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
18 after 38 years
19 END QUOTE
20
21 https://www.wnd.com/2022/12/pair-documentaries-expose-2-greatest-lies-ever-
22 sold/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-
23 breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking&ats_es=a706e995ec590e9480340416ca68a7e0
24 Pair of documentaries expose 2 greatest lies ever sold
25 QUOTE
26 Exclusive: Chuck Norris highly recommends Candace Owens & Stew Peters films
27 By Chuck Norris
29 Candace Owens is an amazing and insightful African American commentator on culture
30 and politics. In 2020, she won Salem Media Group's prestigious national "Culture Warrior
31 of the Year" Award.
32 In her recent documentary, "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold: George Floyd and the Rise of the
33 BLM," she begins by quoting Malcolm X: "The media is the most powerful entity on earth.
34 They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent."
35 That's the truth. But it's only the initial descent down the rabbit hole of how Americans are
36 being cheated, hoodwinked and controlled to believe what influential liberal powers in
37 mainstream media and among the social elite want them to believe.
38 "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" is about 80 minutes long and was released on Oct. 12. It has
39 been hailed by many as "the best documentary of 2022." I highly recommend everyone
40 watch it and make up your own mind about the evidence Candace and firsthand
41 eyewitnesses reported. Watch just this official trailer and you'll wonder, "Was I duped,
42 too?"
43 When my wife, Gena, and I viewed the documentary film, our jaws dropped, our heads
44 spun, and our hearts were inspired to tell others about this insightful exposé. No
45 wonder Hollywood in Toto described it by saying, "Candace Owens' eye-opening doc digs
46 deeper than reporters ever dared. … She's done her homework, and she happily shows her
47 math."
48 TRENDING: FBI claimed Hunter Biden scandal story was 'hack-and-leak'
49 Are you convinced you know George Floyd, an African American man who was allegedly
50 murdered by a police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest made after a store
51 clerk suspected Floyd may have used a counterfeit $20 bill on May 25, 2020?
Page 14
1 Are you convinced you know the organization Black Lives Matter (BLM), a social and
2 political juggernaut that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination and racial inequality
3 experienced by black people?
4 Advertisement - story continues below
5 Think again. You likely only know what you've been told by mainstream media, and you
6 won't believe what they left out in telling you. Candace Owens unveils truths behind Floyd
7 and BLM in her film that could rock your world.
8 Without giving away the main evidence, let me tease with you a few facts we weren't told
9 that the film exposes. As Hollywood in Toto explained:
10 Owens leads us through her personal connection to the Floyd protests. She rejected the
11 notion that Floyd, an addict and career criminal, deserved martyr status after dying after a
12 confrontation with Minneapolis police. And she said so while virtually everyone else was
13 genuflecting toward the rising BLM cause. Owens shares a fuller look at Floyd … [and]
14 notes that Floyd's family, plastered over the news in the days and weeks following his
15 death, ignored Floyd's apartment and left his car and belongings for others to remove.
16 Thousands of well-meaning Americans filled BLM coffers in 2020 [to the tune of $90
17 million], hoping the organization could help black Americans and help heal old, but still
18 raw, racial wounds. Instead, BLM Inc. poured millions into trans causes and plenty more
19 into dubious groups that care more about rabble rousing than helping the less fortunate.
20 Owens exposes how BLM founder Patrisse Cullors used some of that cash to line her own
21 pockets and her closest family members, too.
22 Owens explains: "Black Lives Matter is a fraudulent organization that uses black emotion
23 and black pain to extort dollars from white America."
24 You can watch "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" right now on the Daily Wire.
25 The second documentary film I encourage everyone to watch and investigate for
26 themselves is "Died Suddenly," which was released on Nov. 21 and is produced by the
27 Stew Peters Network, the same award-winning team that brought us "Watch The
28 Water" and "These Little Ones."
29 Stew Peters is a former bounty hunter turned American media personality. His radio show
30 is simply called the "Stew Peters Show," which airs weekdays.
31 The core of "Died Suddenly," a one-hour engaging documentary, is this: 68.5% of the
32 world population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. 13.01 billion
33 doses have been administered globally, and 2.37 million are now administered each day.
34 At least 262,908,216 Americans, or 79% of the U.S. population, have received at least one
35 dose, according to USA Facts.
36 The crazy thing is this, and it's a global phenomenon: Healthy adults are dropping dead
37 everywhere. There has been a rise in "sudden deaths" around the world, both in younger
38 and older people, and vaccines might be largely to blame.
39 Please don't misunderstand. I know there are a lot of polarities regarding vaccines, and I
40 respect those on each side of the debate. But I truly believe this information I share here is
41 critical for those on both the right and the left in making medical decisions for themselves
42 and their loved ones. Please hear out what I say and Stew Peter's film conveys before
43 making a judgment.
44 In "Died Suddenly," the investigative documentary team travels around the world to find
45 answers, and tell the stories of those who died suddenly.
46 In the last year in particular, the term "Died Suddenly" has risen to the very top of "most
47 searched" Google terms. However, if you do that search now, you'll quickly discover that
48 Google's algorithms redirect you to "repeated debunked vaccine claims" results. But are
49 they really?

Page 15
1 Dr. Rafael Castillo is a professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at the College of Medicine,

2 Adventist University of the Philippines, a senior consultant in Adult Cardiology at the
3 Manila Doctors' Hospital, head of the Cardio-Metabolic Research Unit and a member of a
4 host of medical societies.
5 In June of this year, Dr. Castillo wrote a column for the Philippine Daily Inquirer
6 titled, "Data suggests sudden adult death syndrome due to vaccines."
7 Castillo reported, "The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)
8 sounded the alarm about the increase in sudden deaths, which they labeled as SADS
9 (sudden adult death syndrome)."
10 Dr. Elizabeth Paratz from the Melbourne's Baker Heart Institute explained that these
11 unfortunate victims had cardiac arrest "with no cause found on the back end."
12 Castillo discussed the diagnostic challenge this way: "Dr. Paratz echoed the dilemma of
13 her international colleagues about SADS remaining a diagnostic challenge because the
14 majority of these SADS deaths – around 90 percent – occur outside the hospital, and the
15 victims don't reach the hospital alive. They're proclaimed DOA (dead on arrival)."
16 Castillo further explained, "We wrote of the recent phenomenon of increased incidence of
17 sudden unexpected deaths in healthy adults and those with previously stable medical
18 conditions, and many physicians and health experts are now questioning the government's
19 continued campaign for anti-COVID vaccination and boostering. This is despite the
20 unresolved question linking the vaccines to heart and other serious complications.
21 "Dr. Benny Tiangco, one of the country's top experts on medico-legal issues, echoed the
22 concerns on seniors suffering from heart attacks getting second booster jabs.
23 "He wrote: 'I've been hearing such (sudden or unexpected adult deaths) but mostly from
24 non-M.D.s so I took them with a grain of salt. The problem is that the cases are increasing.
25 "The concern is that many seniors who have cardiac comorbidities (previous heart attack,
26 ischemic heart, myopathies, etc.) are the ones targeted for the never-ending boosters.
27 "I'm no anti-vaxxer, but this proclivity fomented by government and industry for never-
28 ending booster shots is akin to a scam of the highest order. We're selling short our innate
29 natural immunity. Who knows, the long-COVID effect may wreak havoc on the heart and
30 other organ-systems. I pray no analogous post 'thalidomide-like' effect happens with these
31 vaccines." (Thalidomide was a popularly prescribed drug for nausea and vomiting in
32 pregnant women in the late 1950s to early 1960s, only to be found out later to be the cause
33 of severe birth defects in thousands of children.)" (Read more from Dr. Castillo here.)
34 If you still think the risks or possible dangerous repercussions from COVID vaccines and
35 boosters are overstated fantasy or debunked conspiracies, consider just the following recent
36 scientific studies.
37 A new scientific study published in the National Library of Medicine, "Dangers of mRNA
38 vaccines" (October 2022), reveals how the mRNA jab was "shone bright as the ideal
39 vaccine candidate. However, 'all that glitters is not gold,' as was evidenced by the
40 significant reactogenicity, a host of multi-systemic side-effects, that are being reported by
41 the vaccine recipients; … Anaphylaxis, antibody-dependent enhancements, and deaths,
42 comprise the most serious side-effects.
43 "The biggest jolt, however, was the unfolding of the biases in reporting vaccine efficacy, as
44 only the attractively high numbers of the relatively equivocal relative risk reduction were
45 reported while keeping at bay the meager numbers of the more forthright absolute risk
46 reduction."
47 Health Canada lists "unusual blood clots with low platelets" among the adverse reactions
48 of the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines.
49 Another new study (September 2022) conducted by scientists from Harvard and Johns
50 Hopkins (and backed by several other esteemed academic institutions) revealed that the
Page 16
1 COVID-19 vaccines caused up to 98 serious adverse events in uninfected young adults.

2 The study, critical of the booster requirement for American university students, stated in
3 the abstract: "Using CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and sponsor-
4 reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm:
5 per COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we
6 anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated
7 myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which
8 interferes with daily activities."
9 We should also remember, as first reported in the Epoch Times, the CDC has been caught
10 red-handed providing false information regarding their tracking of adverse events caused
11 by the vaccines. The CDC's proven selective reporting and bias is what led chief surgeon
12 and professor Dr. Marty Makary from Johns Hopkins University to blow the trumpet: "The
13 CDC – which is withholding information – has a hidden agenda."
14 One could rightfully say, if Candace Owen's documentary is about "The Greatest Lie Ever
15 Told," Stew Peter's film might just be about "The Second Greatest Lie Ever Told."
16 The fact is, especially when it comes to the bias teamwork of mainstream media and
17 government officials, we need to do what the Bible says: "Test all things and hold fast to
18 that which is good."
19 Don't believe something just because one so-called "government expert" said it. Don't let
20 politicians or pundits sway your opinion. Do your own homework, and don't rely on biased
21 algorithms to yield your searches. Weigh the pros vs. the cons. Don't be medically forced
22 to make decisions by peer or social pressure. Most of all, don't check your will and brain in
23 at the door, especially when so many people are mysteriously dying around the world.
24 Listen also to the firsthand testimonies and experts from many fields in the film, "Died
25 Suddenly"; then make up your mind about yours and your loved ones' health.
26 You can watch "Died Suddenly" free here. It has already been viewed 12 million times.
27 Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to
28 any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities
29 of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
30 SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE
31 NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
32 END QUOTE
33
34 https://www.wnd.com/2022/12/ron-desantis-vows-hold-vaccine-makers-accountable-false-
35 claims/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-
36 breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking&ats_es=a706e995ec590e9480340416ca68a7e0
37 Ron DeSantis vows to hold vaccine makers accountable for false claims
38 QUOTE
39 Biden meanwhile gets 'ratioed' in plea to 'get boosted'
40 By Art Moore
42 Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (Wikimedia Commons)
43 Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is promising to hold Pfizer and Moderna accountable for
44 falsely claiming their COVID-19 vaccines have had no serious side effects.
45 At a Republican Party of Florida event Saturday, DeSantis noted his government
46 commissioned a study finding an 86% increase in cardiac-related events in people ages 18
47 to 39 linked to the mRNA shots, reported Debra Heine of American Greatness.
48 "So we're going to be doing some stuff to bring accountability there," DeSantis told party
49 executive committee members gathered at the governor's mansion.
50 He told them to expect official announcements in the coming weeks regarding holding the
51 vaccine companies accountable.
Page 17
1 DeSantis signed legislation in November 2021 banning vaccine mandates in schools and
2 businesses.
3 "We wouldn't let them mandate on you in Florida," DeSantis said Saturday.
4 Other states, however, did not protect workers, and many who were forced to take the
5 experimental shots issued under emergency use authorization suffered serious injuries or
6 even death, the governor pointed out.
7 "And then what? They're not allowed to sue or get any sort of recourse when this was
8 something they wanted to do? So this is something that we're going to lead on in Florida,"
9 DeSantis said.
10 Bottom of Form
11 "We've always gotten ahead of these things, and we're going to continue to do that going
12 forward."
13 Meanwhile, President Biden's Twitter account on Tuesday urged Americans to get
14 vaccinated.
15 "Even if you've gotten vaccinated or boosted, even if you’ve had COVID before – get the
16 updated vaccine to protect you and your family ahead of the holidays," the message read.
17 The unintended, overwhelmingly negative response to the tweet, however – known as a
18 "ratio" – reflected the fact that only an estimated 14% of adults have chosen to get the
19 bivalent, omicron-variant-specific booster.
20 The Washington Post reported last month "a majority of Americans dying from the
21 coronavirus received at least the primary series of the vaccine."
22 Even if you’ve gotten vaccinated or boosted, even if you’ve had COVID before – get the
23 updated vaccine to protect you and your family ahead of the
24 holidays. pic.twitter.com/MMDMjQSZOo
25 — President Biden (@POTUS) December 6, 2022
26
27 The first response to the president's tweet was: "Even if you got your vax yesterday,
28 or at noon, or half an hour ago, take it again! Because it works."
29 Last week, Biden's secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, tweeted
30 that if "it's been over 2 months since your last dose, make a plan to get one now."
31 The FDA, meanwhile, has taken up Biden's tactic of scolding Americans who choose not
32 to take the experimental vaccines.
33
34 featuring a photo of a sassy toddler frequently used in memes – reads: "No one likes the
35 side eye! #UpdateYourAntibodies and get boosted today. #MemeMonday
36 https://fda.gov/update. No one likes the side eye!"
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Covd19 Handling of Bodies by Funeral Directors and Cemetery Staff
40 healthachievers - <healthachievers@hotmail.com>
41 Tue, 6 Dec at 12:21 am
42 QUOTE EMAIL
43 We all know by now, that Covd19 cannot be transmitted. Discovered this link.
44 Quote:
45 The body bag must be labelled "COVID-19 – Handle with care" ..
46 Unquote
47
48 Quote:
49 Embalming of a body confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 is not recommended
50 ...

Page 18
1 Unquote
2
3 Quote:
4 Maintain the recommended physical distance from families and friends of the deceased
5 ...
6 Unquote
7
8 Quote:
9 COVID-19 is a disease caused by a new strain of coronavirus, called SARS-CoV-2, that
10 has not been previously identified in humans. ....
11 Unquote
12
13 Quote:
14 The COVID-19 Delta variant is more easily spread and causes more severe illness than
15 previous strains in unvaccinated people. ...
16 Unquote
17
18 (This is in
19 accurate, Family members jabbed, they keep coming down with Covd19. Also supposedly
20 when one was shedding, I was near them and kissed them good bye!)
21
22 Quote:
23 Standard infection prevention and control precautions should be observed. Family
24 members should not kiss or touch the deceased to minimise the risk of transmission. ...
25 Unquote
26
27 Question: Can New South Wales, Health Department please show evidence as to how
28 long the Covd19 pathogen if it is on the skin of the deceased? Also, now that we Know
29 that Covd19 Does No Transmit, should this guideline be amended? rgds Marg p.s.
30 Embalming not recommended, perhaps they will find the consequences of blood clotting
31 as we have seen by Enbalmers.
32
33 https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/factsheets/Pages/covid-19-funeral-directors.aspx
34 COVID-19 – Handling of bodies by funeral directors and cemetery staff - Fact sheets - Ministry of Health
35 On this page. Objectives; What is the COVID-19 virus? Risk to funeral directors and
36 mortuary personnel; Preparing to manage bodies with COVID-19; Precautions while
37 handling the body
38 www.health.nsw.gov.au
39 END QUOTE EMAIL
40
41 New vaccines will permanently alter your DNA
42
43 Jon Rappoport <info@nomorefakenews.com>
44 To:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
45 Thu, 8 Dec at 2:46 pm
46 QUOTE
47 New vaccines will permanently alter your DNA
48 by Jon Rappoport
49 Continuing my "greatest COVID hits" articles. To read my introduction to this ongoing
50 series, go here. To support my work and get value for value, order my Matrix
51 collections here and subscribe to my substack here.
Page 19
1 February 6, 2020
2 I repost this story now because, in the rush to develop a vaccine against the China
3 coronavirus in the next 90 days, public health officials are mentioning several experimental
4 technologies---never before released openly for public use.
5 One of those technologies is: DNA insertion.
6 The reference is the New York Times, 3/10/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It
7 describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic
8 genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is
9 not science fiction:
10 “By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the
11 scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”
12 “’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of
13 the new study.”
14 “The first human trial based on this strategy --- called immunoprophylaxis by gene
15 transfer, or I.G.T. --- is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was nearly
16 five years ago.]
17 “I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene
18 therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain
19 diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and
20 injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”
21 Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the
22 synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new
23 genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”
24 Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”
25 Alteration of the human genetic makeup.
26 Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence.
27 The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:
28 “Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a
29 vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially
30 fatal disease.”
31 Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.
32 This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun.
33 And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of
34 any and all genes, whose actual purpose is unannounced.
35 The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate
36 vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are
37 planet-wide.
38 The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than
39 ever now.
40 What does wall to wall propaganda about an “ominous epidemic” achieve? You have one
41 answer. If it doesn’t immediately pop into your head, read this article again.
42 ~~~
43 (The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)
44 (Follow me on Substack, Twitter, and Gab at @jonrappoport)
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Twitter.com/TheShovel/status/1559380634660904960

Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6

Page 21
2
3
4 I understand that Ursula from Leyen, her husband and their son somehow may have gotten $780
5 million dollars on 2% commission from Pfizer regarding the drugs sold to the European Union. I
6 wonder if this is why Scott Morrison and others were so eager to purchase huge amounts of so
7 called vaccines (under a NATIONAL SECURITY secrecy deals) and this for the commission?
8 Using taxpayers monies never should be deemed to fall, within NATIONMAL SECURITY
9 secrecy!
10
11 How much did Victorian politicians and their minions share out of the loot of commission from
12 pharmaceutical companies to force the jabs onto the many?
13
14
15 Please Circulate: Dr. Cambello - Vido - Autospy - Myocarditis after SARS COVD 2
16 Injections
17 QUOTE
18 healthachievers - <healthachievers@hotmail.com>
19 Mon, 5 Dec at 11:21 pm
20 When supposedly the Covd19 was spreading, I had not heard of many diagnosed Covd19
21 disease. Once the injections began, I began to hear about people who were jabbed got
22 Covd19, even when people have been boosted. Would be nice if some of the people in
23 Melbourne who know me, assist me in carrying the crosses of people who died after the
24 genetically modified jab. Every Saturday, at Mid-day at Parliament steps. rgds Marg
25 Please watch video below.
26 Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-
27 vaccination
28 Quote: However, few individuals required intensive care support or even died from acute
29 heart failure. Information about potential long-term health outcomes is not yet available.
30 ...Unquote
31 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5#Sec3
32
33
34 Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination |
35 SpringerLink - link.springer.com
36 Cases of myocarditis, diagnosed clinically by laboratory tests and imaging have been
37 described in the context of mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Autopsy-based
38 description of detailed histological features of vaccine-induced myocarditis is lacking. We
Page 22
1 describe the autopsy findings and common characteristics of myocarditis in untreated

2 persons who received anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination ...
3 link.springer.com
4
5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_DdSMn55cA
6 END QUOTE
7
8 German photographs
9 Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-
10 vaccination https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5#Sec3
11 Likelihood assessment of vaccine-induced (epi-)myocarditis Causality or correlation?
12 Presence of myocarditis with temporal association to vaccination event AND Integration of
13 ...
14 www.youtube.com
15 END QUOTE
16
17 This last quotation (Re German photographs) refers to pathologist having established a
18 connection between the vaxx and myocarditis!
19
20 When the Nicola Gobbo case became known it was as if this was a major issue of a lawyer
21 having tampered with documents, etc, but in reality I have exposed during hearings that this is
22 actually common if not very common, in previous decades but nothing was ever done to address
23 these issues. Judges abusing powers and Registrars altering court orders that I have the saying
24 “Sleep with the Registrar to get the orders you desire”.
25
26 A judge looking after his old mate (a Counsel in the litigation) and issuing orders that have no
27 legal validity is not something they shy away from. After all, try to appeal and they make sure it
28 becomes very expensive that ordinary litigants lacking the fast amounts of monies are unable to
29 pursue any JUSTICE. Those who are the evil/wrongdoers generally have the taxpayers funding
30 their litigation no matter how much they might be in the wrong and then generally even if after
31 extensive litigation they are held having acted unlawfully they have the taxpayers ending up for
32 the compensation while the evil/wrongdoers continue their marry way to cause havoc.
33
34 That’s is why we need the:
35
36 THE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (TAP)
37
38 Let me use an example how Walsh J acted some decades ago and then the Full Court wrongly
39 denied the appeal:
40
41 Faced suddenly to represent myself in a custody case I cross examined 3 doctors and each
42 admitting during cross examination that if they were not the only GP to the children than their
43 statement (in Affidavit) would not be applicable. While all 3 doctors were in the same period the
44 ‘family doctor’ during cross examination it became clear that some of the illnesses/injuries a
45 child had was known to one doctor but not to another. I cross examined a doctor about the kind
46 of food one should feed a few months old baby when the trial judge interrupted and commented
Page 23
1 “You surely are not going to claim she was starving the child to death?” Upon which I
2 responded that she could choke a child to death if she fed the child food that the child un\able to
3 chew then could choke upon. I cross examined a child protection social worker and she asked if
4 she could check her records, which she was allowed to do. She then explained how she saw the
5 two boys playing with each other. I asked if she was sure and well the judge then interrupted me
6 making known she had given that evidence. I then pointed out that one of the children was not
7 born about 6 months later (after the date she claimed to have seen the children playing) the
8 following year and as such she couldn’t have seen a child not born seen playing with the other
9 child at the day she claimed from her records she did. The judge then even went to claim she
10 must have been mistaken and it must have been a year later upon which I pointed out that her
11 evidence was she last saw the child 6 weeks after the child was born and so it could not have
12 been a year later. The judge also interrupted me during her cross examination that I was
13 misleading the witness. I disagreed. The judge then made clear that when I quote from an
14 Affidavit I cannot substitute this with my own version but was bound to quote correctly what
15 was stated as I would be in CONTEMPT OF COURT in misleading the witness. I made
16 known I was reading correctly. I then repeated the same and now the trial judge warned me that I
17 better not do the same again. I then pointed out that I read precisely what was written and
18 requested to check the Affidavit on court file. I then discovered that the Affidavit on court file
19 had a different version then the one I had. Actually also unauthorised alterations without the
20 purported Affidavit having been rer-sworn. After the break the trial judge simply commented
21 “Well now you know it” and clearly failed to uphold proper legal procedures, as he became
22 aware he had falsely accused me for misleading the witness when in fact I had not and it was the
23 opponent lawyers who had falsified the Court records. .And besides the opponent instructing
24 lawyers doing this, I discovered this to happen in other cases also. Besides when the transcript
25 was released it stated “I told Mr Allan that Scott that Scottish bastard” but upon filing a
26 complaint it was corrected to “I told Mr Allan that Scott was the husband’s” (re paternity).
27 Numerous other parts of the transcript had to be corrected having a total different version than
28 what was actually stated, some had been read out from documentation and as such could be
29 proven to have been incorrect in the transcript. However, a person who doesn’t realise this may
30 face to lose an appeal not knowing that the opponent lawyers tampered with court file
31 documents and transcript might also be tampered with, where then the Full Court has a different
32 case before it than the Appellant might be aware of. I cross examined a court councillor who
33 filed a report based upon his religious views. The second day cross examining him I then asked
34 about his religion and suddenly he announced he was now a humanist. In my view he simply
35 knew nothing about the religion and was caught out by me. The judge then making known I
36 could no longer cross examining about his religion. I then cross examined him about being a
37 humanist and he confirmed this. I then pointed out that he was not concerned about violence of
38 the mother and that this was in my view contradictory to being a humanist, etc. And there was
39 another witness whom I cross examined as she claimed to feed whole eggs to a child only a few
40 months old. I had already cross examined a doctor who agreed feeding a tender age child whole
41 eggs is harmful to the child’s renal system. As for the mother, she had sworn that morning an
42 Affidavit challenging the paternity of the father and during cross-examination did so again. I
43 then asked her if she knew how long a pregnancy lasted and she agreed about 9 months. I then
44 asked her if it could be 11 months because her evidence came to that she had fallen pregnant 11
45 months before the child was born, as being from another man. She then suddenly stated “You are
46 his father”, upon which the judge himself asked her if she is sure because she filed in the
47 morning an affidavit contesting paternity. She responded she was sure. Due to the age difference
48 between husband and wife I asked her if she voluntarily became married and she admitted this to
49 be so, The judge then intervened that he accepted she voluntarily became married. In the end the
50 judge ruled custody for the matter and using a crystal ball prediction stated that he didn’t think
Page 24
1 the father could adjust to care for small children (2 boys) because of his work experiences in
2 management. This even so no evidence was presented by the mother in that regard. He also then
3 claimed that the wife violence towards a child was because she was forced into a marriage.
4 Against his ruling he accepted she voluntarily married and actually there was no religious issue
5 before the court about any contracted marriage arrangements. So the mother was allowed to have
6 custody. It was another 12 years that the Children Court stepped in and granted the father
7 custody as the evidence was that the mother had been violent towards the children all along even
8 tried to strangle a child (she pleaded guilty to this, while legally represented). Don’t forget the
9 more than 12 years of hell for the children because a judge was bias and grossly incompetent to
10 understand child care issues. The father about a year later gained custody in the Supreme Court
11 of Victoria of his 2 year old daughter (from another relationship) and it was about another 5
12 years after that successful custody case the opponent Counsel of the original custody hearing
13 approached me and made clear he held that Justice Walsh had been wrong in how he did the
14 case. For all those years this barrister had it still on his mind that his client should never have
15 succeeded in the custody case but was so by so to say CRYSTAL BALL prediction!
16
17 For the record I did file an appeal but the Full Court railroaded this claiming the appeal was filed
18 one massive day too late. In legal terms however it was not. Then again, they needed to railroad
19 the appeal to protect one of their own.
20
21 How can it be claimed that the Appeal was filed in time when the Full Court held it was not?
22
23 The Appeal was posted by the Appellant the last day to file and as the Appellant resided in the
24 country and had no way to know how long the postal service deal with delivery, etc, the date of
25 filing therefore must be regarded to be the date it was posted by registered mail, where the
26 registered mail slip proves the date of posting.
27
28 Law of Contract Case law dictates that when an offer is made then the respondent is
29 deemed to have accepted the offer by mailing the response of the offer of acceptance and
30 the moment the acceptance has been mailed and this can be confirmed by the Postal
31 Authorities then the Post Office act as an Agent for the offerer and so the agreement is
32 deemed completed regardless if the mail of acceptance never arrives. This is applicable
33 unless pre-conditions are set otherwise.
34
35 Denning L.J. in Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 Q.B. 327.
36 QUOTE
37 When a contract is made by post it is clear law throughout the common law countries that
38 the acceptance is complete as soon as the letter of acceptance is put into the post box, and
39 that is the place where the contract is made. But there is no clear rule about contracts made
40 by telephone or by Telex. Communications by these means are virtually instantaneous and
41 stand on a different footing.
42 The problem can only be solved by going in stages. Let me first consider a case where two
43 people make a contract by word in the presence of one another. Suppose, for instance, that
44 I shout an offer to a man across a river or a courtyard but I do not hear his reply because it
45 is drowned by an aircraft flying overhead. There is no contract at that moment. If he
46 wishes to make a contract he must wait till the aircraft is gone and then shout back his
47 acceptance so that I can hear what he says. Not until I have his answer am I bound. I do
48 not agree with the observation of Hill J., in Newcomb v. De Roos.
49 Now take a case where two people make a contract by telephone. Suppose, for instance,
50 that I make an offer to a man by telephone and, in the middle of his reply. The line goes
Page 25
1 “dead” so that I do not hear his words of acceptance. There is no contract at that moment.
2 The other man may not know the precise moment when the line failed. But he will know
3 that the telephone conversation was abruptly broken off, because people usually say
4 something to signify the end of the conversation. If he wishes to make a contract, he must
5 therefore get through again so as to make sure that I heard. Suppose next that the line does
6 not go “dead”, but it is nevertheless so indistinct that I do not catch what he says and I ask
7 him to repeat it. He then repeats it and I hear his acceptance. The contract is made, not on
8 the first time when I do not hear, but only the second time when I do hear. If he does not
9 repeat it, there is no contract. The contract is only complete when I have his answer
10 accepting the offer.
11 Lastly take the Telex. Suppose a clerk in a London office taps out on the teleprinter an
12 offer which is immediately recorded on the teleprinter in a Manchester office, and a clerk
13 at that end taps out an acceptance. If the line goes dead in the middle of the sentence of
14 acceptance, the teleprinter motor will stop. There is then obviously no contract. The clerk
15 at Manchester must get through again and send his complete sentence. But it may happen
16 that the line does not go dead, yet the message does not get through to London. Thus the
17 clerk at Manchester may tap out his message of acceptance and it will not be recorded in
18 London because the ink at the London end fails or something of that kind. In that case the
19 Manchester clerk will not know of the failure but the London clerk will know of it and will
20 immediately send back a message “not receiving”. Then, when the fault is rectified, the
21 Manchester clerk will repeat his message. Only then is there a contract. If he does not
22 repeat it, there is no contract. It is not until message is received that the contract is made.
23 In all the instances I have taken so far, the man who sends the message of acceptance
24 knows that it has not been received or he has reason to know it. So he must repeat it. But
25 suppose that he does not know that his message did not get home. He thinks it has. This
26 may happen if the listener on the telephone does not catch the words of acceptance, but
27 nevertheless does not trouble to ask for them to be repeated: or if the ink on the teleprinter
28 fails at the receiving end, but the clerk does not ask for the message to be repeated: so that
29 the man who sends an acceptance reasonably believes that his message has been received.
30 The offeror in such circumstances is clearly bound, because he will be estopped from
31 saying that he did not receive the message of acceptance. It is his own fault that he did not
32 get it. But if there should be a case where the offeror without any fault on his part does not
33 receive the message of acceptance-yet the sender of it reasonably believes it has got home
34 when it has not-then I think there is no contract.
35 My conclusion is that the rule about instantaneous communications between the parties is
36 different from the rule about the post. The contract is only completed when the acceptance
37 is received by the offeror: and the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is
38 received.”
39 END QUOTE
40
41 However, even so the court was well aware that the Appeal would be posted somehow it refused
42 to accept that the documents arriving on the next business day was within time as the date of
43 posting was relevant, not the day of the Registrar claiming to have received it. One a person post
44 an article and can prove the date of posting then Australia Post (in this case) acts for the Court
45 receiving it on that day as it is beyond the control of the sender how long the postal service may
46 take.
47
48 The above is just an example how the courts are deliberately railroading a case by CRYSTAL
49 BALL prediction and other inappropriate conduct.
50

Page 26
1 I have set out the above, which can be checked against court records, that JUSTICE is often
2 denied by so to say inappropriate game play by court officials and even judges.
3 Also, it is not uncommon to appear before a judge who hasn’t got a clue how to conduct proper
4 legal proceedings, in particular when it comes to “OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION” and
5 judges at times claiming that the constitution doesn’t apply to them!
6
7 The following legal principle applies to Australia as much as it does to the USA.
8
9 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
10 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
11 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
12 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
13 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
14 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
15 authority of the United States”.
16
17
18 THE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (TAP)
19
20 Again:
21 Despite my elaborate writings to local representative and others not a single one has responded
22 as to the kidnapping of my grandson Dion. And I understand that this is the general conduct
23 towards others also. They count on it that people lack the finances to litigate and no matter how
24 much they do something wrong they have taxpayers paying for any litigation to shield them.
25 That is why the TAP system is in my view so important.
26
27 Because politicians, public servants, etc, generally seem to ignore the considerable harm they
28 may inflict upon others there really is no accountability for them to be held accountable no
29 matter how extensive the harm is that is inflicted.
30
31 Not even the Minister for Police, the local representative, has bothered to respond. That is why
32 such a person should be TAPPED and required to vacate his position as a Minister.
33
34 What I have learned over the decades is that there is a considerable lack of proper understanding
35 by yes lawyers as to how the law actually applies. They assume a lot and work on that regardless
36 how wrong they might be. Likewise so to medical staff and even medical doctors that instead of
37 reviewing updated information they simply claim reviewing the same old. As such, no real
38 review could be claimed to exist. If Queensland Health (re transplants, etc) maintains that
39 vaccination is required for the safety of anyone than I view they are grossly incompetent and fail
40 to be aware what really is applicable.
41
42 What we need to have is first of all a proper system in place.
43
44 If someone desires to be appointed to be head of a Department (including IBAC, Victorian
45 Ombudsman, Victorian Human Rights Commissioner, or any government Department including
46 hospital CEO, etc, then such a person should first be tested by a ‘management consulting
47 bureau’ if this person actually likely be competent at all to manage a Department appropriately.
48 No more grossly incompetent person being appointed because of friendship or party deals.
49
50 It is important to understand that the legal principle embedded in the constitution is that any
51 voter is entitled to become a Member of Parliament (if elected for such seat that is) and for this
Page 27
1 no ‘management consulting bureau’ could be justified for this however if that elected person
2 desires to hold an office as a Minister then for that purpose it would in my view be appropriate
3 to be tested by a ‘management consulting bureau’.
4
5 It should be understood that ultimately the appointment of any Minister (State/Federal) is done
6 by the Governor/Governor-General neither one being “in Council”. While there might be
7 recommendation to appoint a person ultimately the Governor/Governor-General must ensure the
8 person is competent for the position.
9
10 Our election system (State/Federal) must follow the legal principles embedded in the
11 constitution that electors do NOT vote for a government but vote for representation in the
12 Parliament. Electors have really no say as to whom the Governor/Governor-General appoints to
13 certain Ministerial positions. Nevertheless Electoral Commissions still allow the fraud by
14 political parties to claim that electors vote for who shall form Government. Hence I view those
15 Electoral Commissioners must be TAPPED to vacate their offices because they are participating
16 in a gross deception upon the electors.
17
18 I view the same with the head of IBAC who in my view acted miserable in investigating my
19 original complaint of 8 April 2020 to the Victorian Ombudsman regarding the unconstitutional
20 conduct of the Victorian Government about mandates. It is not my concern if the Head of IBAC
21 employs people who may be grossly incompetent to do the job they are supposed to do as
22 ultimately it is the Head of IBAC who bears responsibility for his staff, including any
23 failures/wrongdoings. In my view, had IBAC appropriately investigated my complaint then more
24 than likely all those mandates would have been no more! I will set out certain matters in this and
25 further Parts of my COMPLAINT.
26
27 I until 2019 used to conduct a special lifeline service for some 37 years and a common issue was
28 people contemplating suicide, murder and even mass-murder because they concluded that no
29 matter what they couldn’t obtain JUSTICE, etc.
30
31 Look at the Victorian Human Rights Commissioner, she seems to go by ‘government policy’
32 rather then what is constitutionally permissible. And so she ignores a complaint if the
33 government has some ‘government policy’ regardless it might be an unlawful government
34 policy.
35
36 Where is a accountability of all those people having ended up being harmed and even many died
37 all by the or as result of the elaborate covid scam?
38
39 Let’s be clear about it that to my knowledge despite allegedly more than 5 million people having
40 died from ‘covid-19’ somehow not a single corpse proved that it was from SARS-CoV-2 alleged
41 virus. So far no where around the world has it be proven to isolate and purify by the Koch
42 postulate that such a claimed virus actually exist.
43
44 At best as I will alter explain is that other than loss of taste and smell the alleged covid is the
45 same as the flu.
46 Since when were there in past years any mandates against the flu?
47 As it had already been proven by ‘clinical trials’ way back in 1918/1919 that one cannot infect
48 someone else with the flu then why is there not any proper research in that regard to see how
49 then people become infected?
50
Page 28
1 If the flu really is caused by the weather, like with hay-fever then why is this not the real critical
2 issue of concentration to seek to devise some way to reduce this kind of ill health?
3 For sure vaccinating people is good financial business for the pharmaceutical companies as well
4 of those getting a financial kickback in commissions, etc. Hence why medical doctors and
5 politicians may be on the bandwagon so they too can get some kick-backs.
6
7 Why on earth would the Victorian Government spend huge amounts of monies pushing the
8 deadly jabs which are not even proper vaccines if there was nothing in it for themselves? Surely
9 taxpayers monies could be spend much better?
10
11 When did IBAC investigate what, if any, financial kickback, etc, there was to politicians and
12 others such as medical doctors?
13
14 Reportedly patients are actually murdered in case facilities (including hospitals) and one has to
15 question where is the legal validity for any care centre to dictate to a patient what rights he can
16 have? In my view the covid scam jab is self-harm and no care centre should be permitted to
17 force a patient to be jabbed!
18
19 To my understanding Brett Sutton the Chief Health Officer is not a medical qualified doctor and
20 had no scientific data to justify any mandates and so what kind of system can we have in place
21 where the Victorian Police enforces some unconstitutional and unlawful mandate such as mask
22 when it is actually harmful to citizens?
23
24 I understand that in the Western Australia (v Palmer) case the expert witnesses merely relied
25 upon their ‘assumptions” as they seem to have had no scientific FACTS that the alleged SARS-
26 CoV-2 virus actually existed. Ok does this mean I can sue someone for stealing my hypothetical
27 condo on Jupiter, because no longer does one need to prove the FACTS but can merely ‘assume’
28 there is something?
29
30 As Pfizer Director Janine Small evidence was that their so called vaccination was not tested to
31 prevent infections or to transmit it then what was the nonsense about having to be vaccinated to
32 have a job, etc? and this where actually those who are vaccinated are the real danger to others
33 because of possible shedding.
34
35 https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2021/5.html
36 QUOTE
37 Palmer v Western Australia [2021] HCA 5 (24 February 2021)
38 Last Updated: 16 June 2021
39 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
40
41 KIEFEL CJ,
42
43 GAGELER, KEANE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJ
44
45 The questions stated for the opinion of the Full Court in the special case filed on 22
46 September 2020 be answered as follows:
47 (a) Are the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) and/or the
48 authorising Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) invalid (in whole or in part, and if in
49 part, to what extent) because they impermissibly infringe s 92 of the Constitution?
50 Answer:
Page 29
1 On their proper construction, ss 56 and 67 of the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA)
2 in their application to an emergency constituted by the occurrence of a hazard in the nature
3 of a plague or epidemic comply with the constitutional limitation of s 92 of
4 the Constitution in each of its limbs.
5 The exercise of the power given by those provisions to make paras 4 and 5 of
6 the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) does not raise a constitutional
7 question.
8 No issue is taken as to whether the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) were
9 validly authorised by the statutory provisions so that no other question remains for
10 determination by a court.
11 And
12 21. His Honour considered that if persons entered the Western Australian community
13 whilst infectious there would be a high probability that the virus would be transmitted into
14 the Western Australian population and at least a moderate probability that there would be
15 uncontrolled outbreaks. If there were uncontrolled outbreaks, the consequences would
16 include the risk of death and hospitalisation, particularly for the vulnerable groups
17 mentioned above. In a worst-case scenario, the health consequences could be
18 "catastrophic".
19
20 22. His Honour observed that Western Australia had not had any cases of community
21 transmission since 12 April 2020 as a result of the combination of the border restrictions
22 and other measures. Western Australia could not safely manage the number of people in
23 hotel quarantine if it were sought to replace the border restrictions with mandatory hotel
24 quarantine for all entrants to the State. If the restrictions were replaced by a suite of
25 measures including exit and entry screening, the wearing of face masks on aeroplanes
26 and for 14 days after entry into the State, and testing at intervals, they would be less
27 effective than the border restrictions in preventing the importation of COVID-19. A
28 combination of that suite of measures together with a "hotspot" regime, involving either
29 quarantining or banning persons entering from designated areas in the other States
30 or Territories, would also be less effective than the border restrictions.
31
32 23. His Honour concluded that in view of the uncertainties involved in determining the
33 probability that COVID-19 would be imported into Western Australia from elsewhere in
34 Australia, and the potentially serious consequences if it were imported, "a precautionary
35 approach should be taken to decision-making about the measures required for the
36 protection of the community".
37
38 The questions reserved
39
40 24. The parties subsequently agreed a Special Case pursuant to which the following
41 questions were stated for the opinion of the Full Court of this Court:
42
43 "(a) Are the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) and/or the
44 authorising Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) invalid (in whole or in part, and if
45 in part, to what extent) because they impermissibly infringe s 92 of the Constitution?
46 And
47 "(a) On their proper construction, ss 56 and 67 of the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA)
48 in their application to an emergency constituted by the occurrence of a hazard in the nature of
49 a plague or epidemic comply with the constitutional limitation of s 92 of the Constitution in
50 each of its limbs.
Page 30
1
2 The exercise of the power given by those provisions to make paras 4 and 5 of
3 the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) does not raise a constitutional
4 question.
5
6 No issue is taken as to whether the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA)
7 were validly authorised by the statutory provisions so that no other question remains for
8 determination by a court.
9 And
10 13. The plaintiffs claim that the Directions impose an effective burden on the freedom of
11 intercourse among the Australian people in the several States by prohibiting cross-border
12 movement of persons, backed by a criminal sanction. Alternatively, they allege that the
13 freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed by s 92 is contravened because the Directions
14 impose an effective discriminatory burden with protectionist effect.
15 And
16 The findings on remitter
17
18 16. After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, including the Chief Health Officer
19 for Western Australia and experts in public health medicine, epidemiology, and infectious
20 diseases, Rangiah J found that certain facts relating to COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2,
21 which had been pleaded by the defendants as particulars of the justification for the
22 Directions, had been proved[8].
23
24 17. The facts so found included the following. COVID-19 is a disease caused by the
25 coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Clinical and epidemiological knowledge about them is
26 relatively uncertain, their being a new pathogen and disease. SARS-CoV-2 may be
27 transmitted by a person who is asymptomatic and unaware that they have the disease.
28 Where there is community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 its natural growth rate is
29 exponential and must be minimised through certain measures. The risk of community
30 transmission is substantially increased if measures of the kind contained in the Directions
31 are removed. There are no known testing measures which are themselves sufficient to
32 prevent community transmission.
33
34 18. The consequences of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the development of
35 COVID-19 are substantial, including the increased risk of death – particularly for members
36 of the population who are over 70 years of age, members of the population with pre-
37 existing medical conditions or members of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
38 population – and the risk that the hospital system in Western Australia will be unable to
39 cope. There is no known vaccine, and no treatment presently available to mitigate the risks
40 of severe medical outcomes or mortality for a person who contracts COVID-19.
41
42 19. At the conclusion of his detailed reasons his Honour summarised the overall findings
43 he had made[9]. His Honour considered that the risk to the health of the Western
44 Australian population is a function of two factors: the probability that COVID-19 would be
45 imported into the population and the seriousness of the consequences if it were imported.
46 Whilst the existing border restrictions do not eliminate the potential for importation of
47 COVID-19 from other States or Territories, because they allow "exempt travellers" to enter
48 Western Australia, they have been effective to a "very substantial extent" to reduce the
49 probability of COVID-19 being imported into Western Australia from interstate.
50
Page 31
1 20. His Honour explained that the uncertainties involved in predicting all relevant factors
2 are such that the probability of persons infected with COVID-19 entering Western
3 Australia in the hypothetical situation where border restrictions are removed cannot be
4 accurately quantified. His Honour therefore undertook qualitative assessments of the
5 probability that persons infected with COVID-19 would enter Western Australia if the
6 border restrictions were completely removed. His Honour assessed the risk of persons
7 coming from Australia as a whole and from Victoria as high; from New South Wales as
8 moderate; from South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern
9 Territory as low; from Tasmania as very low; and from Queensland as uncertain, due to the
10 recent reintroduction of the disease in that State. It is evident that there have been some
11 changes in the circumstances of the States since his Honour's assessments. The plaintiffs
12 contended that Queensland would now be regarded as a low, rather than uncertain, risk and
13 the situation in Victoria has changed. It will not be necessary to come to a concluded view
14 about these contentions. They are not determinative of any issue in the proceedings.
15
17 whilst infectious there would be a high probability that the virus would be
18 transmitted into the Western Australian population and at least a moderate
19 probability that there would be uncontrolled outbreaks. If there were uncontrolled
20 outbreaks, the consequences would include the risk of death and hospitalisation,
21 particularly for the vulnerable groups mentioned above. In a worst-case scenario, the
22 health consequences could be "catastrophic".
23 And
24 31. Discrimination in a legal sense involves a comparison of relative equals by which one
25 is treated unequally, or of unequals treated equally[22]. It involves the notion of effecting a
26 disadvantage to one[23]. So understood, for the purposes of s 92, a law discriminates when
27 it treats interstate trade or commerce differently, as compared with intrastate trade or
28 commerce, and effects a disadvantage to interstate trade or commerce.
29 And
30 Interstate movement – a distinction?
31
32 41. The guarantee of freedom of interstate intercourse may be taken to refer to both
33 physical movement and communication across State borders, and to be directed to
34 the circumstance where borders are used as barriers to freedom of movement
35 between States. Until now there has been no occasion since Cole v Whitfield fully to
36 consider the distinction drawn in that case between this freedom and that respecting
37 interstate trade and commerce.
38
39 42. Consistently with the rejection of the individual rights approach with respect to
40 interstate trade and commerce, the Court in Cole v Whitfield regarded s 92 as effecting a
41 limit on laws which may be made affecting those subjects. But in discussion about
42 interstate intercourse it took quite a different approach. It regarded the guarantee of
43 freedom of interstate movement as extending to a "guarantee of personal freedom 'to
44 pass to and fro among the States without burden, hindrance or restriction'"[39],
45 drawing in part on what had been said by Starke J in Gratwick v Johnson[40].
46 And
47 Burdens on interstate movement as reasonably necessary?
48
49 49. In some judgments concerning the intercourse limb it has been suggested that the
50 measure taken by the law should be no more than is "reasonably required" to achieve the
Page 32
1 object of the law[48]. In another case it was said that a law should be "reasonably
2 necessary" to a legitimate purpose[49] or "necessary or appropriate and adapted"[50] to
3 that. The former test would seem to be more readily capable of justification; however, it is
4 not necessary to discuss the differences between the tests or state a preference. These cases
5 predate the acceptance by this Court in Betfair No 1[51] of a test of reasonable necessity as
6 explaining or justifying a burden on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce. Since a
7 law which discriminates against interstate movement will prima facie be invalid
8 because it burdens the freedom, logically it should be capable of being justified in the
9 same way. There is good reason in principle why the tests for justification of both
10 limbs should be the same.
11
12 50. It should therefore be accepted that a law which is directed to discriminating
13 against, or in fact discriminates against, interstate movement is invalid as contrary
14 to s 92 unless it is justified by reference to a non-discriminatory purpose. It may be
15 justified if it goes no further than is reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate
16 object, as this Court held in Betfair No 1.
17
18 51. It is important to bear in mind what this test requires. The approaches taken by this
19 Court in Cole v Whitfield and Betfair No 1 are instructive. The test of reasonable necessity
20 is not a conclusion to be stated after an impression is gained about a law's purpose and how
21 that purpose is sought to be achieved. It requires more than a view that there exists a need
22 to which it is the statute's purpose to respond and the measures taken are reasonable. The
23 test is to be applied in a concrete way to determine whether the measures which the
24 law permits are themselves reasonably necessary. It is obviously logically relevant to,
25 if not demanded by, that enquiry whether there may be alternative, effective
26 measures available to achieve the same object but which have less restrictive effects
27 on the freedom. If there are, the law in question cannot be said to be reasonably
28 necessary. This is what those cases teach[52].
29 And
30 A constitutional limitation
31 63. Victoria, intervening, submitted that the principal question reserved for this Court can
32 and should be answered by reference to the authorising provisions of the EM Act rather
33 than by reference to any particular exercise of those statutory powers, namely the
34 Directions. The defendants adopted these submissions. The submissions should be
35 accepted. They accord with what was said by this Court in Wotton v Queensland[70].
36
37 64. In Wotton, the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) conferred a discretion to attach such
38 conditions to a parole order as a parole board reasonably considered necessary to ensure
39 the prisoner's good conduct or to prevent the prisoner committing an offence. The
40 discretionary power, in its application to prisoners on parole, could effect a burden on the
41 implied freedom of political communication and the conditions which were attached to the
42 plaintiff's parole order did just that. Although argument was directed to the validity of
43 those conditions, the question of the constitutional limitation effected by the implied
44 freedom was determined by reference to the statute.
45
46 65. Drawing upon what Brennan J said in Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd[71], the joint
47 judgment in Wotton[72] explained that the exercise of the statutory power to condition the
48 parole order might be subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld),
49 but the question of compliance with the constitutional limitation is answered by the
50 construction of the statute. This is consistent with an understanding that constitutionally
Page 33
1 guaranteed freedoms operate as limits on legislative and executive power. Their Honours
2 accepted that[73]:
3
4 "if, on its proper construction, the statute complies with the constitutional limitation,
5 without any need to read it down to save its validity, any complaint respecting the
6 exercise of power thereunder in a given case, such as that in this litigation concerning
7 the conditions attached to the Parole Order, does not raise a constitutional question, as
8 distinct from a question of the exercise of statutory power".
9
10 65. The provisions of the Corrective Services Act were held to comply with the constitutional
11 limitation on State legislative power because they were reasonably necessary or
12 reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate purpose, as Lange v Australian
13 Broadcasting Corporation[74] requires, which is to say they were proportionate[75].
14
15 66. The clarification of where the constitutional question involving freedoms resides is
16 admittedly recent. The delay in stating it may in part be explained by difficulties which
17 attended administrative law and its remedies[76] for some time and which have only been
18 resolved relatively recently. In any event the approach taken in Wotton is that which
19 should now be followed.
20
21 67. In some cases difficult questions may arise because the power or discretion given by the
22 statute is broad and general. No such question arises in this matter. As will be seen, the
23 power to prohibit or restrict entry into a declared emergency area, which may be the
24 whole of Western Australia, is largely controlled by the EM Act itself and is
25 proportionate to its purposes.
26 And
27 167. GORDON J. The plaintiffs challenged the Quarantine (Closing the Border)
28 Directions (WA) made by the State Emergency Coordinator[213] under the Emergency
29 Management Act 2005 (WA). The Directions prevented movement of most people into
30 Western Australia from elsewhere (whether overseas or other parts of Australia).
31 And
32 209. The conclusion that the differential burden capable of being imposed by ss
33 56 and 67 of the Act is reasonably necessary where an emergency is constituted by a
34 hazard in the nature of an epidemic – and is not discriminatory and does not infringe s 92 –
35 is supported by both history and authority. During the Convention Debates, Mr O'Connor,
36 in addressing s 92, considered that States may[330]:
37
38 "prohibit[] both persons and animals, when labouring under contagious diseases, from
39 entering their territory. They may pass any sanitary laws deemed necessary for this
40 purpose, and enforce them by appropriate regulations. It is upon this reserved right of
41 self-protection that quarantines are permitted to interfere with the freedom of
42 commerce and of human intercourse."
43 That view has been reflected in decisions of this Court, as well as the Privy Council,
44 holding that s 92 will likely not be infringed by a law which has the object of protecting
45 the citizens of a State from disease or some other threat to health. For example, as
46 Brennan J observed in Nationwide News, "permissible regulation ... might take the form
47 'of excluding from passage across the frontier of a State creatures or things calculated to
48 injure its citizens'"[331].
49

Page 34
1 210. On their proper construction, ss 56 and 67 of the Act, in their application to an

2 emergency constituted by the occurrence of a hazard in the nature of an epidemic, comply
3 with the constitutional limitation of s 92 of the Constitution in each of its limbs. They do
4 not impose an unjustified differential burden on interstate trade, commerce or intercourse
5 in favour of intrastate trade, commerce or intercourse. They are not discriminatory.
6 And
7 EDELMAN J.
8 Introduction
9
10 213. The central question in the special case in the original jurisdiction of this Court
11 concerns the challenge by the plaintiffs, Mr Palmer and a privately held company under his
12 direct and personal executive management, to the validity of the Quarantine (Closing the
13 Border) Directions (WA). Those directions were made under the Emergency Management
14 Act 2005 (WA) for the purpose of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The essence of
15 the plaintiffs' case is that the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions are invalid by
16 operation of s 92 of the Constitution because they involve an impermissible derogation
17 from one or both aspects of the guarantee in that provision, those aspects being freedom of
18 trade and commerce and freedom of intercourse.
19
20 214. The relevant and operative part of s 92 of the Constitution provides that "[o]n the
21 imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the
22 States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free".
23 For more than a century, the meaning and effect of this provision has been disputed. Much
24 of this dispute was resolved in Cole v Whitfield[332], where this Court held that the "trade
25 [and] commerce ... among the States" aspect of s 92 was to be absolutely free from
26 unjustified discrimination of a protectionist nature by Commonwealth or State legislation.
27
28 215. There were three strands to the reasoning in Cole v Whitfield which were not the
29 subject of submissions in that case, which were not necessary for the decision, and which
30 are not yet fully resolved. The first strand is the reasoning of the Court which treated the
31 intercourse aspect of s 92, the movement across State borders generally by dealings or
32 communications between people, as extending beyond freedom from laws that
33 discriminate between the States in their treatment of that intercourse. It should not have
34 been so extended.
35
36 216. The second strand is the assumption of the Court that the discrimination with which
37 the trade and commerce aspect is concerned is limited to protectionism, the most prolific
38 form of discrimination among States in trade and commerce. Although it is not necessary
39 to decide this point finally in this case, the proscribed discrimination should not have been
40 so limited.
41
42 217. The third strand, which was developed in Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia[333], is
43 how discrimination among the States can be justified. Legislation will discriminate when
44 its purpose or effect is to burden trade, commerce, or intercourse in one State more than
45 another. To avoid offending the guarantee in s 92, that burden must be justified by a
46 transparent analysis of structured proportionality.
47
48 218. Bringing these strands together, each aspect of s 92 should be aligned so that the
49 provision is understood as a single freedom from unjustified discrimination concerning

Page 35
1 trade, commerce, or intercourse in Commonwealth or State legislation, with justification to

2 be assessed in a transparent way.
3
4 219. A preliminary question arises in this case. That question concerns the subject of the
5 challenge to validity. As in many constitutional cases in the past, the central focus of the
6 plaintiffs' challenge to validity was an instrument, which is a particular application of
7 primary legislation, rather than the primary legislation itself. The instrument is
8 the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions made under the Emergency Management
9 Act. The validity of that primary legislation, as the source of authority for
10 the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions, must be the starting point for the
11 assessment of the validity of the directions as an exercise or application of that
12 authority. Where the relevant provisions of the primary legislation are open-textured and
13 can be disapplied from any invalid application then it will rarely be appropriate for a court
14 to speculate upon whether the provisions are valid in all their applications, including
15 hypothetical circumstances that are not before the court. It will usually be necessary to
16 consider the validity of the provisions in relation to particular applications before the court
17 or, slightly more generally, to applications of the general kind of those before the court.
18 And
19 "The effects, both social and material, of such an enlargement of knowledge and extension of
20 movement could not fail to be highly beneficial. The present lack of more general
21 acquaintance and intercourse is, indeed, probably one of the most serious obstacles now
22 existing in the way of Federation."
23
24 290. example of a law whose purpose might be considered inadequate when balanced
25 against the weight of the purpose of s 92 and the extent of the burden effected by the law
26 is one which was considered to be "at the least doubtful" in 1903 by Mr Deakin, then
27 Attorney-General of the Commonwealth[463]. Tasmanian legislation[464] imposed a
28 charge for the admission to Tasmania of various categories of person including those who
29 were unable to support themselves or who were likely, "in the opinion of the Collector, to
30 become a charge upon the public". Even assuming that the purpose of decreasing the
31 financial burdens to the State of persons in that relevant class was a legitimate purpose,
32 that purpose might be inadequate in the balance against the discriminatory effect of the
33 law and its undermining of the purpose of s 92. Hence, even if there were no other
34 reasonably available means of reducing those costs, this legislation might be invalid.
35
36 291. By contrast, the purpose of public health provisions such as ss 56 and 67 is
37 plainly sufficient to justify even the deep and wide burden that the application of those
38 provisions can place upon the freedom prescribed by s 92. Indeed, at federation it was
39 contemplated that the application of provisions of this nature might be justified despite
40 the imposition of such deep or wide burdens. During the Sydney debates, after one of the
41 delegates, Dr Cockburn, expressed a fear that the clause as drafted might prevent laws
42 prohibiting the passing of cattle across State borders or the introduction of diseased vines
43 into South Australia, Mr O'Connor, quoting from a prolific writer from the United
44 States[465], set out a good description of the operation of structured proportionality in
45 this area[466]:
46
47 "By parity of reason addressed to the protection of the public health, states may exercise their
48 police powers to the extent of prohibiting both persons and animals, when labouring under
49 contagious diseases, from entering their territory. They may pass any sanitary laws deemed
50 necessary for this purpose, and enforce them by appropriate regulations. It is upon this
Page 36
1 reserved right of self-protection, that quarantines are permitted to interfere with the freedom
2 of commerce and of human intercourse. But this power is not without its limitations, and its
3 exercise must be restricted to directly impending dangers to health, and not to those who are
4 only contingent and remote. Hence, while diseased persons or diseased animals, and those
5 presumedly so from contact with infected bodies or localities, may be prevented from entering
6 a state, any general law of exclusion, measured by months, or operating in such a way as to
7 become a barrier to commerce or travel, would be a regulation of commerce forbidden by the
8 constitution. Such a statute being more than a quarantine regulation, transcends the legitimate
9 powers of a state."
10
11 292. Subsequently, Mr Barton said, in terms reflecting the first stage of structured
12 proportionality, that "the power to prevent the introduction of diseases would still remain
13 with the states, except in so far as any state law was found to be an intentional derogation
14 from the freedom of trade"[467].
15 Conclusion
16
17 293. For these reasons, I join in the orders that were made on 6 November 2020.
18
19 Something that I view is overlooked by the court was that the Framers of the Constitution made
20 clear that the constitution must be in plain English that the unlettered person can understand it.
21
22 You find that judgments may refer to numerous other Authorities as in this case palmer v WA
23 but for an unlettered person those referrals are utterly useless if this means the person somehow
24 has to research each and every of those cases and try to make sense out of those cases, which
25 themselves may refer to numerous other cases and so on. As such, the judgment should have
26 stated in plain English the relevant details the court relied upon and not merely refer to some
27 other case without specifically stating what part of that judgment they rely upon.
28
29 A clear example is that I at times appearing before a court at the bar table would raise an issue of
30 a particular case where the trial judge disputed what I had stated to be part of that case, however,
31 after I invite the trial judges to check the law reports they then discovered that indeed I correctly
32 quoted relevant parts. Judges as law students generally are taught about certain cases and known
33 issues of controversy in them but then generally unaware of other issues in the same case.
34 Because I do my own research I then pick up those special issues and often confront trail judges
35 with it, which issues they never knew about existed in cases they often cite.
36
37 “..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give
38 effect to what Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary,
39 including the function of this Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the
40 Constitution as evinced by the terms in which they expressed that intention. That
41 necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by people long dead, bind the
42 people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those decisions are
43 out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.”
44
45 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
46 intention of its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
47
48 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its
49 words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any

Page 37
1 meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing
2 facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "
3 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
4
5 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17
6 June 1999)
7 QUOTE
8 Constitutional interpretation
9 The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
10 intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes
11 or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those
12 who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its
13 makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in
14 which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
15 Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my
16 opinion[53]:
17 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
18 authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have
19 called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of
20 people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an
21 historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking
22 or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."
23 END QUOTE
24
25 The following constitutional issues arise in matters, besides the FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
26 POLITICAL LIBERTY (Including protest against unconstitutional mandates without the
27 Victorian Police firing bullets upon unarmed peaceful protesters holding small children!) as well
28 as religious liberty when it comes to the purported COVID-19 issue.
29
30 QUOTE
31 Sectiom 51 (ix) quarantine;
32 END QUOTE
33
34 QUOTE
35 92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free
36 On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce,
37 and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal
38 carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
39 But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported
40 before the imposition of uniform duties of customs into any State,
41 or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein,
42 becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into another State within
43 two years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty
44 END QUOTE
45
46 QUOTE
47 117 Rights of residents in States
48 A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject
49 in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would
50 not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen
51 resident in such other State.
52 END QUOTE
53
Page 38
1 What should have been understood and this appears to me the judges and the parties never did,
2 was that had the S92 issue involved any animal then the State can legitimately deny the entry of
3 an animal that is suspected or likely may be carrying a infectious decease, while the human could
4 not as such denied travelling across state borders unless the Commonwealth within s51(ix
5 quarantine had issues a specific order. As such if Mr Palmer had sought to travel across State
6 borders with an animal, even a dog or cat then WA could very well have prevented the animal to
7 be taken across state borders but should have allowed Mr Palmer in his own right to travel across
8 state lines without the animal. If say Mr Palmer refused to go on his own across state border then
9 the State itself didn’t prevent him to cross state borders rather he would do so on his own
10 violation. However, where Mr palmer were to desire to travel over state borders on his own
11 and/or with other humans than the state has in my view absolutely no legal powers to prevent
12 this. I did not read the entire case of Palmer v WA but my assumed situation is that Mr Palmer
13 merely pursued his own right (without any animal) to travel across state borders and this I view
14 he was legitimately entitled upon as Section 117 of the constitution guarantees this and only if
15 the Commonwealth invoked Section 51(ix) quarantine legislation it could possible, may not,
16 restrict movement across certain state borders. Obviously, to invoke S51(ix) quarantine powers
17 there must be a clear issue of quarantine to exist and not some absurd claim of a non-proven
18 SARS-CoV-2 virus that never was proved to exist. So, we have judges who accept the sheer and
19 utter nonsense even so not a single laboratory , at least to the documentation from around the
20 world, even isolated & purified by the Koch postulate the alleged virus. Would any court really
21 accept if I made a claim that my neighbour stole my condo at Pluto without that I needed to
22 prove I actually had such condor my neighbour having such alleged condo in his possession? I
23 do not think so. Yet, the various courts being WA Supreme Court, High Court of Australia,
24 Supreme Court of Victoria and whichever other court/tribunal all somehow lacked the basics of
25 law that one must come with FACTS and not with illusions. I challenge the judges to prove that
26 at each relevant time they adjudicated they actually had scientific evidence that the alleged
27 SARS-CoV-2 virus was proven to exist by the Koch postulate!
28 This is ma critical issue because as proven in the Cotterill case a judge applied the HCA Palmer
29 v WA case for other purposes as if the State legislation was constitutionally valid. Hence, I view
30 the judges of the High Court of Australia were totally irresponsible not to consider in the
31 judgment Section 117 and Section 51(ix)) specifically and explain why those sections didn’t or
32 couldn’t apply.
33 I will below in some limited manner provide some quotations but I intend to provide further
34 details in follow up parts 10, etc, as to show I actually did raise the S51(*ix) quarantine issue
35 from time to time, including with the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria, etc. Therefore
36 there can be no issue that certain parties didn’t know about Section 51(ix) quarantine being
37 relevant. In my view what we have ended up with is a gross incompetent kind of judgment from
38 the High Court of Australia and State Governments have relied upon this to terrorise their
39 citizens with all kind of further mandates. In my view this cannot be ignored and in fact view
40 that each and every judge involved should vacate his seat. People were harmed, became disabled
41 and even many died and this because we seem to have judges unable to do the job they swore an
42 oath or affirmation to uphold the rule of law, this I view they miserably failed to do. What we
43 need is to reorganise the High Court of Australia so that judges who are to adjudicate about
44 constitutional issues are competent in such issues and not rely upon illusions of some alleged
45 virus and forget/fail to adjudicate on FACTS and the true meaning and application of the
46 constitution! Anyone who may thing I am harsh, well tell that to Mary and other who ended up
47 in their graves and well to all others who became victims because judges couldn’t bother or have
48 the competence to appropriately consider constitutional issues based upon FACTS and not
49 illusions. Tell this to the patients denied get transplants for not being jabbed, when the jab is
50 actually increasing danger to her survival rather than to decease any danger to anyone.
Page 39
1
2 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
3 Convention)
4 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
5 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
6 observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
7 misconception.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. CARRUTHERS:
13 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
14 understand.
15 END QUOTE
16 .
18 QUOTE
19 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee
20 will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not
21 understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by persons commonly
22 acquainted with the English language.
23 END QUOTE
24
26 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
27 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 The last quote may underline that we do not want and neither can permit judges to twist and
31 infringe upon the constitution as to make some part of the constitution to have some meaning in
32 violation of what the Framers of the Constitution stated was its meaning. Judges must apply the
33 interpretation of the constitution to its original meaning.
34
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. OCONNOR.-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state
38 has to do only with its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating
39 now a new and a larger citizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole
40 of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and we should take care that no man is deprived
41 of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.
42 Mr. GORDON.-Might you not as well say that the states should not legalize murder?
43 Mr. OCONNOR-That is one of those suppositions that are against the first instincts of
44 humanity.
45 Mr. GORDON.-So is this.
46 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it is not. We need not go far back in history to find cases in
47 which the community, seized with a sort of madness with regard to particular
48 offences, have set aside all principles of justice. If a state did behave itself in that way,
49 why should not the citizens of the Commonwealth who did not belong to that state be
50 protected? Dr. Cockburn suggested in so contemptuous a way that there could be no
51 reason for this amendment, that I got up to state again what had been stated before.
52 Dr. COCKBURN.-Not contemptuous.

Page 40
1 Mr. OCONNOR.-I know the honorable member meant nothing personal, but I thought it
2 necessary to state the reasons of what, had it not been for the honorable member's
3 statement, would have seemed to be a perfectly obvious proposition. Mr. Clark, of
4 Tasmania, thought the amendment of importance, and pointed out that it had been put in
5 the United States Constitution. It should also be put in this Constitution, not necessarily as
6 an imputation on any state or any body of states, but as a guarantee for all time for the
7 citizens of the Commonwealth that they shall be treated according to what we recognise to
8 be the principles of justice and of equality.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by
14 the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in
15 effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies,
16 and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been
17 the work of Australians.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
21 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
23 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
24 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
25 citizen is entitled to
26 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
27 END QUOTE
28
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
32
33 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law,
34 every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state
35 Parliament will be a sentry.
36 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
37 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
38 END QUOTE
39
41 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
42 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
43 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
44 reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also
45 a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
46 whom it will embrace and unite.
47 END QUOTE
48
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
52 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
53 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
Page 41
1 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
2 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
3 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
4 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
5 END QUOTE
6
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
10 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
11 END QUOTE
12
14 QUOTE
15 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
16 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
17 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
18 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
19 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
20 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
21 END QUOTE
22
24 QUOTE
25 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
26 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
27 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
28 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
29 END QUOTE
30
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
38 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
39 administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
40 beyond the possibility of suspicion;
41 END QUOTE
42
44 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
45 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the
46 52nd clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
47 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-
48 kind.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 It should be understood that every part of the constitution must be considered with all other parts
52 of the constitution. For this Section 92 is not a Section upon its own but must be considered as to
53 other Sections and indeed also to the entire 8 clauses preceding the Clause 9 constitution.

Page 42
1 For example any violation of Section 116 regarding religion cannot be accepted within the
2 provisions of Section 92.
3
4 The HCA Palmer v WA judgment:
5
7 whilst infectious there would be a high probability that the virus would be
8 transmitted into the Western Australian population and at least a moderate
9 probability that there would be uncontrolled outbreaks. If there were uncontrolled
10 outbreaks, the consequences would include the risk of death and hospitalisation,
11 particularly for the vulnerable groups mentioned above. In a worst-case scenario, the
12 health consequences could be "catastrophic".
13
14 If this was a real issue of contamination then all the Western Australia needed to do was to
15 request the Commonwealth to exercise its legislative powers in S51(ix) re quarantine to close
16 borders, etc, of where there was an issue within the legal provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015
17 (Cth). Perhaps, the entire absurdity of it all is that as I understand it cats, dogs, and certain other
18 animals actually carry certain infectious diseases and yet in border towns they can cross borders
19 while residents no matter if not infected cannot not. It in my view, it would have been far better
20 for the States to have kept dogs, cats, etc, out of the state and have left the human travelling up to
21 the Federal Government. Now, if an animal is infected and plays with residents on one side of
22 the street and then cross the road and so into another state and plays with residents in that state
23 the entire purpose of mandates were nullified.
24
25 What we really have witnessed is that the Western Australian court allowed itself to be deceived
26 by an alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus to exist even so up to now it still has never been proven to
27 exist as such and judges all along have gone along with this nonsense instead of first making
28 clear it cannot accept claims from scientist, etc, unless they can prove such a SARS-CoV-2 virus
29 actually existed. The fact that people become ill doesn’t at all prove that the alleged SARS-CoV-
30 2 virus existed because humans all the time fall ill from a range of illnesses. Who can forget the
31 scrubbing of street poles for the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus to thrive on that also turned out to be
32 sheer and utter nonsense!
33
34 Consider it, for example, that one park ones motor vehicle at the nature-strip of one’s property
35 where there is a signage that parking is prohibited without a permit. If you got the permit as a
36 resident then clearly the prohibition doesn’t apply to you.
37 What should be understood is that contrary to the views of most lawyers/judges that precedents
38 govern this is a misconception, this is because the High Court of Australia since commencement
39 of the High Court of Australia in 1904 (unconstitutionally) wrongly denied the usage of the
40 Hansard records for about 70 years. As such, many of the judgments were wrongly decided. You
41 cannot now using the Hansard records still rely upon the old incorrect judgments as precedents
42 this as it would make a mockery of the true meaning and application of the Commonwealth of
43 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
44
45 Let us look at Section 92 and it clearly is subject to Section 51 QUARRANTINE provisions for
46 the Commonwealth.
47
48 The Commonwealth first by the 1908 Quarantine legislation that was substituted by the
49 Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) clearly exercised its constitutional powers as to quarantine and so the
50 States no longer could legislate in regard of this since 1908. The “concurrent” legislative powers
Page 43
1 simply no longer existed since 1908. The High Court of Australia in the income taxation dispute
2 made clear that once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate the States no longer could do
3 so. This clearly underlines that “concurrent” legislative powers was no more once the
4 Commonwealth exercised its legislative powers.
5
6 Back to the Palmer judgment:
7 209. A preliminary question arises in this case. That question concerns the subject of the
8 challenge to validity. As in many constitutional cases in the past, the central focus of the
9 plaintiffs' challenge to validity was an instrument, which is a particular application of
10 primary legislation, rather than the primary legislation itself. The instrument is
11 the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions made under the Emergency Management
12 Act. The validity of that primary legislation, as the source of authority for
13 the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions, must be the starting point for the
14 assessment of the validity of the directions as an exercise or application of that
15 authority. Where the relevant provisions of the primary legislation are open-textured
16 and can be disapplied from any invalid application then it will rarely be appropriate
17 for a court to speculate upon whether the provisions are valid in all their applications,
18 including hypothetical circumstances that are not before the court. It will usually be
19 necessary to consider the validity of the provisions in relation to particular
20 applications before the court or, slightly more generally, to applications of the general
21 kind of those before the court.
22 And
23 294. By contrast, the purpose of public health provisions such as ss 56 and 67 is
24 plainly sufficient to justify even the deep and wide burden that the application of those
25 provisions can place upon the freedom prescribed by s 92. Indeed, at federation it was
26 contemplated that the application of provisions of this nature might be justified despite
27 the imposition of such deep or wide burdens. During the Sydney debates, after one of the
28 delegates, Dr Cockburn, expressed a fear that the clause as drafted might prevent laws
29 prohibiting the passing of cattle across State borders or the introduction of diseased vines
30 into South Australia, Mr O'Connor, quoting from a prolific writer from the United
31 States[465], set out a good description of the operation of structured proportionality in
32 this area[466]:
33
34 "By parity of reason addressed to the protection of the public health, states may exercise
35 their police powers to the extent of prohibiting both persons and animals, when labouring
36 under contagious diseases, from entering their territory. They may pass any sanitary laws
37 deemed necessary for this purpose, and enforce them by appropriate regulations. It is upon
38 this reserved right of self-protection, that quarantines are permitted to interfere with the
39 freedom of commerce and of human intercourse. But this power is not without its
40 limitations, and its exercise must be restricted to directly impending dangers to health, and
41 not to those who are only contingent and remote. Hence, while diseased persons or diseased
42 animals, and those presumedly so from contact with infected bodies or localities, may be
43 prevented from entering a state, any general law of exclusion, measured by months, or
44 operating in such a way as to become a barrier to commerce or travel, would be a regulation
45 of commerce forbidden by the constitution. Such a statute being more than a quarantine
46 regulation, transcends the legitimate powers of a state."
47
48 291. Subsequently, Mr Barton said, in terms reflecting the first stage of structured
49 proportionality, that "the power to prevent the introduction of diseases would still remain

Page 44
1 with the states, except in so far as any state law was found to be an intentional
2 derogation from the freedom of trade"[467].
3
4 The latter quote I view was taken out of context and for this I below set it out showing that the
5 part quotation in 292 actually related to animals. The part “and of human intercourse” in my
6 view was in violation of S51(ix) and S117 of the constitution.
7
8 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention (Sydney), 22
9 September 1897 at 1062.
10 QUOTE
11 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[12.42]: It may be interesting for the hon.
12 and learned member, Dr. Cockburn, to hear this very concise statement of the law of the
13 United States, which would be exactly applicable to this proposed constitution, and very
14 much on the lines that the hon. and learned member, Mr. Isaacs, has just stated. I am citing
15 from a well-known book, Ordronaux's "Constitutional Legislation." At page 296 he says
16 this:
17 By, parity of reason addressed to the protection of the public health, states may exercise
18 their police powers to the extent of prohibiting both persons and animals, when labouring
19 under contagious diseases, from entering their territory. They may pass any sanitary laws
20 deemed necessary for this purpose, and enforce them by appropriate regulations. It is upon
21 this reserved right of self-protection that quarantines are permitted to interfere with the
22 freedom of commerce and of human intercourse. But this power is not without its
23 limitations, and its exercise must be restricted to directly impending dangers to health, and
24 not to those who are only contingent and remote. Hence, while diseased persons or
25 diseased animals, and those presumedly so from contact with infected bodies or. localities,
26 may be prevented from entering a state, any general law of exclusion, measured by
27 months, or operating in such a way as to become a barrier to commerce or travel, would be
28 a regulation of commerce forbidden by the constitution. Such a statute being more than a
29 quarantine regulation, transcends the legitimate powers of a state.
30 So it is quite clear that all the powers are left in the state, which are necessary for
31 the preservation of the health of the inhabitants and of the property by the state.
32 Those powers would include power to deal with such diseases in the vegetable world as the
33 hon. and learned member; Dr. Cockburn, has spoken of, and also with animal diseases. It
34 was suggested in Adelaide that these powers might be used in such a way as to have a
35 protective influence in favour of certain states.
36
37 Mr. Symon: That would be in conflict with the constitution!
38
39 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: I was going to point that out. There are a number of
40 decisions in America, as has been pointed out by my hon. and learned friend, in
41 which on that very ground or similar grounds it has been held that the law, not being
42 a bona fide exercise of the police powers, is not within the powers of the state. Of
43 course, there is another question behind all that, which I think is a very important one, that
44 is, considering the immense traffic, say, in cattle, that there is right across this continent,
45 the infrequency of habitation, and the difficulties of enforcing the quarantine laws from
46 state to state, whether such a disease, for instance, as the tick disease should be dealt with
47 by the authority of the commonwealth instead of by the states themselves. It is a very
48 important question, and there are many difficulties in the way of its being dealt with by the
49 federal authority. One of the chief of them is, I think, the impossibility of the federal
50 authority administering an act of that kind without having an enormous array of officials
Page 45
1 and immense expenditure. As we all know, there are in each colony laws-affecting
2 contagious diseases of cattle or sheep, and they are all administered by local bodies, The
3 machinery and administration are simple, and the laws are cheaply worked in the various
4 districts themselves. But if you place them under the federal movement, to be operated
5 by federal officers, you render an [start page 1063] immense machinery necessary to
6 carry out the very simple objects which are carried out by the local bodies at the
7 present time. It appears to me that the balance of reason is in favour of leaving things as
8 they are, leaving power in the states to deal with all those matters that come under the head
9 of police powers in the United States, the infection of animals, the infection of vegetables,
10 the introduction of, animal and vegetable diseases. There is ample power to deal with
11 them, and I think that the matter might be left in that way.
12
13 The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that there is no question of quarantine or
14 quarantine regulations before the Committee.
15
16 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia)[12.47]: I think we should renew this debate
17 at some future period. In reply to the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, I may say
18 that I am not at all sure that our proposed constitution does not go further in reference-to
19 free-trade between the states than the American Constitution does, and therefore, it might
20 require some further provision in view of the very strong words which it contains, although
21 such a provision might not be necessary in America. Words simply prohibiting the
22 introduction of actual disease would not be sufficient. I admit that the decision which has
23 been quoted relates also to anything that has been in contact with any disease in anyway.
24 But it would be necessary in many cases actually to prohibit the introduction of all cattle
25 and all vegetables of a certain character. If Queensland were to relax her local
26 quarantine regulations, it might be necessary for the adjoining colony to prohibit a single
27 hoof of cattle from crossing the border, and this might be held to be an absolute derogation
28 from freedom of trade, unless there were special provision in the constitution dealing with
29 it. It might be necessary for South Australia to prevent the importation of any portion of a
30 vine, and this might be said to seriously derogate from freedom of trade between the
31 colonies. I ask the Drafting Committee to be exceedingly careful in the matter. I think the
32 power does not exist, and I am sure that it should exist for otherwise we should find that
33 the opposition to this constitution bill, if it is assumed that there is no such power given,
34 would be of a very fierce and vehement character.
35
36 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria)[12.49]: I think that I can reassure the hon. and learned member
37 to some extent. He has raised an important point, and I do not think that we should reserve
38 these important points until we meet in Melbourne, but should settle them now if we can
39 do so.
40
41 The Hon. E. BARTON: In how many weeks? We have not finished one provision in
42 two and a half hours!
43
44 Mr. HIGGINS: But this is one of the most important parts of the bill. I think it is our
45 duty, not to have tentative solutions, but to make the best solution we can, and I feel, now
46 that this question has been raised, it is our duty to devote ourselves to it. The hon. member
47 is quite right in saying that the proposed bill goes further in the direction of providing for
48 free intercourse and freedom of trade between the states than does the American
49 Constitution. It goes much further.
50
Page 46
1 An HON. MEMBER: By reason of the general words in clause 89. It is proposed to

2 eliminate those words!
3
4 Mr. HIGGINS: Yes; I made a note of that. It is perfectly clear that under the American
5 Constitution a state can make a law preventing the sale within its own borders of animals
6 having any disease, and to prevent the introduction of such animals, into its territory.
7
8 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: There is no doubt about that!
9
10 Mr. HIGGINS: The hon. and learned member is quite right in saying that if clause
11 89 remains as it is the states of the [start page 1064] Australasian commonwealth will
12 have no such power. A good example of the application of this law in America is given at
13 page 104 of Baker's "Annotated Constitution of the United States":
14 The statute of Minnesota approved April 16th, 1889, entitled " An act for the protection
15 of the public health, by providing for inspection, before slaughtering of cattle, sheep,
16 and swine designed for slaughter for human food" is unconstitutional and void in so far
17 as it requires, as a condition of sales in Minnesota of fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb, or
18 pork for human food, that the animals from which such meats are taken shall have been
19 inspected in that state before being slaughtered. The inspection thus provided for is of such
20 a character, or is burdened with such conditions, as will prevent the introduction into the
21 state of sound meats, the product of animals slaughtered in other states.
22 To make an inspection law was prima facie within the powers of the state of Minnesota;
23 but the state legislature went beyond its powers in enacting an act which provided for an
24 inspection of such a character as to interfere with the sale in Minnesota of meat brought
25 from other states, Under the bill, as it stands, measures to prevent the introduction of tick
26 will be beyond the powers of the states to enact. Under the American Constitution, full
27 power is given to provide against the introduction of tick into a state; but if in preventing
28 the introduction of tick or other disease, an undue interference with the course of trade is
29 created, which protects one state against the other states, the courts will interfere, and say
30 that the law is unconstitutional and void. I think that the course of leaving this matter to the
31 Drafting Committee to consider is the correct one.
32
33 The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[12.53]: I intimated a little earlier -I do not
34 know that the hon. and learned member, Dr. Cockburn, heard me-that I intended to make
35 clause 89 read in this way:
36 So soon as uniform duties of customs have been imposed, trade and intercourse
37 throughout the commonwealth is not to be restricted or interfered with by any taxes,
38 charges, or imposts.
39 If this amendment is made, the matter maybe considered in connection with clause 99,
40 which provides that:
41 All powers which at the establishment of the commonwealth are vested in the
42 parliaments of the several colonies, and which are not by this constitution exclusively
43 vested in the parliament of the commonwealth, or withdrawn from the parliaments of
44 the several states, are reserved to, and shall remain vested in, the parliaments of the
45 states respectively.
46 At the present time this power exists in all the states; but if the amendments I have
47 suggested be carried the prohibition of the importation of diseased animals or plants will
48 not be a matter of taxes, charges, or imposts. Therefore, the power to prevent the
49 introduction of diseases would still remain with the states, except in so far as any state
50 law was found to be an intentional derogation from the freedom of trade. I think that if
Page 47
1 we amend clause 89 in the way I suggest the object of the hon. and learned member, Dr.
2 Cockburn, will be met; but if it is not met I will undertake to deal with the matter in any
3 way that he suggests.
4
5 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: I am quite satisfied!
6
7 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[12.56]: Will the hon. and learned member also take
8 note in this connection of the concluding words of clause 95? That clause must be brought
9 into accord with clause 89 as amended. I would also point out with regard to the word
10 "country" that some little difference of opinion may arise as to the meaning of that word.
11 The sub-clause relates to "countries" and to "states." "States" we know are such parts of
12 Australia as are within the commonwealth. If any colony stands out it may be a little
13 doubtful whether it will be a "country." Would Queensland, if it stood out, be a "country"?
14 [start page 1065]
15
16 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: A territory would be either a state of the
17 commonwealth, or another country!
18
19 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: The word "country" might mean an independent state.
20
21 The Hon. E. BARTON: I will keep the matter in mind, though I fancy it is all right!
22 Sub-clause 1 agreed to.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 In the Melbourne session it was clarified that the Commonwealth ‘QUARANTINE’ related to
26 “man-kind” infectious diseases.
27
29 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
30 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
31 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
32 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Therefore, the States since 1908 had lost their ‘concurrent” legislative powers to deal with “man-
36 kind” infectious diseases for which ‘QUARANTINE” kind of conduct was to be applied,
37 including MANDATES, compulsory vaccinations, etc.
38
39 The WA health legislation, as like other States, violated Section 51(ix) QUARANTINE and as
40 such should have been struck down by the courts. It means all states mandates were a violation
41 of section 51(ix). This I had made clear ongoing and so prior to the Palmer v WA cases (in WA
42 and later in the High Court of Australia) to the Victorian Government and others, including the
43 Commonwealth.
44
45 Hence, I view both the Commonwealth as well as the State of Victoria ought to have
46 disclosed this to the Courts and its failure to do so I view warrants that the decisions are set
47 aside for having the product of perverting the administration of justice.
48
49 Therefore the question posed ought to have been answered as follows:
50

Page 48
1 The questions reserved

2
3 24. The parties subsequently agreed a Special Case pursuant to which the following
4 questions were stated for the opinion of the Full Court of this Court:
5
6 "(a) Are the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) and/or the
7 authorising Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) invalid (in whole or in part, and if
8 in part, to what extent) because they impermissibly infringe s 92 of the Constitution?
9
10 Answer: In regard of animals it does not.
11 In regard of humans (residents) it violates S51(ix) and Section 117 of the
12 constitution.
13
14 https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/news/cotterill-v-romanes-judgment
15 COTTERILL V ROMANES - JUDGMENT
16 QUOTE
17 Listen to the content on this page
18 The judgment in the matter of Kerry Cotterill v Finn Romanes and Brett Sutton has
19 been handed down.
20 Updated: 17 August 2021
21 DETAILS
22 The judgment in the matter of Kerry Cotterill v Finn Romanes (in his capacity as the
23 Deputy Public Health Commander) and Brett Sutton (in his capacity as Chief Health
24 Officer) (S ECI 2020 03946) was handed down on Tuesday, 17 August 2021.
25 The trial in this matter was heard before the Honourable Justice Richard Niall of the
26 Supreme Court of Victoria from Thursday, 29 July to Monday, 3 August.
27 The plaintiff (Ms Cotterill) was issued with an infringement under the Stay at Home
28 Directions (Restricted Areas) (No 14). This matter concerns an application by Ms Cotterill
29 that the Stay at Home Directions (Restricted Areas) (No 14) were outside the powers
30 granted under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) on the basis they infringe
31 the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.
32 The application was dismissed.
33 The full judgment can be found on AustLII.
34 Read more news from the Supreme Court
35 Published on 17 August 2021
36 END QUOTE
37
38 https://www.austlii.edu.au
39 QUOTE
40 Cotterill v Romanes (Ruling No 3) [2021] VSC 629 (30 September 2021)
41 Last Updated: 30 September 2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
42 AT MELBOURNE
43 Not Restricted
44 COMMON LAW DIVISION
45
46 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST
47 S ECI 2020 03946
KERRY COTTERILL Plaintiffs
(and others according to the Schedule)

Page 49
v
FINN ROMANES (in his capactity as the Deputy Public Health First Defendant
Commander)
BRETT SUTTON (in his capacity as Chief Health Officer) Second Defendant
1 ---
JUDGE: NIALL JA
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 15 September 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30 September 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: Cotterill v Romanes (Ruling No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL [2021] VSC 629
CITATION:
2 ---
3 COSTS – COVID-19 Pandemic – Directions limiting the number of reasons to leave home
4 – Whether costs should follow the event – Success of parties on issues – Whether rejection
5 of offer unreasonable – Loielo v Giles (No 2) [2020] VSC 864, Chen v Chan (No 2) [2009]
6 VSCA 233 considered.
7 ---
APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the First Plaintiff Ms K Foley with Mr J Tito and Smith & Tapper Criminal Lawyers
Mr MQ Nguyen
For the Second In person
Plaintiff
For the Third Plaintiff In person
For the Defendants Mr A Pound SC Victorian Government Solicitor’s
Office
8 HIS HONOUR:
9 1 Consequent upon the proceeding being dismissed, the defendants have applied for costs.
10 Up until 30 April 2021 there were three plaintiffs: Kerry Cotterill (the first plaintiff),
11 Tony Pecora (the second plaintiff) and David Weisinger (the third plaintiff). By order of
12 the Court,[1] Mr Weisinger and Mr Pecora were removed from the proceeding on the basis
13 that they, unlike Ms Cotterill , no longer wished to advance their claims as formulated in
14 the existing proceeding and wanted to make a direct challenge to the validity of the Public
15 Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (‘the Act’). The Court was of the view, that this would be
16 most appropriately done by Mr Weisinger and Mr Pecora commencing a new proceeding
17 and allowing Ms Cotterill to proceed with the claim as pleaded. The question of costs in
18 respect of the second and third plaintiffs was reserved pending the determination of the
19 proceeding continued by the first plaintiff.
20
21 2 The defendants seek orders that their costs of the proceeding be paid by:
22 1.1 the plaintiff (Kerry Cotterill ) and the former second (Tony Pecora) and third plaintiffs
23 (David Weisinger), up until the removal of the second and third plaintiffs from the
24 proceeding on 30 April 2021; and

Page 50
1
2 1.2 the plaintiff (Ms Cotterill ) on and from 1 May 2021.
3 Some important dates
4 3 For present purposes, the following dates assume some significance:
5 (a) 27 August 2020 — the Stay at Home Directions (Restricted Areas) (No 14) (‘Directions
6 No 14’) commences;
7
8 (b) 13 September 2020 — the first plaintiff receives an infringement notice for breach of
9 Directions No 14;
10
11 (c) 15 October 2020 — proceeding commences;
12
13 (d) 27 October 2020 — the infringement notice received by the first plaintiff is withdrawn;
14
15 (e) 5 November 2020 — Mr Weisinger is joined to the proceeding as the third plaintiff;
16
17 (f) 6 November 2020 — High Court makes orders in Palmer v Western Australia;[2]
18
19 (g) 30 November 2020 — the original hearing date (7 December 2020) is vacated and
20 matter adjourned pending publication of reasons by the High Court;
21
22 (h) 24 February 2021 — High Court publishes reasons in Palmer;
23
24 (i) 5 March 2021 — the defendants make without prejudice offer to settle on terms that the
25 plaintiffs discontinue the proceeding with no order as to costs;
26
27 (j) 10 and 12 March 2021 — the solicitors file a notice of ceasing to act for the second and
28 third plaintiffs, respectively;
29
30 (k) 30 April 2021 — the second and third plaintiffs are removed as plaintiffs in the
31 proceeding;
32
33 (l) 21 May 2021 — the first plaintiff files consolidated submissions post Palmer;
34
35 (m) 11 June 2021 — the defendants file consolidated submissions post Palmer;
36
37 (n) 25 June 2021 — the first plaintiff files reply submissions;
38
39 (o) 29 July, 30 July and 2 August 2021 — hearing; and
40
41 (p) 17 August 2021 — judgment.
42 The defendants’ submissions
43 4 The defendants submit that costs should follow the event. They rely on the observation of
44 the Court of Appeal in Chen v Chan (No 2),[3] that the outcome of the proceeding is the
45 most important factor in the exercise of the discretion as to costs.
46
47 5 Further, as a result of the reasoning and outcome in Palmer, and their offer to settle on
48 the basis that Ms Cotterill discontinue the proceeding with no order as to costs, it was not
49 reasonable for her to continue and that this undercut, for the purpose of costs, any

Page 51
1 consideration that this was a litigation that involved broader public interest considerations
2 and was not brought for personal self-interest.
3 The first plaintiff’s submissions
4 6 The first plaintiff submits that there should be no order as to costs. The first plaintiff
5 relies on the decision of Ginnane J in Loielo v Giles (No 2 ).[4] The first plaintiff notes that
6 she was successful on some issues, including standing, the construction question arising in
7 relation to Directions No 14, her construction of sub-s 200(1)(b) of the Act, and the
8 determination that the proceeding should be adjourned pending the High Court publishing
9 its reasons in Palmer.
10
11 7 The first plaintiff submits that the proceeding raised important questions of wider
12 significance within the community. She notes that the COVID-19 restrictions are a matter
13 of great significance, and that they have a very real practical impact on the day-to-day lives
14 of Victorians, and Australians more broadly. The proceeding was brought with this in mind
15 and with the intention of clarifying the scope and validity of the directions.
16
17 8 The first plaintiff also submits that whilst the decision in Palmer made her case more
18 difficult, it could not be said that she was without a case to run. The first plaintiff disputes
19 the defendants’ submission that she acted unreasonably in not accepting the offer of 5
20 March 2021. The offer was not expressed as a Calderbank offer [5] and contained no detail.
21 Mr Weisinger and Mr Pecora’s submissions
22 9 Mr Weisinger submits that the Court does not have jurisdiction because, based on the
23 reasons in Palmer, the validity of Directions No 14 did not involve a constitutional
24 question and that therefore federal jurisdiction was not engaged.
25
26 10 Mr Pecora adopted that submission and said that he was under a duty to bring the
27 proceeding to prevent a breach of the criminal and civil law. He referred to a raft of
28 legislation that he said compelled him to commence the proceeding.
29 Consideration
30 11 The Court has jurisdiction. As originally formulated, the plaintiffs alleged that
31 Directions No 14 were unconstitutional and directly in breach of the implied freedom of
32 political communication. Ultimately, the first plaintiff alleged that Directions No 14 were
33 not authorised by the Act on the basis that they infringed the implied freedom. Certainly on
34 the first basis, and probably on the second, the matter involved the interpretation and
35 application of the Constitution and the matter was in federal jurisdiction. The claim as
36 originally formulated was not colourable and meant that the matter was then, and remained
37 one, in federal jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction under s 39 of the Judiciary
38 Act 1903 (Cth). Of course, if the matter were not in federal jurisdiction, this Court would
39 plainly have state jurisdiction to entertain a claim to the validity of executive action
40 purportedly undertaken under state legislation. [6] There is no viable argument that this
41 Court lacks jurisdiction altogether.
42
43 12 I turn then to the exercise of the discretion.
44
45 13 In Chen, the Court of Appeal said:
46 (1) The general rule is that costs should follow the event. Absent disqualifying conduct, the
47 successful party should recover its costs even where it has not succeeded on all heads of
48 claim.
49
50 (2) The Rules of Court permit significant flexibility in determining questions of costs. In
Page 52
1 particular, the Court is entitled to examine the realities of the case and will attempt to do
2 ‘substantial justice’ as between the parties on matters of costs.
3
4 (3) Where there is a multiplicity of issues and mixed success has been enjoyed by the
5 parties, a Court may take a pragmatic approach in framing the order for costs, taking into
6 consideration the success (or lack of success) of the parties on an issues basis. Generally, if
7 such an order is made, it is reflected in the successful party being awarded a proportion of
8 its costs but not the full amount.
9
10 (4) A Court may, when fixing costs in a claim where there has been mixed success, take
11 into account complications which it considers will arise in the taxation of costs, as part of
12 its consideration of the overall interests of justice.
13
14 (5) Where a Court determines to make an order apportioning costs, then it does so
15 primarily as ‘a matter of impression and evaluation,’ rather than with arithmetical
16 precision, having considered the importance of the matters upon which the parties have
17 been successful or unsuccessful, the time occupied and the ambit of the submissions made,
18 as well as any other relevant matter. [7]
19
20 ...
21 14 There are a number of features of this litigation that, to an extent, mark it out from the
22 usual.
23
24 15 First, the proceeding sought to challenge the validity of lockdown directions that
25 applied throughout the state and which were extremely broad in their reach. In effect, the
26 directions confined people to their homes, allowing people to leave only in limited
27 circumstances that were circumscribed as to time and purpose. The effects of the directions
28 were felt across the community and were onerous.
29
30 16 Second, the interests sought to be vindicated by the plaintiffs were not merely private or
31 individual in character but were significant in the context of the system of government as a
32 whole.
33
34 17 Third, where a serious and cogent challenge to the lawfulness of the directions is made
35 in a properly constituted suit, it is of the highest importance that the lawfulness of the
36 directions be determined by the courts in the exercise of independent judicial power.
37 Although that is true in all litigation, the importance of the issues in dispute to the
38 community as a whole, is relevant.
39
40 18 Fourth, at least as against the first plaintiff, she was the subject of an infringement
41 notice that was later withdrawn. It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about why it
42 was withdrawn but I am persuaded that it was at least influenced by uncertainty over the
43 construction of the directions. The construction adopted by the defendants, especially in
44 their written submissions, did not quell the uncertainty.
45
46 19 Taking these matters into account, in my view, at least up until the High Court
47 published its reasons in Palmer, the above provides a basis to depart from the usual order
48 as to costs.
49
50 20 However, once the reasons of the High Court in Palmer were delivered, the mode of
Page 53
1 analysis adopted by the High Court in a directly analogous context meant that most of the
2 submissions made by the first plaintiff could not succeed. I would not say that the
3 proceeding had no prospects of success in light of Palmer but the first plaintiff chose to
4 persevere with her case and must have done so in the knowledge that the prospects were
5 very slim. The defendants do not rely on the letter of offer for the purpose of seeking
6 indemnity costs but contend that it is relevant to both the assessment of the reasonableness
7 of the first plaintiff persisting and where costs should fall given the result. I agree. I have
8 taken into account the approach taken by Ginnane J in Giles but there are some significant
9 differences and each case must be determined on its own circumstances.
10
11 21 Further, even in cases of public importance, the outcome of the proceeding remains a
12 very powerful factor in the exercise of the discretion as to costs. Costs are not awarded to
13 punish the unsuccessful party but to indemnify the successful party. In circumstances
14 where the first plaintiff persisted in the face of Palmer, and having the costs consequences
15 drawn to her attention specifically, it is not appropriate to deny to the defendants an
16 indemnity in respect of the costs incurred post-Palmer. Finally, I accept that the defendants
17 raised questions of standing and utility on which they failed. However, the time associated
18 with these aspects of the hearing was relatively brief.
19
20 22 In my view, the dictates of fairness require that there should be no order as to costs up
21 until 5 March 2021, being the date of the letter of offer from the defendants and being after
22 a reasonable period of time for the plaintiff to digest the import and significance of Palmer.
23 Thereafter, the first plaintiff should pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding, including
24 any costs reserved after that date. In the period between 5 March and 30 April 2021, Mr
25 Pecora and Mr Weisinger did not formulate an alternative claim and had indicated that in
26 light of Palmer they did not want to persist with the claim as formulated. In all of the
27 circumstances there should be no order as to costs in respect of them.
28 SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
KERRY COTTERILL First Plaintiff
TONY PECORA
Second Plaintiff up until 30 April 2021
DAVID WEISINGER
Third Plaintiff up until 30 April 2021
and
FINN ROMANES (in his capacity as the Deputy Public Health Commander)
First Defendant
BRETT SUTTON (in his capacity as the Chief Health Officer)

Second Defendant
29
[1]
30 Cotterill v Romanes (Ruling No 1) [2021] VSC 234.
31 [2] (2021) 95 ALJR 229; [2021] HCA 5 (‘Palmer’).
[3] [2009] VSCA 233 (‘Chen’).
32
[4] [2020] VSC 864 (‘Giles’).
33
Page 54
1 [5] Calderbank v Calderbank (1975) 3 All ER 333; Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v
2 Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435; [2005] VSCA 298.
[6] Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1.
3
[7] [2009] VSCA 233, [10] (citations omitted) (Maxwell P, Redlich JA and Forrest AJA).
4
5 END QUOTE
6
7 There is a video out titled “Japanese Prof Fukushima Calls Out the Covid “Vaccine” BS”
8 and a lot more other video’s but re for another Part to be submitted at a later time. What ought to
9 be very clear is that as stated in the video “The Worst Crisis Ever” by realclimatescience.com
10 there will always be forces who will pursue some sort of measurers for global warming, global
11 cooling, ozon layer, global warming, climate change, pandemic, climate change, etc. Scientist
12 need to keep this up to protect their income and one has to be an utter fool if one goes along
13 without bothering the consideration of ‘real’ science. In the meantime certain so to say elite are
14 getting richer and richer and the poor are getting poorer and poorer. Unless obviously we now
15 address these issues appropriately.
16
17 My (non-religious) view is that life commences at conception, and no government and/or their
18 minion’s should directly and/or indirectly inflict harm upon any child born or not by
19 unconstitutional/unlawful mandates. Also, where Government tyranny using mandates that
20 directly/indirectly prevent a male to father a child and/or a female to conceived then to me they
21 must be held legally accountable by the TAP system.
22 Finally let those using TREASON/TERRORISM to be held legally accountable!
23
24 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
25
26 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
27
28 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
29 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

30 (Our name is our motto!)

20221209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To IBAC - Complaint Part 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20221209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To IBAC - Complaint Part 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

2 Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission 9-12-2022

1 Are patients still effectively killed by the medical profession?

9-12-2022 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Fever (or feeling feverish) ✓ ✓

Shortness of breath/difficulty breathing ✓ ✓

Runny or stuffy nose ✓ ✓

Muscle pain or body aches ✓ ✓

Possible vomiting and diarrhea* ✓ ✓

Change in or loss of taste ✓

Change in or loss of smell ✓

9-12-2022 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 14 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Dr. Rafael Castillo is a professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at the College of Medicine,

1 COVID-19 vaccines caused up to 98 serious adverse events in uninfected young adults.

9-12-2022 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 describe the autopsy findings and common characteristics of myocarditis in untreated

9-12-2022 Page 25 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 33 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 210. On their proper construction, ss 56 and 67 of the Act, in their application to an

9-12-2022 Page 34 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 trade, commerce, or intercourse in Commonwealth or State legislation, with justification to

9-12-2022 Page 36 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 39 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 41 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 43 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 An HON. MEMBER: By reason of the general words in clause 89. It is proposed to

9-12-2022 Page 47 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 The questions reserved

(and others according to the Schedule)

9-12-2022 Page 49 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9-12-2022 Page 50 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

BRETT SUTTON (in his capacity as the Chief Health Officer)

29 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like