20210808-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of The Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-02

Page 1
1
2
3 Reece Kershaw 8-8-2021
4 Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
5 Forwarded via email commissioner@afp.gov.au
6
7 Cc: Mr Scott Morrison via email
8 acv@health.gov.au Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Therapeutic Goods Administration
9 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, MDP 122
10
11 Committees@health.gov.au Committee Support Unit, Therapeutic Goods Administration
12 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Scheduling & Committee Support Section, MDP 122
13
14 Mr Daniel Andrews Premier daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
15
16 Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
17
18 20210808-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police-
19 Suppl-02
20 COMPLAINT
21 Sir,
22 In my previous parts of my COMPLAINT I referred to:
23
24 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1419653002818990085.html
25 PFIZERLEAK: EXPOSING THE PFIZER MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT
26
27 I understand that the (Australian) Federal Government entered into an Agreement with Pfizer
28 with similar provisions/etc.
29
30 As far as I understand it that the TGA didn’t provide any approval for “commercial sale” of the
31 claimed Pfizer vaccine” but merely provided for Pfizer as the “Sponsor” to use the alleged
32 “vaccine” for “clinical trial” purposes. Hence, I view that the sale of alleged Pfizer vaccines” to
33 the Federal Government was unlawful as legally no such “Pfizer vaccine” were approved for
34 commercial sale.
35
36 As to Point 12.5 the Federal Government is bound to adhere to the legal principles embedded in
37 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK) and as such the High Court of
8-8-2021 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 Australia possesses the jurisdiction involving the Commonwealth of Australia and no foreign
2 court can take this from our constitutional provision, regardless if purportedly both parties
3 agreed to do otherwise. (12.2 & 12.5, etc)
4
5 “Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties”. Griffin v.
6 Matthews, 310 F supra 341, 342 (1969): and “Want of Jurisdiction may not be cured by consent
7 of parties.” Industrial Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 US 310, 313.
8
9 Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
10 QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)
11 The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely
12 because the parties consent to it..
13 END QUOTE
14
15 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Chapter III The Judicature
16 QUOTE
17 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court
18 In all matters:
19 (i) arising under any treaty;
20 (ii) affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;
21 (iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the
22 Commonwealth, is a party;
23 (iv) between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of
24 another State;
25 (v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the
26 Commonwealth;
27 the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
31 federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
32 tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
33 QUOTE
34 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts.
35 Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys
36 the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts,
37 documents, and even judgments."
38 END QUOTE
39
40 In my view 12.5 “Governing law” therefore must be deemed to be the product of FRAUD, this
41 as both parties should have been aware that the Federal Government is bound by Australian
42 constitutional provisions as well as other governing laws.
43
44 In my view, the Federal Government cannot waive any legal rights that are applicable within the
45 Commonwealth of Australia as it is not spending its own monies but those of taxpayers (public
46 monies). Neither can the Federal Government enter in any secret arrangement/contract as it
47 appeared to have done with Pfizer (and perhaps with other companies also) this as taxpayers

Page 3
1 must be afforded to be able to scrutinise either via Parliamentarian hearings or otherwise any
2 contractual arrangements the Federal Government may have entered into.
3
4 Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Bassat, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's
5 Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd, [2012] HCA 7, 8 March 2012, M128/2010, M129/2010, M130/2010,
6 M131/2010 & M132/2010
7 QUOTE
8 1. More recently, in Yaxley v Gotts[182] the English Court of Appeal considered the
9 requirement now made in absolute terms by s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous
10 Provisions) Act 1989 (UK) that a contract for sale of land can only be made in writing which
11 incorporates all the terms the parties have expressly agreed. It was held that an oral agreement
12 nevertheless might give rise to a constructive trust because such trusts were saved by s 2(5) of
13 that Act. But the Court of Appeal saw no scope for the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Robert
14 Walker LJ said[183]:
15 "Parliament's requirement that any contract for the disposition of an interest in land
16 must be made in a particular documentary form, and will otherwise be void, does not
17 have such an obviously social aim as statutory provisions relating to contracts by or
18 with moneylenders, infants, or protected tenants. Nevertheless it can be seen as
19 embodying Parliament's conclusion, in the general public interest, that the need
20 for certainty as to the formation of contracts of this type must in general
21 outweigh the disappointment of those who make informal bargains in ignorance
22 of the statutory requirement. If an estoppel would have the effect of enforcing a
23 void contract and subverting Parliament's purpose it may have to yield to the statutory
24 law which confronts it, except so far as the statute's saving for a constructive trust
25 provides a means of reconciliation of the apparent conflict."
26 END QUOTE
27
28 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
29 QUOTE (DOWNLOADED 13-3-2010)
30 Ethics Orientation for State Officials
31 Misuse of Public Funds
32 Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
33 The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public
34 funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when
35 its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
36 Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses
37 only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
38 The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be
39 expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are
40 they authorized.
41 The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may
42 result from an expenditure of public funds.
43 For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is
44 an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public
45 purposes.
46 The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely
47 incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a
48 public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and
49 fax machines and other equipment and resources.
50

Page 4
1 Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

2 1.In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase
3 items for himself and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those
4 receiving the discount paid for the items with personal funds.
5 2.In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to
6 transport a political candidate, his staff and family.
7 3.In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on
8 his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
9 4.In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection
10 with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana
11 and back.
12 Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.
13 These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
14
15 State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections
16 There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds.
17 This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of what
18 we’ll cover in this section.
19  Stanson v. Mott
20  Endorsements and Informational Materials

21  Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines
22 Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns
23 The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public
24 funds in election campaigns.
25 In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
26 challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a
27 statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that “in
28 the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a
29 partisan position in an election campaign.”
30 Stanson v. Mott
31 The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that
32 the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing
33 factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental
34 authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”
35 The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course,
36 raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.”
37 Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency
38 may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its
39 passage.
40 Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not
41 promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
42 Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure
43 elections.
44 1.“The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to
45 disseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the
46 public with a fair presentation of relevant information.”
47
48 2.“The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar
49 knowledgeable public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public,

Page 5
1 so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to improper
2 campaign activity.”
3
4 3.“To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal
5 treatment to both sides of the issue.”
6 Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the
7 Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a
8 $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several
9 ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a
10 neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
11 Let's Review
12 TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
13  Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
14 Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls
15 before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governor’s campaign fundraising
16 dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of
17 issues, may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.
18  Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal
19 political purposes rather than for a public purpose.
20 Let's Review
21 Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about
22 the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
23 a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
24
25 b.The materials do not make false statements.
26
27 c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of
28 the measure.
29  Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and
30 unfavorable impacts of the measure.
31 Remember These Points
32  Expenditures must be for a public purpose
33  Expenditures must be authorized

34  Public funds may not be expended for personal use
35  Information must be fairly presented
36  Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions
37
38 END QUOTE
39
40 No one in his right mind can claim that hundreds of millions of dollars can be spent by the
41 federal government without any proper accountability!
42
43 And the following may underline that a special Appropriation Bill is required for everything that is not part of the
44 ordinary running of an Department.
45
46 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Page 6
1 QUOTE
2 Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an
3 annual service.
4 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
5 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
6 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from
7 special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which
8 we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
9 Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
10 expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
11 service.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081015&filename=led&sec_id=3&sid=
15 1
16 QUOTE
17 Travesty of public purpose
18
19 State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata
20
21 IN THE last few days Maharashtra and West Bengal witnessed two diametrically opposite
22 developments. In Maharashtra, for the first time in the history of this country, affected
23 farmers voted in a referendum on the upcoming Reliance special economic zone (SEZ).
24 Initial results suggest that the majority voted against the SEZ. In Singur, Tata’s plans kept
25 slipping into a deeper imbroglio by the day. Several state governments lined up to lure the
26 company as Tata seriously considered moving out—each one trying to outdo each other in
27 terms of offering incentives and freebies. Soon as West Bengal made some parts of the
28 ‘secret’ deal between the state and the company public, Tata Motors moved the High Court
29 obtaining a restraining order.
30
31 Tata’s lawyers argued that basically the agreement between them and the state government
32 was a trade secret. This means that the Nano project is private commercial venture.
33 Ironically the state government had acquired land for the project invoking the “public
34 purpose” law. The state government and company will have to come clean about what
35 exactly is the Nano project. If it is a commercial venture the company must directly need
36 deal with the farmers. And if it is indeed a project meant to serve the public purpose,
37 details of the agreement must be immediately made public.
38
39 What is clear from the deal between the West Bengal government and Tata motors is that
40 state government are trying to outdo each other to attract investments. This is a race right
41 to the bottom. The moment Tata Motors threatened to walk away from Singur, several state
42 governments came forward. The lure of big-ticket project is such that governments are
43 willing to forgo taxes, forcibly acquire land, give subsidized water and electricity, give
44 capital subsidies and put thousands of security personnel to man the project. In all this,
45 industries are having free ride on public money. This is cheap industrialization. Where
46 not only states are giving fiscal subsidies, they are subsidizing the natural resources—
47 land, water, and energy. In a single economic entity that India is, competition
48 between states, by the way of subsidizing industrialization, is neither good for
49 economy nor is it good for environment. And it surely is not for ‘public purpose’.
50 END QUOTE
51
Page 7
1
2 This (12.8 provision) also then questions what on earth is the Federal Government doing to pass
3 on the so called Pfizer vaccines to the States And Territories, and why would the
4 States/Territories fund advertisements, etc.
5
6
7 The following part also should not be ignored for its very important regarding the wording “that
8 are intended for the prevention of the human disease COVID-19 or any other human
9 disease, in each case which is caused by any of the virus SARS-CoV-2, and/or any or all of
10 the related strains, mutations, modifications or derivatives of the foregoing”
11
12 I am not a scientist nor have any medical background but I understand that nowhere around the
13 entire world has this claimed SARS-CoV-2 been isolated. Further, while the Agreement/contract
14 refers to “that are intended for the prevention of the human disease COVID-19” and I
15 understand it does not “prevent” the claimed COVID-19 but merely may reduce the symptoms
16 then for this also the Agreement/contract has no legal value.
17
18 This 1.54 also refers to “(b) any devise, technology, or product used in the administration of or to
19 enhance the use or effect of, such vaccine,”. As the TGA has not provided for the commercial
20 use of this Pfizer claimed “vaccine” then there can be no agreement/contract based upon a non-
21 existing “vaccine”.
22
23 Also the wording “in each case which is caused by any of the virus SARS-CoV-2” limits the
24 “that are intended for the prevention of the human disease COVID-19” to be from the
25 “SARS-CoV-2” and cannot be therefore referring to INFLUENZA, “common cold”, etc, as they
26 are not from the “SARS-CoV-2”.
27
28
29 Them absurdity is also that the TGA provides for the “Sponsor” being the Pharmaceutical
30 company to conduct “clinical trials” however as those claimed “Pfizer vaccines” are sold
31 commercially to the Federal government, then the “sponsor” Pfizer clearly is not at all
32 conducting any “clinical trials” within the meaning of the “clinical trial” provisions. And, as
33 there Federal Government, the States and Territories are all pushing for Australians and others to
Page 8
1 be jabbed and WA even legislated for the ADF (Australian Defence Force) to use force and to be
2 without legal liability, then there can be no claim that there is a “clinical trial” conducted as not
3 even a “placebo “control group” appears to exist, but that the Federal Government maliciously
4 is using the “clinical trial” excuse in violation to the limited approval that Pfizer was provided
5 with as to conduct “clinical trials”. Where ownership of the purported Pfizer vaccines” changed
6 hands from Pfizer to the Federal Government then there can be no claim that this is a “clinical
7 trial” conducted by the Sponsor” (being Pfizer.
8 The Federal Government is pursuing some kind of “vaccine certificate”/”vaccine passport” this
9 upon non-approved for commercial purposes alleged “vaccines’.
10
11 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/covid-19-vaccine-travel-
12 1.6122633?cmp=newsletter_Marketplace%20Watchdog_4406_298006
13 Worried your COVID-19 vaccine won't be accepted abroad? Here's what you need to know
14 QUOTE
15 Depending on what kind or combination of COVID-19 vaccine you received, you could
16 currently face obstacles when travelling abroad. (Robert Short/CBC)
17 Fully vaccinated and ready to travel? Before booking your trip, make sure your
18 destination recognizes your COVID-19 vaccine. As some Canadian travellers have already
19 discovered, not all COVID-19 vaccines are considered equal.
20 Here's the latest on which vaccines distributed in Canada might cause problems for
21 travellers abroad.
22 Mixed dose woes
23 Some countries won't recognize travellers with mixed vaccine doses as being fully
24 vaccinated, which could create problems for the millions of Canadians whose doses don't
25 match.
26 The issue first surfaced when travellers with mixed doses, including Chris Storey, of
27 London, Ont., discovered they would have to quarantine when visiting Barbados —
28 because they weren't considered fully vaccinated.
29 "It's very frustrating; it's ridiculous," Storey told CBC News earlier this month.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/covid-19-vaccine-travel-
33 1.6122633?cmp=newsletter_Marketplace%20Watchdog_4406_298006
34 Worried your COVID-19 vaccine won't be accepted abroad? Here's what you need to know
35 QUOTE
36 But nearby Trinidad and Tobago has yet to change its policy on mixed vaccines. The
37 country will allow visitors with a mix of AstraZeneca and Pfizer or Moderna to skip
38 quarantine, but travellers with a mix of Moderna and Pfizer don't qualify.
39 The government of Trinidad and Tobago did not answer questions about the reasons for
40 its policy.
41 U.S. position on mixed doses
42 The United States also doesn't approve of mixing COVID-19 vaccines — with some
43 exceptions.
44 "COVID-19 vaccines are not interchangeable," Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
45 spokesperson Jasmine Reed said in an email. "The safety and effectiveness of receiving
46 two different COVID-19 vaccines has not been studied."
47 END QUOTE
48
49 Again:
50 "The safety and effectiveness of receiving two different COVID-19 vaccines has not
51 been studied."
52

Page 9
1 Not only does this inciate there has been absolutely no coordination between government of
2 different countries but more over that QANTAS as an example pushing for a vaccination
3 passport and many businesses now also seem to demand employees, shoppers, etc, to be
4 vaccinated and all this when I view in reality there is no “clinical trial” being done but merely an
5 unlawful push by the Federal government to inject as many persons as it can achieve, including
6 children, regardless of the harm inflicted.
7
8 And as the States/Territories are working with the Federal government this then is a
9 CONSPIRACY against Australians and other persons who are in Australia.
10
11 https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-canadian-court-victory-proves-covid-19-hoax-all-
12 restrictions-dropped/5752088
13 Video: Canadian Court Victory Proves COVID-19 Is a Hoax and All Restrictions
14 Have Now Been Dropped
15 By Kenan SonOfEnos, August 05, 2021
16
17 He issued a subpoena to the Provincial Health Minister for proof that the so-called
18 Covid-19 Virus exists, and they were forced to admit that they had no evidence
19 whatsoever. The virus has never been isolated, and thus the government had no legal
20 grounds to impose any of the punishing restrictions they have inflicted on
21 society. Read more...
22
23 https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-uk-official-admits-lockdowns-social-control/5751224
24 Video: UK Official Admits Lockdowns for “Social Control”
25 By Del Bigtree and Jefferey Jaxen, July 27, 2021
26 Part whistleblower, part human rights activist, Graham Brady is calling out his own
27 government’s ill-advised Covid mitigation policies, originating from fear, rather than
28 sound public health science. Read more...
29
30 https://www.globalresearch.ca/france-rises-up-against-new-fascism/5750465
31 France Rises Up Against Macron’s Vaccine Passports
32 By Winter Oaks, July 19, 2021
33
34 The crowd represented a very wide cross-section of the local population. The Gilets
35 Jaunes had already started this process of breaking down the old “left” and “right”
36 political divisions in favour of a broad popular struggle against the power elite. Read
37 more...
38
39 I understand that articles might be giving some indication of FACTS but surely the AFP cannot
40 just rely upon this and needs to have some sort of information to indicate that what I am
41 COMPAINING ABOUT has some genuine basis.
42
43 I therefore will now refer to some videos with their links will I have no doubt will be an eye
44 opener for anyone who has been subjected to this COVID-19 CULT propaganda.
45
46 https://brandnewtube.com/v/KDwruL
47 A MUST SHARE!!!! THIS GUY PULLS THE MASK OFF THIS ENTIRE PLANDEMIC!!!!
48
49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huEaH-boaoY
50 The Truth About Virus Isolation
51
52
Page 10
1 https://www.bitchute.com/video/dX0wqs2xbM05/
2 EXPOSING THE COVID-19 MAGIC TRICK THE ROOSTER IN THE RIVER OF
3 RATS - DR. ANDREW KAUFMAN (VIDEO)
4 EXPOSING THE COVID-19 MAGIC TRICK: THE ROOSTER IN THE ...
5 29 Apr 2020 ... This is a very technical video that breaks down the science used to identify a
6 virus so that experts & amateurs alike can comprehend the ...
7
8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTAbpnsfeOY
9 Dr Andrew Kaufman exposing the 'Covid 19' magic trick the sleight ...
10 video about the covid19 false false virus by Andrew Kaufman. This is not my video and
11 uploading it because of censorship.
12
13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2XWuPY09M
14 The Healthy Truth with Dr. Andy Kaufman - YouTube
15 The Healthy Truth with Dr. Andy Kaufman (https://bit.ly/drandyytchannel) During this
16 time where we're all being tested on every level, ...
17
18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq5qnmqjWsM
19 How They Find Viruses
20
21 https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z7e1WLoOctZ2/
22 Dr Tom Cowan cannot find proof of isolation of Covid-19
23
24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu8rFxwutMY
25 Setty Report NEW Pfizer Data - Is The Vaccine EFFECTIVE
26
27 https://www.bitchute.com/video/Pd6q67VZ9pPo/
28 Proof That The Vaxxed Are No Longer Human - Luciferian Transhuman Agenda
29 Exposed
30 (Mass depopulation, magnetism, etc.)
31
32 One of my readers Mr Alan L. R. provided me with some images, which obviously are from
33 Quick & Garran publication. He desired to highlight that the State police has absolutely no
34 powers to deny the free movement of any citizen across the borders. Yet, the police seem to
35 nevertheless deny border crossings merely on directive of a Chief Health Officer.
36
37 o

Page 11
1
2
3 Any court that violates the legal principles embedded in the constitution are obviously not
4 exercising jurisdiction as no court can override the constitution. While it may be argued that
5 these writings are but of one person who was a delegate to the Constitutional convention debates,
6 nevertheless it is in my view reflecting what the Framers of the Constitution stated themselves.
7
8 While the police originally instead of using deadly force pursued capsicum spray, we now
9 however find that the police (well really pretending to be Victorian Police but acting as private
10 security guards to enforce the ‘ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS” of the Chief Health Officer,
11 then violently assault citizens merely because they are lawfully exercising their constitutional
12 right of “POLITICAL LIBERTY”.
13
14 https:///.bitchute.com/video/Y6q0DXcsTWfy/
15 More Melbourne Protest &amp: Police Brutality: Fr
16
17 https://www.zerohedge.com/political/brandon-smith-we-will-not-comply-campaign-against-medical-
18 tyranny?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_sourc
19 e=zh_newsletter
20 Brandon Smith: We Will Not Comply - A Campaign Against Medical Tyranny
21
22 https://www.brighteon.com/49eca622-bc73-4556-bb91-01e82a8787c9
23 Governments hold citizens HOSTAGE, demand vaccine QUOTAS before restoring "freedom"
24
25 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/dr-marty-makary-cdc-vaccine-mandates-children-natural-
26 immunity/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=92e5fbcf-66c0-4d44-8855-e01f38f0f8c4
27 Physician Speaks Out Against ‘Vaccine Mandates for All’ — Especially Children
28 and Those With Natural Immunity • Children's Health Defense
29 QUOTE

Page 12
1 “Would we be so stern toward people making similar or worse health choices to smoke,
2 drink alcohol or not wear a helmet when riding a bike? Over 85,000 Americans die
3 annually from alcohol, yet we don’t have the same public health fervor or requirements to
4 save those lives. Let’s encourage vaccination rather than activate the personal liberty
5 culture wars that result in people becoming more entrenched in their opposition.”
6 END QUOTE
7
8 The following may underline that what I view unlawful/illegal purported “Pfizer vaccination”/
9 “AstraZeneca vaccination” In my view are unlawfully by a reign of terror caused upon
10 employees, etc, even so they are to be “participants” at best that is if the “Sponsors”
11 Pfizer/AstraZeneca were to conduct the “clinical trial” including the placebo “control groups” to
12 ensure that when in about 2023 the “clinical trials” are completed and assessed then Australians
13 can have confidence that the “clinical trials” in their limited formats were either a failure or
14 success or pending the pharmaceutical companies a mixture of it. Therefore, where the Federal
15 government purportedly became the owner then this means that there was a sale of those
16 purported “vaccines” which I view violated the very TGA limited approval. Moreover as the
17 above mentioned video’s do indicate that there can be considerable harm flowing from being
18 jabbed.
19
20 Would the AFP really desire that colleagues perhaps if not themselves falling ill and even die
21 may have to bring their children’s coffin to a grave? After all the “shedding” where by a person
22 can become harmed merely to be near an person who was “jabbed” can cause serious harm to
23 others.
24 Would it be responsible to have pilots flying planes and perhaps then suffer from bloodcloths
25 and die and perhaps the entire plane full of passengers may then be doomed.
26 Even in NSW it is recognised that the lockdowns, etc, do cause harm, and as such I view the task
27 of the AFP is to demand from the commonwealth and so its Health Department to prove that it
28 actually has “isolated” the claimed SARS-CoV-2 as to based upon its advise, etc!
29
30 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/public-health-amendment-vaccination-compensation-bill-2021/
31 QUOTE
32 PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT (VACCINATION COMPENSATION) BILL 2021
33 First Reading
34 Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by
35 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.
36 Second Reading Speech
37 Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (11:56): I move:
38 That this bill be now read a second time.
39 I introduce the Public Health Amendment (Vaccination Compensation) Bill 2021 to the House. The bill
40 addresses an issue that has been at the forefront of the minds of many Australians in recent months. The
41 ongoing coronavirus lockdowns have had an impact on our economy and society. I prefer to think that
42 there will be light at the end of the tunnel, and I pray that we approach it soon. Many have put their mind to
43 what the world will look like when this episode of our history is over. In terms of employment, I am sure we
44 look forward to the time when things return to normal. This bill is directed at how any future vaccination
45 regime will operate in the area of employment law and workers' rights. The bill does only one thing: It
46 introduces a new section 137 into the Public Health Act 2012 entitled "Liability to workers required to be
47 vaccinated".
48 Proposed subsection (1) establishes the liability on the part of a relevant body that makes it necessary
49 for a worker to take a vaccination if that worker wishes to retain or gain employment. Proposed
50
51 subsection (2) states that the relevant body is to pay compensation to the worker in the event that the vaccine
52 that the worker has been forced to take results in "injury, loss or damage" to that worker. Proposed subsection

Page 13
1 (3) stipulates the continued liability of the relevant body. That liability continues for the life of the worker,
2 even after the worker has left the employ of the relevant body. Proposed subsection (4) defines key terms.
3 I should point out to members that it is the intention of this legal reform to create liabilities on relevant bodies
4 who retain people for services rendered, whether those people are employees, contractors, agents or any other
5 paid representatives of the relevant body. For the liability to be triggered, all that is required is proof that the
6 relevant body mandates, through policy or other action, that the worker will not be able to continue his or her
7 employment or will not be considered for future employment if a vaccination is not taken by him or her. For
8 compensation to be triggered, a causal relationship will naturally have to be proved on the part of the worker
9 or, in the case of death, by the relevant authority representing the interests of that worker or his estate.
10 There are legitimate public concerns about the future of vaccines being tested on the population right now.
11 Side effects from taking any vaccine range from mild pain and discomfort through to permanent damage
12 suffered and even death. In 1999 theBritish Medical Journal published a report titled "Public should be told
13 that vaccines may have long-term adverse effects".
14 The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Mark Andrews <underthewire4mee@gmail.com>
18 Bcc:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
19 confusion reigns supreme within the Gov/taking a stand
20 QUOTE
21 To make matters worse, the Government has chopped and changed its policies.
22
23 They have acted as regulator, marketer, sponsor and now indemnifier of the vaccine
24 companies. This means that if you get vaccine injured you sue the company and the
25 Government steps in their shoes and effectively becomes the vaccine company.
26
27 But mid-way through the roll out the Government confusingly announces a vaccine
28 liability scheme that is no fault. It is unclear how this will apply and who is covered ie
29 medical practitioners that give the vaccine following a mandate from Government, will
30 that apply differently to a medial practitioner that gives the vaccine following a mandate
31 from Employer, someone who takes the vaccine in a state or territory hub, contrasted to
32 someone who takes the vaccines without being compelled?
33
34 It all gets confusing because our corrupt Governments are pushing these vaccines without
35 any understanding as to the ramifications. Employers are following suit without clearly
36 articulating any responsibility for vaccine injury and meanwhile the ridiculous
37 organisations that deal with worksafe procedures, policies and insurance are mute.
38
39 You simply can’t compel people into vaccinations without appropriately mapping the
40 pathways of liability.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/07/spike-protein-covid-
44 vaccine.aspx?ui=2452e48ee850e01d1c6738932cddb7dcaf9043a15984f355d7aa522cd46b564a&sd=20201124&cid_
45 source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20210807&mid=DM945524&rid=1228380535
46 mRNA Expert Speaks Out on the COVID Crisis
47
48 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/08/no_author/perspectives-on-the-pandemic/
49 “2020 and 2021 have comprised a global propaganda spectacle of unprecedented scale and
50 sophistication.”
51
52 https://www.globalresearch.ca/foi-reveal-health-science-institutions-around-world-have-no-record-sars-cov-2-
53 isolation-purification-anywhere-ever/5751969
54 Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No
55 Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification
56 QUOTE
Page 14
1 Global Research Note

2 We bring to the attention of our readers this carefully documented study.
3 While the Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that they had isolated and identified “a new
4 type of virus” no details were provided. Then on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease
5 Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.
6 The central question raised in this study is the following: is there reliable evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has
7 been isolated from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?
8 The study provides documentation based on Freedom of Information requests addressed to Health
9 /Science institutions in a large number of countries.
10 The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation/ purification undertaken by the
11 numerous Health /Science institutions which were contacted.
12 It is worth noting that according to the Berlin Virology Institute, the WHO in January 2020 did not have in
13 its possession details regarding the isolation and identity of SARS-CoV-2.
14 Moreover, because the relevant details concerning isolation /purification were not available, the
15 WHO decided pursuant to the advice of the Berlin Virology Institute to “customize” The Real Time
16 Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) using the “similar” 2003 SARS virus
17 (subsequently renamed SARS-1) as “a point of reference” for detecting genetic fragments of the 2019 SARS-
18 CoV-2.
19 Bear in mind, this totally flawed RT-PCR test is being used not only to detect V-the virus, it is now being used
20 to ‘detect” the variants of SARS-CoV-2.
21 Supporting documents including the responses by Health /Science institutions, CDC, etc are provided in this
22 study. Also more documents can be consulted by downloading the relevant pdf files compiled by the
23 researchers.
24 Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 4, 2021
25 (The Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is “a viral respiratory disease caused by a SARS-associated
26 coronavirus”, first identified in China in February 2003).
27
28 ***
29 Would a sane person mix a patient sample (containing various sources of genetic material and never proven
30 to contain any particular virus) with transfected monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs,
31 then claim that the resulting concoction is “SARS-COV-2 isolate” and ship it off internationally for use in
32 critical research (including vaccine and test development)?
33 Because that’s the sort of fraudulent monkey business that’s being passed off as “virus isolation” by
34 research teams around the world.
35 Just 1 of many examples is shown below – this is from a study cited by the Australian Department of
36 Health as a paper “which led to the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in culture“. (Can you spot the oxymoron in
37 that quote?)
38 END QUOTE
39
44 QUOTE
45 Thus far (July 9, 2021) 27 Canadian institutions have provided their responses: Public Health Agency of
46 Canada (and another from Public Health Agency of Canada, this one re the “the UK variant” aka “B.1.1.7”
47 aka “Alpha”), Health Canada, the National Research Council of Canada, Vaccine and Infectious Disease
48 Organization-International Vaccine Centre (VIDO-InterVac), Canadian Institutes of Health
49 Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Ontario Ministry of
50 Health, Institut National de Sante Publique du Quebec, British Columbia’s Ministry of Health (re “the UK
51 variant”), British Columbia’s Centre for Disease Control, British Columbia’s Provincial Health Services
52 Authority (2 responses, 1 re “SARS-COV-2, 1 re “the UK variant” aka “B.1.1.7” aka “Alpha”), Vancouver
53 Coastal Health Authority (re “the UK variant” aka “B.1.1.7” aka “Alpha”), Newfoundland Labrador
54 Department of Health & Community Services, McGill University, the City of Toronto, Toronto Police,
55 the Region of Peel (Ontario), KFL&A Public Health (Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Ontario,
56 re “any variant”), Grey Bruce Health Services, Peterborough Public Health (Ontario), Peterborough Police
57 Service (Ontario), Aylmer Police Service (Ontario), Hastings Prince Edward Public Health (Ontario),
58 the University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, McMaster University and Mount Sinai
59 Hospital (Toronto) (note that researchers from the last 4 institutions had publicly claimed to have “isolated
60 the virus”, as had VIDO-Intervac).
61 Every institution has failed to provide even 1 record describing the isolation aka purification of any
Page 15
1 “COVID-19 virus” directly from a patient sample that was not first adulterated with other sources of
2 genetic material. (Those other sources are typically monkey kidney aka “Vero” cells and fetal bovine
3 serum).
4 The response from 1 additional Canadian institution is long overdue: Public Health Ontario (request
5 submitted July 16, 2020). On June 3, 2021 PHO provided their excuse for failing to respond: “we’re too busy
6 with COVID-19”: see this.
7 Click on the above links to access the responses from Canadian institutions. Scroll further down this page
8 for responses from institutions outside of Canada.
9 Here are 5 compilation pdfs containing FOI responses from 79 institutions in 22
10 countries/jurisdictions, re the isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2”, as well as emails
11 from authors of studies that claimed to have “isolated the virus” and an email from the Head of the
12 Consultant Laboratory for Diagnostic Electron Microscopy of Infectious Pathogens at Germany’s
13 Robert Koch Institut, last updated July 13, 2021 (note: many of these responses were obtained by FOI-
14 submitters other than Michael S. and myself, as indicated further down this page):
15 END QUOTE
16
21 QUOTE
22 On March 1, 2021 once again the CDC made clear that they still have no records of “SARS-COV-2”
23 isolation performed by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever… just not in so many words. Instead, the CDC
24 absurdly implied that isolation of “SARS-COV-2” would require the replication of a “virus” without host
25 cells and thus is impossible. See this.
26
27 March 3, 2021: CDC again fails to provide/cite any records describing “SARS-COV-2”
28 isolation/purification by anyone anywhere ever… BUT will no longer simply say so (as they did back on
29 November 2nd); instead they give song and dance and cite their own fraudulent study (by Harcourt et al.):
30 see this.
31 END QUOTE
32
37 QUOTE
38 A Lisbon court document dated May 19, 2021 is posted on the website of Andre Dias, PhD (as reported by
39 Celia Farber at “The Truth Barrier,” celiafarber.substack.com).
40 The court document’s URL is here (and we have backed it up here).
41 According to Ms. Farber’s published June 28, 2021 email interview with Dias, who is an expert in lung
42 disease modeling, the court ruling is in regards to a citizen’s petition to the Ministry of Health, “ equivalent to
43 a Freedom of Information Request…that ended up in court – with epidemiological and statistical queries“,
44 and “the court also formalized that the ministry has no data or references about the existence of the
45 virus…”
46 END QUOTE
47
Page 16
5 QUOTE
6
7 END QUOTE
12 QUOTE
13 June 16, 2021: University of Western Australia – home of Gates-funded
14 researcher Christine Carson, who has spent countless hours on social media this past year
15 insisting “yes the COVID-19 virus has been isolated” – provided/cited zero records of “SARS-
16 COV-2” isolation/purification from a patient sample, by anyone anywhere ever: see this.
17
18
19 At this next link you will find an interesting “no records” FOI response from Australia’s
20 Department of Health: see this.
21
22 Same admission from Australia’s Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity (which
23 had publicly claimed to have “isolated the virus”).

Page 17
1 Same admission from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

2 Organisation – CSIRO (“Australia’s national science research agency”), which is involved in
3 “COVID-19” vaccine trials using the so-called “SARS-COV-2 isolate” from Doherty Institute:
4 see this.
5
6 March 22, 2021, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
7 Organisation still has no record of any “SARS-COV-2” purified from a patient, by anyone,
8 anywhere: see this.
9
10 The next FOI letter shown in the screenshot below is in response to a request that was
11 submitted on the advice of Australia’s Department of Health, and has come to us via John
12 Blaid. Addressed to Mary-Jane Liddicoat, the formal but undated letter was authored
13 sometime after March 9, 2021 by Dr. Nick Coatsworth, Executive Director of Medical
14 Services, Canberra Health Services (CHS), ACT Government (Government of the Australian
15 Capital Territory).
16 [When reviewing Coatsworth’s response, bear in mind the following facts provided us by
17 Darren Christison, a journalist in Sydney, Australia: “This is the same Dr Nick Coatsworth who
18 is the ‘poster boy’ for the Australian government’s push to vaccinate everyone until they urinate the
19 poison, and has been a permanent fixture on TV and online in recent months (see this). He’s also the
20 same Dr Nick Coatsworth who recently, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, ‘admonished a
21 “hardcore rump of activist doctors” spreading misinformation and undermining vaccine
22 confidence” (see this).]

Page 18
1 Coatsworth admitted that Canberra Health Services holds no records relevant to the topic of
2 isolating (aka purifying) the alleged “SARS-COV-2”. His entire letter is here.

Page 19
1 March 19, 2021: Australian Capital Territory / Canberra Health Services once again failed to
2 provide / cite any record of “SARS-COV-2” purification from any patient sample on the
3 planet (thus demonstrating that they still have zero proof that “the virus” actually exists). Full
4 communications: see this.
5
6 [BONUS: Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation –
7 CSIRO (“Australia’s national science research agency”) also admits to having no record

Page 20
1 describing the isolation of ANY virus on Australia’s national “immunization” schedule, by

2 anyone, anywhere, ever: see this]
3
4 Mar 16 2021: Western Australia Minister & Department of Health confirm they have no
5 record of “SARS-COV-2” purification from any patient sample on the planet (and thus zero
6 proof that “the virus” exists), and that PathWest Laboratory Medicine only does the
7 quackery version of “virus isolation”. Full communications: see this.

Page 21
1 April 28, 2021: South Australia Minister for Health and Wellbeing confirmed they have no
3 proof that “the virus” actually exists). Full communications: see this.
4
5 May 25, 2021: New South Wales Ministry of Health, Australia, confirmed they have no
7 proof that “the virus” actually exists). Full communications: see this.

Page 22
1
2 END QUOTE
3
4 In my view the elaborate scam with this purported covid-19 vaccination is no more but as was so
5 often eventuating in the past and well usually the scientist/government and officials are getting
6 away with it.
7
8 One has to question how many of the children that were jabbed with the infected polio vaccine
9 have suffered ongoing without the Health Department possibly having even bothered to monitor
10 those children into adulthood and provide appropriate support for them.
11 In my view one cannot trust the TGA, the Department of Health, and most of the medical
12 profession because they have been parroting that “vaccines are safe” and parents relied upon this
13 only to subsequently find their child to end up being harmed. I provide this article about the
14 infected polio vaccinations as underlining that there have been ongoing problems.
15

Page 23
1 https://www.smh.com.au/national/millions-given-infected-polio-vaccine-20041023-
2 gdjz32.html?fbclid=IwAR175Ls7d0tMn4lLmR4joOF9_43i_sMX4oyNNT9jeK1JkNpWqNXNpvtqmS0
3 This was published 16 years ago
4 Millions given infected polio vaccine
5 QUOTE
6 Professor Robinson, who has found SV40 traces in meso-thelioma lung tumours in Australian patients,
7 said relatively little research had been done locally on SV40. "We do need to know what's going on in
8 this country because we have the world's highest incidence [of mesothelioma]," he said.
9 Dr Reddel
10 said that while the "jury is still well out" on whether the virus causes cancer, "I really still think there is a
11 case to be answered and it needs a lot more research".
12 A spokeswoman for the federal Health Department said Australia's medicines watchdog, the
13 Therapeutic Goods Administration, was monitoring research by the US Centres for Disease Control
14 into SV40 and cancer.
15 She said vaccine manufacturers now followed strict safety guidelines, with all vaccines on the Australian
16 market being thoroughly tested before release.
17 Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which was privatised in 1994, supports the call for further research. Its
18 director of public affairs, Rachel David, said establishing whether SV40 caused cancer would be difficult, but
19 "I don't discount the debate that's going on".
20 She said the company's practices had changed dramatically and the public could be "very confident about the
21 quality and safety of vaccines being produced at the moment".
22 She said the decision to release contaminated vaccine would have been reached after "balancing off"
23 the very real risk of polio epidemics against what was at the time a "small theoretical risk" from the
24 monkey virus. "We stand by the safety of what we produce now, but to go back 40 years and start talking
25 about the decisions that people were making in that environment, I can't pass judgement on that," she said.
26 Polio vaccinations are no longer routinely given in Australia following the declaration in 2001 that the
27 western Pacific region was polio-free.
28 Documents held in the National Archives relating to Commonwealth Serum Laboratories' production
29 of Salk polio vaccine show that the first tests for SV40 were carried out in February 1962, after the
30 alarm was raised internationally in 1961 of possible contamination.
31 They were found earlier this year by a Melbourne researcher, Brenda Coughlan, who was searching for
32 material for a book.
33 SV40 came from pulped infected monkey kidneys used to produce cell cultures to grow the polio virus.
34 The polio virus was then killed using formaldehyde to produce the vaccine, but SV40 survived the
35 process.
36 The Age confirmed the contents of the documents, including research work notes, with the biochemist
37 who carried out the SV40 testing in 1962 for Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. His name is John
38 Withell and he was later head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration's laboratory in Canberra.
39 Minutes of a meeting held at Commonwealth Serum Laboratories on May 1, 1962 record how the
40 organisation's then director, Ron Greville, confirmed that SV40 had been found in vaccine batch number
41 64, which was being readied for release.
42 "Dr Greville opened the discussion by stating that although SV40 was present in batch 64, the batch
43 would be issued; a decision which was founded on the belief that probably much vaccine issued in the
44 past was probably similarly contaminated," the minutes say.
45 The agency's records show that batch 64 was officially released in December 1962.
46 Mr Withell's research results show that three other batches of vaccine also tested positive for SV40:
47 batch 49, released in October 1959, batch 63, released in February 1962 and batch 65, released in
48 January 1963. Batch 66 was also positive, and was destroyed after an attempt to rid it of SV40, ordered by
49 health authorities in Canberra, killed the vaccine's effectiveness. The authorities said no further vaccine
50 containing living monkey virus could be released.
51 Later batches of vaccine were made from the kidneys of monkeys shown to be free of SV40 infection. Only
52 one batch of those tested, number 58 released in September 1961, was negative.
53 Mr Withell also tested three "seed" polio viruses that had been originally obtained from the Salk
54 laboratories in the US in 1955 and used to manufacture Australian polio vaccines.
55 His test results contained in the National Archives show that one of the seed viruses was heavily
56 contaminated with SV40.
57 "Type two [polio seed virus] was stuffed full of SV40," Mr Withell said.
58 He stressed that the negative results for the other two types of polio seed virus did not necessarily show
59 they were free from SV40, because the test was not sensitive enough.
60 Research notes also show that in August 1962 Mr Withell tested the effect of SV40 on human embryo cells.
61 The SV40 caused "transformation" in the cells, which indicated it was potentially carcinogenic.
Page 24
1 Mr Withell said the results were reported to an internal research panel for Commonwealth Serum
2 Laboratories, but were never made public.
3 END QUOTE
4 Again:
5 QUOTE
6 She said the decision to release contaminated vaccine would have been reached after "balancing off"
7 the very real risk of polio epidemics against what was at the time a "small theoretical risk" from the
8 monkey virus
9 END QUOTE
10
11 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pcr-testing-incorrect-use/
12 PCR Testing Saga: Were We Duped? • Children's Health Defense
13 02/23/21
14 BIG PHARMA › VIEWS
15 PCR Testing Saga: Were We Duped?
16 Were federal health officials and experts at WHO really unaware that the recommended high cycle count (CT) for
17 PCR tests would produce an exorbitant number of false positives for COVID?
18 By
19 Dr. Joseph Mercola
20 QUOTE
21 Story at-a-glance:
22  Curative offers a PCR test using spit rather than swabs from the back of your nasal cavity. Initially only
23 authorized for use on symptomatic patients, the company has requested the U.S. Food and Drug
24 Administration expand its authorization for use on asymptomatic individuals.
25  According to company data, the spit test accurately identifies about 90% of positive cases when compared
26 against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 cycle threshold (CT).
27  According to the FDA, that comparative CT is too low, and will produce too many false negatives. This,
28 despite the scientific consensus, which states anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable as it
29 produces enormous amounts of false positives.
30  According to an April 2020 study, a CT of 17 must be used to obtain 100% confirmed real positives.
31 Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. At 33 cycles, the false positive rate is 80%. Beyond 34
32 cycles, the false positive rate reaches 100%.
33  Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of
34 the test is important. Recent research shows the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance
35 confirmed by viral culture is seven days, whereas the PCR test continues to detect nonviable
36 (noninfectious) SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days.
37 For several months, experts have highlighted the true cause behind the COVID-19 pandemic, namely
38 the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy
39 people as “COVID-19 cases.” In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been
40 promoted as such.
41 An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the
42 World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at
43 excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control
44 pandemic.
45 Regardless, those in charge need to be held accountable, which is precisely what the German Corona Extra-
46 Parliamentary Inquiry Committee
47 END QUOTE
48
49 As I understand it the Pfizer “mRNA” is not a “vaccine” (even if approved) as it is a “medical
50 treatment” and as such should never be injected in any person unless a medical doctor who is a
51 specialist in “mRNA” issues have performs a proper assessment of the patient and checked the
52 patients test results to be able to make an “informed” decision if the patient should be injected at
53 all. Where however now pharmacist are jabbing people coming of the streets then this hardly
54 could be deemed to be appropriate assessment by a qualified medical practitioner. And, as the
55 graphene now has been exposed to be about 97% of the injection, and travels throughout the
56 body, etc, then surely this is not what many a person was aware of when Pfizer kept it secret as
57 an alleged trade secret, this even so I understand Moderna did disclose it.
58
Page 25
1
2 Do understand that I merely referred to some parts of the purported Agreement, but there is a lot
3 kore to it. What seems to be clear also that the terms
4
5
6
7 Violates ordinary consumer laws.
8
9 The Federal Government simply, in my view, has absolutely no executive powers as to overrule
10 relevant applicable constitutional provisions and/or Commonwealth legislative provisions.
11
12 The “executive” can only operate within the confines of the law, not despite of it.
13
14 The following was where I commenced to seek FOI Act information, followed by further request
15 being about 200 in total. None were answered. Considering the serious issues I raised including
16 the Department of Health false/misleading conduct in publications it appears to me that Prime
17 Minister Scott Morrison and others were deliberately reckless in their conduct and disregarding
18 the harm inflicted upon Australians all for his own goals, whatever that might turn out to be.
19 QUOTE
20 PM Mr Scott Morrison 3-3-2021
21 Forwarded via email
22
23 Cc: acv@health.gov.au
24 Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Therapeutic Goods Administration
25 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606
26 Attn: Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, MDP 122
27
28 Committees@health.gov.au
29 Committee Support Unit, Therapeutic Goods Administration
30 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606
31 Attn: Scheduling & Committee Support Section, MDP 122
32
33 20210303-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to PM Mr SCOTT MORRISON& Ors
34 Re FOI, CORONAVIRUS, DNA, etc
35
36 Including FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT request
37 (Replies can be forwarded via email where appropriate.)
38 Any request for “details” must be considered to include document(s), information, etc.
39 (I am the holder of an age pension health card.)
40 QUESTION 01: commences page 3 QUESTION 06: commences page 26
45 QUESTION 11: commences page 66
Page 26
1 END QUOTE
2
3 Here we have that Facebook is blocking people to publish their views, not because those posts
4 might be incorrect but because they are considered “misinformation” because they are not to the
5 narrative of the relevant government, regardless that it is the government aided by health
6 officials who are actually spreading misinformation/disinformation as my published documents
7 at Scribd highlights. As such, it is a political interference so that electors during a political
8 election will only be aware of the government mantra and denied to make an “informed”
9 decision as to who to vote for. This I view violated the HCA Albert Langer decision also.
10
11
12 Some of the issues at hand, albeit not stated in any order of importance:
13
14 * The CDC (Centre for Disease control) USA had made known that it never had any actual
15 “isolated” virus of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and merely relies upon what was
16 created on a computer by Chinese scientist.
17
18 * Scientist have claimed that a “vaccine” was created within about 3 hours after having
19 been provided by the Chinese computer generated claimed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).
20
21 * Prior to COVID-19 having been named in 2020 various countries already in 2018 were
22 recorded to have ordered safety items regarding COVID-19.
23
24 * In 2010 the “Lock Step Scenario” included to deceive citizen with an alleged dangerous
25 disease to enable to implement masks wearing, social distancing, lockdowns, vaccine kind
26 of passports, etc.
27
28 * The CDC has acknowledged that the PCR test cannot differentiate between what is
29 claimed to be SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) CORONAVIRUS and (non-coronaviruses)
30 INFLUENZA A and INFLUENZA B after California University Laboratories & 6 others
31 established that 1500 alleged SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) CORONAVIRUS did not at all
32 contain any SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) but were all either INFLUENZA A or
33 INFLUENZA B.
34

Page 27
1 * The FDA (USA), CDC and the W.H.O. (World Health Organzation) have made clear
2 that the PCR test are unreliable. Including that the cycles test would provide 97% to 100%
3 faulty positives.
4
5 * The CDC made known in regard of PCR testing that anything over 33CT’s cannot be
6 relied upon.
7
8 * The recommended cycle test for PCR is 17Ct even so the TGA (Australia) appears to
9 have recommended 45Ct, and this is used in Australian laboratories.
10
11 * All symptoms associated with INFLUENZA are also reported to be associated with
12 SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). As such, a person suffering from INFLUENZA can be
13 wrongly held to be suffering from SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).
14
15 * There is a Victorian advertisement that there are over 400 coronaviruses hot sports,
16 which appears to be rather INFLUENZA hotspots.
17
18 * There are claims by government officials (State/Territory/Federal) that vaccination
19 against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Is to be done to protect your father, mother,
20 grandparents and others. This is a deceptive claim as any person who were to be infected
21 with the alleged CORONAVIRUS and (non-coronaviruses) INFLUENZA A and
22 INFLUENZA B cannot infect any other person, as much as I understand it a person
23 suffering from Hay fever cannot transmit it to another person.
24
25 * There is no such thing as a COVID-19 vaccine, this as any “purported” vaccine cannot
26 be deemed to be a vaccine unless all “clinical trials” have been completed, and have been
27 granted commercial approval. As such, all and any advertisement about “COVID vaccine”
28 is false and misleading to deceive citizens that there are commercial approved vaccines.
29
30 * That I understand that Prime Minister Scott Morrison has claimed that once 80% of the
31 citizens are “vaccinated” then there could be a return to citizens freedom. This I view is a
32 patent deception as no government can restrict the rights of any citizen where it relates to
33 the rights enshrined in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) to
34 which the States within Section 106 are bound “subject to this constitution”. As no
35 “vaccine” for commercial approval exist in Australia then it is a gross deception upon all
36 citizens to pretend that there is a “vaccine where none of the final “clinical trial” have even
37 been completed let alone approval was neither granted for commercial use of any
38 “vaccine”.
39
40 * That Bret Hazzard Minister for Health NSW on at the very least 2 different occasions (on
41 video) made clear to apply the “NEW WORLD ORDER”. This offend the provisions of
42 S44 of the (federal) constitution as no Member of any Australian Parliament can represent
43 a foreign power, in particular not a foreign enemy power, or any foreign organization in
44 violation to the constitutional rights of any citizen.
45
46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9a7zDzOKc
47 Australian Health Minister Brad Hazzard: This is the New World ...
48 July 15th, 2020: NSW Health Minister, Brad Hazzard, has an apparent slip of the
49 tongue while commenting on recent pandemic control measures.
50
51 https://www.bitchute.com/video/iC3G2xixB9yL/
52 "We've Got To Accept That This Is The New World Order" - NSW ...
Page 28
1 7 July 2021 ... "We've Got To Accept That This Is The New World Order" - NSW
2 HELLth MINISTER - Brad Hazzard · a month ago. NONWO. Hahaa... he can't help
3 himself, ...
4
5 * That Prime Minister Scott Morrison (so on his behalf any Minister) allegedly entered in a
6 secret contract with Pfizer as to the supply of alleged “vaccines”. The Albanian version
7 (which might be almost likely identical to any Australian purported contract) would be in
8 clear violation of the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
9 (UK) embedded legal principles, etc, and as such be null and void, if so being similar in the
10 Australian version.
11
12 * That the Patent of Pfizer doesn’t disclose that graphene is used in its purported vaccine,
13 even so this can be deadly besides very dangerous to those being injected with it. As such,
14 the TGA NEVER COULD HAVE MADE A PROPER ASSESSMENT OF IF THE Pfizer
15 claimed vaccine was to be permitted for “clinical trials” in that it could never appropriately
16 assess the content of the purported Pfizer vaccine.
17
18 * That any purported “vaccine” that in itself doesn’t address to avoid an infection cannot
19 be deemed a “vaccine” in particular where anyone injected (jabbed) with the purported
20 vaccine still can become ill or even die. Indeed the adverse reactions to what was injected
21 only underlines the dangers in particular where young people even die, when had they not
22 been injected than the likely of death from the alleged COVID-19 would be about non-
23 existent.
24
25 * That Pfizer and Moderna purported vaccines are not vaccines in that sense but rather
26 “medical treatments” as they are to change the ordinary human immunity system which
27 can and have resulted to many serious health issues.
28
29 * That the Commonwealth Department of health has been claiming that there are
30 misleading and misinformation and one can only trust its official provided information.
31 However, the truth is that the Department of health actually has been concealing serious
32 adverse effects regarding any so called vaccines and pretend that any adverse is minimal,
33 even so serious illnesses and even death can result.
34
35 * That the mantra that “vaccines are safe” were based upon the CDC claiming this for at
36 least 3 decades, albeit in legal proceeding involving Del Bigtree and Lawyer Kennedy the
37 Court found there was no such evidence as the CDC had used this mantra without having
38 done any legally required checking. As such, it was a falsehood claim.
39
40 * That the CDC use to claim that “vaccines do not cause autism” however it recently
41 withdrew this claim this as a scientist/medical doctor who used to investigate autism issues
42 for a pharmaceutical company since retiring produced the files that autism was apparently
43 caused by vaccinations.
44
45 * That Members of the British Parliament appears to have acknowledged that “FEAR” was
46 being used to pursue citizens to be vaccinated.
47
48 * That Bill Gates is recorded on videos that his aim was to vaccinate people as a method to
49 enforce population control.
50

Page 29
1 * That in Africa and other countries courts held that (more than 2 million) females who
2 were injected with a “polio vaccine” actually were sterilized.
3
4 * It is a matter of record that in Australia “contaminated” polio vaccines knowingly were
5 used,
6
7 * That there are numerous adverse reaction reports of pregnant women having pregnancies
8 terminated after being injected. Also, how a 5 month old baby given breast milk by a
9 mother who the day before was jabbed then died.
10
11 * That in Israel (having Pfizer being the sole supplier of the purported vaccine) reportedly
12 up to 94% of vaccinated citizen end up to become infected with the so called Delta strain.
13
14 * That while any purported “vaccine” might perhaps minimize some “symptoms” this
15 however is not to avoid any infection in the first place and as such it is deceptive for
16 anyone to claim that vaccination is to protect your dad, mum, grandparents and others, as
17 clearly there is no medical science to prove this. It is merely “political science”.
18
19 * That during an interview with Leigh Sales on 17 February 2021 TGA John Skerrit
20 admitted that he is following “government policy” (POLITICAL SCIENCE) and didn’t
21 known certain issues relating to what was in a vaccine.
22
23 * That while John Skerrit (TGA) claims that the “benefits outweigh the risk” this is a
24 mantra/cliché that is without substance as neither the benefits nor the risk are known, in
25 particular the long-term risk. The clinical trials are still ongoing and as such, it would be
26 bias to claim benefits outweigh the risk when the end result is unknown.
27
28 * That in my view the Chief health Officer for Victoria Bret Sutton is grossly negligent and
29 incompetent in claiming corona viruses statistics when as I understand it he has absolutely
30 no medical science to prove what he is claiming.
31
32 * The Hungarian pathologist made clear, already in 2020) that Italian, Spanish and French
33 pathologist concurred that no one had died from COVID-19, but had died from secondary
34 health issues. Also, a German pathologist was on television making clear that he had
35 performed autopsies on numerous bodies and none had died from COVID-19, but from
36 other health issues.
37
38 * That an ICU doctor of New York Hospital warned that patients that were admitted
39 showed “high altitude sickness” and that those patients would be killed when the
40 ventilators were not properly programmed for them. In fact, China (in 2020) reported that
41 some 97% of patients on ventilators died.
42
43 * That in Victoria as I understand it, there were clusters of residents dying in nursing
44 homes but not in other nursing homes allegedly due to COVID-19. However, at one
45 nursing home that reportedly had a 300% infection rate (involving also staff and
46 replacement staff) a person had recorded an about half an hour video asking a staff
47 member all kinds of questions. It was not the questions I held was relevant but at the end of
48 the video I noticed what appeared to be a staff member of the kitchen donned in PPE
49 (Personal Protection Equipment) unloading a trolley into a dump master. What was so
50 critical was that this person while wearing gloves then having touched the dump-master
51 and so likely had bacteria all over the gloves, commenced to grab the trolley bar and take it
Page 30
1 back into the kitchen, and by this it appeared to me the bacteria being spread around the
2 kitchen and so with any food prepared in there. This to me explained why staff members
3 and replacement staff members all became ill also and not just the residents but that the
4 residents due to their already existing comorbidities may have died as result. While it was
5 reported that DEEP CLEANING was performed, this I view has no benefits if the staff
6 member after the DEEP CLEANING simply repeat the same conduct to spread around
7 bacteria in the kitchen. As such, what might have been claimed to be COVID-19 deaths
8 actually might have been deaths from bacteria.
9
10 * That I attend to Austin Hospital when I noticed a nurse dropping her mask on the ground.
11 The nurse picked up the mask and then put it back onto the face. By this, the mask as well
12 as the gloves now were contaminated.
13
14 * That Austin Health claims to pursue government standards as directed by the Victorian
15 Department of Health however, when I noticed a doctor in a consulting room having
16 something to eat to me that is not hygienic.
17
18 * That on 28 August 2020 I was violently attacked by a male about 1/3 my age and that
19 evening I lost a lot of blood, that I consulted my GP. The GP referred me to Austin
20 Hospital and as of 31-7-2021) I had no medical service. At times Austin Health offered me
21 “TELECONSULTATION”, despite that on many occasions I made clear that due to a
22 hearing disability I do not rely upon ORAL TELECOMMUNICATION. Obviously, nearly
23 a year later I could have bled to death if it was something very serious and the gross denial
24 of proper medical care must be investigated.
25
26 * That my 88year old wife, being a heart failure patient, was advised by the then heart
27 failure nurse of Austin Health that by the Victorian Department of Health she was not
28 required to have an exemption certificate as she has “medical condition” that prevents her
29 to wear a mask. Nevertheless, for months on end Austin health refused proper in house
30 medical care where both my wife and I are excused from wearing a mask due to medical
31 condition. Finally, the heart failure nurse arranged for my wife to be tested at the
32 Emergency Department and she had made the appropriate arrangements for 30 June 2021.
33 However, when we attended a nurse demanded to do a temperature check of my wife on
34 the footpath of the driveway (street) in the freezing cold and in the draft, as well as asked
35 questions that neither my wife or I could properly understand due to the mask. I repeated to
36 request for the manager. Another nurse then came and she insisted that my wife had to
37 wear a mask and otherwise be denied entry and I was not permitted to accompany my wife.
38 In the end we left, this also as my wife depends upon my presence and I am holding the
39 “decision maker authority” for my wife, as she fears being bullied by medical staff into
40 agreeing to allow something against her will.
41
42 * I understand that in Ireland the CEO of a hospital under oath denied that coercion was
43 used to have staff members vaccinated, however a video since showed that staff members
44 were bullied and that the hospital received funds from the pharmaceutical company.
45
46 * That it has been reported that more than 2,400 politicians in the USA are receiving
47 funding from pharmaceutical companies, up to a reported more than $460,000 (US
48 dollars). Obviously more than likely the same can be eventuating in Australia where then
49 politicians, medical doctors and hospital so to say are on the payroll of pharmaceutical
50 companies.
51
Page 31
1 * In my view any politicians, medical doctor, scientist, journalist, hospital, etc, which is in
2 any way promoting pharmaceutical company benefits must be required to disclose their
3 funding. I understand that the pharmaceutical companies are having about $76,000 return
4 for every dollar they fund to politicians. This, as then the politicians will generally vote in
5 favour of legislation benefitting the pharmaceutical companies, irrespective of which
6 political party, if any, the politicians may belong to. Hence, I view medical doctors should
7 wear a patch on their clothing worn when serving a patient that discloses the particular
8 pharmaceutical company which provide direct and/or indirect financial support to such
9 doctor, this would assist patients to know if the doctor is parroting medication, etc, for
10 his/her own financial benefits or not.
11
12 * That mask have been found to contain graphene, asbestos, bacteria, little a live black
13 worms, dust (BLACK FUNGUS), etc, that seriously compromise the health of a person
14 who wears such a mask. However, I am not aware that there are any standards to ensure
15 such mask are not sold. A medical doctor declared that a 4-year-old child died from
16 pneumonia because of wearing a mask. As such, this is a very serious issue.
17
18 * That “infectious disease” are constitutionally that is exclusive Commonwealth legislative
19 powers since the Commonwealth commenced to legislate in 1908 and since replaced this
20 legislation with the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth).
21
22 * The Commonwealth Department of health website provide specific directions regarding
23 mask wearing and the Victorian Department of health I view is violating this by
24 demanding citizens to wear a mask regardless if not ill, contrary to the provisions of the
25 Commonwealth Department of Health.
26
27 * That Dr Andrew Kaufman in his video explained that the Delta variant is simply wrongly
28 claimed. In essence, to use my own example, one could purchase 2 or more different
29 puzzles all cut by the same company in the same manner. One could then take 1 piece of
30 one puzzle and then put it in another puzzle and claim now to have the entire puzzle based
31 on that 1 piece even so it is not. To claim a Delta variant one need to have the entire about
32 30,000 to 40,000 base pairs and not just 37 base pairs and claim then it represent the Delta
33 variant.
34
35 * That as the Commonwealth has exclusive legislative powers as to quarantine involving
36 “man-kind” diseases, than the States/Territories cannot legislate as to this. No state of
37 emergency/state of disaster can be validly claimed regarding an infectious disease by a
38 state/territory.
39
40 * That Premier Daniel Andrews (when questioned by Peta) that he would not have any
41 documents of communication between himself and the Chief Health Officer other than that
42 he would receive a copy of the direction from the Chief health officer as to his directions
43 for mask, lockdowns, etc. This then underlines that the Chief Health Officer is exercising,
44 albeit unconstitutionally, “executive powers” and not merely “administrative powers”.
45
46 * That the Chief Health Officer can only exercise “administrative powers” and not
47 “executive power”. The Victorian Police is contracted as a “private security” business to
48 assist the State Government in seeking to enforce the rule of law albeit subject to
49 constitutional principles. The Chief Health Officer cannot contract the Victoria Police as if
50 he has his own enforcement troops, as that would violate the constitutional concept that
51 only elected officials can represent the citizens. Therefore, any conduct by the Victorian
Page 32
1 Police to enforce the Chief Health Officers directives would violate the constitutional
2 arrangement that the Court are there to deal with applications by any public servant against
3 any member of the community. If for example, I were to engage, or for that any business,
4 persons who ordinary are employed by a private security firm as police officers then this
5 doesn’t give me or for that any business the powers that such person can act and enforce
6 whatever as a police officer. Hence, neither therefore can any police officer violate
7 constitutional rights merely because of acting to enforce “administrative powers” for the
8 Chief Health Officer.
9
10 * That the Commonwealth constitutionally cannot enforce any treaty or agreement it
11 makes with a foreign power, foreign company, etc, in violation of constitutional principles.
12 Being it the WEF (World Economic Forum) the UN (United Nations) the FDA (USA),
13 CDC (USA), etc, because those are outside bodies which have not been elected by electors
14 and therefore cannot represent the interest of Australians. While the W.H.O. did dictate a
15 “pandemic” it rather must be understood to be a “plandemic” in view that it was planned in
16 2010 at the very least .
17
18 * That any lockdowns, compulsory mask wearing, social distancing, curfews, etc, are
19 contrary to the common rights of citizens and can only be applied against certain named
20 person(s) where a court of law has a judicial determination naming those particular
21 person(s) legal grounds.
22
23 * That the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) requires certain conduct to be followed and a
24 medical doctor to assess a patient regarding any orders such a doctor deems appropriate.
25 As such, there is no such thing to incarcerate healthy peoples on the basis they may
26 become ill one day.
27
28 * That the Victorian Chief Health Officer issued originally a directive as to compulsory
29 mask wearing only then subsequently making known that certain mask should not be worn.
30 As such, indicating that the Chief Health officer never in the first place appropriately
31 considered the issue of what, if any, type of mask ought to be worn.
32
33 * That I was faced with 2 police officer ordering me to leave a supermarket on the basis
34 that I was not wearing a mask, even so I had already produced the “medical condition”
35 exemption certificate , this even so the Victorian Department of health made clear one did
36 not require such a exemption certificate. The police made known they were unaware of any
37 exemption to apply and I could be served with a summons. I made clear I look forward to
38 that. However, the police never issued the summons. What is rather remarkable is that the
39 Victorian Police claiming to enforce the directions of the Chief Health Officer somehow
40 never even were aware of what those directions constituted. There are ample of videos
41 showing the purported Victorian Police (as acting on and for the Chief Health Officer they
42 cannot be acting as Victorian Police but merely as a private security personnel) and
43 throwing citizens to the ground, regardless they had “medical conditions” not to wear a
44 mask. It doesn’t imply that any facemask was legally justified, merely to indicate that we
45 had a so to say private security firm operating for the Chief health Officer as some NAZI
46 SS stormtroopers violating citize4ns constitutional and other legal rights.
47
48 * That on 29 August 2020 I was physically attacked in Coles Warringal and made a
49 statement to Victorian Police at Greensborough. Even so, I understand from the manage
50 that if the police requested it the video tape of the assault would be provided. I also
51 understand from Coles management that transactions at the check out are all video
Page 33
1 recorded. As such, the identity of my attacked would/should be known. Yet, 11 months

2 later, the Victoria Police somehow seems not to have obtained either video and still has not
3 established the identity of the attacker. What it appears to me that the Victoria Police rather
4 than to deal with crime is acting to ensure that any crimes against a person not wearing a
5 mask are left unchecked as to place pressure upon citizens, regardless of their medical
6 condition, to be forced by violence to accept wearing of mask.
7
8 * That there is a failure by businesses to display a signage that where face mask needs to
9 be worn those with medical conditions are exempted. In my view, such signage could have
10 avoided the assault upon me.
11
12 * That there has been a lot of commentary on television and otherwise about people being
13 fined for protesting. The reality is that the Framers of the Constitution embedded the legal
14 principle of “POLITICAL LIBERTY” and this is not at all subject to whatever some
15 Minister or Chief Health Officer may permit, but is very clear. Indeed the High Court of
16 Australia in Albert Langer case made clear that “POLITICAL LIBERTY” is within the
17 provisions of the constitution. I also hold that it is unconstitutional for any Member of an
18 Australian Parliament to pursue that the Big Tech, being Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc,
19 are preventing citizens to have their material published where it goes against government
20 policy, as this I view would violate the “POLITICAL LIBERTY” of citizens. It would
21 prevent politicians to be held accountable during political elections as then a one sided
22 deceptive view can only be obtained and by this electors are deceived as to knowing the
23 truth regarding those standing for election/reelection.
24
25 * That on about 26 January 2021 I was “suspended” by Twitter but never advised on what
26 grounds. I filed an appeal but had no response to this and the suspension has remained so
27 far. This I view should not be tolerated as it undermine the provisions of the constitution to
28 have “POLITICAL LIBERTY”. Also, I recently discovered that a comment I made was
29 restricted by Facebook, even so I merely commented upon a book. It is therefore that
30 politicians for their own freakish desire enable electors to be denied their constitutional
31 “POLITICAL LIBERTY” even if this means that in the process they are essentially
32 sending many citizen to a gruesome death as to serve the ONE WORLD ORDER.
33
34 * That in my view a Chief Health Officer is not competent as to assess any harm upon
35 citizens regarding a lock down, etc, and it is for this that electors elect representatives to
36 the Parliament from which then member of the Government are commissioned to act
37 within the legal provisions provided for. It therefore should be the Prime Minister/Premier
38 to ultimately determine based upon the advice of numerous other experts, such as
39 economic advisers, to determine what is to be done. However, where the Premier doesn’t
40 know until after the Chief Health Officer has already issued his directive then this means
41 no proper consideration took place as to in the overall if any directive was legally or
42 otherwise justified.
43
44 * That purportedly the WA Parliament legislated that the ADF (Australian Defence Force)
45 can inject any person with “POISON” of covid-19. Firstly, it would be a violation of the
46 constitutional compact as only if there is a “domestic violence” can a State request the
47 ADF to be deployed in a State and not otherwise. While in times of floods, bushfires, etc,
48 the personal of the ADF could be requested to assist because of its personal strengths and
49 capabilities, it can however not be as ADF personnel but merely as assisting in such
50 emergencies. As the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) limits
51 legislative powers to the Commonwealth regarding infectious diseases then Biosecurity
Page 34
1 Act 2015 (Cth) then the States such as WA cannot constitutionally legislate to have any
2 person injected with “POISON” and neither for the ADF to be involved.
3
4 * That the Chief Health Officer cannot authorize to use force to break into any property
5 and use force against the will of a person to be injected with “POISON” and purportedly
6 shield the soldier, or any other person, from any legal liability this as without a court order
7 no one in the first place can violate the persons legal rights. As the Framers of the
8 Constitution made clear the judicature is there as an Administration of Justice to deal with
9 disputes between the government and citizens and a judicial determination is provided after
10 hearing both sides. Even an ex-party hearings without any opportunity for a defendant to
11 be given an opportunity to present his/her case is not constitutionally valid.
12
13 * That for a proper assessment as to if any person suffers of any ill health, it requires a
14 medical doctor to make such an assessment. There is no such thing as the Chief Health
15 Officer engaging some perhaps illiterate persons lacking any qualifications in medical
16 issues to somehow assume someone is suffering from COVID-19 illness.
17
18 * That purportedly the Commonwealth Parliament legislated that “foreign troops” could be
19 permitted to operate within the Commonwealth of Australia and cannot be sued for any
20 legal wrongdoing, etc. This clearly would violate the very constitutional provision that the
21 Commonwealth is to protect the states from any invasion, etc. This, as if foreign troops can
22 enter the Commonwealth under the guise to assist they then could very well take over
23 entirely and purportedly cannot be sued for doing so.
24
25 * That the QR code requirement is unconstitutional as it requires citizens not subject to any
26 specific court judgment/order to conduct matters as if they are convicted prisoners,
27 regardless that they are healthy individuals.
28
29 * That the LOCKDOWN requirement is unconstitutional as it requires citizens not subject
30 to any specific court judgment/order to conduct matters as if they are convicted prisoners,
32
33 * That the CURFEW requirement is unconstitutional as it requires citizens not subject to
34 any specific court judgment/order to conduct matters as if they are convicted prisoners,
36
37 * That the FACEMASK requirement is unconstitutional as it requires citizens not subject
38 to any specific court judgment/order to conduct matters as if they are convicted prisoners,
40
41 * That the SOCIAL DISTANCING requirement is unconstitutional as it requires citizens
42 not subject to any specific court judgment/order to conduct matters as if they are convicted
43 prisoners, regardless that they are healthy individuals.
44
45 * That QUARANTINE requirements within the States under the direction of the Chief
46 Health Officer is unconstitutional as it requires citizens not subject to any specific court
47 judgment/order to conduct matters as if they are convicted prisoners, regardless that they
48 are healthy individuals. Where a person is an infected person established by a personal
49 assessment of a medical doctor within the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth)
50 than any QUARANTINE facility must be of appropriate standards with possibly ICU
51 required equipment not being some hotel room.
Page 35
1
2 * That to require healthy persons to pay for QUARANTINE accommodation where they
3 have not been formally assessed by a medical doctor as provided for in the Biosecurity Act
4 2015 (Cth) then I view this is unconstitutional as the States do not have any legislative
5 powers as to quarantine. Neither can the Federal Minister for Health delegate his authority.
6
7 * That in my view considering my research since early 2020 all and any vaccination must
8 be stopped and only any vaccination is to be allowed to be permitted upon a specific
9 recommendation by a medical doctor who has appropriately assessed the patient and
10 certify for the justification of a vaccination. Where a medical doctor is reckless in his
11 assessment then he should be subject to legal consequences.
12
13 * That in my view politicians/hospitals/medical doctors/scientist should be prohibited from
14 having direct or indirect funding from pharmaceutical companies, albeit until such legislation is
15 on foot they should be legally required to declare in writing to every patient any financial
16 interest/kickback, etc
17
18 We should and certainly must not ignore the many elderly residents who were isolated and
19 robbed of ordinary contact with family members, etc, who then died very lonely and this all for
20 what appears to be a HOAX virus claim without any real attention having been provided to what
21 really might have been causing certain health outbreaks.
22
23 In my view the Australian Federal Police having set up a special unit to deal with persons like
24 myself about what I published about COVID-19 issues then cannot merely take the word of the
25 government that it is right no matter how wrong it might be but the AFP must scrutinize all
26 available details, including what I published at my Blog, and appropriately evaluate if my
27 writings constitute misinformation/disinformation or that actually it are the various Australian
28 government aided with the health officials, the medical profession, etc, and it is them who should
29 be facing the court for legal accountability.
30
31 In my view, the AFP must obtain warrants so it can establish what precisely the terms of the
32 agreement/contract has been with any pharmaceutical company and what if any unlawful
33 conduct was involved.
34
35 If as I understand it the TGA and its advisers acted recklessly/unlawful as to allowing “clinical
36 trials” to go ahead in the manner they did while failing to appropriately assess the dangers to
37 those who were to be jabbed, then appropriate charges in my view should eventuate also.
38 Likewise, if Scott Morrison and for example the Queensland Premier both or either one of them
39 faked to be jabbed with an “alleged” vaccine but instead was not at all or merely a placebo, then
40 they should I view be charged for deliberate deception of the general community, and so others
41 who conducted themselves in a similar manner.
42
43 I rely upon the content of my published documents at Scribd in support of this COMPLAINT.
44
45 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
46
47 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
48 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
49 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

50 (Our name is our motto!)

20210808-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of The Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-02

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

20210808-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of The Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

8-8-2021 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

20  Endorsements and Informational Materials

8-8-2021 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

33  Expenditures must be authorized

4 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?

5 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.

8-8-2021 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Global Research Note

8-8-2021 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Same admission from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

8-8-2021 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 describing the isolation of ANY virus on Australia’s national “immunization” schedule, by

8-8-2021 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 26 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-8-2021 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 recorded. As such, the identity of my attacked would/should be known. Yet, 11 months

49 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like