20220226-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Clarification of Constitutional Embedded Legal Principles

ISSUE: Clarification of constitutional embedded legal principles
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, what needs to be clarified if there is a written constitution?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, let us first start of with some recommendations and then
consider certain statements.
Correcting section 41 by inserting:
No elector shall be obligated to exercise his/her

right to vote, and neither shall be subjected by any
coercion to do so.
As for taxation:
All taxation shall be UNIFORM and it is

prohibited to provide some class of tax payers
certain exemptions not applicable to others.
Taxation shall be on a sliding scale where any
reduction of taxable income, etc, shall be applied
equally to all and any taxpayer, however, salaries
paid to any Minister of the crown shall be tax
exempted to avoid any coercion upon such a
Minister for ulterior purposes.
As to s44.
This section applies also to all and any Members of

a State/Territory Parliament.
No Member of Parliament shall be engaged in any
conduct which could or might be deemed to be a
p1 26-2-2022 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
conduct to undermine the Commonwealth of
Australia’s national security. All and any contracts
the Commonwealth of Australia engages is must be
open and transparent with tax payers entitled to
know relevant details. Violation of this part shall
be automatic disqualification to be a Member of
Parliament and hold any ministerial position.
Members of Parliament (exempt Ministers of the
crown) shall not be entitled to receive any form of
payment not being “allowance” for compensation
expenses incurred, with exemption for services of
parliamentarian services to any committee.
And
Where there is an actual attack/invasion upon the
Commonwealth of Australia the Minister for
Defense may authorize the Australian Defense
Force to defend the Commonwealth of Australia,
otherwise the Australian Defense Force cannot be
deployed outside the Commonwealth of Australia
with a DECLARATION OF WAR or other
DECLARATION OF AID published in the Gazette
and signed by the Governor-General or such
person from time to time acting in the capacity of
Governor-General.
As to Ss xxiii(B)
Neither the Commonwealth, a State or Territory

shall make vaccination of any kind compulsory or
allow/permit coercion in regard of this, but the
Commonwealth may apply to a Court of competent
jurisdiction to hear and determine if a particular
individual suffering of a “man-kind” disease should
be placed in quarantine, and if so, if the Court
having heard from both sides, sanction the
individual to be vaccinated on the basis of a
medical specialist having done a full medical
examination of the person recommending so.
Section 106
A States constitution validity relies upon the pre-

existing Colonial constitution being upon
federation (1 January 1901) deemed to be State
constitutions, which from then on is deemed
amended to reflect the provisions of this Act
[Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK)] and only can subsequently be validly
amended by State referendums, by State electors
having approved amendment of the said State
constitution.
Also:
The State(s) “concurrent” legislative powers
regarding s52 shall be deemed extinguished and the
State(s) no longer can legislate and/or amend any
prior existing legislation upon the date and
thereafter the Commonwealth commenced to
legislate upon any matter listed in section 52.
Amendments as to (WITH INSERTS SHOWN);
(xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by

the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States I if so authorised by State(s) referendum
approved by relevant State(s) electors,, but so
that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments
the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;
(xxxviii) the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with
the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States I if so authorised by State(s) referendum
approved by relevant State(s) electors, directly
concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of
this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the
United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia;
The states are created within s106 “subject to this constitution” and by this doctrine of
“separation of powers” exist and applies to the states and territories (quasi States).
The term “Parliaments of any State or States” must be understood consistent with this doctrine and the
Parliament of a state cannot refer any legislative powers to the commonwealth unless by way of state
referendum the State electors approved for the Parliament of a State to do so. This as the Parliament of a
state is prohibited to deny a subsequent Parliament of its legislative power and also a State Parliament
cannot in any manner refuse/interfere/deny a State Supreme Court to exercise if inherited jurisdiction.
117 Rights of residents in States
The Commonwealth, State(s) and/or Territory/ies

shall not prevent any citizen to move freely across
Commonwealth/State/Territorial borders unless in
regard of each individual the Commonwealth/
State/Territory obtained an order from a
Competent Court of Jurisdiction that having heard
from both sides (both parties), finds that certain
restriction against a particular individual is legally
justified upon the evidence before the court.
Section 92:
A State/Territory shall not directly/indirectly

impose any charges upon any harbor and/or
border charges that may constitute a form of
taxation.
Section 116:
Neither the Commonwealth, a State or Territory

shall restrict the “religious liberty” and/or the
“political liberty” and/or FREEDOM OF
SPEECH” of any individual as long as this exercise
of liberty is not to amount to undermine the
constitutional system and neither amounts to a
criminal conduct.
And
The Commonwealth shall be prohibited to apply
any religious, political and/or FREEDOM OF
SPEECH test regarding any individual to enter or
leave the Commonwealth of Australia provided
such exercise by an individual is not to amount to
undermine the constitutional system and neither
amounts to a criminal conduct.
Section 25
This section to be abolished.
Ss xxvi:
The Commonwealth shall not discriminate between

persons of the same race, all legislation must be
applied to all persons of the same race.
The Commonwealth shall not be permitted to
legislate against the general community in regard
as to benefit any particular race.
There are some of the numerous clarifications I view should be inserted into the constitution to
reflect the intentions of the framers of the constitution and so any approved referendum
amendments. Not all of the above suggest amendments will be addressed below, as many have
been canvassed extensively at my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention

QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
And

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
What should be understood is that the framers of the constitution didn’t want to put in writing
certain legal principles that could be misused and abused and so relied upon the courts to
interpret the constitution at the hands of the Hansard records, but the Courts simply went out on a
limb to in my view far too often serve its political masters (even so they are not) then to uphold
the true meaning and application of the constitution.

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under
it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-
the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions , then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the
court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as
will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere
of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
What we have is that the High Court of Australia was a culprit since it was established to deny
the Hansard records to be used, for about 7 decades since. This means numerous judgments were
handed down in violation to the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
When there is litigation between parties and one of the parties file a NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS which is to challenge certain legislative provisions and/or
the entire legislation then the High Court of Australia as an unconstitutional deterrent often
orders cost. This, even so the Framers of the Constitution stated:
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
Meaning that the ordinary Australians can face devastating legal cost while the culprits are
protected to use taxpayers monies no matter how unconstitutionally they acted. As such, I view

the High Court of Australia lacks to be deemed an “Administration of Justice” as was intended
by the Framers of the Constitution.
When it comes to the Family Court of Australia Joske J (Zabena case) wrongly claimed that the
Family Law Act 1975 s13 (as then was) was that parties had to pay for the transcripts. Since then
judges have aligned with this and in the process denies anyone to appeal where they cannot
afford to pay for the transcripts.
The Framers of the Constitution specifically wanted to avoid religious conflicts and so inserted
Section 116 but to no avail as you find that the Family court of Australia disregard this
prohibition.
The there is this “CONFLICT OF INTEREST” where I view we have crooked judges handing
down decisions to suit one of the lawyers, regardless what the evidence/FACTS might be. To my
understanding judges make predetermined decisions before the case is heard and use the hearing
to select whatever they can to fabricate their Reason of Judgment to the order all along intended.
* Oh boy, that is some claim.

**#** I prefer to not have this article ending up in thousands of pages but let me use an example;
I was assisting a party in litigation where a woman all along in her own right had owned a
property (rented by a police officer) while her former boyfriend never resided at that residence
and neither was ever listed on the title as part or full owner. When the tenant was moving out the
woman as the rightful owner requested me to change the locks and secure the property, which I
offered to do FREE OF CHARGE albeit I did request her to make her request in writing. This
she did. The previous tenant handed me the keys so I could secure the property, as directed by
the property owner. When there was a litigation before the family court of Australia I was
requested to take a place in the witness box, this I did. The trial judge then lambasted me that I
had broken into the property and had damaged the property, etc, and this without the knowledge
and consent of the owner (being the man). Now this judge had previously been dealing with this
case at many occasions and until this hearing both were legally represented but her lawwer was
unable to continue due to health reasons. So, here I was in the witness box getting lambasted by
the trial judge that I had committed criminal offences, etc. I responded that His Honour
obviously didn’t know the facts as at the time the police had attended and had checked the
written request of the woman who was and always was the sole proprietor of the property and
accepted I was lawfully attending to the property. That in fact the man had broken into the
property and changed the locks I had installed. OK, the judge now discovered that he didn’t even
know the basic FACTS of the case, but that wasn’t going to stop him as he simply ruled that the
man now would have total control over the property and decided what to do. I then also
discovered that unbeknown to me the judge previously had ordered this police officer to provide
to the man’s lawyers copies of all document I had written to this police officer. He had done so
by placing it on a CD due to the volume of my writings. I also discovered he had directed for the
man’s lawyer to check if any of my writings was in CONTEMPT OF COURT. This, even so my
writings were protected with “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” it clearly was of no concern to the
judge, neither to allow me in the first place to object to the order! The judge conduct was to me a
gross abuse and misuse of power and so I decided to check on the internet about this judge. Well,
I came across a statement that when this judge was appointed to be a Judge of the Family Court
of Australia there was this barrister who was stating that he mentored this judge, when he was
still a clerk in a Magistrate Court and they have a long term friendship. This barrister was the
man’s barrister! There clearly was an undeclared ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST” but there is no
known register to have this declared! In the same case, when I was previously representing the
lawfirm that represented the woman, I attended to the registrar (as such as an official for the
lawfirm) expressing the lawfirm’s concern that the court may secretly approve any application by
the opposing party and requested clarification if any orders were made without the woman’s
lawyers knowledge, etc. The registrar (WHO IS NOT AN OFFICER OF THE COURT!) then
checked the files (so she claimed) and made clear that no applications were filed and neither
therefore could have been granted. Only later when the woman with her lawyers appeared before
this judge then it was discovered that actually there had been an application and granted by this
judge without notice to the woman’s lawyer and without advising them of the decision made!
As I just to say “All you have to do is sleep with the registrar and you can get the orders you
desire.”
* If anyone were to want to investigate this would this be possible, such as the identities of the
judge, the barrister, etc?
**#** Absolutely no problem as I have no intention to make it up. In my view the concealment
of this barrister having been the mentor of this judge and having a long friendship surely itself
should underline that there was a “CONFLICT OF INTEREST” in particular considering this
judge’s conduct. Regretfully most parties who are unrepresented may never realize that the judge
made up the order prior to the trial and use the hearing to just get details to twist to suit the all
along planned orders.
* Can you prove any judge, even one single judge did in fact issue orders before the trial was
completed?
**#** Again, I have no need to fabricate this as it is a matter of court records. As such I can
prove this beyond a shred of a doubt.
We also have that lawyers are perverting the course of justice and I am not just referring to
Nicola Gobbo, I have exposed Government lawyers to alter words in a judgement they claim to
quote as to mislead/deceive the judge and so get orders not entitled upon had the correct version
of the judgment be quoted, etc. Again I can prove this. Few people might bother to check out the
true version of an Authority (case law) but I have the habit to check opponent lawyer’s
statements to the court and then find they are fabricating a version to suit their cases.
Lawyers going into the registry and then alter their client’s Affidavit without being re-sworn and
again I proved during cross-examination of witnesses to be so. What we therefore have is a court
system that in my view is not really an Administration of Justice but rather an Administration of
Injustice.
*.So you recommend that there must be a clarification of the constitution?
**#** First of all that no court can issue any orders without both parties having been heard. Ex
parte hearing should not be permitted unless the absent party was provided with a reasonable
opportunity to attend but failed to do so. Again, I experienced that the Court would give me a
hearing date and when I contact the Registrar he confirmed it, and then when I travelled for that
hearing some 350 kilometers having to incur overnight accommodation also, then I am advised
there is no hearing. This is the bogus kind of hearing to inflict undue cost to a party. I could
provide a wash list of issues but let me point out another absurdity. The Framers of the
Constitution specifically held that it was better to have one Court in the Commonwealth of
Australia dealing with matrimonial matters., so the orders are applicable throughout the
Commonwealth and not that a party having obtained orders in a Colony then had to all mover
litigate in another colony as was prior to federation. So, in the Abbott and Abbott Case Brisbane
1994 the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia nevertheless held that Mr Abbott filing his
response in a different registry was not relevant to the application filed by his wife in another
state. Even so it is the one and same case somehow a party living in another State cannot file a
response in the state of residence. What a gross absurdity!

*. I understand that you have opposed any constitutional validity of the referral of legislative
powers from the states to the commonwealth without state referendum approval but considering
that the state Parliament is shown to be able to pass such legislation to the Commonwealth is this
not at odds with the constitution?
**#** Not at all French J of WA (before he was French CJ of the High Court of Australia)
actually wrote that this Subsection does no more but to authorize the Commonwealth to accept a
referral however the authorization for a state Parliament to do so had to be found elsewhere. It is
well known in law that no Parliament can give away its legislative powers to deny a subsequent
Parliament to exercise this legislative power. Also, there is a separation of powers not just in the
Commonwealth but also in the states (the Territories are quasi states) and this mean that the
Colonial Parliament that were “sovereign parliaments” that could at their own desire amend their
colonial constitutional no longer could do so upon Federation as the “colonial constitution”
became “State constitution” subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section 106 “subject to this constitution”. As such, the powers of
the Colonial constitution to have armed forces to repel an invading army no longer existed upon
federation as once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate the concurrent legislative powers
for the States seized to exist and the Commonwealth then had “exclusive” legislative powers.

QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an
apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word
"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the
Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does
mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power
under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the
attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive
power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties
being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph says-
But this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed
by the Parliament.
It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the
position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255]
stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately
on the establishment of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which the words
can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether we leave the
provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the Federal Parliament
will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have exclusive power when it
chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed legislation dealing with the people
about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power will have arisen

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
END QUOTE
Getting back to the referral of legislative powers, the states no longer holding “sovereign
powers” to amend their own constitutions therefore to amend it must obtain consent of state
electors to approve a referendum of doing so. Hence, without any referendum having obtained
approval the purported amendment of the state constitution is without legal basis.
When a State Parliament pursues to refer legislative powers to the commonwealth then it is
seeking by this to reduce the State Supreme Court jurisdictional powers also. This as when
legislative powers is transferred to the Commonwealth then so is the jurisdictional powers with
it. It means that due to the separation of powers the State electors must approve this reduction of
Supreme Court jurisdictional powers.
Much is talked about certain provisions of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975, but it
is not a constitution at all as the real constitution is the Victorian Constitution Act 1855 now the
Victorian State Constitution Act 1855 as amended by the provisions of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), since federation.
*.Just before we move on, what about the Infringement court?
**#** It is not a court at all, as it doesn’t provide for “both sides” to be heard.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
I once exposed how a police officer had altered the original Infringement Notice and had this
altered Infringement Notice then placed before the purported Infringement Court and orders were
issued, this even so the person against the Infringement Notice was issued never knew about the
alterations made. We should apply the legal “Brady” doctrine of the USA that a Prosecutor is not
permitted to conceal evidence from the accused party but must provide it. In my view any
evidence the Prosecutor conceals and may result to a wrongful conviction then the court should
order the Prosecutor to serve the sentence instead!
*.Are you meaning that if a Prosecutor conceals evidence causing an innocent person to be
imprisoned say for 10 years, then the Prosecutor could end up doing 10 years?
**#** Well, my position is that if you are willing to have an innocent person serving 10 years
then cop it if the truth comes out. We may then find a lot of innocent people no longer spending
years in imprisonment. I would also apply the same to police officers, etc.
*.Didn’t they have in Victoria some 1260 persons wrongly sworn in over the last about 7 years?
**#** Well, as much as an driver has to be responsible for having a valid driver’s license then a
person claiming to be in a law enforcement position better check the validity. Failing that to
claim min court to be a lawful law enforcement person I view is perverting the Administration of
Justice and such a person must be held legally accountable. Retrospective legislation cannot
resolve cases that have already been heard and determined by a court! I used to be in
management of a factory and I held I better get my overhead crane certificate, not because I was
going to be working on the overhead crane but because I held I as being in charge better get to
know all relevant issues. Well, I did obtain the permit and then discovered that all the operators
were in fact not licensed at all. They held fork lift licenses which did not cover overhead cranes
of that type. Well, would the police have been concerned they didn’t know there was a difference
if the police had charged them, they would simply have made clear they had the duty and
obligation to check details. Failing to do so they must accept the legal consequences. Well to me
that is the same with those claiming to be police officers, etc, when in fact they were never
lawfully sworn in. In my view when you got a row of incompetent Ministers who are after photo
opportunities rather than to be hands on, well then things will go wrong. In my view all fines and
conviction those unsworn law enforcement persons issued and the court decision must all be set
aside. That is why I like to see also a clarification in the constitution that the rule of law applies
to public servants and government contractors in the same manner as with ordinary citizens and
businesses.
*.What about Section 92
**#** There is absolutely no kind of powers that allow even a court to override the constitution!
Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
“when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
authority of the United States”.
Section 92 means free intercourse between the states and no judge can override this. We had this
elaborate nonsense about SARS-CoV-2 which despite a claimed dead toll of over 6 million
people somehow never was isolated and purified. So we had judges making decision about well
like the illusive WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) to somehow justify the (unconstitutional)
murderous invasion into Iraq.
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention

QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
END QUOTE
See also: pages 154 and 155 of Dicey's Law of the Constitution.
*.Is your position that the states cannot deny any person to travel across State/Territory lines?
**#** That is correct, however it comes with a exemption. If a person is convicted by a Court of
law and the Court based upon the evidence before it takes the position that the person convicted
is to be denied to travel from the State or to travel otherwise then this would be lawful. This is
not because the Courts are above the rule of law but because it in its adjudication justified this
against a particular person.
*.Would this not be the same with Clive Palmer v WA?
**#** Not at all, this as if a person is convicted of having committed an offence than the Court is
entitled to restrain the person as the evidence before the court may justify. However, with the
Clive Palmer case there was no criminal activity alleged against Clive Palmer. In fact he desired
to conduct his ordinary business, and this is precisely what the framers of the constitution sought
to protect.
* What about restricting animals, food, etc?
**#** That’s well within the State’s legislative powers, but not quarantine of Australians, that is
an exclusive Commonwealth power. Hence the must be a constitutional clarification that no
person shall be placed in quarantine unless a medical doctor had made a comprehensive medical
examination in regard of each person before being placed in quarantine. You cannot have as now
eventuated, such as in Victoria that health people not even accused of any crime are nevertheless
subjected to all kinds of draconic mandates, such as lockdowns, curfews, lock outs, etc. Indeed
the QR code was a clear absurdity that did not for a bit serve the public at all and neither could
reduce the alleged COVID-19 infections.
* Doesn’t Victoria have a Health and welfare Act to authorize this?
**#** any such act cannot be used in regard of any “man-kind” infectious disease this is
because that falls in exclusive legislative powers of the Commonwealth.

QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
END QUOTE
* Is this meaning deporting Mr Novak Djokovic in your view was lawful?

**#** In my view it was a misuse and abuse of power, this, as to my understanding, no medical
doctor has assessed Mr Novak Djokovic to be in any state of infection. Hence the canceling of
his visa was in my view also an abuse of power.

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
He was really deported for no more but to exercise his constitutional rights not to be jabbed with
some poison. Here we had Kamila (the Russian ice skater) being lambasted about drugs when
she as a “protected person” cannot be held accountable and in any event when you demand
someone to be injected with some substance to which you haven’t got a clue what is contained in
it then you cannot have an anti-doping policy at the same time. In any event Mr Novak Djokovic
was entitled to decide what jabs he does or doesn’t take and in my view it falls outside the
Commonwealth powers to interfere with this. He had lawfully entered the Commonwealth of
Australia and as such entitled to all relevant constitutional provisions. The constitution
specifically gives the Commonwealth the powers to restrict the influx of criminals and so far I
am aware of there were no allegations that Mr Novak Djokovic was some convicted criminal.
The Framers of the Constitution therefore set the bar high that you need to be a convicted
criminal before the Commonwealth can take action. We now have the nonsense of “HEALTHY”
persons being placed in alleged “quarantine” without any medical doctor having assessed the
person. That is a gross abuse and misuse of powers. And the states simply lack any powers to
demand anyone to be incarcerated for alleged quarantine1
When for example former Minister for Immigration Peter Dutton denied “Kent” in 2017 to enter
Australia upon the basis of that he claimed vaccinations causes Autism he made a decision
merely upon political grounds. After all it is well known that autism increased 40 fold after
vaccinations. As such, what we have in my view is a gross abuse and misuse of power merely
because a person may have a different political view then the Minister. That I view is not what
the constitution provides for when the Framers of the Constitution clearly stated there was
“political liberty” and “religious liberty”. Therefore the constitution needs to be clarified that the
Commonwealth neither the States or Territories shall deny a person his political/religious views
as long as it is not to incite conduct in violation to constitutional provisions. Also the constitution
must state clearly that no person can be forced or coerced to be jabbed (vaccinated) but by
special order of a court which upon hearing both sides determines that a particular person may
require to be vaccinated against a specific infectious disease, but not otherwise.
*.You mentioned the State of Emergency does the same apply to a State of Disaster that it cannot
override the constitution?
**#** As I indicated, the constitution is above all this, not even a Governor-General or Governor
can overrule the constitution. The constitution specifically states that the Governor-General is
“subject to this constitution”.
*. What about a war?
**#** Well, we have several wars going on. War against Terrorism, where the government is the
real terrorist. We have the WAR against drugs, where government employees often are
themselves involved in drug smuggling. We have the war against COVID, where our own
laboratory appears to have been involved in the creation of it. Let’s be clear about it we have
politicians all the time trying to claim some kind of WAR mongoing on but it is always to try to
expand their powers and not at all for the benefit of ordinary Australians. So, forget about using
some WAR as an excuse to justify violation of constitutional provisions. Even in a real war the
constitution is not suspended as afterwards any Australian can still make a legitimate complaint
such as for compensation if that person was caused any loss in some particular manner.
*.Did you notice how politicians and public servants were getting pay rises while they destroyed
small businesses, etc with this COVID claim?
**#** Actually the Framers of the constitution debated the issue that when a person becomes a
Member of Parliament then they would lose income from their ordinary employment, hence to
compensate them for this they held that some compensation called “allowance” should be paid
albeit a Minister who was paid a salary could not then also receive the “allowance”.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other provision is
made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those colonies
which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement of expenses,
because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a
salary for their work, which they are not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision th an
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament
who was being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus
his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to settle
a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not
to the judgment of the public.
END QUOTE
To clarify this what I view should be done is to place in the constitution that a Member of
Parliament “allowance” shall be based upon the average weekly earnings of the previous
financial year. Further, that Members of Parliament shall not use any Consolidated Revenue
Funds monies for any election purposes. Not as now that those in the Parliament has a
considerable advantage over other candidates in a political election as non-members have to fork
out all cost by themselves. Also, Members of the House of Representatives are technically no
longer Members of Parliament the moment writs are issued and as such are not entitled to use
any facilities and other financial benefits ordinary provided to a Member of Parliament. This
means that mobiles, travelling cost, etc, cannot be incurred at cost of taxpayers for the duration
an election period exist. Also, Ministers are not permitted during an election period to incur any
cost (paid for by the taxpayers) in regard of electioneering, being it for themselves and/or other
persons. Further, Members of parliament are prohibited to obtain payments for any overnight
accommodation paid for by the taxpayers that are not overnight charges from a registered
hotel/motel. Meaning that this nonsense of someone being paid hundreds of dollars a night for
sleeping in their own partly owned property or sleeping in a garage of a mate must be stopped.
Neither can any Member of Parliament engage in a superannuation scheme that is not available
to members of the general public. This, as Members of Parliament are not in paid employment
service and therefore a superannuation scheme must be separate from their position being a
Member if parliament. However, a Minister who is not receiving any “allowance” is entitled to
be contributing to an employment superannuation scheme which shall be of the same standards
as ordinary superannuation scheme for the general public. Further, when a Member of Parliament
vacates his seat upon writs having been issued this person cannot use some kind of gold pass for
family members and this former Member of Parliament as the person no longer is a Member of
Parliament. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that only one person can be paid an
allowance for a seat in the Parliament. Further, a Minister shall be prohibited for a period of not
less than 5 years as to be employed in the area of the portfolio he/she held. Too often, far too
often, you have a former Minister joining for example a defense contractor after, while being a
Minister, having provided contracts to this defense contractor. This is a kind of “revolving door”
conduct that must be stamped out. In the U.S.A. it was reported that former decision makers in
the FDA then left and joined the board of pharmaceutical companies. As such this appeared to be
“revolving door” conducts. We must therefore avoid this kind of conduct to eventuate in
Australia, I suspect it is already going on, and so for example where the TGA is to be paid any
monies by any drug, vaccine or other company then the TGA should provide the Department of
Finance with the Bill for the relevant company and the Department of Finance then issue the bill
to the particular company to pay the monies directly into Consolidated Revenue Funds.
*.Are you suspecting there is fraud going on?
**#** I am very open minded but there is ample of information that could be considered indirect
evidence that for example pharmaceutical companies are paying extra as to get certain
medication/vaccines approved which may otherwise not be, etc.
*.I assume you obviously have some knowledge about this occurring?
**#** Well, first of all it is well known that hundreds of politicians in the U.S.A are
directly/indirectly financially benefitting from monies paid by the pharmaceutical companies.
*. What just a few dollars, perhaps?
**#** Actually, I understand that we are referring to more than half a million dollars to one
politician alone. Those politicians then will obviously vote for whatever suits the pharmaceutical
companies as after all it is taxpayers monies they are so to say giving away and through backdoor
manner they benefit in the process. Actually I understand the same is happening with medical
facilities, universities, medical doctors, scientist, etc. So they all in my view at least are jumping
on the band wagon to get their cut and never mind the death and destruction they inflict upon
others in the process.
*.Surely the governments would prevent this to eventuate?
**#** I got on video how U.S.A. (then) President George WW. H. Bush made clear that the
NEW WORLD ORDER was to be implemented. And I understand, he then in 1991 legislated
that the CDC would be not a government department and neither would be public servants but
would have to do what its sponsors tell it to do. Well, people may not have realized that this non-
government department actually dictates mask, vaccinations, etc. And its sponsors are Bill &
Malinda Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies, etc. and also there are connections
with the W.E.F. (World Economic Forum) and the W.H.O. (World Health Organization), etc. so
you got this CDC acting for its sponsors such as the pharmaceutical companies to push for their
financial interest and then dictating how hospitals can get paid about $100,000 (American
dollars) per patient who enters for COVID and is placed on a respirator and dies. So, the killing
of patients is a money earning event. This is why the CDC has been concealing relevant details
such as the harm of people being jabbed as its interest lies with the earning of the pharmaceutical
companies and also its own backdoor earnings.
Steve Kirsch's newsletter <stevekirsch@substack.com>Unsubscribe

To:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Mon, 21 Feb at 4:37 pm
QUOTE
CDC admits it withheld data from the public

because they didn't want to create vaccine
hesitancy
This is from the NY Times. The truth is the data didn't support
their narrative so they hid it. Do you think they would hide
the data if it showed the vaccines worked? Of course not!
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE

CDC admits it withheld unfavorable data
Here’s the story in the NY Times which says:
Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release
the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for
prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s
accurate and actionable.”
But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were
first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency
has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be
misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.
END QUOTE
Also consider:
QUOTE
CDC Officials Admit Agency Has

Withheld Critical Covid Information
From the Public, Including Data About
Breakthrough Infections, Over Fears of
“Vaccine Hesitancy”
By Julian Conradson
Published February 20, 2022 at 8:42pm
238 Comments
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
“Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has
been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at
the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the
agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s
accurate and actionable.”

Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms.
Nordlund said.”
The performance of vaccines and boosters, particularly in younger

adults, is among the most glaring omissions in data the C.D.C. has made
public.
Last year, the agency repeatedly came under fire for not tracking so-
called breakthrough infections in vaccinated Americans, and focusing
only on individuals who became ill enough to be hospitalized or die. The
agency presented that information as risk comparisons with
unvaccinated adults, rather than provide timely snapshots of
hospitalized patients stratified by age, sex, race and vaccination status.
But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid
vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official
familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those
figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as
the vaccines being ineffective.
Ms. Nordlund confirmed that as one of the reasons. Another reason, she
said, is that the data represents only 10 percent of the population of the
United States. But the C.D.C. has relied on the same level of sampling to
track influenza for years.”
Why would data about breakthrough infections fuel ‘vaccine hesitancy?’
Could it be because the numbers really look that bad?
What else are the ‘experts’ hiding?
END QUOTE
In my view the real reasons they withheld critical details was because people would have been
aware how extensive the adverse effects were which appears to me the CDC was seeking to hide
as after all it is against the interest of the pharmaceutical companies its sponsors to reveal all
details.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html
new report (nytimes.com)
QUOTE
The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects
The agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations and, until
recently, wastewater analyses.
END QUOTE
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/02/no_author/we-the-people-demand-to-see-the-data/
We the People, Demand To See the Data!
CDC withholding evidence concerning COVID
vaccine safety is scientific fraud.
By Robert W Malone MD, MS
Who is Robert Malone
February 22, 2022
Steve Kirsch's newsletter <stevekirsch@substack.com>

Wed, 23 Feb at 6:10 pm
QUOTE
27 page rebuttal letter from 8 industrial hygienists

complaining about flawed CDC mask guidance
The people who know this stuff the best (the industrial
hygienists) weigh in on the flawed CDC mask guidance. There
is no hiding from the truth here, so I predic the CDC will
simply ignore the letter.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Eight industrial hygienists wrote a 27-page letter 27-page letter (substack.com)
https://www.tyscienceguy.com/letter-to-the-cdc.html
Letter to the CDC - TY THE SCIENCE GUY (tyscienceguy.com)
to the CDC, NIH, and other top US government officials that points out serious flaws in the
CDC mask guidance.
The key points in their letter

The letter starts out with:
They made four key points :
1. Recommending N-95 type masks is inappropriate for the general population and
children

2. CDC has issued harmful guidance for masking children that contradicts
manufacturer’s recommendations, world-wide standard practice and CDC’s own
guidance, and without appropriate risk-benefit analysis
3. The CDC continues to ignore the fact that COVID-19 is primarily spread by
aerosols (not droplets) making mask use mostly ineffective
4. CDC’s position for masks used by the general public lacks proper scientific
justification and creates potential harm based on a false sense of security:
They also sent email to scientificIntegrity@cdc.gov

They also emailed scientificIntegrity@cdc.gov the following:
We have conducted a peer review of the CDC's “Types of Masks and Respirators” that was
updated on January 28, 2022. Our findings have shown that this publication does not meet
the scientific integrity that we have come to expect from HHS and all affiliated
agencies. Please review the findings in our report. We strongly encourage your team to
remove this publication from use and publish an acknowledgement of the concerns. We are
willing to discuss our findings further at your request. We appreciate your time and look
forward to a response.
However, I’m pretty sure that there isn’t any scientific integrity left at the CDC and there
will be nobody there to answer their complaint.
END QUOTE
https://en-volve.com/2022/02/18/the-cdc-admits-that-pcr-tests-were-used-to-harvest-
peoples-dna-without-consent/
The CDC ADMITS That PCR Tests Were Used To Harvest People’s DNA Without
Consent
I raised numerous times those issues also in 2020 and 2021 and now it turns out I was all along
right.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-02-23-scotland-halts-reporting-covid-jab-data-cover-
up-deaths.html
Scotland halts reporting covid jab data

in order to cover up skyrocketing deaths
Wednesday, February 23, 2022 by: Ethan Huff
Vaccine Impact News <noreply@healthimpactnews.com>

Tue, 22 Feb at 12:49 am

68,000% Increase in Strokes as FDA and NIH Secretly Study Reports of
Neurological Injuries After COVID-19 Vaccines
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh
randomized trial in Bangladesh
Steve Kirsch's newsletter <stevekirsch@substack.com>

Mon, 21 Feb at 5:30 am
QUOTE
Highly acclaimed peer-reviewed Bangladesh

study shows that masks don't work at all
But we had to download the original data from github to see
that because they didn't mention it in the paper. The bottom
line: mask are a complete joke with no science to back it up.
Pure politics.
END QUOTE
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/everyone-risk-blood-clots-cdc-pfizer-issue-urgent-
warnings-blood-clots-even-healthiest-athletes/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-gateway-
pundit&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=daily
“Everyone is at Risk for Blood Clots!” –

CDC and Pfizer Issue Urgent Warnings
on Blood Clots Even in “The Healthiest
Athletes”
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/fda-executive-officer-exposes-close-ties-between-agency-and-
pharmaceutical-companies/
QUOTE
Project Veritas published Part Two of its series on the FDA on Wednesday night which
featured FDA Executive Officer, Christopher Cole, speaking about the inner workings of
the agency including the FDA’s conflicts of interest, overspending, and why it’s hard for
those within the agency to speak out on such abuses.

In the footage, Cole talks about the impact that pharmaceutical companies have on the
agency including the process for approving drugs.
END QUOTE
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/fda-exec-on-camera-reveals-future-covid-policy-biden-
wants-to-inoculate-as-many-people-as-possible/
Forbidden Knowledge TV
forbiddenknowledgetv.net
FDA Exec on Camera Reveals Future COVID Policy: 'Biden Wants to Inoculate as
Many People as Possible'
QUOTE
FROM PROJECT VERITAS
Project Veritas published Part Two of its series on the FDA on Wednesday night which
featured FDA Executive Officer, Christopher Cole, speaking about the inner workings of
the agency including the FDA’s conflicts of interest, overspending, and why it’s hard for
those within the agency to speak out on such abuses.
In the footage, Cole talks about the impact that pharmaceutical companies have on the
agency including the process for approving drugs.
“A long time ago, Congress approved user fees for [the] FDA. Basically, we charge
the industry millions of dollars in order to hire more drug reviewers and vaccine
reviewers, which will speed up the approval process, so they make more money,” Cole
says in the hidden camera footage.
He then reveals that the FDA tones down the impact that these user fees have on the
agency’s operations because, “they’re dependent on the drug companies, and the
vaccine companies and these other companies for their agency to operate.”
The incendiary footage, which features Cole talking about how the additional money the
FDA brings in “gets banked” to be spent on “whatever you can, whether it’s right or

wrong,” also features Cole discussing reasons why it’s difficult for anyone in government
to speak out about practices he sees as “probably excessive.”
“I don’t think there’s enough people saying — they’re, like, ‘Look, that’s fine, but that’s
not right. So, we’re not going to charge that.” You don’t want to be that person. You’re not
going to have a long shelf life in the agency if you’re always that person,” Cole said.
“There’s not an incentive to speak out in government, surprisingly. You would think there
would be, but there’s not. It’s better just to just not say anything and just ignore it. The
whistleblower, well, it’s high-profile whistleblower statutes and everything, that’s kind of
ridiculous,” Cole said before adding “it’s better to just stay quiet and accept.”
Cole’s LinkedIn page lists him as an Executive Officer within the agency’s
Countermeasures Initiatives, which plays a critical role in ensuring that drugs, vaccines,
and other measures to counter infectious diseases and viruses are safe. He made these
revelations on a hidden camera to an undercover Project Veritas reporter.
A spokesperson for FDA issued a statement yesterday saying, “The person purportedly in
the video does not work on vaccine matters and does not represent the views of the FDA.”
This statement appears to contradict a phone call released Wednesday afternoon by Project
Veritas wherein Cole reiterated, during the conversation with Project Veritas Founder and
CEO, James O’Keefe, that he is “a manager in the office that helps oversee the approval of
the COVID vaccines for emergency approval.”
END QUOTE
The following is what I transcribed from the 2 videos with the first set of numbers relating to the
screen print image number and the second number being the time shown on this image.
QUOTE
088 01:02 I’m the manager for the, Food and Drug Administration.
090 01:04 My agency oversees vaccines.
093 01:08 vaccine approvals and devices for vaccines.

PART 1
FDA Exec on camera reveals Future COVID Policy Biden Wants To Include As Many
People As Possible
094 01:11 In my office, clears all the emergency approvals.

096 01:14 Because- since COVID is under an emergency order,
098 01:17 We expedite the approval of any emergency.
102 01:21 I’ve been there like twenty-two years.
104 01:23 Biden wants to inoculate as many people as possible
Christopher Cole. Executive Officer of Countermeasures Initiative:

003 01:28 So, you’ll have to get an annual shot [COVID Vaccine].
005 01:30 I mean, it hasn’t been formally announced yet
007 01:33 ‘cause they don’t want to rile everyone up.
PV Journalist
009 01:35 Is it going to be formally announced?

011 01:38 Yeah, yeah at some point.
013 01:39 I mean, it’s [vaccine] going to be [annual].
015 01:40 and some of it’s been talked about publicly.
017 01:42 But it hasn’t been talked about on like CNN or Fox
020 01:46 or MSNBC or anything.
022 01:49 But yeah, it’ll [COVID Vaccine] – you’ll have to get an annual..;
024 01:53 I think what’s going to happen is it’s going to be a gradual thing. School’s going
to mandate it.
026 01:58 Why do they [toddlers] need the third one [COVID Vaccine]?
028 02:00 Well, the same reason you or I would need the third one.
030 02:03 because…the vaccine…it wanes.
032 02:09 Your ability to fight it, it wanes.
034 02:11 So, the three will bolster your system
036 02:14 and then there will be an annual [COVID vaccine]…
038 02:16 …eventually and annual [COVID vaccine], just like the flu shot.
PV Journalist:
040 02:17 For the toddlers?

042 02:19 Well, for everyone.
PV Journalist:
045 02:21 Okay. So, the toddlers too, then will have to get them annually?

046 Probably.
PV Journalist:
049 02:22 Okay. So, the toddlers too, then will have to get them annually?

050 02:23 Probably.
052 02:25 I mean, that’s in the future, we aren’t sure.
054 02:27 That might involve more studies.
062 02:31
066 02:40
PV Journalist:
068 02:44 You guys have been in the news a lot the last coup-le of days.

070 02:48 Yeah. We’re looking at…trying to approve-
072 02:53 I don’t completely agree with their [FDA]- process.
075 02:56 They’re {FDA] looking at trying to inoculate kids under five years old.
077 03:02 between six months and five years old.
PV Journalist:
080 03:04 What do you mean you don’t agree with the process?

083 03:06 Well, I mean, they don’t have all the-
084 03:08 all the test aren’t there.

(INSERT - WRITERS NOTE: India refuses to accept Pfizer’s claimed test result but
insister it has to be done in India, and Pfizer then withdrew its application. I smell a rat!
Why did the TGA without raw provide for “provisional approval”?)
086 03:11 So, I agree with the thing that it is important to inoculate them [toddlers].
088 03:15 But you can’t provide the parent as much assurity as you normally want to.
090 03:20 It’s an EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] for all age groups, all
designations,
092 03:35 and then you have to get approved by specific age groups
094 03:38 based on the study.
PV Journalist:
096 03:39 Do you think it’s really an emergency for the toddlers?

098 03:43 Well, they’re all approved under an emergency
100 03:46 just because it…
102 03:48 …it’s not as, as impactful as some of the other approvals-
104 03:51 emergency approvals,
106 03:54 but they’re all being approved under that standard.
108 03:57 the efficacy data doesn’t have to be as high.
110 04:01 The standard is on emergency use authorizations
112 04:03 is that it does more benefit than harm.
PV Journalist:
114 04:06 So, how do you know it’s already getting approved?

116 04:11 well, they’re not going to…
118 04:13 I mean, just from everything I’ve heard,
120 04:15 they’re [FDA] not going to not approve it [toddler vaccine].
PV Journalist:
122 04:16 I thought their cases weren’t that high
125 04:18 for six to four-year-olds.
126 4:20 They’re not, but it- because it’s related to COVID, it’s under that [Emergency Use
Authorization] approval process.
PV Journalist:
128 04:26 so, how many babies did they have to jab basically for the trial?

130 04:32 I don’t know, I haven’t looked at the trial. How many people they did.
132 04:35 You never-
135 04:38 there’s always a chance of a long, long term effect,
136 04:39 especially with someone younger.
138 04:53 It’s harder to find like pregnant women for these studies
140 04:58 and a significant number in order to be statistically accurate.

142 05:05 they haven’t tested enough on pregnancy on vaccines and anything
and women
144 05:11 cause they have different, you know, systems than men and-
PV Journalist:
146 05:13 They haven’t tested enough?

148 05:15 Well, they have, but they haven’t done enough prior.
150 05:17 Now they [unintelligible] have been very good at promoting that,
154 05:21 but that was an issue for a period of time.
PV Journalist:
155 05:24 Well, I feel like that’s still an issue-

157 05:26 It is still an issue. It’s still- we still haven’t gotten there.
PV Journalist:
160 05:28 I read like a couple articles about it [Pfizer vaccine]
162 05:30 and everything I saw was that the first two shots weren’t effective.

164 05:35 There, there has been…
166 05:36 yes it is- has not been as effective as they’re expecting. I agree.
168 05:46
(INSERT – WRITERS NOTE: Christopher Cole’s Linkedin profile I understand indicates

that he holds the position as indicated as FDA executive Officer of Countermeasures
Initiative)

219 00:52 Well, there’s a money incentive for Pfizer and the drug companies to
promote additional vaccinations.
222 01:01 Well, I mean…it’s well…
225 01:07 …it’ll be recurring fountain of revenue.
226 01:13 It might not be that much initially, but it’ll recurring if they can,
229 01:16 if they can get every person required at an annual vaccine
230 01:20 that is recurring return of money going into their company.
PV Journalist:
232 01:26 Okay. So, like if they mandate it for these toddlers
234 01:29 then it’s guaranteed income.

236 01:32 Right. At some level.
PV Journalist:
238 01:34 So, do you think that’s part of the reason why-

241 01:36 Well, that’s- I don’t think that’s the reason, but that’s obviously…
242 01:41 …one of- that’s one of the benefits.
244 01:44 they clearly want it also for that reason.
246 01:48 A long time ago, congress approved user fees for the FDA.
248 01:54 basically we charge the [Big Pharma] industry millions of dollars
251 01:59 in order to hire more drug reviewers and vaccine reviewers, which speed up the
approval process so they make more money.
252 02:06 Like our budget’s, It’s like five and a half billion [dollars].
PV Journalist:
255 02:12 Wait, five and a half billon for what?

256 02:13 FDA’s budget.
258 02:15 There’s almost a billion dollars a year going into FDA’s budget from the people
we regulate.
PV Journalist:
260 02:23 What do you mean the people we regulate?

262 02:26 Well, the drug companies, the food companies, the vaccine companies, they pay
us hundreds of millions of dollars a year
264 02:33 to hire and keep the reviewers to approve their products.
266 02:37 There’s not a direct correlation.
268 I think sometimes the agency [FDA] whitewashes the impact of the user fees.
270 02:46 They [FDA] tone down the impact of the user fees on their operations
272 02:51 ‘cause they [FDA] know they’re dependent on the drug companies and the
vaccine companies and the other companies
274 02:37 for their agency [FDA] to operate.
276 03:00 On the overall impact on approvals…
278 03:03 I don’t think it has an impact on FDA operations.
PV Journalist:
280 03:06 Okay.

282 03:07 On, you know, on general-
284 03:11 I mean, obviously there are some people in the agency, which might think
more favourably on some drug companies
288 03:18 that are in the approval process.
290 03:20 Well the dirty stuff is never really publicized.
292 03:23 I mean, it’s…there’s more pressure.
294 03:26 there’s more pressure to approve something.
296 03:27 Just because it’s- most of them- well, almost all of ‘em are based on the actual
data.
298 03:35 So, they give you more money, yes, that’s great and it increases the chance of
an approval.
300 03:42 But, if the data’s not there, it comes and bites the reviewer in the ass.
302 03:46 Or they [FDA reviewers] approve it, and then like there’s adverse reactions,
which we’d have to pull it off the market.
304 03:51 It’s happened, it happens a lot.
PV Journalist:
306 03:51 does that happen?

308 03:51 It’s happened, it happens a lot.
310 03:53 And all these like organizations within FDA, they like started to see all this
cash in their eyes.
312 03:59 It’s like, oh, I need to grab some of that [cash]. And I think we’ve gone too
far on that.
314 04:05 They’re [FDA] getting a little overzealous in charging the user fees to other
non-payroll expenses.
PV Journalist:
316 04:34 why would they do that?

318 04:15 Well, why not? They money gets banked.
320 04:19 It’s not spent, it’s a multi-year and the money gets banked there.
322 04:23 And you want to be able to spend it.
PV Journalist:
324 04:26 Spend it on…?

326 04:27 On whatever you can, whether it’s right or wrong.
328 04:31 So, then Congress approved it at a smaller level.
330 04:35 They approved it mainly for payroll, but then also
332 04:38 now it’s supporting infrastructure and everything
334 04:40 just like this animal out there.
336 04:42 I think it’s probably excessive [charging user fees],
338 04:47 but [Big Pharma] industry doesn’t want to complain about it too much,
340 04:50 but I think FDA is probably-
343 04:55 I think they’re [FDA] using it to cover other expenses that don’t necessarily
tie in the need of the user fees.

346 05:02 I don’t think there’s enough people saying there [FDA], Look, that’s fine, but
that’s not right.
347 05:07 So, we’re not going to charge that [user fees].
349 05:09 You don’t want to be that person.
351 05:11 You’re not going to have a long shelf life in the agency [FDA] if you’re
always that person.
PV Journalist:
354 05:16 Always that person that’s kind of over s-

356 05:17 Criticizing or suggesting that maybe we shouldn’t be doing this.
PV Journalist:
358 05:24 So, if you speak out about it, if you see them…?

360 05:28 You’re marked.
PV Journalist:
362 05:31 What do you mean you’re marked?

364 05:34 You…
366 05:36 You’re not going to get certain levels in government.
368 05:40 There’s not an incentive to speak out in government surprisingly.
370 05:46 You would think there would be, but it’s not.
373 05:48 It’s better just to just not say anything and just ignore it.
375 05:57 the whistleblower, while it’s high profile, whistleblower statutes and
everything, that’s of ridiculous.
377 06:05 there’s no protection for someone who speaks up.
PV Journalist:
379 06:09 Isn’t there supposed to be?

381 06:11 There is supposed to be, but like there’s easy ways to get around that.
PV Journalist:
383 06:15 How do you get around it?

385 06:16 Well, you…you’ll be marked from getting jobs because another office is not
going to want to hire you
387 06:27 if you’ve spoken out about something right or wrong, they don’t look at what
you’ve spoken out about.
389 06:33 They’re just not willing to…
391 06:35 …government’s not rocking the boat, and they don’t want to-
393 06:11 which is the problem I have with- one of the problems I have
395 06:43 with government is like, they don’t like people rocking the boat
397 06:46 for right and wrong at all cost.
399 06:49 They want to hire a safe person
401 06:51 that can do the job but doesn’t necessarily- is a great hire.
PV Journalist:
404 06:58 So, the type of person that will turn a blind eye, if they see anything?

408 07:03 That’s who they would hire.
410 07:05 from what I’ve heard and they- No one’s going to hire that person and you’re like
stunned.
412 07:11 It’s better just to stay quiet and accept it.
414 07:16

END QUOTE
QUOTE email Doctors leading patients to their deaths

From: The COVID Blog <support@thecovidblog.com>
Date: 4/2/22 3:53 am (GMT+10:00)
To:
Subject: Doctors leading patients to their deaths
Hello All,
It's Brian, founder of COVID Legal USA and Editor-In-Chief of The COVID
Blog. I'm really curious as to how many critical thinkers still trust doctors in
2022. The average American doctor made an extra $216,000 last year just for
talking all of their patients into receiving three mRNA injections. A prostitute
will tell a man she loves him, because she's being paid - just like doctors
regurgitate the "safe and effective" lie for money. Your life and well-being are
at risk as long as you continue worshiping the white coat gods.
If you still trust “mainstream” doctors after reading

these four stories, then may God help you
February will be our first month in a while publishing new content almost
everyday. That's because everyone is stepping up with the fundraising.
We're gradually getting back to where we were prior to August 2021 when all
the payment processors started banning us for publishing truth. Thank you
guys so much for keeping OUR platform funded.
END QUOTE email Doctors leading patients to their deaths
https://www.westernjournal.com/pfizer-suffers-black-eye-drug-regulators-bar-2-8-billion-people-companys-covid-
vaccine/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=conservative-brief-WJ&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=western-journal
Pfizer Suffers Black Eye as Drug Regulators Bar 2.8 Billion People from Company's
COVID Vaccine
QUOTE

Drug-maker Pfizer has backed away from efforts to secure emergency-use authorization in
India for its COVID-19 vaccine.
India’s Central Drugs Standard Control Organization said its experts did not support
the vaccine because there are still investigations taking place into side effects that
have been reported in other countries.
Indian officials had demanded Pfizer conduct a safety and efficacy study in India,
according to Reuters.
“The firm presented its proposal for emergency use authorization of Covid-19 mRNA
Vaccine BNT162b before the committee. The committee noted that incidents of palsy,
anaphylaxis and other SAEs (serious adverse events) have been reported during post-
marketing and the causality of the events with the vaccine is being investigated,”
India’s ThePrint reported, citing minutes of the Feb. 3 meeting of the group’s experts.
The vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna have both been linked to an increased risk
of myocarditis in some studies.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Although other drugmakers who wanted to enter the Indian market conducted drug trials
there, Pfizer had sought an exception to the rule based on trials done elsewhere.
“The data collected has been endorsed by various regulatory agencies (including the most
evolved) and they have given EUA [based on] … that data,” Pfizer told Reuters in a
statement.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
India’s Central Drugs Standard Control Organization said Pfizer officials were no-shows at
meetings after the company’s application was initially submitted in December.
END QUOTE
What is clear to me is that Pfizer reportedly obtained FDA approval concealing relevant details
and it appears to me also that FDA officials are on the take and well India simply made clear it
wanted to have reliable test result. And this is why I “suspect” that the TGA may be on the take
where it did a provisional approval without having the raw data to justify any such decision and
having flip-flopped and allowing contrary to what it stated on its website (as I exposed
previously) to have no proper testing done before embarking to have it universally applied on
some vaccine mandate in violation of implied constitutional prohibitions, etc. Then we have the
concealment by the federal Department of health and the false and misleading statements on its
website again as I exposed previously, and then we have the false/misleading ATAGI claims and
we have APHRA and other federal health bodies interfering with the medical profession to
advice their patients/clients as to the true risks associated with being jabbed, etc.
How on earth could the TGA allow for some kind of lottery to be used to coerce Australians to
be jabbed?
We also have that the W.H.O. changed its policy that instead of having to “aspirate” when a
person it to be injected this no longer is required. This in my view is all part of Bill Gates
depopulation issue. Indeed, many medical doctors are warning that failing to “ASPERATE”
(Meaning withdrawing the plunger to see if any blood is drawn – so to know being in a vein
instead of being in the muscle) is what likely causes many to be harmed, indeed die from what is
injected.
Mind you the purported SARS-CoV-2 virus was claimed to be so in January 2020 while
Moderna already had a patent for its spike protein in 2016. So, it had a crystal ball to know what
alleged virus was going to eventuate?
Obviously a person like Scott Morrison would not be able to grasp this rot, perhaps because he is
part of a something like “young leaders” with the W.E.F. which to me really comes to being a
TRAITOR to once own country to pursue the NEW WORLD ORDER and by this by the
provisions of Section 44 of the constitution he lost his seat and ineligible to stand for re-election
also. And no I am not just targeting him because the so called Leader of the Opposition in my
view is no better. To my understanding the constitution in particular s44 prohibit any person to
be in r4eceipt of monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds, other than those who are excluded
from this rule, such as Ministers of the crown and retired Defense Force personnel, and so I see
no justification for any “shadow Minister” to be paid monies when not at all holding a
Ministerial position. As such all those so called “shadow Ministers” should be deemed having
lost their seats.
* Can’t the High Court of Australia overrule the constitution to allow it?
**#** As I indicated already the High Court of Australia has no judicial powers to override
constitutional provisions!
* Will you vote in this year’s federal and/or state election?

**#** Absolutely not, my “political liberty” is enshrined in the constitution as a legal principle
and I have no intention to vote for any politicians (candidate) who I view is directly and/or
indirectly involved in war crimes, mass murder, crimes against humanity, etc.
* Surely, you can vote for someone else?

**#** No, because the way the electoral system works is that your vote could end up being
counted for precisely a person you object to. So
I WILL NOT VOTE AS PER MY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXERCISE MY
“POLITICAL LIBERTY”
No use to have a constitution that provides certain rights and then allowed to be coerced to do
otherwise.
* They may take you to court!

**#** They did already twice, and succeeded in both cases to defeat them!
* You must have had good lawyers.

**#** Actually, I represented myself all along. In my view the Constitution should be clarified
that no elector shall in any manner be required and/or coerced to vote in a political election.
* Would that apply to the States/Territories?

**#** it would because the states are created in s106 “subject to this constitution”.
* What is your view about this failed proposed legislation as to religious freedoms?
**#** In my view the Commonwealth has no legislative powers for this at all. S116 is very clear
about this. People have “religious liberty” as well as “political liberty” and regardless if I do or
do not like or appreciate some persons comments I have to accept they are entitled to their views
unless they are trying to indoctrinate it upon others and or violate the rule of law. As the framers
of the constitution made clear:

QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
As such, ordinary criminal law that applies to anyone not just targeting people exercising their
religious beliefs is well within the commonwealth’s legislative powers. However, to deny say a
baker his right not to use his artistic skills and force him/her to bake something against his desire
is not a criminal law per se but rather to indoctrinate religious practices to serve
unconstitutionally the aims of politicians.
* So, there is no need for any laws to protect people to exercise their FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
etc?
**#** It is already embedded as a legal principle in the constitution and I have already
extensively canvassed that in previous writings so no need to repeat the same. Also, as I
explained then that the European Union various provisions actually also applies complimentary
to Australian law. Again, no need to set this out extensively again as it is all explained at my
https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati blog.
* Do you agree with India refusing to allow Pfizer to use its U.S.A. approval and should the
TGA have done so?
**#** Not only do I view this is the right way to go about but also the TGA should have done so
from onset. That is the very basic message the TGA portrays on its website , as I previously
exposed, but then it seems to have rolled over for “government policy” and as such I view it is
incompetent to look after the interest, health, wellbeing and indeed the safety of Australians.
That is why I view there must be a clarification in the constitution that Australians are entitled to
have appropriate medical and other health matters assessments based upon medical and other
relevant science without any political interference!
*.Isn’t that precisely what the section 101 Inter-State Commission was to do about trade and
commerce?
**#** You are right on but politicians are as always seeking to undermine this. Here we had the
so called leader of the Opposition going on about funding $200 for road structure where clearly
this ought to be for the Inter-State Commission to determine, and not by politicians to do pork
barreling.
*.Have you had any interferences with any of the Big Tech companies?
**#** Actually, Twitter suspended me since 26 January 2021, this is now more than a year, but
never made known upon what grounds it did so. It was obviously political issues, as the Big Tech
companies have invested in Pharmaceutical companies, and when the federal government in
violation of “political liberty” pursued a clamp down on people like me to use the internet to
expose its rot then it seems to me Twitter was willing to do so. As such the Federal Government
is part of the problem and shows yet again it couldn’t care less what our constitution stands for.
What the Federal Government doesn’t seem to realize is that when you seek to prevent
publication then usually you attract people to search for it. What the Federal Government should
have done was to make clear to the Big Tech companies that if they prevent the free flow of
communication then it no longer can operate within the commonwealth of Australia.
*.Are the Big Tech companies not permitted to block incitement of violence, etc?
**#** Well, since when is a peaceful protest where truckies had BBQ’s and air castles for kids,
being a violent protest to be prevented to be reported whereas the “mostly friendly” murderous
violent destruction of businesses somehow is OK to promote? Come on, this is pure politics and
the Federal Government should have made clear this cannot be accepted. To be a “platform” a
Big Tech company must respect the “political liberty” of Australians. Wait until Twitter or other
Big Tech company bans a politician then they will scream blue murder, just as long as it fits their
purpose they do not care less.
*.Have you got any issue with hospitals, etc, with this COVID issue?
**#** It is totally absurd that basically hospitals go about murdering people for the sake of
getting monies. Hospitals, medical centres, etc, are bound to respect the constitutional rights of
Australians. As such, they cannot disregard constitutional rights let alone override them and put
in place absurd mandates. Neither that they can deny a patient having appropriate contact with
family members, attorney’s, etc. This nonsense of DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) should never be
used merely because some doctor writes it on the record to kill off a patient so the hospital can
make some monies. Neither should the Department of Health, APHRA and other health bodies
be permitted to interfere with the doctor-patient communication, such as to deny the doctor to
explain the adverse issue of being jabbed.
In my view all those board members and public servants should be banned for life to ever hold
any public servant position, be a member of government or have any contractual arrangements
with any government.
Politicians who stood by and did nothing to stop this rot likewise should be banned. Also, no
politician should be allowed to be in total more than 12 years a Member of Parliament. Meaning
that if they say were in the parliament for 3 years and subsequent for another 9 years then after 9
years their seats automatically become vacant, regardless if the seat they were elected for still is
having a year or more to go before an election is due. The criteria will be 4 x 365 days plus 1 day
for odd year making it totally 1461 days irrespective if this is served continuously or in parts.
Any candidate for a political election shall be required to declare any membership of any
organization that may be in conflict of being a Member of Parliament. As such, Scott Morrison
the moment he became a member of the “young leaders” of the W.E.F. he was to have this
declared and his seat be deemed declared vacant from the day he became such a member to
imply he was for a NEW WORLD ORDER the W.E.F. pursues. Failing to declare this should
be punishable by a term of imprisonment not less than 10 years. I understand that Greg Hunt
Minister for health was a director of W.E.F. and I view his membership as a Member of
Parliament is untenable because of this. We cannot have Members of Parliament deemed to
represent the electorate and if a Minister to represent all Australians when their goals are to
essentially overthrow our constitutional system and replace it with the W.E.F. kind of NEW
WORLD ORDER, where unelected persons decide our health , wellbeing, etc.
Let’s neither ignore that Scott Morrison allegedly entered in some secret contract with
pharmaceutical companies that are claimed to be NATIONAL SECURITY. There never can be
any NATIONAL SECURITY issue to deny taxpayers the right to know what their tax monies
are used for. Neither can there be a NATIONAL SECURITY excuse to deny Australians to
have full and proper knowledge what such agreement/contract is about as they are entitled to be
fully aware of all related legal consequences and what is precisely contained in any compound
injected into them, in particular that which was coerced. NATIONAL SECURITY rather
requires that this is a full disclosure.
Neither can it be held constitutionally appropriate for the Federal Government to accept legal
responsibility at cost of taxpayers for any wrong doing by a pharmaceutical company. While the
constitution specifically provides for acquisition this is only for government purposes. As such, if
for the sake of training armed forces the Commonwealth may need to acquire some land then it
can do so. However it cannot acquire the legal liability of a pharmaceutical company regarding
the adverse effect of some alleged vaccine and lump tax payers with the cost. In a sense the
taxpayer is to sue himself/herself for damages, which is an absurdity.
Then we have that this alleged secret agreement/contract provides that where Pfizer unlawfully
uses the patent right of a patent right holder then the Commonwealth shall be liable for any
compensation to the patent holder. There is in my view no constitutional provision for such
sheer and utter legal nonsense.
What Pfizer is essential claiming is that it is above the rule of law and sanctioned so by the
Commonwealth. Well, would it likewise accept this someone violating any patent right of Pfizer?
I do not think so.
Hence, if indeed the Federal Government entered in such agreement/contract that I view each
and every Member of Parliament involved must be deemed to have violated S44 of the
constitution and they were no longer a Member of Parliament from the date such
agreement/contract was entered into and they are not eligible to stand for any re-election. Also
those public servants and any lawyer involved likewise shall have to be charged in relation to
such involvement and be banned for life to ever again be able to occupy such position.
* Can I just interrupt you for a moment? What about ASAIO, and other intelligence officers and
law enforcement like the Australian Federal Police?
**#** Thanks for asking. They all should be in my view charged with aiding and abetting
treason, terrorism, etc. I commenced to file my COMPLAINT with the Australian Federal
Police on 6 August 2021, which is more than 6 months ago and there can be absolutely no excuse
that the AFP has not commenced to investigate matters and let in the process Australian suffering
and even dying, which I view it could likely have avoided. It has a legal obligation to act when a
COMPLAINT is lodged with it. It may have held that my COMPLAINT was failing sufficient
information, etc, (Not that I seek to imply it was so) but then it has never even acknowledged my
COMPLAINT having been registered. And this even so I provided copies to Scott Morrison PM
and as such it cannot be claimed that the Federal Government was unaware of it. I understand
that once I commenced to lodge my COMPLAINT then lawyers in other jurisdictions, such as
in Europe having been provided copies of my COMPLAINT urged their fellow citizens to do
likewise. I understand that in the UK (United Kingdom) this has resulted to a murder
investigation being conducted.
Here we have Scott Morrison going on about sanctions against Russia while he himself hardly is
clean.
President Vladimir Putin as I understood it some time ago made clear he demanded that foreign
troops would leave Ukraine and that Ukraine never would join NATO. To me, the media, and
others, response seemed to be to ridicule President Vladimir Putin. Well, they all seemed to
ignore that legally Ukraine was a State within the Russian federation and as such President
Vladimir Putin was well entitled to demand they leave Russian soil alone. They ignored his
lawful request and well President Vladimir Putin decided that the time had come to make clear
he is not any longer going to tolerate this essential incursions into the Russian Federation.
Let us now look at Scott Morrison who is all about sanctions and “rules are rules”. Well, what
sanctions did Australia put onto the UK and the USA for invading Iraq? Oops, Australia rather
joined the war mongering. Did the European song festival exclude the UK from singing in the
contest? I do not think so. Yet now becomes political to exclude any Russian contestant. The
same with sport where apparently the F1 (motoring) now is stripped from the Russian
Federation, but it didn’t do so against Australia unconstitutionally invading Iraq, etc. Neither so
against Australia for its draconic unconstitutional mandates to coerce Australians and others to
be jabbed with some unknown secret compound that caused dead and misery. It seems to me
Scott Morrison is all about “rules are rules” when it suits his purposes but otherwise he couldn’t
give a darn. President John F. Kennedy acted when Russian missiles were in Cuba. Not because
Cuba was a part of the USA, but because of NATIONAL SECURITY. Now we had that NATO
was actually inside Russian Federal territory, in my view, itself an Act of War, and as such the
Russian federation not only had a right but also a duty to its citizens to cause the removal of any
invading army into its territory. Didn’t the Federal government strip the Belt and Road from
Victoria that it had unconstitutionally entered into with china? Well, it cannot have its cake and
eat it, that it can enforce its legal powers but somehow the Russian federation is not permitted to
do so. Let it be very clear those who are really GUILTY are those who failed to remove the
invading army from Ukraine, and that includes the Ukraine Government. If we had a competent
ASIO and other intelligent services they should have learned from the FAKE WMD saga that
they need to be well informed to FACTS. Well they ought to have advised the federal
government that the Russian federation was well entitled to demand a invading army to leave. In
fact, the Russian Federation did not need to make this demand at all as the mere presence of a
foreign army in its territory was an ACT OF WAR, and the Framers of the Constitution made
this very clear!
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 112-The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion, and, on the application of
the Executive Government of a state, against domestic violence.
Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I beg to move-
That the word "invasion" (line 2) be struck out, and the word "attack" substituted.
Why should the protection of the Commonwealth be confined only to invasion? We are not likely ever to be
invaded, but we are exceedingly likely to be attacked.
Mr. BARTON.-Any attack is an invasion in the sense in which the word is used in this clause.
Mr. GORDON.-The gunning by a cruiser standing off a city is not an invasion, but it is an attack.
Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds invasion follows.

Mr. GORDON.-I think "attack" is very much better. Of course, if the word "invasion" covers the ground,
well and good; but while "attack" covers "invasion," does "invasion" cover "attack"? Originally, the
amendment I intended to move used both the words "attack" and "invasion."
Mr. REID.-You can repel an invasion 100 miles from the coast.
Mr. GORDON.-But how does the honorable member know that an invasion is intended?
[start page 692]
Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country was
approaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love.
Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to invade, but to
attack.
Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the purpose of
attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian fleet at anchor?
Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is only bound to
protect every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its duty, and South Australia was
invaded, South Australia would have a claim against the Commonwealth. But, it appears to me, that it
should have an equal claim against the Commonwealth if it was simply attacked, and not invaded. However,
if the leader of the Convention thinks that "invasion" covers "attack," I am willing to leave the matter to the
Drafting Committee, but I have some doubt on the point.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am perfectly satisfied that when the guns are booming there will
be no discussion about the meaning of the two words.
Mr. GORDON.-Ought the construction of this Act to be left until the guns are booming? I thought
the object was to prevent the guns booming at all.
Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I think there is something in the point raised by my honorable friend
(Mr. Gordon). We have previously used separately the terms "naval" and "military." Now, an attack would be
naval, while an invasion would be military.
The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) press his amendment?
Mr. GORDON.-No. If the leader of the Convention relies on his booming guns I am content.
The amendment was withdrawn.
END QUOTE
Again:
Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country was
approaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love.
Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to invade, but to
attack.
Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the purpose of
attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian fleet at anchor?
Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is only bound to
protect every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its duty, and South Australia was
invaded, South Australia would have a claim against the Commonwealth. But, it appears to me, that it
should have an equal claim against the Commonwealth if it was simply attacked, and not invaded. However,
if the leader of the Convention thinks that "invasion" covers "attack," I am willing to leave the matter to the
Drafting Committee, but I have some doubt on the point.
In my view there can be absolutely no doubt that NATO was invading Ukraine a state which
legally remained part of the Russian Federation (as I wrote about previously):
https://www.simonparkes.org/post/ukrainian-is-a-part-of-russia-meaning-russia-can-enter-at-any-time
Ukraine is Not a separate country - It was not registered as such, it is a part of
Russia, meaning Russia can enter at any time.
QUOTE
04/07/2014 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made a stunning statement, the distribution of which in
Ukrainian media and the Internet is banned. The conflict between the two countries was discussed at the
session of the UN Security Council. From this, the following conclusion was drawn:
Ukraine has not registered its borders since 12/25/1991. The UN has not registered the borders of Ukraine as
a sovereign state.
Therefore, it can be assumed that Russia is not committing any rights violations in relation to Ukraine.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Since Russia is the legal successor of the USSR (this is confirmed by the decisions of international courts on
property disputes between the former USSR and foreign countries), the lands on which Ukraine, Belarus and
Novorossiya are located belong to Russia, and nobody has the right to be without them Russia's consent to
dispose of this area.
Basically, now all Russia has to do is declare that this area is Russian and that everything that happens in this
area is an internal matter of Russia.
END QUOTE
It is beyond me that Australian intelligence services, including ASIO, seem to be so backwards

not to grasp this simple matter. All this additional funding since the Iraq unconstitutional
invasion into the intelligence services seems to me to have been a sheer waste of taxpayer’s
monies. You cannot improve intelligence where there is none to begin with. If I, as an Australian,
without the fast bureaucratic environment that the Federal Government has to its availability can
nevertheless somehow be more aware of the legal issues then the Federal Government with it
billions of dollars on intelligence services can do then well it seem to be get rid of the lot and
start afresh with more intelligent people into the positions!
Australia in my view should mind it’s own business and have stayed out of the fray. Now, it
would do better to urge the European Song festival to not act politically to exclude the Russian
federation and neither for then F1 racing to be denied.
But to me we have gross incompetent Ministers and so called shadow Ministers who simply
cannot somehow put their brain into gear to think in a reasonable and proper manner.
* Why do you not stand for election?
**#** I did in the past as an INDEPENDENT candidate and to me the elections were rotten to
the core.
The following may underline that the same is eventuating in The Netherlands and I understand
likewise in other countries where Members of parliament are associated with the W.E.F. as to rig
election results to benefit those associated with the W.E.F.
https://www.cosmicworld.site/hier-zijn-de-bewijzen-dat-de-verkiezingen-doorgestoken-kaag-zijn
Hier zijn de bewijzen dat de verkiezingen doorgestoken Kaag zijn!
This translation by Google translate in my view is incorrect, this as contrary to the article that
Kaag had won, the details set out in the article indicates that as with Joe Biden the final count
was corrupted in various manner. The heading rather indicates it to be a Dutch “stolen election”
where Rutte allegedly was returned as Prime minister where various counting and “evidence”
seemed to prove otherwise. While in The Netherlands counting is done via ballot papers,
nevertheless in the end the numbers are put into a computer and then anyone who control the
computer system controls the outcome of the election regardless what the actual voting
intentions of the electors might have been. As I was born in Rotterdam The Netherlands and also
served in the Dutch Armed forces and so in NATO before in 1971 migrating to Australia I can
read the Dutch language and understand its meanings. However, as I am aware most of my
readers would not have that ability and if they translated the Dutch version into English might be
misconceiving what the article really was about. What my understanding of the article is that the
political parties that purportedly won the election in fact had lost it. However, as with the USA
2020 Presidential election there were unexplained changes to the voting tally so that in the end
Rutte somehow was allegedly re-elected.
QUOTE
Bron : https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/nl/stemfraude/
Kan het zijn dat Nederland een bananenrepubliek geworden is, waar de overheid sjoemelt
met de stemmen van het volk? Voor veel Nederlanders klinkt het onwaarschijnlijk. ‘Dit is
Amerika niet!’ zeggen sommigen verontwaardigd. Daarmee doelen ze op de
verkiezingsfraude die onlangs plaatsvond in Amerika.
Voor zij die nog niet op de hoogte zijn, even een samenvatting: diverse landen werkten
samen om Donald Trump te vervangen door Joe Biden. Trump moest van het toneel
verdwijnen, omdat hij het voornaamste obstakel was voor het vestigen van een wereldstaat.
Joe Biden daarentegen ondersteunt het plan om een Nieuwe Wereldorde te realiseren, dus
hij moest absoluut president worden.
Deze verkiezingsfraude in Amerika werd uitgebreid aangetoond, door diverse generaals,
kolonels en veiligheidsspecialisten van het Amerikaanse leger. Ook Amerika’s bekendste
advocaat Sidney Powell presenteerde een enorme hoeveelheid onweerlegbaar bewijs.
Uit Italie kwamen verklaringen onder eed, onthuld door de top advocaat van het
Hooggerechtshof. Daarin verklaarden betrokkenen grote aantallen stemmen van Trump
naar Biden gewisseld te hebben, gebruik makend van militaire software en satellieten.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Afzonderlijke regeringen van vele landen worden deel gemaakt van het plan voor het
vestigen van een wereldstaat, waarin alle controle in handen van de rijksten zal liggen. In
onderstaande foto wordt deze samenwerking duidelijk. Klaus Schwab zit in een kamer met
Rutte, Maxima en Kaag. Klaus Schwab is de oprichter van het World Economic Forum,
een belangrijke drijfveer in het plan voor de wereldstaat.

Schwab heeft in zijn boek ‘The Great Reset’ in detail uitgelegd hoe de pandemie gebruikt
dient te worden voor het verwezenlijken van hun doelen. Ze verbergen het dus niet, maar
zijn er open en duidelijk over.
In navolging van Rutte wil Kaag de eigenheid van Nederland nog meer afbrokkelen, ten
voordele van dit globalistische plan (bron). Om hun doel te verwezenlijken moeten ze dan
ook deze twee partijen de grootste maken in Nederland: VVD en D66. Zij zijn niets anders
dan de locale medewerkers van het World Economic Forum.
END QUOTE
Translated from Dutch to English (Google translate)

QUOTE
Could it be that the Netherlands has become a banana republic, where the government is
cheating with the votes of the people? To many Dutch people it sounds unlikely. “This is
not America!” some say indignantly. By this they mean the election fraud that recently
took place in America.
For those who are not yet aware, here's a summary: several countries worked together to
replace Donald Trump with Joe Biden. Trump had to disappear from the scene because he
was the main obstacle to establishing a world state. Joe Biden, on the other hand, supports
the New World Order plan, so he absolutely had to be president.
This election fraud in America was extensively demonstrated by various generals, colonels
and security specialists of the US military. America's most famous lawyer Sidney Powell
also presented a huge amount of irrefutable evidence.
From Italy came statements under oath, revealed by the top lawyer of the Supreme Court.
In it, those involved stated that they had switched large numbers of votes from Trump to
Biden, using military software and satellites.
END QUOTE
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/shocking-speech-2010-document-exposes-rockefeller-foundation-
globalist-scheme-video/
Shocking Speech by Thierry Baudet about 2010 Document ...
6 June 2021 ... Rair Foundation first broke the story by posting a video of a speech
by the Dutch MP, Thierry Baudet, who refers to a 2010 Rockefeller ...
https://banned.video/watch?id=60bd9f82a16a826dcebf7905
Dutch Leader Exposes Rockefeller Foundation And Globalist Scheme-banned-video
QUOTE
Chairperson, in 2010, the Rockerfeller Foundation, one of the most influential NGOs in the
world, developed a number of scenarios for the future of technology and international
development. This report.
And in this report, the Rockefeller Foundation described the so called “Lock Step
Scenario” on the coming of a world-wide pandemic and its aftermath. Already in 2010.
According to this scenario - and I have it here with me - the Chinese would be the first
begin with “required quarantine for all citizens” - that’s a quote - and immediate and
almost hermetic closing off of all borders. National leaders all over the world would
strengthen their power with laws, rules, and restrictions, from the requirement to wear
masks to body temperature checks on entering train stations, planes, buildings. It all comes
in here. But it doesn’t even stop there.
According to Scenario Lock Step, we have a lot more to look forward to:
“Even after the pandemic was over, “the researches write, “the authorian control would
remain, with supervision of the citizens and their activities, and would even be intensified.”
In this report from 2010, even climate lockdowns are hinted at. Precisely what they are
already beginning to talk about in our time. I quote: “To protect oneself against
increasingly global problems - from pandemics and transnational terrorism to
environmental crises and increasing poverty, leaders all over the world will increase their
grip on power.” And the report also predicts well how citizens would react to all the
regulations. Sorry, I say. Just as now, people shout with joy when they are vaccinated,
photos of their injected arm on social media - it is all in this report - and they beg for a
Corona passport, the Lock Step Scenario writers predict, just as I said. The more controlled
world thus finds, so they predicted in 2010, much acceptance among the people. Citizens
voluntarily gave up part of their sovereignty - and their privacy - in exchange for more
safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant and even eager to get more top-down
steering and supervision. National leaders had more freedom to enforce order in ways they
themselves saw fit. That this would lead to a digital passport, the authors of the
Rockerfeller Foundation report had also foreseen.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Just 13 years after the pandemic, the public would, according to the Rockerfeller
Foundation, realize they have been cheated, had enough of the controls and the
absurd power fantasies of the masters.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
That we chatter over, “Oh, the infection will come back.” while this past year naturally, it
also happened, just as it happens every year, just as naturally, that with autumn, come the
new infection, just like always happens. and we pretend that it is because of Corona while
what we earlier called the flu, would seem to have completely disappeared. But it is most
important, and these will be my closing words, that we realize that with a pretext, one or
another hysteria over this Chinese flu, and infrastructure has been put together that in any
arbitrary moment, because of any arbitrary event, the authority can be applied again.
Lockdowns, masks, keeping distance, no more travel, no more hand shaking, allowing
absurd experimental injections. This corona period was an obedience training. The Tweede
Kamer and the Rutte government have carried out this training brilliantly. Congratulations.
Klaus Schwab can be proud of you. The globalist plan can find the passageway, and the
next step toward mass surveillance and total control can be set.
END QUOTE
(The “Tweede Kamer” is referred to in Australia as the “House of Representatives”)
When I voted in a small town (Australia) I decided to vote for a specific candidate standing for
the Upper House and marked every square, and subsequently checked if I had correctly marked
each square appropriately in order of numbering. Yet, afterwards the election results of that
polling booth did not at all show a single result of that candidate I had specifically voted for. I
then knew already that voting is rigged. Many subsequent instances I came across how elections
are rigged. Australia and The Netherlands have a paper ballot but in the end it is tally in a
computer and then anyone can end up being elected where a person with the most votes can end
up with the least votes and visa versa.
As with the FDA example you are marked if you spill the beans about corrupt/fraudulent conduct
and so in the end who can you trust?
https://benjaminfulford.net/2022/01/31/79069/

The Rockefeller “rules-based world order” circles the drain of history
Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis
QUOTE
The World Council for Health declares that it is time to put an end to this humanitarian
crisis. Further, the Council also declares that any direct or indirect involvement in the
manufacturing, distribution, administration and promotion of these injections violates
basic principles of common law, constitutional law and natural justice, as well as the
Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration, and other international treaties…
https://spreadophilia.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/world-council-for-health-calls-for-an-
immediate-stop-to-the-covid-19-experimental-vaccines/
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/campaign/covid-19-vaccine-cease-and-desist/#continue-
reading
END QUOTE
and
QUOTE
“Daniel Andrews has a Chinese mafia business partner in the background. Multiple
millions have been funneled to Andrews for green-lighting numerous projects in Victoria
(Funds from his Chinese handlers).
Andrews was caught in a hotel room with the young daughter of his Chinese boss. (could
it have been a setup?) He was beaten close to death. His head was badly bruised resulting
in a fractured skull. His vertebrae and several ribs were fractured. He was almost
paralyzed. He was told that from that day onward he was their boy and must do
everything they told him. (His wife knows the truth of what happened). Failure to abide
by orders from his CCP handlers means certain elimination for him and his family. As
Andrews was told, ‘accidents happen every day’.
END QUOTE
While the above quotation levels accusations against Premier Daniel Andrews I have no
alternative sources that can back up the claims made. However, what is important is that Premier
Daniel Andrews did pursue and implement the QR code and the moment this was implemented
the claimed “cases” skyrocketed. Perhaps because the “contract tracers” were the super
spreaders? Anyhow I understand that Premier Daniel Andrews in October aborted any further
“contact tracing” for which purportedly the QR code was implemented, but he neglected to make
this known to businesses who were under threat of severe financial penalties coerced to persist to
enforce the QR code log ins. While at no time did I even once log in with a QR code as I view
my constitutional rights cannot be denied or interfered with by any government, nevertheless in
the process my wife when seated in a SCHNITZ restaurant (Greensborough) to celebrate her
89 year birthday and needing a rest being a heart failure patient was simply ordered out for not
being able to show a vaccination identity. And then on 23 December again the same. When then
I ordered schnitz for take away we at home discovered what appeared to be left overs rather than
ordinary full sized schnitz. As such we were basically, in my view, deemed to be the deplorable.
I did make images and made a complaint to SCHNITZ restaurant (Greensborough) but they
never even bothered to respond. Had Premier Daniel Andrews made clear he no longer relied
upon any coding then this harm, in particular to my ill wife could likely have been avoided.
I wrote last year also about it that likely the swabs were so to pass on to the Chinese Government
the DNA of Australians. Well, since then the CDC acknowledged that indeed swabs were used
for DNA, etc.
In my view Premier Daniel Andrews is “damaged goods” and cannot be deemed to be anymore a
member of parliament let alone a Premier.

His conduct to take about $9 billion dollars from leasing out the port itself I view violated s92 of
the constitution. Then the use of rubber bullets against peaceful protesters, and the general
conduct by so called “Victorian Police” of which many turned out were actually never
legitimately sworn in as Victorian Police, the deceptive conduct regarding mask mandates, the
unconstitutional enforcement by coercion or otherwise of so called vaccinations, and numerous
other issues this is not a person I hold is worthy to be a Member of Parliament let alone being a
Premier
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/cdc-casually-admits-covid-nose-swabs-ended-lab-genomic-sequencing-
analysis/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-gateway-pundit&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=daily
CDC Casually Admits Covid Nose Swabs Ended Up in a Lab for Genomic
Sequencing Analysis
QUOTE
The CDC on Wednesday casually admitted some of the Covid
nose swabs ended up in a lab for genomic sequencing analysis.
END QUOTE
Let it be very clear, that to hand over the DNA of any person can result in targeted
assassinations.
As I recently also wrote about it turn out that certain mask contains items that allow the wearer to
be traced. Combine this with the QR code, and other surveillance apparatuses and we have that
foreign enemy agents can easily know where particular Members of
Parliament/Ministers/Judges, etc will be moving about and use this to eliminate them if they are
deemed a problem.
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2022/01/military-vax-data-rocks-dc-catastrophic-injury-toll-
exposed-at-sen-johnson-hearing/?utm_source=home-headline
“Military Vax Data Rocks DC: Catastrophic Injury Toll Exposed At Sen. Johnson Hearing”
What a manner to actually destabilize an army by simply enforcing a sickening kind of

vaccination that will even kill healthy young people serving in the armed forces.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/viruses-leak-gain-of-function-
labs/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=053823d8-af5e-4aa2-8e8d-
c322d8fca8f7
It’s Not Uncommon for Viruses to Leak From Gain-of-Function Labs, History
Shows
As a person who has studied the history of pandemics and lab leaks, imagine my surprise when
authorities in China, the U.S. and the UK, stated categorically the virus was obviously zoonotic
and we were conspiracy theorists if we proposed the opposite. I had to conclude that they were
misguided or purposely lying.
While so much was heard and claimed about the so called virus being a animal-human contact,
the fact that somehow Moderna Crystal ball 2016 patent was to deal with then an unknown
COVID-19 virus may perhaps underline there is a lot more to it all. As I exposed in my previous
writings also that COVID—19 PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) was ordered years before
hand. So, they all somehow knew years before COVID-19 existed that it would eventuate.

LifeSiteNews lsn@news.lifesitenews.com
Fri, 25 Feb at 3:13 pm
QUOTE
Last Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron declined to submit to a PCR test
in Russia, citing concerns about handing over his DNA to the Russian government.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Tucker Carlson warns that the Canadian situation has shown the world how a
dictatorship forms and that leaders like Trudeau will keep finding new “emergencies”
to justify COVID-era dictatorial power. We have been warning readers to not get too
excited about the dropping of mandates by various governments in recent weeks. In this
excellent commentary, Carlson does a first-class job of presenting that case.
END QUOTE
What was shown in regard of Canada, after Victoria (Australia), The Netherlands and other
demonic countries implemented this terrorism PM Trudeau sought to escalate it even further.
And this is what I expect to be the kind of system in place with a NEW WORLD ORDER.
This W.E.F. “you own nothing and will be happy” must be understood that then those in control
will determine what your happiness actually constitute to be. As such, you can be very unhappy
but to them you are considered to be happy, because they got your possessions and you are left to
be a sheeple to serve as a slave and that to them constitutes happiness.
However the corrections suggested by me are not all the corrections I view are badly needed as
to reflect the real intentions of the Framers of the constitution but are at least some way to go.
As such, if a candidate doesn’t support those recommendations then well I could recommend to
vote for one who does and obviously is trustworthy to be genuine in what he/she states.
Perhaps we should also include:
Any Member of Parliament which was elected

upon certain statements and one elected acts in
violation of any or all of them then by a petition of
10% of electors which enabled this Member of
Parliament to be elected this/her seat will become
vacant upon the expiry of 4 weeks of the petition
having been lodged with the Speaker of the Lower
House or the President of the Upper House a writ
was issued for an election, pending the membership
applicable, within which the former Member may

be a candidate if not otherwise in conflict with any
election conditions
This would be akin to a lemon law against crooked politicians.
As a distraction just watch this:
t.me/TheHardTruthToSwollow /10597
Russian and Ukraine troops dancing together
This underlines that in the end people of the same country are sharing certain customs, etc. when
an Australian soldier is in a war he isn’t bothered by if this other Australian is from some other
state as they share a common bond being Australian. The same with soldiers who share a Russian
heritage, etc, they are not there because they are wanting to be enemies but because they ended
up in a job that places themselves at times against each other. It was for example when I was a
young adult resided in Germany and the son of the host family asked if we were in opposite
armies in a war would I even if I recognised him still shoot him if that was to be the situation. I
responded that I would because I had a duty as a soldier and couldn’t expect to divert from there
and in any event he might not even recognise me and shoot me instead. He then gave me the
understanding that this was precisely his views also. It should be understood that when serving in
opposing armies one may very well have a conflict to be faced having an opponent friend but the
duties and obligations as s soldier cannot be second place.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/02/24/graphene-is-being-transmitted-from-vaccinated/
Graphene Is Being Transmitted from the “Vaccinated” to Vaccine-
Free People
QUOTE
Below is the image of a blood sample from an eight-year-old unvaccinated child whose
blood has been contaminated and destroyed by the transmission of graphene from those
around him/her who have had a Covid injection. The child’s right arm and upper right leg
are basically paralysed, the child is unable to lift his/her right arm and the thigh is not
functioning properly.
Dr. Philippe’s presentation is truly eye opening and horrifying – a must watch, especially
for those who proclaim Covid injections are “safe” and are insisting people be injected.
The Covid injections are weapons of genocide and how the people who have designed
them are still walking free is incredible.
END QUOTE
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/02/24/graphene-is-being-transmitted-from-vaccinated/
Graphene Is Being Transmitted from the “Vaccinated” to Vaccine-
Free People
QUOTE
In his latest set of slides of blood samples taken from both “vaccinated” and
unvaccinated people, Dr. Philippe van Welbergen demonstrated that the graphene
being injected into people is organising and growing into larger fibres and
structures, gaining magnetic properties or an electrical charge and the fibres are
showing indications of more complex structures with striations.
He also demonstrated that “shards” of graphene are being transmitted from
“vaccinated” to vaccine-free or unvaccinated people destroying their red blood cells
and causing blood clots in the unvaccinated.
END QUOTE
The “safe and effective” mantra is obviously not going to resolve the child’s suffering! Well,
why not add this to the “unvaccinated” even so the adverse reaction is from the vaccinated
parents!
THE FALSIFICATION OF THE CHARTS:
One issue that I find alarming is that when one see statistics they refer to “unvaccinated”
“vaccinated” and boosters” but the fact is that those who became ill and even died (within 14
days) as result of being jabbed somehow are included in the “unvaccinated”. It would be better if
charts show the so called “unvaccinated” who died after being jabbed as a separate group, this as
dying from being jabbed (such as being injected into the vein instead of in the muscle) should not
be considered “unvaccinated”.
I understand most people who died after being jabbed do so within 14 days of being jabbed!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


20220226-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Clarification of Constitutional Embedded Legal Principles

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

20220226-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Clarification of Constitutional Embedded Legal Principles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE: Clarification of constitutional embedded legal principles

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

* Gerrit, what needs to be clarified if there is a written constitution?

Correcting section 41 by inserting:

No elector shall be obligated to exercise his/her

All taxation shall be UNIFORM and it is

This section applies also to all and any Members of

Neither the Commonwealth, a State or Territory

A States constitution validity relies upon the pre-

(xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by

117 Rights of residents in States

The Commonwealth, State(s) and/or Territory/ies

A State/Territory shall not directly/indirectly

Neither the Commonwealth, a State or Territory

This section to be abolished.

The Commonwealth shall not discriminate between

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:

p7 26-2-2022 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

* Oh boy, that is some claim.

p9 26-2-2022 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.

HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

* Is this meaning deporting Mr Novak Djokovic in your view was lawful?

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

Steve Kirsch's newsletter <stevekirsch@substack.com>Unsubscribe

CDC admits it withheld data from the public

p17 26-2-2022 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

CDC Officials Admit Agency Has

p18 26-2-2022 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

The performance of vaccines and boosters, particularly in younger

What else are the ‘experts’ hiding?

Steve Kirsch's newsletter <stevekirsch@substack.com>

27 page rebuttal letter from 8 industrial hygienists

Letter to the CDC - TY THE SCIENCE GUY (tyscienceguy.com)

The key points in their letter

They made four key points :

p20 26-2-2022 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

They also sent email to scientificIntegrity@cdc.gov

Scotland halts reporting covid jab data

Vaccine Impact News <noreply@healthimpactnews.com>

p21 26-2-2022 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Steve Kirsch's newsletter <stevekirsch@substack.com>