The Execution Date of 1st November 2019 of our Notice of Liability served on the Australian Government on the 1st July 2019 has past with no response from the Australian Government.
As a result we have started Legal Action against the Australian Government and all and any Agents implementing the Australian Government Criminal Coercive (and soon to be Mandatory) Vaccination Policies.
There are many and various Legal strategies available which we are investigating with our Legal Teams. Our desired end result is to banish these Australian Government Criminal Vaccination Coercion Policies and include correct Retribution for Vaccine Damaged Australians, Accurate Statistics gathering and analysis, Full disclosure before Vaccination, and Professional Vaccine Safety testing in Australia before Vaccines are allowed to be distributed and used in Australia.
As part of our strategies we are investigating Legal Jurisdictions in which to launch our Legal Action. Research is proving very positive in many areas including the High Court of Australia, the Federal Courts, the State Supreme Courts and also Magistrates Courts.
If our strategies are extremely well formed and legally tested we may not even have to go to Court as they will be Un-Contestable.
We wish to achieve our goals in a most effective and efficient way and two of these developing strategies we are offering all Australians are detailed below.
Please feel free to use any of this information as you see fit, and please contact us if you have any queries or suggestions.
THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HAS ACCEPTED AND FILED (and DISMISSED) OUR CASE AGAINST THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
In my opinion, a pathetic reason was given:
‘The statement of material facts said to support
the claim is scandalous and does not disclose a cause of action.
The relief sought is unintelligible.’
To me, the scandal lies with the Australian Government, and the entire case is totally intelligible. I have asked the High Court for clarification of this Judgement and have received none to date (1 August 2020). I believe the Matter has been dismissed because the High Court does not wish to hear the Case.
Our Second Legal Action:
We encourage you to show this document (below) to your solicitor and if approved, distribute it far and wide. 🙂 💕
At last ! A legal remedy for the criminal Australian Government’s coercive vaccination policies. Please spread the word.
Here is your Objection Notice. Please send it (signed by yourself) to the Australian and State Governments and Government Departments, Health Departments (Federal and State) and to anyone denying you your rightful freedoms, assets and services in Australia because you don’t wish to be vaccinated, eg. schools, hospitals, universities, day care centres.
Legal options and remedies available to you:
You will find many organisations/people you send this Objection Notice to may immediately stop harrassing you and supply you your rightful freedoms, assets and services.
If, however, the parties causing you hardship, do not cease and desist because you do not want yourself or your children vaccinated, here is an example of some Legal Remedies available to you:
Note: Commencing legal action can be a complicated process, it has many pitfalls and can be a costly exercise, especially if you do not win your case. It is highly recommended that you seek legal advice to clarify your options and position before you take any steps and/or proceed in a court of law.
The objection notice should provide the requisite evidence to enable you to apply various legal options and remedies. You will find much evidence at the end of this document. Please copy this evidence and attach it to your Objection Letter.
In the State of Queensland (Australia) for example some Legal Options and Remedies include (but are not limited to);
I. Civil-abatement notices (environmental nuisance), personal injury claim (psychological and physical injury), damage to property claim, mandatory injunction (court order to force abatement or prosecution).
II. Quasi Criminal – applying for Court ordered restraint orders (Peace and Good Behaviour Orders – also known in other States and Territories as Protection Orders and/or Apprehended Violence Orders, Keep the peace orders);
III. Criminal – prosecution of various criminal offences for trespass against the person such as;
o Assault – Section 245 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) Section 245 provides the definition of assault and indicates that a person who strikes, touches or moves or “otherwise applies force of any kind” to the person of another, either directly or indirectly without
the other persons consent or “threatens” to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other persons consent under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to
effect the person’s purpose, is said to assault that other person and the act is called an assault. Please note that “applies force” includes the case of “applying coercive vaccination” or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such a degree as
to “cause injury” or “personal discomfort”. Further note that to ‘threaten’ to apply force such as coercive vaccination force is considered unlawful and that it is not essential that a person threatened should be put in fear: an apprehension or expectation of assault is sufficient.
o Threatening violence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) Section 75 provides that any person who with intent to intimidate or annoy any person, by words or conduct threatens to enter or damage a dwelling or other premises; or does any other act that is likely to
cause any person in the vicinity to fear bodily harm to any person or damage to property; commits a crime. Maximum
penalty—2 years imprisonment. If the offence is committed in the night the offender is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.
o Endangering life of children by exposure – Section 326 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Any person who exposes a child under the age of 7 years, whereby the life of such child is or is likely to be endangered, or the child’s health is or is likely to be
permanently injured, commits a crime. Maximum penalty—7 years imprisonment.
o Assault occasioning bodily harm – Section 339 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Any person who unlawfully assaults another and
thereby does the other person bodily harm is guilty of a crime and is liable for imprisonment for 7 years but if the offender
uses a dangerous or offensive instrument the offender is liable to imprisonment for 10 years. A dangerous or offensive instrument is anything that is capable of being used for offensive purposes even though it is also capable of being used for
innocent purposes see R v Sutton (18877) 13 Cox CC 648. An assault causing any hysterical and nervous condition is an assault occasioning bodily harm see R v Miller  2 QB 282. Bodily injury occurs if ‘pain’ has lasted for a couple of days then the body has suffered damage as defined in Brown v Blake  WASCA 132.
o Serious assault – Section 340 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Any person who commits an unlawful assault on a person who is sixty years of age or more and assaults any person who relies on a guide, hearing or assistance dog, wheelchair or other remedial device is guilty of a crime and liable to 7 years imprisonment.
o Negligent act causing harm – Section 328 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Any person who unlawfully does any act, or omits to do any act which it is the persons duty to do so, by which act or omission bodily harm is actually caused to any person is liable to
imprisonment for 2 years and may be arrested without warrant.
o Duty of persons in charge of dangerous things – Section 289 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). It is the duty of every person who has in the persons charge or under the person’s control anything, whether living or inanimate, and whether moving or stationary, of such a nature that, in the absence of care or precaution in its use or management, the life, safety or health, of any person may be endangered, to use reasonable care and take reasonable precautions to avoid such danger, and the person is held to have caused any consequences which result in the life or health of any person by reason of any omission to perform that duty.It could be said that the substance or thing called Vaccine is a dangerous thing. The Australian and State Governments and the Medical Board of Australia are in control of this dangerous thing and pursuant to 288 of the Criminal Code 1889 they have a duty to control the said dangerous thing. Duty of person doing dangerous acts – Section 288 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) It is a duty of every person who, except in a case of necessity to do any lawful act which is or may be dangerous to human life or health, to have reasonable skill and to use reasonable care in doing such act, and the person is held to have caused any consequences which result to the life or health of any person by reason of omission to observe or perform that duty.
o Common nuisance – section 230 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) . Any person who without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, does any act, or omits to do any act with respect to any property under the person’s control, by
which act or omission danger is caused to the lives, safety, or health, of the public; or without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, does any act, or omits to do any act with respect to any property under the person’s control,
by which act or omission danger is caused to the property or comfort of the public, or the public are obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all Her Majesty’s subjects, and by which injury is caused to the person of some person is
liable to imprisonment for 2 years.
Your Objection Letter
WARNING & OBJECTION NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that the warnings and objection contained in this notice is intended not only to protect myself, my family but it is intended to also protect you and to warn you of your duty of care and to warn you of the possible consequences that any of your actions or omissions in regards to coercive vaccination
That failure to heed this notice has the potential to place you in jeopardy of being both criminally and civilly liable for any actions or omissions that cause harm, injury and damage.
It is clear that you are aiding and abetting and forcing criminal assault on me and my family without my consent by coerced vaccination policies and actions.
I do not consent to you coercing me and my family to be vaccinated without my consent and you will be met with Court action in both the criminal and civil jurisdictions to remedy.
I am of the firm belief that I and my family have a God Given right of choice to not be vaccinated and that vaccines have the potential to expose my family to unnecessary and unreasonable risks of harm to health and safety.
I firmly believe that you have a duty to ensure that vaccines do not pose such a risk.
I have the right to use and enjoy my and my families bodies without interference from you. I put you on notice that various statutes and the common law protects my right to the use and enjoyment of my body and my families bodies without any interference from you my neighbour.
If vaccines causes my family or I any discomfort, injury or damage to either our person or our property then it would constitute an interference with the rights connected to our bodies and as such would be classed as a nuisance under both criminal and civil law.
A nuisance can be remedied by either criminal prosecution, restraint via civil action or both.
Please note that simply following the Safety Standard as set by the Federal Government will not protect you from civil or criminal liability if you knowingly and intentionally fail to adequately address my fears concerning the health and safety risk of vaccination. The legal onus is on you and squarely on YOU to assess and improve the safety and health impacts surrounding your vaccine policies and activities.
TAKE NOTE: IT WOULD BE A NEGLIGENT ACT IF YOU WERE TO COERCE ME OR MY FAMILY TO BE VACCINATED AFTER HAVING BEEN GIVEN NOTICE OF THE WARNING AS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS NOTICE. ESPECIALLY AFTER YOU HAVE NOW BEEN INFORMED THAT SUCH AN ACTION COULD POSE RISK OF HARM. IF HARM DID EVENTUATE THE COURTS WOULD SEE THAT SUCH HARM IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING ANY PYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL HARM AGRAVATED BY MY REASONABLE FEAR.
Please find attached ample evidence outlining risk of harm to health and recommendations to mitigate such risk.
This legal and scientific advice has contributed to the formation of my reasonable belief and fear that vaccination pose a real risk of harm to my family, myself thus I am afraid of you and your intentions to vaccinate.
Also find attached a legal advice from my lawyer outlining the potential civil and criminal liability that could apply if you do not heed this notice and attached advice. I rely on both the legal and medical advice as attached.
I DEMAND that:
- The Australian Government retract these criminally fraudulent restrictions conscriptions bribes and other actions associated with attempted Vaccine Coercion of our Australian People.
- Give full and complete and adequate and fair compensation to Australian babies children and adults who have been harmed by these criminally fraudulent actions of attempted Vaccine Coercion.
- Offer a full and complete apology to the Australian Nation as a Whole.
- Implement an up to date accurate fully controlled MANDATORY end to end Reporting and Management and Compensation system for Vaccine Injury and potential Vaccine Injury of Australians caused by Vaccinations within Australia.
- Ensure that through Mandatory Law before any Australians receives any Vaccination that Australians are given full disclosure at the time and just before the associated Vaccination are administered and received of any and all potential harm that these Vaccinations may cause to the person being Vaccinated.
- Ensure MANDATORY and full and complete scientific and publicly accessible double blind inert placebo safety testing on unvaccinated cohorts of all Vaccines before they are given to any Australians.
If you intend to disregard my fears, concerns and this legal advice and make it known to me by either letter or conduct that you will proceed regardless then I will treat such intentional conduct as an intentional threat to physically assault my family and myself with coerced vaccination.
Please note that if you fail to respond within 14 days from the date of this letter then it will be deemed by your omission to respond that you coerce vaccination.
I will therefore have no choice but to seek remedy in a Court of law.
Evidence to back your claim:
It seems obvious to me at law that NOJAB/NOPAY is forceable coercion of criminal assault by injection of unsafe poisonous vaccines.
The Commonwealth Government itself, which has introduced NOJAB/NOPAY, admits that vaccination must not be administered in circumstances of “undue pressure, coercion or manipulation” (as you are probably aware) – see under the heading “Criteria for valid consent” in the Australian Immunisation Handbook: https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au
The Commonwealth Government applies further coercion for criminal assault by injection of unsafe poisonous vaccines through commissions paid to doctors for vaccinating.
I would argue, the undue pressure, coercion or manipulation has already occurred through the introduction of the NOJAB/NOPAY and associated Policies themselves.
In addition the Australian Government and the MBA and AHPRA are coercing potential assault by the Medical Doctor or person giving the vaccination injections through monetary commissions and aggressive policies endangering Medical Doctors and Health Workers registrations and livelihoods.
The Medical Board of Australia (MBA) and AHPRA have imposed conditions requiring registered medical practitioners to unquestionably support the National Immunisation Program regardless of unsafe vaccines, ineffective vaccines, and unnecessary vaccines and lack of proof of safety. These conditions impose threat of serious consequences for non-compliance, disregarding the doctor’s duty to use his/her professional judgment in support of the best interests of the patient and ethical duty to apply the cautionary principle to avoid harm to the patient.
Hippocratic Oath “First do no Harm”. Does the MBA endorse the essential importance of the Hippocratic Oath and particularly for doctors to inform patients of any harm that could be caused by vaccinations before patients consent to being vaccinated?
Informed consent. As stated in the Nuremberg Code and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (both of which Australia is party to) and the MBA’s Code of Conduct, Informed Consent is a requirement for all medical treatments and interventions.
i) Does the Medical Board believe or not believe that doctors must support the right of parents to freely consent or not consent without coercion to medical interventions including vaccination for their children?
ii) As a pre-condition to informed consent, does the MBA believe or not believe that parents must be provided with adequate and truthful information based upon the best available scientific evidence including vaccine insert information, in order to make an informed choice about whether to consent or not to consent to vaccinate their children?
‘No Jab No Pay’ and ‘No Jab No Play’ Legislation is in breach of the Australian Constitution. Under Section 51 xxiiiA ‘civil conscription’, ie, coercion in the provision of healthcare services is forbidden. These 2 pieces of legislation penalise parents who choose not to vaccinate their children with loss of child support payments, and preschool experience for their children. They are essentially coercive.
The Commonwealth and State Governments and AHPRA are also in breach of the Australian Constitution. AHPRA’s unilaterally imposed rules requiring all medical practitioners to unquestioningly support the Governments National Immunisation Program with threats of severe penalties for non-compliance is another form of ‘conscription’ or coercion, forbidden under Section 51 xxiiiA of the Constitution. It could also be considered in breach of Contract Law in that it constitutes a ‘Unilateral Mistake’, and fails to be supported by signed contracts with doctors as required of registered businesses with ABN’s.
The dangerous status of vaccines can now easily be proved. And so can the falsity of Herd Immunity of Vaccines. There is huge and mounting evidence.
‘The Precautionary Principle’ which basically states where there is doubt (eg of Safety) the Court will take the safest path. The Court is aware of the fact that Vaccines have Never been Safety Tested using the double blind inert placebo test on unvaccinated cohorts, which is the Gold Standard of substance safety testing.
Therefore the Precautionary Principle is on our side.
Lack of Proof of Vaccine Safety. Vaccines have never been safety tested using the Gold Standard double blind inert placebo test using un-vaccinated cohorts. In essence vaccines are untested since all safety tests on vaccines have been made against known poisons or other vaccines in pre-vaccinated comparison cohorts. The Supreme Court of the USA pronounced vaccines as ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’ (Breusewitz v Wyeth 2011). The statement by the Australian Government that ‘Vaccines are Safe’ is in direct contradiction to these findings.
The Medical Board of Australia (MBA) is promoting and enforcing the use of vaccines that have not been proven safe by:
i) preregistration clinical trials that compare vaccine adverse events to inert saline placebo, preferably double-blinded, according to the best standards of evidence required for all medicines about which claims of efficacy and safety are made. The results of pre-registration testing of scheduled child vaccines are inconclusive and most likely, spurious, because these ‘safety’ trials compared new vaccines directly or indirectly against the vaccine constituents most likely to cause adverse reactions, namely aluminium adjuvants. Aluminium is a known neurotoxin and a most likely cause of neurological damage that can be caused by child vaccines.
In addition, scheduled child vaccines are also not proven safe by:
ii) any rigorously-controlled post-registration trials requiring mandatory reporting of all vaccine-related adverse events (VAE’s) and comparison with health outcomes in never-vaccinated children – In Australia or any other nation.
iii) The passive reporting system of vaccine adverse events (VAE’s) in Australia (to the TGA DAEN), and in USA (to VAERS), by the best available analysis, record that less than 1% of all vaccine adverse events are reported (Lazarus 2011).
iv) In Australia, the total vaccine injuries reports to the TGA, obtained through FOI application, have revealed that the TGA DAEN (Database of Adverse Events Notifications) since 1989 to the present, reveals 41 deaths and 15,567 other VAE cases have been reported which may represent true figures of more than 4100 deaths due to vaccination and 1.5567 million other injuries due to vaccination. See http://tiny.cc/sa4gbz http://tiny.cc/if4gbz
v) Since inception in 1988 the United States Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over US$4.2 billion in payments to vaccine-injured individuals and their families.
Is the Medical Board of Australia aware of the above facts about lack of vaccine safety, lack of proof of vaccine safety and inadequate monitoring of vaccine adverse events, ie. harm caused by vaccines?
Stop Killing and Maiming Australian babies children and Adults by allowing unsafe poisonous vaccines to be used in Australia.
Herd Immunity Claimed to be Provided by Vaccines.In view of extensive documentation of vaccine failure, both primary and secondary, and of transmission of infectious diseases by vaccines, it would appear that the concept of herd immunity of vaccines is an unsubstantiated myth. To prove otherwise the MBA would have to provide convincing evidence that vaccine-induced herd immunity is achievable for each vaccine in the schedule, and that over 95% of the Australian population needs to be vaccinated in order to achieve vaccine-induced herd immunity for each vaccine.
Does the MBA have any scientific evidence to prove vaccine-induced herd immunity of vaccines exists so that the concept of herd immunity of vaccines is not an unsubstantiated myth? Herd Immunity of Vaccines appears to be an unsubstantiated fabrication by the Pharmaceutical Industry to maximise vaccine sales and profits and create unending markets for existing and new vaccines.
The MBA is required to provide any scientific evidence it may have that supports the MBA’s claims that:
i) Unvaccinated children are more at risk of serious adverse health outcomes than are vaccinated children.
ii) Unvaccinated children are more likely to spread infectious diseases than are vaccinated children.
Please note that unsubstantiated opinions do not constitute acceptable evidence for this purpose in response to i) and ii) above. This includes unsubstantiated opinions by so called ‘Expert Witnesses’.
Vaccines are now proving to spread the very diseases they are meant to cure, eg. polio, measles, flu. Also the the cancerous, neurotoxic, immunotoxic poisons and foreign dna and contaminants in vaccines are causing massive new health problems. Our children are sicker now than they have ever been before vaccines. The Natural World is reacting to vaccines by altering the disease strains, eg. measles into much more serious diseases. There are so many problems with vaccines. Current vaccine policies are one big shockingly cruel unknown experiment on Humanity. In addition, unknown constituents and contaminants have been proved to have been added secretly to vaccines, eg. sterilization in Africa (www.corvelva.it). What is coming next? Nanobots?
Grounds for Medical Exemption. Given that the guidelines for ‘approved medical exemption’ in the Australian Immunisation Handbook provide no scientific evidence for omitted grounds for exemption such as
i) a child has already been vaccine-damaged, and
ii) that the child has elder sibling(s) who have been vaccine-damaged, and provides no scientific evidence for
iii) the claimed ‘false contra-indications’
does the MBA believe or not believe that a registered medical practitioner asked by parents to consider medical exemption from vaccination for their child should not exercise his/her own judgment and apply the ‘precautionary principle’ in order to protect the child from harm deemed likely by the doctor ?
iv) Has the MBA disregarded the NSW AAT ruling in favour of a medical practitioner who used his own professional judgment that a child should not be vaccinated?
The Australian Immunisation Handbook (AIH) – proof of evidence and authenticity. This guideline document that is the basis for Australia’s National Vaccination Policy.
Given that the Australian Immunisation Handbook
⦁ was approved without conforming to the NHMRC Guidelines for Guidelines,
⦁ that the evidence on which it was based did not conform to the standards of evidence required by the NHMRC; given that
⦁ the writers of the AIH ignored over 100 Cochrane Collaboration Reviews that did not support its vaccine-promoting recommendations;
⦁ many of its contributing writers had or have conflicts of interest.
In view of these considerations:
is it appropriate to rely on such a flawed document for Australia’s public vaccination policy (NIP), and to justify the penalisation of doctors who rightly dissent from its recommendations? This issue has been further elaborated by an available exhaustive study of the Australian Immunisation Handbook.
Conflicts of Interest. Is the MBA aware of any conflicts of interest in members of advisory and regulatory bodies and institutions (such as ATAGI, NCIRS, and the TGA) that are responsible for advising governments, the medical profession and the public about vaccine safety and efficacy?
Is the MBA aware that the TGA is funded by the Pharmaceutical and Vaccine Manufacturers?
Further evidence can be found at: