Australia – The law is on Your Side When Government Tries to Force Vaccination

Former Lt. Colonel Riccardo Bosi is the head of the Australia One Party, CEO and author who previously served for 26 years in the Australian Military’s Special Forces and Navy. Here he outlines why the Australian government’s COVID-19 policies are unlawful and he gives advice to civilians and soldiers alike for protecting oneself against tyrannical leaders. Australian Federal law supersedes State law and explained the country’s Biosecurity Act of 2015 that prohibits any form of quarantine, isolation, enforced medical treatment/vaccination, PCR testing or other restrictions due to sickness without the issuance of a Control Order for each person to be restricted. Although this is Australian law, there are strong parallels in most countries and, even without the laws, the legal principles are sound. Australia One Party may be on the rise. -GEG

Link for video:    https://rumble.com/vlugpm-australia-the-law-is-on-your-side-when-government-force-vaccination.html

Australia is currently experiencing imposition of particularly harsh controls on human rights and freedoms in the name of fighting COVID19. This is despite the country havin a very low case load and a mortality rate way below many other diseases which no control have been imposed for.

In this video the former Lt. Colonel makes clear how much contempt he has for those enforcing the state controls on the population and states that the legal situation is such that the states are acting unlawfully.

He highlights (as I also did several days ago) that the death rate from injuries from the experimental COVID vaccines is currently higher than the death rate from the disease itself.

Note: I am not a lawyer and the laws involved are long and complicated. I am not able to confirm his claims, but provide links to the documents in question so that interested parties can do their own research. Please let us know if you find anything useful.

Points made:

  • Australian Federal law supercedes State law.
  • Australian Federal law includes the Biosecurity Act 2015 prohibits any form of quarantine, isolation, enforced medical treatment/vaccination, PCR testing or other restrictions due to some kind of sickness without the issuing of a specific control order for each individual that is to be restricted. This has not been done in Australia to back up the controls being enforced by Policy enforcers and some military.
  • The Australian Privacy Act 1988 prohibits anyone from demanding vaccination status or other medical information – even for employment. No-one is allowed to track your movements using an app. Entry to businesses based on some kind of medical reason is illegal and breaches can result in several years in jail for the business owner.

Read full article here…




Peggy Hall, a California Educator, Shows Why COVID Lockdown Is Unlawful


Peggy Hall, a community-college health professor, says a federal law relegates authority over health and welfare to the most local political entity in question. Local agencies have the responsibility and the authority to safeguard public health. The governor can declare a state of emergency only in response to natural disasters and epidemics. Furthermore, the threat must be of such magnitude that adequate response is beyond the ability of any single county or city.

She explains that, according to the law, an epidemic is defined as a a disease rate above the normal. Since the COVID-19 death rate is only one-third the normal death rate for seasonal flu, it does not have a disease rate above the normal. Therefore, California does not have an epidemic, and a declaration of lockdown is in violation of California law. [Does anyone in government care about laws when they stand in the way of power and wealth?] -GEG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrmqsEwsZ0A

More information:

https://www.thehealthyamerican.org/




Judge Rules Illinois Governor Exceeded His Authority with Stay-At-Home Order


Darren Bailey, a farmer and Representative in the Illinois State Legislature, won his lawsuit that challenged Governor JB Pritzker’s authority to extend his stay-at-home order beyond the initial 30 days. Judge Michael McHaney ruled that Pritzker was prohibited “from in any way enforcing the March 20 executive order against Darren Bailey forcing him to isolate and quarantine in his home.” Bailey said that citizens are “overwhelmed” and “scared to death” not of the COVID-19 virus, but of losing their livelihoods. Illinois is counting anyone who died and merely suspected of having COVID-19 is being called a COVID-19 death. In spite of that policy, the statewide death toll is only 1,983, much lower than typical seasonal flu. -GEG

Political divisions over Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s statewide stay-at-home restrictions were on full display Monday, as a judge issued a temporary injunction allowing a Republican legislator to disregard the order, a decision Pritzker quickly denounced while forcefully defending his actions to fight the coronavirus pandemic.

The ruling by Clay County Circuit Court Judge Michael McHaney came in a lawsuit filed by Rep. Darren Bailey that challenged Pritzker’s authority to extend his stay-at-home order beyond the initial 30 days under the state’s Emergency Management Act.

While the ruling applied only to Bailey, it could open the door for other Illinois residents to seek similar relief from the stay-at-home order, with McHaney’s injunction as a justification.

In seeking the injunction, Bailey said he is “irreparably harmed each day he is subjected to” Pritzker’s executive order, and asked the judge to enjoin the governor or anyone under his authority from enforcing it against him.

McHaney’s ruling said Pritzker was prohibited “from in any way enforcing the March 20 executive order against Darren Bailey forcing him to isolate and quarantine in his home,” or any subsequent orders that would do the same.

At his daily coronavirus news briefing, Pritzker vigorously attacked Bailey, accusing him of acting for political reasons and ignoring the medical threat of the virus. Pritzker promised a quick appeal of the judge’s ruling and said he would carry the fight “to the furthest extent possible.”

“People are in danger as a result of this ruling, of the judge’s ruling of the suit that was brought by Darren Bailey,” Pritzker said.

“We certainly are going to act in a swift fashion to try to have this ruling overturned, certainly put a stay in place,” the governor said. “I mean it’s, frankly, it’s insulting, it’s dangerous, and people’s safety and health has now been put at risk. There may be people who contract coronavirus as a result of what Darren Bailey has done now.”

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot also slammed the judge’s ruling, which she called “troubling,” and said it could give “the wrong impression that we have beaten the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“Nothing about today’s ruling will change the city’s intention to continue imposing the stay at home restrictions,” she said in a statement.

Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office is “reviewing the order and considering our options for appeal in consultation with the governor’s office,” spokeswoman Annie Thompson said.

Illinois has been under a statewide stay-at-home order since March 21, placing broad restrictions on residents and businesses the order deems “nonessential,” aimed at curbing the spread of highly contagious COVID-19. Illinois was the second state to announce such a far-reaching statewide action, though the majority of states have since followed suit and instituted some statewide restrictions.

Pritzker announced last week he would extend the stay-at-home order through May 30, with some modifications due to take effect Friday.

Pritzker on Monday encouraged municipal leaders and residents across the state “to follow the advice of our scientists here in Illinois and across the nation,” and continue obeying the directives set out in the stay-at-home order.

“History will remember those who put politics aside to come together to keep people safe. It will also remember those who, so blindly devoted to ideology and the pursuit of personal celebrity, that they made an enemy of science, and of reason,” Pritzker said Monday.

In an interview later Monday afternoon, Bailey said he believes the judge’s ruling should apply to everyone in the state and encouraged others to take legal action similar to his own.

“If people want to, if anyone wants to file any kind of similar suit in their home county or in their circuit, they can certainly do that,” Bailey said. “What I’m doing is challenging the constitutionality of the governor, of what he’s been doing.”