Laws against C19 Mandate [Australia] Barrister Raymond Broomhall

IN Solutions-Legal

12 Nov 2021 – Listen to the Audio from Barrister Raymond Broomhall regarding the laws against Vaccine Mandates in Australia:

YouTube | Rumble

Source: Reignite Democracy Australia “Important Legal Arguments”

Transcript

  • 00:00 Introduction, National Education United
  • 01:40 Not going into any Science – once you put Science into the equation, in court you always have one side of the fence with one scientist, and the other side of fence with another, and they never agree and there’s no certainty with science. This is just purely law. Don’t have to prove the ingredients in the vaccine or state of emergency.
  • 02:45 Will explain generic law information to cover both VIC & NSW. But there are more specific advice for each particular state that we won’t get into, and how the law really does assist. We do have the law on our side.
  • 04:05 Background – Been working in the Telecommunications field – have thousands of clients are upset about the radiation from cell towers, smart metres and satellites – radiation penetrates their skin and they don’t consent to that – the authorities recognize that, and I use the criminal law to get results, we’ve very rarely had to go to court about it because the Telecommunications Industry realize the game is up. So I’ve literally stopped thousands of telecommunication facilities in the 8 years I’ve been doing it.
  • 05:20 It’s all about consent and assault.
  • 05:30 COVID vaccines administered by forcing a needle through the skin and through the fat or muscular tissue – in a legal sense – the skin is broken and the whole skin is severed – technically an ‘assault’ in criminal law.
  • 06:00 Vaccine is permanent – can’t be removed from the body – and the health effects are permanent as well. It’s forever. This also constitutes an assault or battery and a wounding.
  • 06:29 Under criminal law, if valid consent is not obtained, it becomes an assault. If a doctor gives you injection and you haven’t given that doctor valid consent, then that doctor has assaulted you.
  • 06:45 If a death occurs, that would then become a Homicide, if valid consent has not been attained.
  • 07:00 In criminal law, valid consent means “Free, Voluntary Agreement, that is not Forced or Coerced
  • 07:15 Consent is invalid if there is extreme pressure or coercion.
  • 07:20 AHPRA and it’s 15 National Health Practitioner boards promote and endorse ATAGI’s Australian Immunization Handbook.
  • 07:50 Handbook is the approved guideline for Immunization providers. Valid consent must be obtained first, before administering a vaccine.
  • 08:12 For the consent to be valid, it must be given voluntarily, free from undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
  • 08:30 A person does not give valid consent if he/she submits to a vaccination because of a threat of any kind, such as a “get the jab and you don’t have a job, can’t travel, can’t attend sporting or social events, can’t shop” etc.
  • 08:50 The media also threats “Do the right thing and get vaccinated“, which implies if you don’t get vaccinated, you are doing the ‘wrong’ thing.
  • 09:04 In effect, if anyone such as the media, politicians, employers, work colleagues, business owners, spruces the “Get Vaccinated – OR ELSE” narrative, it technically ostracizes people from society, and that’s discrimination.
  • 09:28 If anyone succumbs to that pressure, where you got the jab but felt pressured to do so, that is technically ‘not consent’, which basically means “You have been assaulted”.
  • 10:00 The doctor or immunization provider, should’ve asked you a question “Why are you here?” “What is the reason you are presenting for this vaccination?” Are you here to validly get protection from COVID-19, or are you here because you need to keep your job?
  • 10:33 If the doctor realizes you have not technically approved under the valid consent principles, the he or she should refuse to give you the vaccination.
  • 10:58 A person signing a COVID-19 Vaccination Consent Form under the same coercive circumstances, would null & void the consent form as well.
  • 11:13 There is a difference between mandatory and voluntary.. Mandatory is required and commanded by Authority. Voluntary is done or given or acting of one’s own free will.
  • 11:55 The very use of Mandatory in a Public Health Order or Direction is a oxymoron, as it automatically imputes to the reader that the Voluntary Consent and Free Will is absent from the equation.
  • 12:15 COVID-19 Vaccines, according to TGA are still under an Experimental, Clinical Trial. Provisionally Approved.
  • 12:30 Participation in a Clinical Trial – MUST BE VOLUNTARY. [[The Commonwealths Criminal Act 1995]] Clearly not Mandatory.
  • 12:45 Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations are currently Unlawful under Criminal Law.
  • 13:00 The decision to Mandatory Vaccinate certain Australian workers, originated from the National Cabinet of which the Prime Minister, the Premiers, and Chief Health Officers are members.
  • 13:20 The National Cabinet is simply a name for a ‘meeting’ which has no constitutional, no statutory power, nor does it have any legal entity status to contract on behalf of the Commonwealth, the States, and the Territories.
  • 13:39 The members of the National Cabinet exchange promises with each other, to make administrative arrangements, such as Public Health Orders in order to give effect to what’s known as their “common purpose to mandatory vaccinate”.
  • 14:00 the “National Cabinet” is not under any legislative scheme. They’re not technically answerable to Parliament. They’re just a group of people coming together and working out these mandates.
  • 16:05 I know you’ve heard Scott Morrison say the government is not mandating vaccines. He’s the “chair” of this National Cabinet. He’s correct – it’s not ‘the government’ – it’s HIM. He IS doing it, but it’s not “the government” – it’s him.
  • 16:25 In my opinion, the members of the National Cabinet have promised each other to effect a common purpose – albeit unlawful – by imposing Mandatory Vaccines on others – that by its very nature automatically removes valid consent.
  • 16:40 When two or more persons form a common intention for unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another – each of them is deemed to have committed the crime.
  • 16:50 It goes down the ladder, and we get to a doctor – the doctor assaults and then the crime goes all the way down the line.
  • 17:00 Any person, such as a public officer, or corporation, employer, who aids and abets in the facilitation of the unlawful common purpose would also be criminally liable.
  • 17:15 The Public Health Orders force employers in corporations by threat of prosecution to pressure employees to get vaccination under the Mandatory “no jab, no job” narrative.
  • 17:30 Further, employers and corporations have been conscripted by the members of the National Cabinet to do their bidding, in that they are forced to put workers on notice, to vaccinate, and forced to obtain and maintain vaccination records from workers under threat again, of prosecution, which is instigated again by the members of the National Cabinet. If an employer or corporation thinks they are protected from prosecution simply because they were compelled to follow the directions, they are mistaken because compulsion is simply not a defence in Criminal Law.
  • 18:09 The Chief Medical Officers of this country are all registered medical practitioners and would have an acute knowledge of medical practitioners duty of care, under Law, to first obtain valid consent, and also would expect that these public servants, would have a thorough understanding of the Medical Code of Conduct as to obtaining valid consent from the patient before administering vaccination.
  • 18:30 Further, the Chief Medical Officers should’ve advised the Prime Minister, the Premiers and Chief Ministers of the valid consent principle.
  • 18:45 These public officers know that if a worker or anyone reveals to an Immunization Provider that they have been intimidated, coerced, pressured, then this should be a warning to Immunization Provider that the patient is unable to give valid, free, voluntary consent, and must tell the patient that they cannot administer the vaccination.
  • 19:25 All Australians are under a disability, in regards to disease, caused by either now or in the future, by COVID-19, according to both State and Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws. To discriminate ‘vaccinated or unvaccinated’ is unlawful.
  • 19:50 Ref to a Media story: 16yo on news who took a Pizza Parlour to task for discrimination – she was vaccinated and they refused to let her attend work. Same can be used for being unvaccinated.
  • 20:25 Complaints can be made to State or Territory Anti-Discrimination Commissions and/or Human Rights Commission.
  • 20:35 If an employee indicates to an employer an intention to lodge a complaint for discrimination, then the employer would immediately be bound upon notice of the employee’s intention – they’ll be prohibited by law to cause any detriment to the employee, they can be seen as an act of retaliation. It can be deemed that if an employer terminates an employee in connection to a vaccination discrimination complaint, then the employer could face liability for the criminal offense of victimization.
  • 21:35 I’ll draft up some letters for your solicitor and they’ll be sent to your employers, and basically you’ll be given them your intention your ‘intent to lodge a complaint‘ as a group in regards to discrimination.
  • 21:50 Torture is ‘state-sanctioned’: assault, battery, wounding, discrimination, involuntary medical and scientific experimentation, against the civilian population that causes serious pain and suffering in the form of physical, and/or mental harm.
  • 22:30 There is simply no defence available to public officers who instigate torture, cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • 22:35 There are provisions under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act and other legislations where the parliaments cannot make laws that allow the public officer to instigate or commit acts of torture.
  • 22:50 The public officers have told the Australian people that the government will indemnify and provide immunity to those employers and corporations who follow the mandatory vaccination narrative, whilst under the protection of the public emergency.
  • 23:09 So they’re immune or indemnified because they committed a crime? Indemnified if a homicide has occurred? And can they indemnify torture? Nice try. Torture is an absolute criminal liability offence. This means that a prosecutor does not have to prove intention of an offender and the offender cannot say it was a mistake of fact. There is no defence under the law to the offence of torture. The state of mind of the accused and the circumstances around the event are irrelevant and the person will be convicted no matter the consequence.
  • 23:53 ‘Absolute’ liability is used for certain regulatory offences of which it is necessary for individuals engaged in potentially hazardous or harmful activity to exercise ‘extreme’ and not nearly reasonable care.
  • 24:10 Basically anyone who joins in the narrative that puts pressure on others to submit to COVID-19 vaccinations could potentially be liable for all the crimes that I just mentioned.
  • 24:25 This is known as complicity in a crime. This means anyone who spruces a mandatory narrative and instigates and coerces others to comply, could be potentially criminally liable.
  • 24:40 We have rights under law to make a complaint in regards to assault, battery, wounding, homicide, or torture. We can make a complaint to the State or Territory or Federal Police, or alternatively if the Police don’t act, we have the right to proceed with a private criminal prosecution against employers or public officers.
  • 25:08 In the same way the police arrest an offender, we have the right to effect a citizens arrest.
  • 25:14 We have the right to file a complaint in court to cause an offender to be charged, and to have a summons issued against that offender.
  • 25:20 We have the right to continually privately prosecute the offender in a court of law.
  • 25:40 A victim may also make an application to the courts to stop threats of violence or intimidating behaviour, and emotional abuse, by seeking restraining orders.
  • 26:00 People may be able to make a complaint to AHPRA or the Health Complaints Commission against any medical practitioner, health provider, or immunization provider who breached their duty of care, which could expose us to harm.
  • 26:40 A public officer might be sued also, for the tort of misfeasance in public office – now this is the civil side of law – if they acted with reckless indifference to the Criminal Law. The only people who can commit it are those holding public office; when they misuse their public power. Public officers may believe that they are immune from lawsuits as per their actions and decisions, but the reality is they can be individually sued for negligence and misfeasance whilst in public office, if the results of the harm caused by their actions or inactions was foreseeable.
  • 27:20 How this works: When we talk about reckless indifference. When I do my advice, which is around 85-100 pages, what happens is a letter is sent which my advice attached to it, to the public health officers (Chief medical officers or Chief health officers, some of your employers, etc.) If they look at the advice, and turn around and go “We’re not going to follow that” – that’s what we call reckless indifference – they haven’t considered the advice, they’ve been put on-notice basically by my advice – whatever they do after that is at their own peril.
  • 28:05 You can also sue for personal injury, if some of you get really sick from it, not only from the vaccine, but what about anxiety and psychological issues and those sorts of things and a lot of you are really under a lot of stress at the moment, and I would suggest, you go see your medical practitioners if you really are not feeling well, mentally, and see if you can get some sort of treatment. Some of you could end up having post-traumatic stress.
  • 29:00 Some states have the crime of oppression by a public officer, and crime of inciting others to commit a crime.
  • 29:22 You can also seek compensation through “Victims of Crime Compensation“, so if you make a complaint to the police in regards to a specific assault – that you’ve got in to get the jab and you were coerced into doing that, depending on how it’s pleaded, you could make a claim.
  • 30:25 Appeals. Discusses recent Hazzard case and how it can be used as a precedent.
  • 32:20 Complaints can also be made to the Crime and Misconduct Commissions, or Integrity Commissions as they’re sometimes called, or ICAC. If a person feels that public officers have committed crime and misconduct.
  • 32:30 Mandating vaccinations for everyone across a whole popular or whole profession or industry regardless of the actual risks associated with not obtaining valid voluntary consent fails the administrative tests of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness under the law, and that’s exactly what Justice Jones was trying to tell us in the Hazzard case. It is simply a fundamentally flawed and ineffective approach to risk management and cannot stand under the law and can be challenged by appeal, and appeals can also be made on the grounds of improper use of power.
  • 33:10 Idea on how Proportionality & Unreasonableness works “First COVID-19 vaccinations commenced in Australia on Monday the 22nd of February, 2021. It has been reported by the Australian government on the TGA’s database of adverse event notifications (DANE) that 583 deaths were attributed to an adverse event concerning the vaccinations of 4 COVID-19 vaccinations available in Australia up to the 5th of October, 2021. In a similar period there were 193 deaths were COVID-19 infection from the 1st of January 2021 to 15th September 2021. So there’s a big difference there. Proportionality doesn’t seem to work here. More deaths in the vaccine group than the actual disease. Now if these statistics are correct, they would be a ground to review appeal the public health orders.

Black Triangle Scheme

It is noted on the Therapeutic Goods Administrator website (01) that the Pfizer vaccine is categorised in the ‘Black Triangle Scheme’, meaning it’s a provisionally registered product and this medicine will remain in the Black Triangle Scheme for the duration of its provisional registration. Being ‘provisional’ means the following:

● Pfizer vaccine is still in clinical trials. (02)
● Remains experimental. (03)
● No established risk/benefits analysis. (04)
● No medium/long term effects have been established. (05)
● No proven benefits, however; there is overwhelming evidence of adverse events and death.
(06) (07) (08) (09) (10) (11)

As a result of the vaccine being in the Black Triangle Scheme, it is unlawful for the injection to be mandated.

Relevant or Useful Documents

Penny (PennyButler.com)
Penny (PennyButler.com)

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.