Employer Telling You To Get The Jab?

The Queensland Government released a media press release to fool the people into getting the jab. No laws have passed friends, hold on to your boots keep your eyes open and witness the trickery at play.


Any law that purports to make it mandatory for a person to submit to a COVID-19 vaccination is invalid.

In 1945, the then Chief Justice Latham held that quarantine laws “may be regarded in most, if not all, of its aspects as a form of public health legislation”.

The Commonwealth has the power under section 51(ix) of the Constitution to make laws with respect to ‘quarantine’. This is a power granted to the Commonwealth. Not the States.
At [257] of the decision, Latham CJ held that the Commonwealth “could not pass a law requiring citizens of the States… to submit to vaccination or immunization”.

So there are several important things that flow from this High Court decision.

Vaccinations and immunizations are matters that fall within the category of ‘quarantine’.Only the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to ‘quarantine’ under section 51(ix) of the Constitution.The Commonwealth is prohibited from passing laws requiring citizens to submit to vaccination or immunization (which are quarantine matters).The States have no power to make laws with respect to quarantine, including matters dealing with vaccinations and immunizations (as Latham CJ held that these things are ‘quarantine’ matters).The States are unable to do something that the Commonwealth is prohibited from doing under the exercise of the quarantine power.Therefore the States cannot pass any law that requires citizens to submit to vaccination or immunization.Part 3B of the Public Health (COVID-19 Air Transportation Quarantine) Order (No 2) (NSW) 2021 is invalid.

All workers who have been identified under the ‘NSW Airport and Quarantine Workers’ Vaccination Program’ should consider the above before making any decision as to whether to have a COVID-19 vaccination.

Thanks to G&B Lawyers source – https://www.facebook.com/197895204117588/photos/a.224784381428670/941275709779530/

AdvocateMe Legal Letter Templates


Join The Class Action

Is the public health risk serious and significant enough to necessitate emergency declarations?

Under both Federal and States and Territories’ legislation, consideration must be given to whether a public health risk is serious and significant enough to necessitate emergency declarations. In doing so, Governments must balance the competing need to protect the public interest, with the need to protect human rights

The evidence proves that our Governments are not applying their own laws and are introducing draconian directives and legislation that override the Constitution, the Biosecurity Act 2015 and Human Rights legislative frameworks. As a result, healthy people are being treated as suspect COVID-19 cases.



The State of New South Wales is issuing orders and directions to its residents under the guise there is a State of Emergency. However, no State of Emergency has been declared for New South Wales.

It is time for New South Wales to take a stand!

We understand that it has been incredibly difficult and many of you are shocked to know that there is NO DECLARED STATE OF EMERGENCY in NSW.

Yet, from speaking to many of you, you believe you have to comply with the directions and orders from Brad Hazzard because he has led you to believe that there is a State of Emergency and you must comply with the directions for your safety.

The reality though is that Hazzard, and his ilk, including Chant, Berejiklian and Fuller, have reduced two pieces of complex legislation, to one section only, and that is section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010 NSW (PHA).

Section 7 of the PHA does not allow Hazzard to force compliance of the residents under the name of a State of Emergency, when one has not been declared.

This is specifically provided for under subsection 7(6) of the PHA that states that “action may not be taken, and an order has no effect, in relation to any part of the State for which a state of emergency exists under the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989.” (SERMA)

Hazzard et al, have unequivocally, purported that there is a state of emergency that exists pursuant to the definition of section 4 of the SERMA.

They are in a bit of a bind if they try to argue that a State of Emergency does not exist, if it is not declared. The reason for this is that section 7 of the PHA speaks about a State of Emergency existing, quite separately to it being declared.

The issue for them to answer to is, if there is a State of Emergency that exists, and they have not declared it, and hence it does not exist courtesy of the failure to declare it, then why are they falsely purporting that there is one to the residents (of NSW) and seeking their compliance on that basis?

There are also a number of other issues for them, as they have failed to use the specific provisions that deal with State of Emergency under section 8 of the PHA, and are purporting to the public to use police powers under the SERMA, through what is known as the State Emergency Operations Centre, in the absence of them declaring an emergency.

Furthermore, they are purporting to use emergency provisions, without using them appropriately and without the qualifications to the use of such powers. These powers are specifically provided for under Division 4 of Part 4 of the PHA. Specifically, section 62, requires personalised Public Health Orders to be issued to individuals that the state has identified as a risk, or as a potential risk of a Category 4 or 5 condition (including COVID-19).

It is up to authorised medical practitioners to make assessments for serious medical interventions such as treatment, contact tracing, testing, supervision, counselling and possibly vaccinations.

However, it is important to note that vaccinations do not appear to be anticipated as possible interventions under subsection 62(3) of the PHA.

We say that these vaccinations cannot even be classified as vaccinations, given that they are not fit for purpose and you simply cannot order collective groups of people to be vaccinated under the PHA.

The experimental nature of these products, the lack of trial data, the significant number of reported adverse events, the high recovery rate from the original SARS-CoV-2 variant, and the fact that these products don’t protect from the Delta variant, cannot bring them within the consideration of the PHA in the first place.



NoFear #KeepingMobSafe


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: