Excellent research by Dr David Healy MD FRCPsych: https://rxisk.org/there-was-a-young-woman-who-swallowed-a-lie/ and here: https://davidhealy.org/the-eclipse-of-health-care/
rxisk.org
There was a Young Woman who Swallowed a Lie | RxISK
This post is the partner of The Eclipse of Health Care. See also Warning re Health. Before reading (and after finishing) it's worth listening to Peter Seeger's There was a Young Woman. Mandating Unproven Technologies Governments are considering mandating…
My Email to Rod Barton MP (VIC) 01.12.2021
Dear Rod,
I have recently made the following submission to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, arguing that the Pandemic Bill inappropriately delegates power and therefore will be Ultra Vires even if passed by the upper House. In summary, any Act purporting to make a delegation of power to temporarily rule by decree, be it by one man or by a group of committees, can never be lawful, because the parliament does not possess the constitutional authority to restrict our freedoms without first passing law on each specific restriction by a majority vote of both houses. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated or enacted. Please oppose this aberration. The future of Victoria is in your hands.
Public Submission to The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.
I am referring to the proposed PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT (PANDEMIC MANAGEMENT) BILL 2021 (henceforth, ‘The Bill’).
Dear members of the Committee,
I ask you to consider the following logical proof that The Bill inappropriately delegates legislative power.
Summary:
The Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. Therefore, delegation of powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s or Minister’s discretion is Ultra Vires.
In essence, the delegation of discretionary powers to infringe on citizen freedoms by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself.
Analysis:
The principle of Ultra Vires was succinctly formulated by Justice Griffith in Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth, HCA 50 (26 April 1904): “... if the authority which assumes to create such a delegation does not itself possess the power, the delegation is void, since the spring cannot rise higher than its source.”
The legislative power in the State of Victoria is vested solely in the Parliament (s16, Constitution Act 1975), where the "Parliament" includes each House of the Parliament, the members of each House, the committees of each House and joint committees of both Houses (s94B.7). The only means of making legally binding restrictions on freedoms under the constitution is therefore by the majority vote of the Parliament.
The proposed Pandemic Management powers are essential a delegation of the constitutional authority to make legally binding restrictions on freedoms. If the delegation were not an extension of the legislative authority of the Parliment it would not have the force of law. Pandemic Management powers, once assumed, are exercised by the decree of the Minister.
The constitutional objection is that the Parliament does not have the authority to dispense with or bypass any element of the legislative process set in the Constitution (including the majority vote by both houses). The Parliament cannot delegate powers it does not itself possess, since a non-existent authority cannot be delegated; to affirm otherwise would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction, therefore a priori false. More formally, if X is a specific Parlimentary authority that is identical to the delegated authority X, then X=X, but if the the original authority does not exist, then not-X=X, therefore contradiction. Or simply, I cannot give you something that does not exist.
Any Act of Parliament that would purport to delegate powers that exceed the procedural limits of the Parliament itself is therefore Ultra Vires and Void.
Best Regards,
Michael Kowalik
Dear Rod,
I have recently made the following submission to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, arguing that the Pandemic Bill inappropriately delegates power and therefore will be Ultra Vires even if passed by the upper House. In summary, any Act purporting to make a delegation of power to temporarily rule by decree, be it by one man or by a group of committees, can never be lawful, because the parliament does not possess the constitutional authority to restrict our freedoms without first passing law on each specific restriction by a majority vote of both houses. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated or enacted. Please oppose this aberration. The future of Victoria is in your hands.
Public Submission to The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.
I am referring to the proposed PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT (PANDEMIC MANAGEMENT) BILL 2021 (henceforth, ‘The Bill’).
Dear members of the Committee,
I ask you to consider the following logical proof that The Bill inappropriately delegates legislative power.
Summary:
The Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. Therefore, delegation of powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s or Minister’s discretion is Ultra Vires.
In essence, the delegation of discretionary powers to infringe on citizen freedoms by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself.
Analysis:
The principle of Ultra Vires was succinctly formulated by Justice Griffith in Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth, HCA 50 (26 April 1904): “... if the authority which assumes to create such a delegation does not itself possess the power, the delegation is void, since the spring cannot rise higher than its source.”
The legislative power in the State of Victoria is vested solely in the Parliament (s16, Constitution Act 1975), where the "Parliament" includes each House of the Parliament, the members of each House, the committees of each House and joint committees of both Houses (s94B.7). The only means of making legally binding restrictions on freedoms under the constitution is therefore by the majority vote of the Parliament.
The proposed Pandemic Management powers are essential a delegation of the constitutional authority to make legally binding restrictions on freedoms. If the delegation were not an extension of the legislative authority of the Parliment it would not have the force of law. Pandemic Management powers, once assumed, are exercised by the decree of the Minister.
The constitutional objection is that the Parliament does not have the authority to dispense with or bypass any element of the legislative process set in the Constitution (including the majority vote by both houses). The Parliament cannot delegate powers it does not itself possess, since a non-existent authority cannot be delegated; to affirm otherwise would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction, therefore a priori false. More formally, if X is a specific Parlimentary authority that is identical to the delegated authority X, then X=X, but if the the original authority does not exist, then not-X=X, therefore contradiction. Or simply, I cannot give you something that does not exist.
Any Act of Parliament that would purport to delegate powers that exceed the procedural limits of the Parliament itself is therefore Ultra Vires and Void.
Best Regards,
Michael Kowalik
For those who endured
Covid vaccination mandates, backed by unprecedented social, psychological and economic coercion, violate the right to free medical consent, without which every other right can be subverted, even the right to life. If you would acquiesce to this violation when you have the capacity to resist, you would not only give up that right for yourself but for your children and for future generations, and you do not have the moral right to do this. Every day that you do not acquiesce to this moral wrong is a small victory, but over time, these small victories amount to a triumph. You would have had moments of doubt, of powerlessness, anxiety, but after all the lockdowns, vilification, psychological manipulation and economic coercion you are still standing, you have not been defeated, and this is a triumph of moral conscience, a revelation of your integrity. Let this be the source of your strength and of self-renewing courage. You should be buzzing with energy. You have passed the initiation of the human spirit that many have failed. You have faced the greatest power on Earth, who have schemed in the shadows, poisoning us for generations and corrupting our reason, but you have proven yourself to be like a sea, like an ocean deep enough to receive this polluted river without yourself becoming polluted. To prevail untainted against such a corrupting power is the true Power; it transcends the Earth. For those who have not colluded, who did not submit to coercion, who endured, I salute you.
Covid vaccination mandates, backed by unprecedented social, psychological and economic coercion, violate the right to free medical consent, without which every other right can be subverted, even the right to life. If you would acquiesce to this violation when you have the capacity to resist, you would not only give up that right for yourself but for your children and for future generations, and you do not have the moral right to do this. Every day that you do not acquiesce to this moral wrong is a small victory, but over time, these small victories amount to a triumph. You would have had moments of doubt, of powerlessness, anxiety, but after all the lockdowns, vilification, psychological manipulation and economic coercion you are still standing, you have not been defeated, and this is a triumph of moral conscience, a revelation of your integrity. Let this be the source of your strength and of self-renewing courage. You should be buzzing with energy. You have passed the initiation of the human spirit that many have failed. You have faced the greatest power on Earth, who have schemed in the shadows, poisoning us for generations and corrupting our reason, but you have proven yourself to be like a sea, like an ocean deep enough to receive this polluted river without yourself becoming polluted. To prevail untainted against such a corrupting power is the true Power; it transcends the Earth. For those who have not colluded, who did not submit to coercion, who endured, I salute you.
Forwarded from AUSSIE-NEWS
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
No words needed and you don't need to be an expert body language reader.
Squirm baby squirm
Squirm baby squirm
Everyone has the capacity to create money, legally, independently of the national fiat currency.
Once upon a time, paper money was known as Promissory Notes, a kind of certificate issued by the buyer in which they agreed to pay the seller, or anyone else who would lawfully own the certificate, with a specific quantity of precious metals (or anything else of value). The seller could then transfer the certificate to someone else in exchange for goods or services, provided that this secondary seller had enough trust in the person issuing the certificate to meet their payment obligation when called upon. If this capacity to pay were in doubt, the price of the certificate would be discounted from its nominal value in order to compensate for the risk taken. If trust were good, then the promissory note would circulate just like bank notes. In fact “bank notes” were initially just promissory notes issued by private banks, and since banks were considered the most trustworthy of debtors, their notes were circulating on par with State-backed fiat currency. Promissory notes defined, see Part IV: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/boea1909148/
In a community where people have established a degree of trust this means of payment could be an easy and highly functional substitute for state currency. Promissory notes could be redeemable in state currency, metal species, specific produce, other commodities, or even in hours of professional/trade labour. But personal trust is not even necessary for promissory notes to be accepted as a means of payment. In times of monetary scarcity, such as we remember from the Great Depression, it would be in the interest of companies to accept promissory notes in order to sustain the economy and thus to preserve themselves. Also, payment of promissory notes can be enforced under the existing contract law, if the maker of the note would fail to fulfil their obligations.
Privately issued promissory notes can also be systematised as a digital currency, even under Zero Trust conditions, by utilising collateral certification. The crucial take away here is that the banking system is entirely unnecessary to the economy, nor is the national fiat currency. WE DO NOT NEED THEM, they need us. I have introduced this model here: https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/introduction-to-robust-secured-crypto-currency/
For a more in-depth discussion of money, economic value and credit, see here: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWAMC-2
Once upon a time, paper money was known as Promissory Notes, a kind of certificate issued by the buyer in which they agreed to pay the seller, or anyone else who would lawfully own the certificate, with a specific quantity of precious metals (or anything else of value). The seller could then transfer the certificate to someone else in exchange for goods or services, provided that this secondary seller had enough trust in the person issuing the certificate to meet their payment obligation when called upon. If this capacity to pay were in doubt, the price of the certificate would be discounted from its nominal value in order to compensate for the risk taken. If trust were good, then the promissory note would circulate just like bank notes. In fact “bank notes” were initially just promissory notes issued by private banks, and since banks were considered the most trustworthy of debtors, their notes were circulating on par with State-backed fiat currency. Promissory notes defined, see Part IV: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/boea1909148/
In a community where people have established a degree of trust this means of payment could be an easy and highly functional substitute for state currency. Promissory notes could be redeemable in state currency, metal species, specific produce, other commodities, or even in hours of professional/trade labour. But personal trust is not even necessary for promissory notes to be accepted as a means of payment. In times of monetary scarcity, such as we remember from the Great Depression, it would be in the interest of companies to accept promissory notes in order to sustain the economy and thus to preserve themselves. Also, payment of promissory notes can be enforced under the existing contract law, if the maker of the note would fail to fulfil their obligations.
Privately issued promissory notes can also be systematised as a digital currency, even under Zero Trust conditions, by utilising collateral certification. The crucial take away here is that the banking system is entirely unnecessary to the economy, nor is the national fiat currency. WE DO NOT NEED THEM, they need us. I have introduced this model here: https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/introduction-to-robust-secured-crypto-currency/
For a more in-depth discussion of money, economic value and credit, see here: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWAMC-2
Cultural Analysis & Philosophy
Introduction to Robust Secured Crypto-Currency
Proponents of decentralised blockchain technology like to emphasise its alleged anti-financial-establishment, economically liberating potential. Nevertheless, all the libertarian promises of crypto…
Forwarded from Michael Kowalik
The ‘opposition’ never once raised the issue that the pandemic Bill either involves an improper delegation of legislative power, and is therefore not law, or it does not involve legislative power, and is therefore not law. The parliament does not possess the constitutional authority to restrict our freedoms apart from passing a law on each specific restriction by a majority vote of both houses. If it does not possess such authority, it cannot delegate to anyone else, under any Act.
I went to two “non-essential” shops today, waited out the front until I got staff’s attention, I told them what I want, they asked whether I want to come in, I said no I am not allowed to, they said “unvaccinated?”, I said Yes. They went out of the way to look after me with a smile and gave me a discount. My suggestion: do not hide the fact that you are being excluded for not submitting to medical coercion; they need to see real, dignified people being excluded. Their conscience will do the rest.
Without the right to free medical consent you have no rights, because every other right can be medically subverted. To have no rights implies having no moral status, no agency, no intrinsic value. Medical coercion devalues conscious agency, but because it is an expression of someone’s conscious agency, it also devalues and ultimately nihilates itself. This is the essence of evil.
Lockdowns and other Covid-related restrictions on economic activity amount to a massive wealth transfer from the productive end of the economy to the global banking cartel who are the primary holders of public debt.
Freedom and wealth equality are mutually exclusive concepts; you can have either one or the other, but by giving up creative freedom you would be giving up your humanity, and therefore the reason to care about wealth, therefore contradiction. Moreover, without unequal distribution of resources there can be no wealth, because economic value is based on scarcity, on what one person has that another does not have but wants, therefore the idea of wealth equality is absurd on this count also. Cultures where creative freedom and, by implication, individual property rights, are suppressed, are committed to universal destitution. This does not mean that we ought to blindly pursue economic wealth, but rather, that we must preserve creative freedom above all else, in order to preserve humanity. To do this effectively we must acknowledge that wealth concentration can also be used to suppress the freedom of others.
Covid will uncover everything fake, and it is nowhere near being done yet. The crucial question we must all ask ourselves is: if some of that fakeness were in me, would I want to know?
Top insiders selling their own stocks at record rate in 2021. Is Deflation imminent?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/01/ceos-and-insiders-sell-a-record-69-billion-of-their-stock.html
Ironically, Zero Hedge attempts to explain this sell-off as a reaction to inflation, which is of course absurd. You do not sell non-financial assets to hedge against inflation; you buy them, because when money loses purchasing power then the nominal stock valuations must go up. I interpret this sell-off as foreknowledge of future Deflation (an anticipated increase in the purchasing power of money due to a manufactured shrinkage in M3 money supply, ie in the availability of bank credit). This is just what has triggered the Great Depression, but today the ratio of M0/M3 (cash to bank account balances) is an order of magnitude smaller, so the deflationary collapse could be that much bigger, short of some monetary intervention by the central banks, which may indeed be just the plan (CBDCs). This interpretation dovetails with the appointment of the new, Soviet trained Prof. Saule Omarova as the United States Comptroller of the Currency:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vipinbharathan/2021/11/21/saule-omarova-bidens-pick-for-the-occ-draws-fire-from-the-private-money-crowd/
And here is Omarova’s plan: “the complete migration of demand deposit accounts to the Fed’s balance sheet and explores the full range of new, more direct and flexible, monetary policy tools enabled by this shift. On the asset side, it advocates a comprehensive qualitative restructuring of the Fed’s investment portfolio, which would maximize its capacity to channel credit to productive uses in the nation’s economy.” Sure, some common sense ideas here, like the elimination of the fractional reserve banking, but these good ideas appear to be combined with total monetary surveillance, one blockchain to rule them all. In the face of the totalitarian overreach associated with Covid, this solution would be safe only if the use of cash were made a constitutionally protected right. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3715735 NOTE: As I am reading this paper it is clear that this is a policy of total control, engaging in systemic redistribution of wealth according to their judgement. I will have more comments on this shortly.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/01/ceos-and-insiders-sell-a-record-69-billion-of-their-stock.html
Ironically, Zero Hedge attempts to explain this sell-off as a reaction to inflation, which is of course absurd. You do not sell non-financial assets to hedge against inflation; you buy them, because when money loses purchasing power then the nominal stock valuations must go up. I interpret this sell-off as foreknowledge of future Deflation (an anticipated increase in the purchasing power of money due to a manufactured shrinkage in M3 money supply, ie in the availability of bank credit). This is just what has triggered the Great Depression, but today the ratio of M0/M3 (cash to bank account balances) is an order of magnitude smaller, so the deflationary collapse could be that much bigger, short of some monetary intervention by the central banks, which may indeed be just the plan (CBDCs). This interpretation dovetails with the appointment of the new, Soviet trained Prof. Saule Omarova as the United States Comptroller of the Currency:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vipinbharathan/2021/11/21/saule-omarova-bidens-pick-for-the-occ-draws-fire-from-the-private-money-crowd/
And here is Omarova’s plan: “the complete migration of demand deposit accounts to the Fed’s balance sheet and explores the full range of new, more direct and flexible, monetary policy tools enabled by this shift. On the asset side, it advocates a comprehensive qualitative restructuring of the Fed’s investment portfolio, which would maximize its capacity to channel credit to productive uses in the nation’s economy.” Sure, some common sense ideas here, like the elimination of the fractional reserve banking, but these good ideas appear to be combined with total monetary surveillance, one blockchain to rule them all. In the face of the totalitarian overreach associated with Covid, this solution would be safe only if the use of cash were made a constitutionally protected right. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3715735 NOTE: As I am reading this paper it is clear that this is a policy of total control, engaging in systemic redistribution of wealth according to their judgement. I will have more comments on this shortly.
CNBC
CEOs and insiders sell a record $69 billion of their stock, and the year isn't over yet
From Satya Nadella at Microsoft to Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, CEOs, founders and insiders have been cashing in their stock at the highest pace on record.
Forwarded from Critical Path News & Insights
"4. Correlating unvaccinated mortality with vaccine roll out we see curious patterns (dotted line the proportion of people getting first and second doses). Why are the unvaccinated dying after NOT getting the 1st dose? Why are the single dosed dying after NOT getting the 2nd dose?
5.Plenty of evidence that the vaccinated who die within 14 days of vaccination may be categorized as unvaccinated. Then someone who dies within 14 days of first dose is miscategorised as unvaccinated and a similar thing could occur post second dose."
https://mobile.twitter.com/martinneil9/status/1466814347762671628?s=21
Awesome. If we just count all the ppl dying in the first 14 days after 1st dose quaxx, as 'unvaccinated', then magically unvaxxed deaths just jump beyond historic norms. Magically 🙃 safe if we don't count the deaths it causes!
5.Plenty of evidence that the vaccinated who die within 14 days of vaccination may be categorized as unvaccinated. Then someone who dies within 14 days of first dose is miscategorised as unvaccinated and a similar thing could occur post second dose."
https://mobile.twitter.com/martinneil9/status/1466814347762671628?s=21
Awesome. If we just count all the ppl dying in the first 14 days after 1st dose quaxx, as 'unvaccinated', then magically unvaxxed deaths just jump beyond historic norms. Magically 🙃 safe if we don't count the deaths it causes!
Twitter
Martin Neil
1.Our research team have now analysed the ONS England November mortality data. We conclude that despite seeming evidence to support vaccine effectiveness this conclusion is doubtful because of a range of serious inconsistencies and anomalies. See: dx.doi…
Global Fascism will arrive wrapped in the rainbow flag, unleashing gender equality and climate justice at the spear-point of a syringe. ‘Inclusiveness’ and ‘leaving no one behind’ are finally revealed as euphemisms for mandatory participation: no one will be permitted to opt-out. Reimagine that.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23216Together_2030__Position_Paper__HLPF_2019.pdf
https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23216Together_2030__Position_Paper__HLPF_2019.pdf
https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
The snippet is from the manifesto of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation. Any kind of “holy mandate” tribal-nationalism is classified as Right Wing extremism, as racial supremacism - a core feature of nazi ideology. They also claim to be your rulers. Beware. https://web.archive.org/web/20230616232942/http://ostf.weebly.com/ostf-declaration-of-sovereignty-and-nationhood.html
Another ban, for posting the following in response to the recent lost appeal against vaccine mandates in NSW:
‘No lawyer as yet has argued that vaccine mandates violate the right to life by requiring employees to participate in an activity where a small percentage of them are expected to die as a result of their mandated participation; or that CHO general directives are Ultra Vires because even the parliament does not have the constitutional authority to make us do anything without passing a law to that specific effect by a majority vote of both houses. https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/628’
Now why would a champion of your rights and freedoms, a lawyer purporting to defend you from vaccine mandates, do such a thing?
‘No lawyer as yet has argued that vaccine mandates violate the right to life by requiring employees to participate in an activity where a small percentage of them are expected to die as a result of their mandated participation; or that CHO general directives are Ultra Vires because even the parliament does not have the constitutional authority to make us do anything without passing a law to that specific effect by a majority vote of both houses. https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/628’
Now why would a champion of your rights and freedoms, a lawyer purporting to defend you from vaccine mandates, do such a thing?