NSW Class Action -False Emergency
Maatouks Law Group with Advocate Me
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.
The NSW government is relying on one section only, of the Public Health and Emergency legislation to legitimise its actions. They are not acting within the ambit of the Law.
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).
Unfortunately, the laws are not so simplistic, and there are various protections and processes that need to be applied before they can request you to be detained, restricted, masked, tested and now vaccinated.
A brave client has already put these arguments to the Court, when we sought to have an adjournment (Serene Teffaha as Amicus Curiae) to challenge Hazzard and his ilk, particularly the Police Commissioner Fuller, for failing to declare a State of Emergency, and soliciting the compliance of the residents of this Country, under false pretenses that there is a state of emergency.
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.
Furthermore, the NSW government has not been provided an indemnity from the Commonwealth, relating to any injury arising from the vaccines. And in turn, the NSW government is not indemnifying employers for any vaccine injuries of their employees, and the NSW Workcover has not made any statements that the worker's compensation scheme will cover any employers.
We are also extremely concerned at the brutality of exposing children under the age of 18 years, to these experimental products.
We are pleased to back and collaborate with Maatouks Law Group, in bringing forward the critical claim, in relation to the inconsistencies in the application of state and territory public health and emergency legislation, applied upon large groups of individuals, mandating medical intervention. We have decided, that given the highly aggressive stance taken by the NSW government against its people; that NSW will be the ideal testing ground for this case.
Please express your interest in joining the NSW Class Action by following the link below. At this stage, we are only taking pledges of donations towards the case, and once the costs are appropriately procured and transacted, we will seek your contributions. Alternatively, you are welcome just to donate without joining the action if you wish to offer financial support.
Let us shine together and stop this abuse!