NSW Class Action -False Emergency “ Government Not Acting Within The Ambit Of The Law” Claims Law Firm Document

By Peter Rowan

New South Wales residents who have been affected by lockdowns and other government actions may enter a class action proposed by the law firm AdvocateMe.

According to a document issued by the firm the New South Wales state government is “…purporting to use emergency provisions, without using them appropriately and without the qualifications to the use of such powers.”

A number of affected people have raised the issue that it is a serious matter if governments act beyond their powers and cause injury to innocent citizens. Australians are governed by the rule of law and governments are not permitted to act outside of the law regardless of the personal opinions and desires of elected representatives and bureaucrats.

It is apparently in defence of the rule of law and not the opinions of politicians and bureaucrats that the class action proposal has arisen.

AdvocateMe has produced a document that invites people who would like to support the proposed class action to read and complete, to pledge donations.

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?

Read More – https://www.advocateme.com.au/nsw-false-emergency



National Class Action

We have evidence 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.

After the attempted sabotage by the Victorian Legal Services Board against the National Class Action paid-up clients, we have had time to reflect on the best strategy forward. We have come to an uncomfortable realisation that our Court systems have been usurped by corrupt lawyers and judges.

We also realised that the strategy of going to Court and/or a Commission and/or a Tribunal is only one tool in our toolbox and we need to look at other options of creating change. At Advocate Me we are looking at community campaigns that will aim to provide solutions beyond the Court Rooms. Please watch our space.

Four things have arisen since we first discussed the action:

  1. The COVID-19 vaccination roll-out was instituted and we are beginning to garner information regarding serious adverse reactions, including deaths; and

  2. The COVID-19 vaccinations have been recommended by the National Cabinet to be mandated in the aged care sector; and

  3. Some States have now issued their own COVID-19 vaccination mandates, in QLD in the hospital sector and NSW in the airport transport sector, quarantine facilities and construction sector; in SA in the quarantine facilities and related health sectors; and

  4. Employers are making up their own vaccination policies and imposing them on their employees, irrespective of any Government mandates.

The same situation is also applying to the influenza vaccination, PPE and testing by employers against their employees.

There are serious implications for customers of businesses too, that are now being threatened with the potential of vaccination passports, that will create discrimination against unvaccinated individuals and potentially disable them from accessing services without a COVID-19 vaccination. We are currently observing the situation closely as it unfolds.

It is highly probable now that the SARS-CoV-2 viral sequence had man-made origins and that it had been designed with certain ‘gain of function’ specifications that are likely to trigger auto-immune and blood clotting responses, if reformulated and delivered to everyone, via new genetic technologies, through mandatory vaccinations.

Read More – https://www.advocateme.com.au/covid-class-action


Maatouks Law Group Class Action

If you have been impacted by mandatory directions in relation to COVID-19 vaccination, influenza vaccination, masking and other PPE, hotel detention, RT-PCR testing, forcible closure of business, services and/or places of worship, or restriction of visitation and/or access to loved ones, and if you have been personally injured by a vaccine and/or have lost a loved one, friend or family member to the vaccine then you may be eligible to be a class action group member.

We urge you to fill out the application form enclosed so that we may be able to allocate you to the appropriate action in your State and Territory as well as any National Class Action, in addition to our High Court Challenge to protect our children.

The Class Actions will require lead applicants. These are the class action members who are happy to put their names and stories to the front and spearhead the action in court. For the purposes of mitigating any consequence to a lead applicant, an ideal lead would be someone who does not own property, or have significant savings. Because a lead applicant is heading the group action, they will not be required to make a financial contribution.

If you are not a lead applicant and are able to make a financial contribution then we urge you to make a donation to our cause here.