Australia’s domestic medico-legal tyranny structure and Shepherd v The State of South Australia
Australia’s domestic medico-legal tyranny structure and Shepherd v The State of South Australia
With Bob Moran art
Welcome article for new readers: battlefield philosophy and my articles summarised
Support ExcessDeathsAU with a small one-off donation (Ko-Fi)
ExcessDeathsAU has been banned from social media: I rely on you to share articles
Summary: Australia’s domestic medico-legal tyranny structure
For documents, please see:
Powers to trigger Australia’s federal domestic medico-legal tyranny structure are largely associated with the position of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO). This man or woman has, with one letter (see below section), the power to list certain ‘germs’ as ‘dangerous’ and then declare an ‘Emergency’ based on the seemingly arbitrarily-determined ‘lethality’ of these ‘germs’ thereby transferring power upwards and away from citizens. Rights are nullified and the constitution is overthrown.
The Act that enables the CMO to do this is the Human Biosecurity Act of 2015.
The police and military create ‘taskforces’ to enforce the mandates associated with the Emergency in a whole-of-government response. At this point, every government department (including the media) is co-opted into the legal Emergency. To question the Emergency means that you are de facto designated as an enemy of the state.
Incidents that occur are used by authorities to emphase that anyone in the country who questions the government or the Emergency is, again, an enemy of the state and there should be ‘whole of society’ action against these ‘enemies’.
Like this:
While there are substantial international forces at play, the Australian power structure does not have to listen to them. Australian politicians simply choose to and their reasons are their own. Yes, that includes the WHO. The WHO does not have an army or a military. It has pieces of paper. Like our petitions, it can choose to ignore them.
Yet, I suppose we understand what happens to Australians who tell international powers (US DOD) to go pound sand:
In addition to the federal medico-legal tyranny structure, there are state-based Acts and Medical Officers that dovetail the federal Emergencies. One of the worst of these is the WA Health Act 2016 in Western Australia which is the platform for the EMA COVID-19 ACT 2022.
According to the Act, you may be apprehended, detained and removed to a ‘place’ in order to be restrained and vaccinated by force. The ‘force’ used shall overcome any resistance to the enforcement of compliance to vaccination. Please read the article above for how this dovetails the COVID-19 ACT 2022, which states:
(legal) evacuation and removal of persons, road closures, and (an) authorised COVID-19 officer may enter, or if necessary break into and enter, any place or vehicle without a warrant or the consent of the owner or occupier, direction of persons to remain quarantined from other persons, to submit to infection prevention and control procedures, close any place of business, worship or entertainment, (collect) the personal details of a person, information about the whereabouts of a person, information about the state of health of a person, information about any recent travel undertake by a person, or information about persons with whom a person has been in close contact.
In conjunction with the proposed Australian digital misinformation bill (see article), citizens could be taken away without few people noticing because alerting people about something bad happening (i.e., against the government) would be ‘misinformation.’
Again, please understand that this is all legal, even if it is a lie (see below).
Shepherd v The State of South Australia (SA)
I recently wrote about this case here:
As my Perth co-Substacker
says:An elaborate system is maintained that, in its dazzling sophistication and bureaucracy, conceals the inherent corruption at its core - where debate is allowed, except that of the legitimacy of the actual system itself.
This is an extremely important premise for examining Shepherd v SA, and you can see a run-down here:
Many people are celebrating the win, and this is not an attempt to ‘yuck the yum’ as some may put it, but simply to inform people that (as the Moran cartoon in the frontispiece beautifully illustrates) the real prison has simply been exposed.
We are just celebrating in the prison yard.
The Australian government already admits that the shots hurt people. That’s why there is a covid vaccine compensation scheme (albeit narrow - of course, it should be expanded) and there is even a government funeral scheme for those who have died taking the shots.
So (of course with great respect) the injured person gets a taxpayer-funded payout from his employer which is the state government. Maybe there will be financial implications of this for other employers or maybe it will be overturned. Time will tell.
…It would be ironic and unjust if Mr Shepherd was denied financial and medical support by complying with the State’s desire to preserve public health.
The result arrived at is also consonant with the objects of the EM Act.
(Complying).
The ruling also fully establishes in the Agreed Facts that Australia is ‘required to prepare for a pandemic by passing the EM because the WHO declared a pandemic.’ (Of course, not true, Australia chooses to do this).
To sum, what this ruling actually does is affirm that the emergency and the shots are good and necessary for public health, and rewards compensation for compliance - the state has not rewarded compensation for disobedience. Please note, this is not a judgement of Mr Shepherd or anyone who is vaccine injured, I am just simply stating the facts of the case.
No one is dismantling the Emergency, the Human Biosecurity Act, the mandates, the Health Acts, the position and powers of the Chief Medical Officer or the legal framework that allowed all of this to occur.
And finally, in the rush for ‘financial compensation,’ people are perhaps forgetting that there may be things that are more important than money, like dismantling this tyranny for our children and grandchildren.
Questioning the Emergency - a taboo subject for the Australian government
If the Emergency were ever to be questioned it would all fall apart.
(Please note, I do not subscribe to/endorse any one idea/hypothesis. I am simply stating the argument that if there was a proper enquiry, the government would go back to first principles and question everything. But they won’t, because in my opinion a lot of people were murdered and terrorised by the government response and they know it. Yet, if people started seriously questioning why the Emergency powers or the position of the CMO existed at all, that is the point at which I would say: ‘now we are cooking with gas.’)
In any case, we can start by highlighting people who have questioned the need for - or particulars of - an Emergency.
As I said above, the federal Emergency officially started with a letter from the CMO to the Minister for Health (FOI 2655 in ExcessDeathsAU article Yes, they did know).
The key point from the letter is this:
The global case fatality rate for COVID-19 is currently estimated at as high as 3.8%, with the risk of death reported to increase with age.
Will the government ever question the CFR and the methods of determination?
Here are some people who have:
First, the OG ‘questioner’ John P.A. Ioannidis of Stanford
May 13, 2020:
Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.03% to 0.50% and corrected values ranged from 0.02% to 0.40%.
Preprint: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v1
2021
Updated and published: In people younger than 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7947934/pdf/BLT.20.265892.pdf/
And see this new article from Fenton et al.:
In 2020 Fenton and Neil:
double checked [Ed. - Ioanidis’] numbers by running a similar, but more sophisticated analysis, using as much available data as [they] could get…in response the adjusted estimates for IFR are most likely to be in the range 0.3–0.5%.
More recently Fenton et al. have gone back to the drawing board to re-examine their own 2020 paper (above) and said:
Scientists are supposed to change their mind in the light of evidence. As Bayesians we live by this mantra. But looking back on it were these the right conclusion to make?
…we now know that in some places the spring 2020 deaths were largely iatrogenic, i.e. caused by the inappropriate response to the perceived pandemic which especially affected vulnerable and elderly people in healthcare settings. This included isolation from family members, denial of approporiate medical treatment and the introduction of novel end of life protocols.
We also now know that PCR testing was inaccurate, and the results massively exaggerated.
Looking at the data again - with 20/20 hindsight - we should have concluded that:
The range of seroprevalence positive rates was far too wide to suggest it was diagnosable of anything much, and not consistent with a transmissibility pattern.
The vast differences between seroprevalence and PCR positive rates undermined many of the supposedly reliable theories underpinning how people got infected, sick and then died.
The range of fatality rates was far too wide to be consistent with a single common cause - the virus - and hence we should not have applied a uniform adjustment.
In conclusion we were naïve and too trusting of the authorities, but also at that time we were blind to the iatrogenic healthcare effects and the issues with PCR testing.
And here is a citizen journalist
who has been on the topic of ‘early spread’ for a very long time, including in relation to the US DOD on military ships (careful now, Bill!) asking questions that governments also do not want to ask:And of course the fascinating analysis of JJ Couey:
And what the actual hell was going on in NYC with that data?
The point is that people have questions. GOOD questions. Questions that the Australian government is not asking. They just declared Emergencies for years and there are still mandates in place for God’s sake:
Final thoughts
So the point of this article with regards to Shepherd v The State of South Australia is that, again, the framework of the government’s response is not under question. In fact, it has been solidified as a Good Thing. As was citizen obedience to the Emergency and the mandates.
While I would never begrudge the vaccine-injured getting financial relief, we must understand that the power structure is still firmly in place, they will do it again, and the case in question only serves to solidify that the Emergency, mandates and shots were (at least in the eyes of the courts) a good and appropriate response to the Emergency.
The Australian government essentially said to us: ‘your job or your life.’ At that point, the only winning move was not to play. Whatever they promised us, it was not worth it, and I heard every excuse imaginable and I continue to watch the death and suffering as a result.
Finally, as always, I would ask this of readers as they examine information:
Cui bono?
Until next time readers.
By the way, this is how I feel about all of you:
And this is how I feel about them:
Have you listened to Dennis Rancourt? JJ couey watched his interview with S. Kirsch....with Kirsch representing the vast majority of people who think pandemics are possible and we must have these rules....poor Kirsch is so deep in the lie, its pathetic, but Rancourt and Couey's commentary are brilliant.
Here's the link if you haven't seen it....although you will die with embarassement for Kirsch. https://www.bitchute.com/video/EPwVwjEsk8z5/
🙏 love Bob’s work like yourself it gets us thinking