For a Public Officer, a Full Understanding of the Personal Liabilities and Possible Criminality Involved in Supporting the Current Pro Jab, Mandatory Narrative
By Australian National Review
Mr Mayor, All Scenic Rim Councillors, MP Buchholz and MP Krause,
BE ADVISED:
The following is taken from the advice by Barrister Raymond Broomhall in his brief to AFL Lawyers and others, specifically in their pending actions for NSW and Vic.
There is no reason explained within the below link why it could not equally apply to us here in Qld, and specifically the Scenic Rim.
For anyone employed as a PUBLIC OFFICER, I would suggest, the full extent of the advice contained within this video, is required information to give a full understanding of the personal liabilities and possible criminality involved in supporting the current Pro Jab, mandatory narrative.
Significant excerpts are:
- Consent is by definition Free Voluntary agreement which is not forced or coerced. Consent is invalid if there is extreme coercion or pressure.
- AHPRA endorses ATAGI Australian Vaccination Handbook guidelines Valid Consent must be obtained.
- Voluntarily is defined as free from undue pressure and coercion or manipulation.
- Consent under duress is invalid and amounts to assault and homicide if death is the result.
- 12.17min in the video explains that the TGA defines this jab is an experimental clinical trial provisionally approved. Criminal Code 1995 states, participation in a clinical trial must be voluntary clearly not mandatory, therefore current mandated dictates are unlawful under Criminal Law.
- 13.05min in the video details how the National Cabinet is just another name for a meeting and has no constitutional authority, no statutory power nor any legal status. The PM, CMOs and Premiers Exchange solemn promises for common purpose to make administrative arrangements to make public orders. Not answerable to parliament. If two or more persons form a common intent to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with each other, each of them is deemed to have committed the crime. The doctor or vaccine provider who carries out the assaults is also criminally liable. Any person who aids and abets the crime such as employers, public officers, news outlets or corporations are therefore liable.
- 21.59min Defines Torture as state sanctioned assault, battery, state sanctioned wounding, state sanctioned discrimination, involuntary conscription to a medical experiment against the civilian population causing serious pain and suffering, physical or mental harm. There is no defence available to public officers who instigate torture, cruelty, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Indemnification of torture is not available under criminal law there is no defence.
- Torture is an Absolute criminal liability offence.
- Complicity in a crime is anyone who spruces the narrative, instigates or pressures others to comply.
- 26.29min Advises that A public officer might be sued for the tort of misfeasance in public office if they act with reckless indifference to criminal law. Individually they may be sued for negligence and misfeasance while in public office if the harm results is caused by their actions or inactions was foreseeable.
It should be very clear that as PUBLIC OFFICERS, in order to represent ALL Scenic Rim Citizens the Motion of Pro Choice MUST be carried.
A vote against Pro Choice is a vote for Pro Jab and a vote for Big Pharma and certainly Subpoenas to establish conflict of interest within share portfolios of councillors and close family members would be an option.
As pointed out in paragraph 6 above the National Cabinet has no constitutional authority to make directives and mandates and to the best of my knowledge its authority was challenged in either the high or supreme courts and the challenge was upheld.
I also wish to point out that “Just following orders, directives or just doing my job” was no defence at Nuremburg and I suspect will not be a defence in the future.
In the interests of your positions and the possibility of criminal liability, I highly recommend you all take deep consideration of the above and the contents of the associated Barrister advice and support Jeff McConnell’s motion to act as Pro Choice Public Officers.
