QR Codes Can Not be Enforced – Tracking and Tracing is un-constitutional

The internet is rife with people posting misinformation.

The following is just another example of (deliberate) false information.

A content creator on YouTube by the handle of Beardy 33 made a video stating that QR codes cannot be enforced as per Australian federal legislation called the “Privacy Amendment Act” or to be more specific the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Act 2020.

He stated that under section 94F of that Act “QR codes are not mandatory and any employee forcing a customer to use a QR code can face up to 5 years jail time”

He went to the trouble of printing a “PUBLIC NOTICE”, telling you what to do with the information.

See his instructions:

(This video has since been deleted, which appeared at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Xj8HKArD4)

This sounds EXCELLENT, as we love our (god given?) freedoms that governments take away from us.

So what do you do?

You go out and print these 'flyers' and then harass business owners, right?

Well the is a huge problem with this, because the information you show this business owner is actually false information.

Nowhere in the section of that Act, does it say anything about QR codes, any action being 'mandatory' or any employee 'forcing' a customer.

The section that he is referring to factually states the following:

94F  COVID app data in the National COVIDSafe Data Store

             (1)  A person commits an offence if:

                     (a)  the person retains data on a database outside Australia; and

                     (b)  the data is COVID app data that has been uploaded from a communication device to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.

             (2)  A person commits an offence if:

                     (a)  the person discloses data to another person who is outside Australia; and

                     (b)  the data is COVID app data that has been uploaded from a communication device to the National COVIDSafe Data Store; and

                     (c)  the person is not a person who:

                              (i)  is employed by, or in the service of, a State or Territory health authority; and

                             (ii)  discloses the data for the purpose of, and only to the extent required for the purpose of, undertaking contact tracing.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.

See legislation at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020A00044

After we made him aware of his deliberate spreading of false information, his response was completely off topic:

It seems that ol' Beardy's brain cell is a bit fried, or he's just another 'constitutional' flog, like Wayne Glew, but that's another story.

Police use fear, deception and bluff: Melbourne lockdown protests

Propaganda is a very powerful and efficient tool, as it’s relatively ‘cost effective’ (i.e. cheap).

With the help of the mainstream media police use fear, deception and bluff to subdue the government’s  number one enemy, that being the people.

Not too long ago, Melbournians had enough of the unlawful restrictions put on them by the premier Daniel Michael Andrews, where they organised protests in the city centre.

So, in comes the (Victoria Police) budget friendly, media liaison officer working ‘together’ with the mainstream media's so called ‘journalists’.

They put it out there that VicPol is going to come down hard on the protesters.

They said that there are going to be drones out there in the sky, installing fear into the minds of the insubordinates of the authoritarian (as opposed to democratic) state.

So, how many drones did they have at their disposal at the time?

Oh, just a couple.

What was their range/flying time?

Oh, about half an hour.

It was that easy to scare the ‘constituents’ into not having their say.

To show them who’s boss, in an authoritarian state.

Well, from what we know they’re still called ‘public servants’, where taking that literally means that the people (i.e. the ‘constituents’) are their boss.

Well, the people sure don’t act like a boss.

More like uneducated, beer and footy loving cowards.

You want to be a boss?

Well ‘act’ on it:

 

Want to make a difference?

38,000 of you did in the class action of Andrews vs ANZ.

Do the same for other actions, or the same score will be played over and over again:

Gov:1, People:0

The COVID test that yields ‘cases’ not fit for purpose as ruled in EU court

Governments around the world are basing their COVID ‘cases’ scenario, based on a flawed RT-PCR test.

Remember when we brought to you an actual test result from a COVID test, back in July?

https://corpau.blogspot.com/2020/07/covid-test-useless-faith-in-quick-test.html

As stated in the documentation within the above post, the test is practically useless.

See the following documentation in articles of the following headlines:

Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what do the MSM do? They ignore it:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/

 

A global team of experts has found 10 FATAL FLAWS in the main test for Covid and is demanding it’s urgently axed. As they should:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/508383-fatal-flaws-covid-test/

 

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results:

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

COVID vaccine documentation has two versions

 

The corporation, Pfizer, responsible for bringing the COVID vaccine to the masses has released documentation to its vaccine.

One document for the plebs:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q-pLxbzSMeqFgr0pT2t2F-pGO7AJuWVy/view?usp=sharing

And another version for healthcare professionals:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S3Nx9eYASeRV1qqVWma1AWuU6WaKF2P4/view?usp=sharing

Class action lawsuit omitted from report?

With every so called 'bungle' (which is more of a 'money for mates' deal), any legal action that follows after is a big deal, so much so that it gets reported when that bungle is mentioned.

Well Serene Teffaha, from advocateme.com.au was the first(?) to start a class action against the government with regards to the 'hotel' quarantine.

(See class action under the heading of false imprisonment at https://www.advocateme.com.au/copy-of-ahpra, which is now closed)

So, did the Australian Broadcasting Corporation mention this?

They didn't?

It's as if they 'work' for the government.

Oops, they do, because they get paid by the 'government'*.

<Ctrl f> away to your heart's content, for Serene Teffaha within their article:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-07/hotel-quarantine-and-international-flights-resume-in-victoria/12953802

* - state/federal, whatever!

Porsche Design ’luxury’ brand gone cheap

Some phone manufacturers have teamed up with ‘luxury’ brands (companies that charge a premium on a product for using their name), where the consumer is led to believe that the product is more superior to the run of the mill item that the plebs purchase.

Using sports or luxury vehicle manufacturers is one such ploy.

BlackBerry did it with Porsche Design, OnePlus with McLaren, Oppo with Lamborghini and Huawei is on board with Porsche Design after BlackBerry.

The key differences to owning a luxury brand phone is the different use of materials and form factor of the device, as seen with the BlackBerry Porsche Design P’9981 vs the Bold 9900.

This was the fundamental premise for shelling out organ donor sum for such a device.

Naturally, this was the case when Huawei teamed up with Porsche Design implementing their design philosophy (whatever that means).

In 2017, Huawei implemented Porsche Design changes to their Mate 9, yielding funnily enough the model name: Huawei Mate 9 Porsche Design.

While the silhouette may have looked similar, the PD phone was more compact, it had a smaller yet better (higher resolution) curved OLED 5.5” screen (vs 5.9, IPS), 6GB of RAM (vs 4GB) and 4 times more internal storage (256GB) than standard phone.

This theme was carried through to the next model, where even after that one, phone aficionados would notice that the newest Porsche Design Mate RS would differ from its mere mortal (the P20 Pro) in the location of the camera module.

And that’s where it stopped.

Huawei went on the cheap with their so called Porsche Design product.

The Huawei Mate 20 RS Porsche Design, had the same specifications (dimensions, screen size) as the Mate 20 Pro except for the cow skin wrap around the back.

Nothing ‘exclusive’ about that, not a big deal on the software theme or slightly different looking back panel, especially once it’s covered.

The newest incarnation of the cheapening process applied by Huawei is in the form of a Huawei Mate 40 RS Porsche Design.

See video comparison:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rUL-sqlc9Q

We’ve eliminated coronavirus from the community, but what if...

(Article, Herald Sun, Thu 26 Nov 2020)

Friday the 27^th of November 2020 is a monumental day for Victorians as they have eliminated the coronavirus from the community, without any sort of vaccine, remembering that the first case according to Australia’s Department of Health was in Victoria on the 25^th of January 2020.

https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/first-confirmed-case-of-novel-coronavirus-in-australia

According to the authorities, after 28 days of no (alleged) ‘cases’, which can be erroneously assessed, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is considered ‘eliminated’ from the community.

Great, as the taxpaying ‘mums and dads’ did not have to spend a cent on a vaccine.

So what happens if there is an alleged case in Victoria?

Who is to ‘blame’ for that?

The answer is quite simple, the government or rather the people in government.

So, who should you sue in case of financial hardship?

Why not start with the state, the premier and the party the premier belongs to and others responsible.

In any event before suing any persons, you must seek the correct legal advice prior to any action.

Human Tissue Amendment Bill 2020

Ref:

https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/bills/human-tissue-amendment-bill-2020

What should happen to Australian war criminals?

The Australian Government is an organisation that commits war crimes.

In this instance it has been caught out, where the crimes have been made public, you know like in the ‘Collateral Murder’ exposé by Julian Assange, where the mentality of those in power is to shoot the messenger, quite literally, rather than prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes.

There are no doubts that many more war crimes were committed by those in the Australian Government, but  the iron curtain of secrecy can be too heavy to move.

The motto they tell the serfs “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear”, does not apply to those in government, where they have everything to hide.

Australia, being a colony, has something in play what we call ‘Penal Colony Policies’ where one of those policies is that those in power rule in secrecy without any sort of transparency to the serfs.

We should be reminded that with regards to Australia, what should happen and what happens in reality are two different things, especially when it comes to criminal activities.

So what should happen to those Australian war criminals?

Quite simply put, they should be shot.

In accordance with the law, of course.

Do the research yourself, you might find some other interesting stuff along the way.

Biometric success at Heathrow airport