Post AC2Y8OjUWnfM4FsPvE by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
 (DIR) More posts by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
 (DIR) Post #AC2OMCjIx7lHLyjZfE by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T00:30:20Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Day 3 of the NSW Supreme Court in AustraliaHearing - Kassam; Henry v Hazzard (Day 3)Live stream only, will be gone after today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FObfiLGd0Zo
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2OWDUCzjfoazRmqm by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T00:32:08Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Pfizer has a barrister representing them in this days hearing. Mr King for one plaintiff asked “quite why Pfizer is here I don’t know”.Pfizer barrister notes they will appear along with the TGA lawyer who is "stuck in the virtual lobby"Order made by Judge "No further subpoenas to be issued without my leave"
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2OkESUB1djfIKBJQ by Wy7usa@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T00:34:34Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @lantrix They look silly in their powdered wigs.
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2Tc4oAfiW9BoOkGe by DameLoveandLight@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:28:16Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @lantrix loving this feed, any v4v options for you?
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2UJYygNUqFD83Cwy by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:37:05Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @DameLoveandLight v4v?
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2ULX9C9dk073uKH2 by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:37:22Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Pfizer barrister dismissed as not required to be there
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2UP7PrlQz7T3Pm52 by mrman@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:38:02Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @lantrix😭😭😭@DameLoveandLight
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2Uqrdq0W9eeTBDea by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:43:06Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Principal submission on behalf of plaintiff Henry: "The legality of the public health orders ... there is no dispute the minister has the power to make public health orders ... Section 7 of the act speaks of a situation arising given a risk to public health ... the situation here is the COVID19 pandemic ... [which is] the trigger for the power ..."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2V1cjZm043bPzihU by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:45:03Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       continuation of principal submission of plaintiff:"The primary complaint is that there is a series of public health orders that effectively amount to compulsory medical treatment ... anything without consent as a result of coercion is effectively compulsory medical treatment ... The complaint of course is vaccinations are a medical treatment, they are an invasive procedure and there are long term potential consequences for anybody who is subjected to that medical procedure"
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2V7GQXcgno9jmSci by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:46:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       continuation of principal submission of plaintiff:"It is permanent in the sense that nobody can remove a vaccination and its consequences once injected"End of first complain from Henry as plaintiff.
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2VHCFA23iQ4pC4PI by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:47:52Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Second complaint behalf of plaintiff Henry: "If you refuse the medical treatment then your livelihood is taken away. The right to earn a living is effectively taken away by these public health orders. If you don't produce the vaccination evidence to the satisfaction of your employer, your employer is obliged to tell you that you can't come here [to work] as that is what the directions say."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2VUAmclyCpJR29Bo by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:50:12Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Third complaint behalf of plaintiff Henry: "The directions oblige the plaintiffs and everybody else who wants to go to work to carry and produce vaccination evidence if asked. The complaint is if you don't produce it when asked you commit a crime because you breach section 10 of the act, you fail to comply with a direction.It TAKES AWAY the right to silence. It TAKES AWAY the privilege against self incrimination, TAKES AWAY the presumption of innocence."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2W0lmqjIEFLNgMcq by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T01:56:06Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Fourth complaint behalf of plaintiff Henry: "Relates to privacy. There is a direction issued by the minister under section 7 that requires you to produce your vaccination evidence to a number of people including your employers, people where you work who are in charge ... and if you're stopped by a police officer and they ask you for your vaccination evidence you have to produce it. Your PRIVACY IS GONE. The directions essentially amount to you being deprived of your privacy ..."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2WQMMTsn6W1AYDM8 by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:00:42Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       from barrister for plaintiff Henry:"There is also the fact that because your work right is taken away you are deprived of being able to attend your work premises unless you are vaccinated. Where you are effectively excluded from participating in a very significant aspect of society, WORK. It is a major aspect of most adults lives. Here we are being presented with these public health orders which say get vaxxed or no job."Makes that plaintiffs are being discriminated against unless vaxxed.
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2WZcGI8TDJwC4NOq by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:02:23Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       from barrister for plaintiff Henry last point:"We don't take it to the point that the ministers act is unconstitutional, but illegal under the discrimination act."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2XG1KRKNdbqNEJMW by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:09:59Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Judge summarises as:"Your argument is the wide words of Section 7 don't authorise the interference with various fundamental rights?"Barrister for plaintiff Henry concurs:"Exactly right your honour ... The law has never permitted the executive arm of government to exercise a general discretionary power that infringes the fundamental rights of individuals without clear legislative authority."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2XhNtVXNQFeGgGUC by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:15:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Just to clarify what Section 7 means (1/2):Plaintiffs in the Kassam matter seek declarations that the Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Delta Order), along with section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) (Act) (which empowered its making), are invalid.
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2XirwBK6E57CdhQW by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:15:16Z
       
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       Just to clarify what Section 7 means (2/2):Plaintiffs in the Henry matter likewise seek a declaration that the Delta Order is invalid, and additionally seek that relief in respect of the Public Health (COVID-19 Aged Care Facilities) Order 2021 (NSW) (Aged Care Order) and the Public Health (COVID-19 Vaccination of Education and Care Workers) Order 2021 (NSW) (Education Order). Associated and consequential relief is sought in each matter.
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2Y8OjUWnfM4FsPvE by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:19:53Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Judge notes:"One of the issues here concerns what rights are being abrogated and what section 7 authorises. Do you accept 7 (2) contemplates that orders and directions will interfere with the free movement of persons?Harkess (for Henry): "I do"Judge: "But I take ... that it doesn't authorises interferences and infringement of persons bodily integrityHarkess: "correct"
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2YBIpkutd6doBxg0 by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:20:24Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Judge notes:"One of the issues here concerns what rights are being abrogated and what section 7 authorises. Do you accept 7 (2) contemplates that orders and directions will interfere with the free movement of persons?"Harkess (for Henry): "I do"Judge: "But I take ... that it doesn't authorise interferences and infringement of persons bodily integrity?"Harkess: "correct"
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2YiJYVFp7YR4raTo by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:26:17Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Harkess for plaintiff Henry:"How can a section 7 order be directed towards a place of employment that isn't an apparently exposure sight and towards people that aren't apparently exposed to a disease at all?"Judge "To stop them getting it. That's one of the aspects."Harkess "That is a direction that is consistent with the purpose of the objects of the act but not in my submission consistent with an interpretation of section 7 and the types of scenarios section 7 is actually contemplating."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2YwlRONFouyUQYnA by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:28:59Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Judge has example:"If there is an Ebola breakout .. and you have to isolate  'the area'. If you describe the entire NSW as 'the area'. What Section 7 (3) is talking about doesn't make a lot of sense unless we are talking about closing the borders as that's 'the area'."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2ZKTmpfCQ1AflRIW by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:33:16Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Harkess responds "The list that is provided in subsection (3) [of the act] necessarily constrains in my submission the interpretation of the kinds of situations that are contemplated, and all of those situations contemplate the examples I gave and the example your honour raised with the ebola breakout in a particular town, well that particular town will be subject to 'the area' because there is a discernible breakout and people need to be segregated .. and that's IT."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2Zc9wIC7D4pOcTCq by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:36:28Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Harkess continues "That's as far as it goes your honour. To take the next step in my submission just goes too far especially when there no express provision that deems that someone who is perfectly healthy not being able to go into an area for which there is no discernible disease other than the fact t5hat there exists with reference to the observations made in relations to NSW and the globe as a whole that there is a pandemic going on and that everybody is at risk."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2Zgjl6xZ0v4xZYCu by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:37:16Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Harkess continues "My submission section 7 the very concept of situations and area pre-supposes that the power must be directed towards the isolation of a particular pocket within the state"
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2ay5JaAUN4oKX2Mi by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:50:55Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Barrister for Henry argues:"Declarations are not contemplated as being legislative instruments AT ALL ... directions in Victoria under Sect 200 and the Public health order under Sect. 7 are NOT legislative instruments. They CAN NOT be. There is NO EQUIVALENT LEGISLATION in either Victoria or NSW that purports to define what legislative instruments are ... your honour has to fall back on common law principles to work out wether or not a Sect. 7 order is a legislative or administrative decision"
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2bCN2B5KtXovCeFE by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T02:54:13Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Barrister for Henry argues:"There is no authority that my learned friend [for the state] has produced that suggests that a direction that a repository of power that is power to give under an act, amounts to a conferral of some type of legislative power."
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2cDnnd9pB74je46i by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T03:05:05Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE BROADCASTING ON YOUTUBE .. Court Security Act 2005 No 1 of NSW states:9A(1) A person must not use any device to transmit sounds or images (or both) from a room or other place where a court is sitting, or to transmit INFORMATION that forms part of the proceedings of a court from a room or other place where that court is sitting, in any of the following ways...(b)  by posting entries containing the sounds, images or information on social media sites or any other website
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2cGOIgQ35QrNP7iq by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T03:06:08Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       So watch the stream on youtube, and understand it yourself. The court prohibits information from the proceedings.Even if I'm a citizen journalist, I could only write a "story" on the overview, not the actual information.
       
 (DIR) Post #AC2wd2RHrYx4nnVNg0 by lantrix@noagendasocial.com
       2021-10-05T06:54:20Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Given I can’t post about this, someone has a thread on Twitter with much higher level of overview on what happened todayhttps://mobile.twitter.com/Voice4Victoria/status/1445153090093543428