The Nuremberg Code

The Nuremberg Code Made 10 Declarations which were published in the section of the verdict entitled “Permissible medical experiments”:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is a must. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. government mandate,mandates,illegal,legality,court system.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Posted by admin in Resources

Fighting “covid” fines

This is not legal advice, please do your own research and decide your own path if you have been the recipient of a “Notice”.
This process was followed after receiving a “covid fine” from March 2020, subsequently, after sending the three letter process no further correspondence was received. Sending the letters does NOT guarantee “success”, but it would appear that if you serve the actors with a legal notice which confirms your standing in law, as a Subject of the Commonwealth, a Private Entity, then they have no business with you. No jurisdiction, no authority, but you must know your standing and maintain that position.
The individual has since been stopped for a RBT (assuming a “license” check was done by the operators), nothing raised at that time, and still no further issues or correspondence (in Jan 2022, that’s 9 months after last letter was sent).
A three letter process is required. A Notice of Conditional Acceptance, which they will fail to rebut, then send the Notice of Default and your Fee Schedule, followed by the Letter of Estoppel to finalise the matter. All correspondence should be sent by Registered Mail. Take photos of the documents before sending.

If you’ve received a “fine” (“Notice”) you need to send both sets of three letters (plus fee schedule). One set, Notice to the “government” actors, confirms your standing under the Crown, a Subject of the Commonwealth, and the other addresses the “Notice” directly – as a Subject of the Commonwealth, and that is sent to the Commissioner of Police in your State or Territory.

When approached on the street (after you’ve sent Notices to “government”)
eg. When asked for your name, you should respond Josephine. Your name is Josephine. Your “surname” is the name assigned through the Birth Certificate, a contract with the “government”. If you give “your name” as Josephine BLOGGS (Birth Certificate and drivers license “name”) you are standing as that sole corporate entity, not as the living man or living woman born from your mother. You are Josephine, born of the family Bloggs, not “Josephine BLOGGS”, “J. BLOGGS”, but Josephine born of the family Bloggs – AND – you are a Subject of the Commonwealth, a Private Entity (not the sole corporation entity created by the Birth Certificate which contracts you into the system of administration), not an “Australian Citizen”, nor a “person”. You are a living man or woman, an individual, all rights reserved, all benefits and privileges waived. That is, you reserve all of your human rights under Common Law and waive any “rights”, privileges, and penalties which are shackled to the sole corporate entity through Private Contract Law (thanks to the UNIDROIT agreement). A “license” or registration is a contract. With it comes privileges and penalties, according to the contract/s.

Notice to “government” actors

View it on BitChute

The text of this Notice to gov can be copied from We are the 99 forum topic


Notice regarding a “covid fine”.

View it on BitChute

The videos have been made so people can see formatting used.

Posted by admin in Resources, 0 comments

HCQ Studies

Hundreds of HCQ studies confirm HCQ is a safe and effective treatment for covid-19.
HCQ for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 303 studies at

Another single study, details below:
Mirrored from original site to ensure content is not wiped from the internet like the post-jab Myocarditis trial was.

Therapies to Prevent Progression of COVID-19, Including Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, Zinc, and Vitamin D3 With or Without Intravenous Vitamin C: An International, Multicenter, Randomized Trial

Original trial (mirrored to ensure it was preserved):

Posted by admin in Resources, 0 comments

Ivermectin Protocol and studies

75 studies:

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 75 studies from


NIH National Library of Medicine published study

Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

See full study at


CureUs published study

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.”

See full study at


What about Ivermectin? You should ask.

From a de-platformed, currently suspended Australian medical practitioner, previously known as Dr Mark Hobart.

I was without due process suspended as a doctor on 11/11/21 and now unable to provide medical advice. It is astounding to hear from so many colleagues and other doctors the increasing demand for the Ivermectin protocol. Ask yourself why have Australians been denied early stage treatment especially when this protocol recorded no deaths and had an excellent recovery rate under the supervision of a trusted doctor? Irresponsibly Ivermectin was banned by the TGA and Dept of Health on 10/9/2021. People are now being forced to acquire it by irregular means. It is insane that a safe oral drug which has been available for decades is now demonised. Ask yourself why? You’ll be interested to know I was one of 30 doctors who treated 600 patients over several months or so with no deaths, only 5 hospitalisations and no side effects. In contrast, there were 6 deaths and 70 hospitalisations in a similar group of untreated patients. Even though I cannot use my title anymore, I can share the protocol from one Aussie to another.
Treatment Protocol for someone who feels unwell. (also very effective to prevent and treat vaccine injuries) :
1. Ivermectin: 48mg day 1 (split the dose to 24mg twice a day) then 24 mg/day day 2-10 . Take ivermectin with fatty food which increases its bioavailability by 2.5X.
2. Doxycycline 100mg twice a day, day 1-10.
3. 1 × Zinc (25mg – 50mg, picolinate or sulphate effective) daily, day 1 – 10.
4. Also take Vitamin D 10,000 units per day and Vitamin C 2000mg per day.
Prophylaxis Protocol:
1. Ivermectin 24mg
2. Doxycycline 100mg and Zinc 50mg every 2 weeks.
3. Also take regular Vitamin D and Vitamin C
Close Contact Protocol
Ivermectin 24mg , doxycycline 100mg, Zinc 50mg daily for 3 days.
Always remember to turn to a trusted doctor who can supervise you whilst you take the protocol.
If it works for Japan, India and El Salvador (as it has), why isn’t it widely available for Australians?”

While there is “no effective treatment available” the “emergency use” of an untested “vaccine” is possible. Hence, available treatments have been blocked from use to facilitate “mandating” untested “vaccines”.

Clearly there are safe and effective treatments available, making it unlawful to mandate an experimental injection.


The “Australian Government” made it illegal for doctors to prescribe IVM in Australia. Initially, they changed the “use by date” (shelf life) of IVM from 6 months to 28 days to restrict its use, then they banned it because too many people became aware of it effectiveness. Looking after your health, or preventing effective treatments to force jabs and controls?



Posted by admin in Resources, 0 comments

PCR test

More information will be added as time permits.
Excerpt from an article about the test.

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only.”

“The CDC admits that the PCR test cannot differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.

It was reported several months ago that the “health authorities” had reached this decision but were withholding its implementation until the end of 2021. They needed the fake test to keep the fear going in order to achieve as much vaccination, and therefore as much profit, as possible.

It is extraordinary that the CDC’s withdrawal of the test received no attention from the media or politicians.

Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of the PCR process said several years ago that “the PCR is a process. It does not tell you that you are sick.” It was never meant to be a Covid test.

Dr. Pascal Sacre, the famous Belgian specialized in critical care, said that the RT-PCR process was misused and applied as a relentless and intentional strategy to create the appearance of a pandemic based on phony test results and not actual Covid patients in order to violate human and constitutional rights of citizens.”

Numerous court cases around the world have determined the PCR test was incorrectly used. It facilitated a pandemic, but was not an indicator of any disease.

Posted by admin in Resources, 0 comments


Privacy Act 1988
See section 94H 1(c)
“Requiring the use of COVIDSafe

             (1)  A person commits an offence if the person requires another person to:

                     (a)  download COVIDSafe to a communication device; or

                     (b)  have COVIDSafe in operation on a communication device; or

                     (c)  consent to uploading COVID app data from a communication device to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.

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

A paper register will be required by the COVIDSafe “authorised” personnel if they deem a contact was in a store that you visited, and may have consented (or not) to adding your personal information to a register. That information will be added to the COVIDSafe database if requested from a business owner.

Biosecurity Act 2015

See of note S59, 60 and 61.

“Part 3Managing risks to human health: human biosecurity control orders

Division 1Introduction

59  Simplified outline of this Part

Under Division 2, a human biosecurity control order can be imposed on an individual if the individual may have a listed human disease.

A human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to an individual may require the individual to comply with certain biosecurity measures. Division 3 sets out what those measures are, and they include vaccination, restricting the individual’s behaviour and ordering the individual to remain isolated.

An individual may consent to a biosecurity measure included in a human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to the individual.

An individual who refuses to consent to such a measure (other than an isolation measure or traveller movement measure) is not required to comply unless a direction has been given by the Director of Human Biosecurity requiring the individual to do so. (Emphasis added) An individual must comply with an isolation measure or a traveller movement measure for the first 72 hours while a direction from the Director of Human Biosecurity is being sought. After that time, the individual is required to comply with the measure only if a direction is given by the Director.

Biosecurity measures that are included in a human biosecurity control order are treated in one of 2 ways. For some biosecurity measures, an individual who is given a direction from the Director of Human Biosecurity to comply with the measure must do so immediately. For other biosecurity measures, an individual is given a period to apply for judicial review before being required to comply with the measure.”


60  Imposing a human biosecurity control order on an individual

             (1)  The following officers may impose a human biosecurity control order on an individual:

                     (a)  a chief human biosecurity officer;

                     (b)  a human biosecurity officer;

                     (c)  a biosecurity officer.

Note 1:       An officer who intends to impose a human biosecurity control order on an individual has certain powers under sections 68 and 69.

Note 2:       Before imposing a human biosecurity control order, an officer must be satisfied of the matters referred to in section 34 (the principles).

Note 3:       The Director of Human Biosecurity must be notified of the imposition of a human biosecurity control order (see section 67).

             (2)  A human biosecurity control order may be imposed on an individual only if the officer is satisfied that:

                     (a)  the individual has one or more signs or symptoms of a listed human disease; or

                     (b)  the individual has been exposed to:

                              (i)  a listed human disease; or

                             (ii)  another individual who has one or more signs or symptoms of a listed human disease; or

                     (c)  the individual has failed to comply with an entry requirement in subsection 44(6) in relation to a listed human disease.

             (3)  To avoid doubt, an individual may fail to comply with an entry requirement in subsection 44(6) even if the individual is not able to comply with the requirement.

             (4)  An officer may include one or more biosecurity measures specified in Subdivision B of Division 3 in a human biosecurity control order.

Note:          For the biosecurity measures that each kind of officer can impose, see section 82.

61  Contents of a human biosecurity control order

             (1)  A human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to an individual must specify the following:

                     (a)  the ground in subsection 60(2) under which the order is imposed on the individual;

                     (b)  the listed human disease in relation to which the order is imposed on the individual;

                     (c)  any signs or symptoms of the listed human disease;

                     (d)  the prescribed contact information provided by the individual under section 69 or 70 (as the case requires);

                     (e)  a unique identifier for the order;

                      (f)  each biosecurity measure (specified in Subdivision B of Division 3) with which the individual must comply, and an explanation of:

                              (i)  why each biosecurity measure is required; and

                             (ii)  in relation to a biosecurity measure included under section 89 (decontamination), 90 (examination), 91 (body samples) or 92 (vaccination or treatment)—how the biosecurity measure is to be undertaken;

                     (g)  any information required to be included in the order by Subdivision B of Division 3;

                     (h)  the period during which the order is in force, which must not be more than 3 months;

                      (i)  the following:

                              (i)  the effect of section 70 (requirement to notify of changes to contact information);

                             (ii)  the effect of section 74 (when an individual is required to comply with a biosecurity measure);

                            (iii)  the rights of review in relation to the human biosecurity control order under this Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977;

                            (iv)  the effect of section 107 (offence for failing to comply with an order);

                      (j)  details of a chief human biosecurity officer who can be contacted for information and support in relation to the order;

                     (k)  any other information that the officer imposing the order considers appropriate;

                      (l)  any other information required by the regulations.

Note:          Despite paragraph (1)(h), an individual might be required to comply with a biosecurity measure for a more limited period of time (see for example section 96 (traveller movement measure)).

             (2)  If a human biosecurity control order ceases to be in force, paragraph (1)(h) does not prevent another human biosecurity control order from being imposed on the same individual.

             (3)  To avoid doubt, a human biosecurity control order that is varied must comply with subsection (1).”

– End Biosecurity Act 2015 notes


Following sources from:

s 162(1) Public Health Act 2016 (WA)
s 203(2)
 Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (VIC)
s 362D
 Public Health Act 2005 (QLD)
s 120(4)
 Public Health Act 1997 (ACT)
s 101(2)
 Emergency Management Act 2013 (NT)
s 81
 South Australian Public Health Act 2011 (SA)
s 10
 Public Health Act 2010 (NSW)
s 242(1)
 Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (TAS)
George v Rockett
 [1990] HCA 26; 170 CLR 104; 64 ALJR 384; 93 ALR 483; 48 A Crim R 246
High Court unanimously holds that Queensland Rail is a trading corporation within the
meaning of s 51(xx) of the Constitution
 Constitution Act 1889 (WA)
Corporations (Commonwealth Powers) Act
s 118
 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Stay of the Emergency Temporary Standard Requiring Mandatory Vaccines or Testing for All Employers (US)
Emergency Temporary Standard Stayed
 by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (US)

Posted by admin in Resources, 0 comments


Paul Richardson
Focusing on OHS, an extensive list of documents are now available. Download from

Rod Culleton
Former Senator Rod Culleton has drafted a template letter (copies for each State) that may assist in preserving an individual’s right to employment.

See “Step Three – Download & send declination letter” from AdvocateMe

“Do this step immediately. Use the COVID-19 vaccination declination letter as a template. Download it here, address it and date it accordingly, then send it to the party trying to force you to take the vaccine. It is important that you DO NOT RESIGN!

This form has an optional Student Declination template at the end, which can be used by guardians of school children, to decline vaccination.”

Posted by admin in Resources, 0 comments

The 5G connection

While the masses are busy fearing a “deadly virus”, 5G rolls out and guidelines and legislation (all written by the unelected, self appointed, unaccountable UN/WHO) to allow new exposure levels previously banned. How else will the matrix work? All those connected “humans” can only tolerate so much radiation before they develop symptoms that can be explained as another “virus” or “variant”. Roll on the plandemic. Total control, tracking, tracing, surveillance… Agenda21. Australia was signed up to Agenda21 in 1992.

“ARPANSA EME Program Action Plan 2020-2024

The Federal Government’s Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Program aims to promote health and safety and address misinformation about EME emissions. This Program will provide the public with clear, reliable, and reputable information on new EME based technologies like 5G, and advice on how to use this technology safely.

ARPANSA will support the Government’s EME Program by delivering on its own EME Program Action Plan 2020-2024, which will help provide evidence-based scientific advice on EME and health. ARPANSA will report performance against this Action Plan through its corporate reporting and website. The Plan includes the below initiatives.

Assess EME exposure in the community

During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will conduct studies to assess EME exposure from existing and new telecommunications technologies, like 5G. The studies will separately consider EME exposure levels in the home, in the workplace, and in the wider community. The aims of the studies will include, but are not limited to:

  • What is the typical EME exposure in the everyday environment?
  • What is the cumulative exposure from different telecommunications sources (mobile phone networks, TV, radio, Wi-Fi, etc)?
  • How does the EME exposure change over time (e.g. has the introduction of 5G increased the exposure)?

ARPANSA will publish the results of these studies to inform the community on EME exposure levels.

Upgrade ARPANSA’s EME laboratory

ARPANSA maintains a nationally accredited laboratory for measurement and calibration of EME testing instruments and EME research. During 2020-2022 ARPANSA will upgrade its EME laboratory to extend its capability to higher EME frequencies, which are related to 5G and future telecommunications. Specifically, ARPANSA will:

  • Acquire new EME measurement equipment
  • Build a new anechoic chamber, which is a specialised room designed to perform EME measurements, calibrations and research across an extended frequency range.

ARPANSA’s upgraded EME laboratory will offer a calibration service to the industry sector and the public and will provide an international standard research capability.

Conduct research on EME and health

It is important to continue the research into EME and health to ensure that public health policies are based on the most up-to-date information as telecommunications and other technologies continue to develop.

During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will promote, co-ordinate, fund and lead EME research outcomes through direct commissioning of research to focus on key research needs that underpin safety standards. This will support gold standard research that considers the totality of science to ensure safety standards remain evidence-based and risk informed.

ARPANSA has also published an EME Research Agenda that makes recommendations for specific areas of research where the body of knowledge can be expanded. The recommendations include research for emerging technologies, like 5G.

The EME Program of research will also be aimed at addressing areas of public concern that can benefit from additional evidence.

Engage with international health authorities

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are leading the international effort to assess the health and environmental effects of EME exposure.

During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will continue to engage with the WHO, ICNIRP, other international bodies and experts to build new knowledge and contribute to research outcomes and international safety standards. Specific international engagement during 2020-2024 will include:

  • Participation in the WHO health risk assessment of EME exposure.
  • Participation in the ICNIRP development of exposure guidelines to ensure they are fit for implementation in Australia.
  • Attendance at international workshops and conferences which present advances in EME research and protection policies.

Develop national EME safety standards

In order to protect people from harmful effects of EME exposure, ARPANSA has developed a new safety standard, which sets the limits for exposure from all EME sources, including 5G and other telecommunications. During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will continue to:

  • Review, revise and maintain the ARPANSA EME Safety Standard based on international best practice and will consult all stakeholders on changes to the EME safety standard.
  • Support the development of national standards related to EME measurement and safety compliance to reflect a rapidly changing environment and align with international best practice.

Provide information on EME and health

During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will provide information to the community through a range of mediums that translates scientific content on EME and health for a general audience.

To cater for the different ways the public seek and consume information, ARPANSA will provide content via various communications channels including the ARPANSA website, news items, social media, multimedia material, ARPANSA’s Talk to a Scientist Program and media spokespersons.

ARPANSA will also develop and publish a framework for communicating risk related to radiation exposure.”

See their website:

Posted by admin in Resources