Andrews opens up Victoria under threat of legal challenges – lockdown and fines illegal

Barrister calls out Andrews: The lockdown is a bluff and illegal

A “MESSAGE from a barrister” circulating on social media on Monday has confirmed what various people have been saying for weeks: Daniel Andrew’s so-called health directives for lockdowns and the fines that supposedly enforce them are a sham, a deception and a bluff.
The “case” presented by the barrister purports to prove that Andrews’ hefty fines for enforcing COVID rules and directions from the chief health officer simply would not stand up in court.
Interestingly, Andrews backed down on much of his COVID lockdown on Monday, but still has petty nonsense rules about mask wearing that apply to some businesses and not to others.
The statement kicks off: “Know this. Lockdown orders have zero legal standing. Why did Daniel Andrews desperately want the Omnibus Bill detention powers? He had the existing fines mechanism to enforce directions orders which are the basis of the lockdown. So why the need for new powers. This answer is because people are waking up.

The barrister then pointed to page 106 of The Public Health and Wellbeing Act Division 1 Section 111 which states the spread of an infectious disease should be prevented or minimised with “the minimum restrictions on the rights of any person”.

“The clause doesn’t say ‘the restrictions on the rights of any person will be minimum to contain the spread of an infectious disease’. If the clause’s construction read this way, it would attempt to give the chief health officer arbitrary power to decide what’s minimum to get his job done as he sees fit, and with no consideration or reference to what the person, whose rights being restricted, thinks.  This is not how the law works or what the clause says.

“The legal drafting and clause construction is very clear. It says the chief health officer can do his job to stop the spread of an infectious disease, but a person’s rights restrictions must be minimal. He has a qualifier and restraint. He doesn’t decide what’s minimum. So who does decide what’s minimum?

“If a person, whose rights are being restricted, has no say in the matter, there would have been no need to include the clause in the legislation. The Parliament sought to preserve and protect civil liberties. It’s a check on unfettered powers. That is the purpose of the clause, otherwise, why have it in the legislation if the chief health officer has unrestrained powers? It’s a reminder and constraint on the chief health officer.”

The barrister’s message notes that the Westminster system constrains, separates, checks and contains power, through a mechanism known as the Separation of Powers, which means that the legislature (that makes laws), the Executive (Premier and Ministry) who execute law, and the Judiciary who interpret laws, remain separate. “This is a check on power so it’s not concentrated as we seem to have in Victoria at the present.”

“The default ‘Mentis’ (mind) of Parliament, in a liberal democracy, is to preserve freedoms, particularly the freedom of movement and association which the High Court has protected over and over and now Daniel Andrews thinks he can extinguish.

“The person who decides what’s a minimum restraint on a person’s rights is the person who has the rights. If that person has no say on what’s a restraint, the person would be deemed to have no rights, so why mention them? In this event, the person at best, has privileges which can be limited or extinguished. Like a driving licence.

“True rights can only be suspended or limited by the right’s holder. These are known as inalienable rights – God-given which cannot be extinguished by the state, the chief health officer or Daniel Andrews.

“Division 1 Section 111 was drafted in acknowledgement of this liberal democratic principle. The Section is even referred to as the Principle of the Act, against which all Directions Orders must be measured. Case closed,” the barrister notes.

“What I have just set out is a legal argument by a barrister might make before a magistrate, who is usually ill equipped to handle such arguments. Now you understand why the last thing Daniel Andrews wants is fines to be challenged in court. Push the problem into the future. Maybe, even forgive fines so they never see a courtroom. The podium have zero standing and will never stand up in court when the BS fines are challenged. They’re all a big bluff. The lockdown is a bluff.

“It’s no wonder the Magistrates Court has adjourned all Covid challenged fines well into 2021.

If one illegal fine gets before a court, Andrews will buckle like he did with the Curfew when it was uncovered as a fraud. The Directions Order will be found to be as illegal as the Curfew. The day before the Curfew was challenged in the Supreme Court, it was quickly ended by Andrews.”

The barrister says the 5km restraint is equally illegal as an excessive restraint on the rights of Victorians. “I remind you. If Victorians have no rights, as Andrews asserts, then why mention them in the Act?

“While Andrews can’t be removed as Premier, he is subject to the Westminster system Separation of Powers, which means the Parliament or courts can clip his wings and stop his tyranny. As he has the numbers and Parliament and it’s not sitting, it’s useless to try a no confidence motion against Andrews, so we’re left with the judiciary and the courts. Spread this across social media.”

“Being awake and informed will set you free,” says the barrister. “With the legal illusion of fines swept away, so is lockdown. We decide when the lockdown ends, not Daniel Andrews. The police will run out of ink in their pens writing fines if we don’t cooperate.

“It was for this reason Daniel Andrews wanted detention powers in his Omnibus Bill. He feared someone would write a post like this and wake up Victoria. Repost this as far and wide as you can.

“Victorians don’t know or understand the law and Andrews feels omnipotent whilst Victorians are oblivious and kept in the dark. The average police member in the street is even less well equipped to handle these matter, so don’t try to enlighten them or argue whilst being issued with an illegal and worthless fine.

“They have no idea. They’re just following orders. In any event, fines are only allegations and not findings of fact or guilt. Fines become an admission of guilt when you pay them.”

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.

Posted on October 26, 2020, in Agenda 2030, australian Labor Party, Courts, Covid Cops, Covid-19, General, Victoria and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 18 Comments.



  2. Keep up the Great work mate


  3. WOW that is so informative. We citizens dont know our rights. Thank God someone in the media is doing the job that is their vocation to help the public

    Liked by 1 person

  4. all very good if one has the status/capacity of a legal person because all this legal jargon only applies to ‘PERSONS’ which are things known as legal persons. Most all ‘people’ have no qualifications nor standing to have the status of legal, but they do act in many capacities and are actually ‘lawful persons’, guided by the Law of the Land, under the Constitution, whereas ‘legal persons’ are in a foreign jurisdiction known as LAW OF THE SEA. Andrews only has jurisdiction over his employees that work for his foreign government operating in a foreign jurisdiction. If u find this hard to understand go to any government web site and find out how laws are made. u will notice that all legislation is sent to the ‘LEGAL’ section to be written up and in the state of victoria’s case it is led by a woman who is aware of Constitutional law, but chooses to write acts up in the LEGAL jurisdiction. How convenient for them. The barrister source doesn’t mention that obviously. He/she would be a member of the BAR, a foreign entity and membership of exempts anyone from being a representative of a DeJure Government period, that is why andy runs in a foreign jurisdiction.


  5. A ‘person’ is an enemy (in enmity) of God, by simply being opposed to (not created by) nature and its laws. Nobody gets the difference between legal and lawful, yet it is so simple. Legal applies to persons, lawful applies to people(mankind). Legal applies to lawyers and those qualified in legal who are members of that society. It cannot apply to the rest of us unless we contract. R u getting it? Law of the sea vs Law of the Land.


  6. Hey Ed you might convince some in FNQ that Andrews is in trouble but the people that matter (and that’s Victorians) think you’re talking bullshit.


  7. Trying to fact check this from The Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act ( ) and this section does not match – “The barrister then pointed to page 106 of The Public Health and Wellbeing Act Division 1 Section 111 which states the spread of an infectious disease should be prevented or minimised with “the minimum restrictions on the rights of any person”.”


  8. Geoffrey Mcmaster

    I find it amazing that it has taken this long for a comprehensive explanation as to the legal ramifications of dan’s victoria lockdown. Having said that I read where sweden ( who didn’t impliment a lock down) is experiencing a big recurrance of the virus. So did dan save the population of victoria ……maybe??


  9. Yeah thanks Bob for your valuable contribution. Nearly every sane person in every other state knows about the scamdemic and the future consequences for Victoria. At least 90% false positives, according to the best epidemiologists in the world, have locked up the idiots of suburban Victoria without a peep. They will be easy taking for the Communist Chinese when they move into Victoria. Will you roll over or resort to your garden hose to defend yourself?Editor

    Liked by 1 person

  10. What has taken so long for something to be put out here … I and others have been trying to tell wake people and expose all the corrprution..for months…so much evidence facts Proff out there… The government should be all removed… sacked .. They so corrprut ..acting on corrprut law…The government changed but can never be changed … The elections cannot be lawful …. No government should remain in government if unlawful and lieing to the people…What is wrong with the law…. has been changed to overseas law …


  11. Joyce Vrakatselis

    About time something like this is out for all to read and share 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Andrews should resign.i have shared this with a lot of people. Great barrister work 🙏🏽🙏🏽


  12. Dan Andrews needs to be held accountable


  13. Thanks for your great posts


  14. About time someone found out the truth about Andrews and his bloody bullshit yes police are only doing what they been told to do no good arguing with them just let it be


  1. Pingback: Andrews opens up Victoria under threat of legal challenges – lockdown and fines illegal | The Crazz Files

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.