Category Archives: Common Law

Covid scamdemic collapses in UK today, a major world news story not reported by the ABC

UK update

As unbelievable as it may seem, the ABC has not reported the biggest Covid news story since the scamdemic began two years ago. The United Kingdom has dropped mask and vaccination passport mandates, coincidentally after guilty verdicts were announced by the International Common Law Court of Justice against 75 international identities involved in the Covid scam.

Australian media remains tightly censored even though the NWO is in its death throes across the world.

The 5G network officially began in the US yesterday which caused hundreds of international flights into the country to be cancelled because major airlines claimed 5G EMF seriously affected large body aircraft avionics.

No mention of this either on the ABC.

World Series News (link at top) has reported on PM Boris Johnson’s statement in UK Parliament this morning.

Have any of our readers seen any of these events reported in the Australian media?

Professor Zimmerman slams the federal government and states’ Covid regime, resigns from Liberal Party

Victoria Chief Health Officer Professor Brett Sutton has been given some terribly wrong advice about politicians and the public service being exempt from the Covid jab mandates. There is no provision in the Commonwealth Constitution expressly exempting a politician from anything. There is Sect 51, (xxiiiA) that prevents compulsory vaccination of all citizens but there are no exclusions for politicians.

Professor Augusto Zimmerman likens the Covid performance of all governments to that of “totalitarian North Korea and Cuba.”

Constitutional authority Professor Augusto Zimmerman resigned from the Liberal Party on January 5 over the coronavirus regimes adopted by the federal government. Here is his letter of resignation:

The following is my letter of resignation from the Liberal Party. It has just been presented to the Membership Coordinator of the Liberal Party of Western Australia.  

I cannot in good conscience remain a member of this political party. The reasons are provided in the letter below.  

Professor of Constitutional Law, Augusto Zimmerman disgusted with PM Scott Morrison and the Liberal party’s totalitarian response to Covid

From: Dr Augusto Zimmermann LLB, LLM, PhD

To: Ms Emily Foster, Membership Coordinator, Liberal Party of Western Australia

Dear Ms Foster,

I am writing this letter in order to make an important communication.

Please allow me first to explain who I am and what I have done for your party over the last few years.

I am a professor of constitutional law who was appointed a Law Reform Commissioner in Western Australia by the then State Attorney General, Christian Porter.

I have served a number of positions in the Liberty Party of Western Australia, notably the following:

  • Senior Vice President, Liberal Party of Western Australia, Fremantle Division (2013 to 2017)
  • Senior Vice President, Liberal Party of Western Australia, Jandakot Branch (2014 to 2017)
  •  Delegate, Legislative Assembly Selection Committee, Liberal Party of Western Australia, Jandakot Branch (2015 to 2017)
  • Delegate, Legislative Council Selection Committee, Liberal Party of Western Australia, Jandakot Branch (2015 to 2017)
  • Delegate, House of Representatives Selection Committee, Liberal Party of Western Australia, Jandakot Branch (2015 to 2017)

When I first joined your party I assumed it had a proper respect for the rule of law and individual rights.

However, measures adopted by Liberal governments, both federal and state, are arbitrary and unconstitutional. They have caused far too many of my fellow citizens to endure traumatic situations, including home confinement, job losses, financial ruin, drug and alcohol problems, family breakdown, and a host of mental and physical illnesses.

I would expect the federal leader of your party to be more concerned about the preservation of fundamental rights, not suppressing them. However, his pompously self-entitled National Cabinet has affected much of the social and economic life of this nation by enforcing prohibitions matched only by some of the world’s worst totalitarian regimes, notably North Korea and Cuba.

The Prime Minister is also supporting the authoritarian behaviour of the State Premiers. In the case of Victoria, for example, he has encouraged its notorious Premier “to ensure that there are appropriate penalties for those who do break public health notices”.

Victoria’s “notorious” Premier Dan Andrews supported by PM Scott Morrison “to ensure that there are appropriate penalties for those who do break public health notices”.

Unfortunately, the State Liberal governments in New South Wales, South Australia, and Tasmania are not much better. These Premiers are far too willing to rule by decree and impose draconian restrictions on our people’s homes, places of worship, and public gatherings.

Published by the IPA, the Legal Rights Audit 2019 reveals that the federal Liberal government has been responsible for a considerable increase in the violation of fundamental legal rights.

According to the IPA’s fellow researcher Morgan Begg, “The Coalition [i.e.; Liberal] government is trashing fundamental legal rights of all Australians, creating unprecedented challenge to individual freedom and human dignity’.

I have a name and a reputation to preserve. I cannot in good conscience remain associated with a party that has so miserably betrayed its own founder and my fellow Australian citizens.

Liberal Party founder and former Prime Minister Bob Menzies “would be appalled to see what has become of the party he created,” Prof Zimmerman opined.

I am sure that Sir Robert Menzies would understand. Like myself, he deeply valued freedom and would be appalled to see what has become of the party he had created.

Menzies strongly believed that the progress of our nation depends not on the security provided by government, but on the protection afforded to personal freedom.

I hereby offer my letter of resignation from the Liberal Party of Australia.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Augusto Zimmermann LLB, LLM, PhD

Dr Augusto Zimmermann is Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan College, Perth/WA. He is also adjunct law professor at The University of Notre Dame Australia (Sydney campus) and President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA). – from the Spectator

One of the most profound interviews ever published on Cairns News featuring Riccardo Bosi leader of Australia One Party

Link to pass around:

Aisling O’Loughlin of “The Irish Inquiry” produced this extended interview with the inspirational leader of AUSTRALIAONE Party Riccardo Bosi who has big plans and high hopes for Australia’s future.

AUSTRALIAONE is committed to strengthening Australia as a sovereign, self-reliant, Judeo- Christian western democracy which is economically powerful, militarily intimidating, politically free, culturally vibrant, and socially cohesive.

Turnbull’s republic is already here

Letter to the Editor

Every State took ownership of all land when every State agreed to join the the Status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation* Republic* in 1985. Under Our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted we are a Constitutional Monarchy. Under this Constitution we have all rights known to man. Under the Treasonous Political Parties sovereign, independent and federal nation *Republic* we are nothing.

Kim Beasley in Federal Parliament in 1990, quote, “The United Nations has

given the Federal Government a mandate of ownership for housing, property,

farms and businesses to government control once the *Republic* has been proclaimed.”

Treasonous Political Parties claimed a *Republic* by the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 for their sovereign, independent and federal nation *= Treason*.

*You have taken a long time to wake up, that’s if you’re awake now.

from Dick Yardley

Constitutional analyst and author


Covid plandemic the product of an inappropriate test

by Lindsey Symonds

Oops. CDC plays the ‘silly us – incompetent’ card. Yes it is too bad millions of people died, but there you go with sillies like us who just didn’t get it that the RT PCR test is [wait for it — drum roll please] ‘inappropriate’. The RT PCR Test does not diagnose any disease. Now we get what Dr. Kary Mullis was trying to tell us.” Too bad we killed him too.

Is anyone going to believe this horseshit? The biggest Jubela, Jubelo, Jubelum operation in the history of the Masonic Agentur and they have resorted to: ‘Oh dear. What can we say? Silly us.’

There is no ‘covid’ pandemic. There never was. There is no SARS Cov-2 that ever was isolated from any human tissue. The CDC had to quietly admit that back in June 2020 when independent virology labs (not on Fauci’s payroll) demanded samples for research as they were entitled to do.

There never has been and currently is not a ‘covid pandemic’. But there is certainly a world crisis of entire populations that have been injected with a lethal spike protein disease and are now genetically re-coded to produce this viral sequence and transmit it. The so called cure for the pandemic the CDC created with their ‘inappropriate’ test.

Criminal charges must be laid against these suckers. They must be tried by a jury of their peers. If they are guilty, they must hang publicly – no body doubles, authentic identities who must pay for these crimes against the human race.

Editor: Queensland Health yesterday dumped the PCR test in favour of a home test kit presumably available from pharmacies along with their demands that every person clearing the border has to have a PCR test after five days in Queensland. Now it seems a home test is OK. The sheeples are leaving the flock but down the track we will need bigger and better common law courthouses and a raft of lay jurists to deal with these malcontents.

Do not threaten me about taking a deadly vaxx

Letter to the Editor

To the Qld Premier and other politicians, and anyone else who dares to threaten me to get vaccinated. You can all go shove your poisonous experimental vaccines. A word of warning, do not ever threaten me, I know what my human rights and freedoms are and they are protected by the Australian Commonwealth Constitution Section 51, 23A, 28, 109 which clearly states that the government cannot mandate vaccines, and they cannot restrict my freedom of movement and travel within Australia, not even in time of national crisis or pandemic.

You cannot cancel my human rights and freedoms. I am governed only by my Christian faith in God and the Bible, and by the Australian Commonwealth Constitution, not by these nefarious corrupt tyrannical politicians who are only obsessed with absolute power and authority. And let me remind all you politicians that you all swore an oath to obey and uphold the Australian Commonwealth Constitution, and you are all governed by the laws contained within the Australian Commonwealth Constitution.

When you break or violate any law/s within the constitution, than you have acted unlawfully and criminally. Fact, the medical authorities have said that the Covid19 vaccines will not protect you from either contracting or transmitting the virus, so why get the vaccine if they do not work? Why all the propaganda and lies about Covid19? The government is not interested in our human health or saving lives, so please do not feed us your diatribe and lies that you are. If the government were serious about saving human lives, than they would start first by banning and ending the cruel and barbaric and evil practice of abortion, they would ban tobacco, alcohol, cars, prescription drugs, etc, etc, which all cause human injury and death!


NSW Liberal/National Parties with Labor support terrorise mum and dad shoppers with para-military police

Massive police presence at NSW Basshill shopping centre terrorised shoppers who still do not know why they were there in force. Drones and choppers overhead it was a military-style invasion the residents of Sydney’s west are being subjected to daily.. Thanks go to Rebel News, always at the front line.

Prof Zimmerman warns government Covid measures are unlawful

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is well aware he is unable to lawfully mandate vaccination or conscription of any medical procedure. Therefore as Professor Zimmerman explains the entire Covid response has been and is unlawful.

Cairnsnews fervently hopes the people will rise up in any manner or form but especially to start legal proceedings against nearly every politician in Australia. None of them have any protection at Common Law and their statutes are simply corporate policies which have no meaning or effect upon the natural citizens of Australia.

Lock downs, vaccination passports, masks, contact tracing, home incarceration, road blocks, arrests and coercion by financial penalty are all covered under the ambit of section 51 (xxiiiA) particularly when the entire plandemic has been thoroughly investigated by innumerable, reputable virologists across the world and found to be a scam.

Workplace-related vaccine mandates also fall under Section 51. Tell any so-called authority to go jump if you are pressured by Covid cops to submit. -Editor

Constitutionally Inoculated to Resist Coercion

24 July 2021   Dr Augusto Zimmermann is Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education, and Professor of Law (Adjunct) at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney campus.  Dr Zimmermann was chairman and professor of constitutional law at Murdoch University from 2007 to 2017. He is also a former Law Reform Commissioner in WA (2012-2017) and President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA).

Professor Augusto Zimmerman, former Chairman of Constitutional Law at Murdoch University and Professor of Law at Notre Dame Sydney warns governments that compulsory vaccination and related medical procedures are unlawful, This includes vaccine passports

One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Australian Constitution is its express limitation on governmental powers.  In drafting the Constitution, the framers sought to design an instrument of government intended to distribute and limit the powers of the State.  This distribution and limitation upon governmental powers was deliberately chosen because of the proper understanding that unrestrained power is always inimical to the achievement of human freedom and happiness.  As such, the Constitution allocates the areas of legislative power to the Commonwealth primarily in sections 51 and 52, with these powers being variously exclusive or concurrent with the Australian States.

The Constitution was slightly amended in 1946 by a referendum in order to include section 51 (xxiiiA). This provision determines that the Parliament, inter alia, can make laws with respect to:

The provision of … pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription) benefits to students and family allowances…

As can be seen, this provision allows for the granting of various services by the federal government but not to the extent of authorising any form of civil conscription. The prohibition of such conscription is directed particularly to the provision of medical services.[1]

The idea that constitutional provisions protect individual rights plays a fundamental role in our understanding of these express limitations and, indeed, our understanding of the implied constitutional limitations derived from them. In this context, the “no conscription” requirement to be found in that provision amounts to an explicit constitutional limitation. It is an implied constitutional right of the individual so that such prohibition is not directed only to the federal government but it must also be extended to the exercise of legislative power by the Australian states.   

In other words, no Australian government, either federal or state, or those acting on its behalf, is constitutionally authorised to force any individual to take medicament against his or her own will, or force them or their children to be, among other things, compulsorily vaccinated.  

The concept of ‘civil conscription’ was first considered by the High Court in British Medical Association v Commonwealth (1949) 79 CLR 201; [1949] HCA 44 (7 October 1949).  That case involved federal legislation which required medical practitioners to comply with a particular federal medical determination as part of a scheme to provide pharmaceutical benefits.

In other words, that case was about the validity of legislation which compelled medical practitioners to render a particularly medical-pharmaceutical service.   In his written judgement Justice Williams stated (emphasis added):

Accordingly, in my opinion, the expression invalidates all legislation which compels medical practitioners or dentists to provide any form of medical service” (emphasis ours). [2]

Similarly, in his written decision Justice Webb commented:

If Parliament cannot lawfully do this directly by legal means it cannot lawfully do it indirectly by creating a situation, as distinct from merely taking advantage of one, in which the individual is left no real choice but compliance” (emphasis ours).[3]

Of course, a doctor who freely performs his or her medical service does not create conscription. However, as Justice Webb explicitly mentioned:

When Parliament comes between patient and doctor and makes the lawful continuance of their relationship as such depend upon a condition, enforceable by fine, that the doctor shall render the patient a special service, unless that service is waived by the patient, it creates a situation that amounts to a form of civil conscription.[4]

That important decision confirmed the fundamental right of Australian citizens to determine by their own will whether they should take any medical or pharmaceutical benefit provided. Accordingly, any legislation that requires medical practitioners to prescribe government-mandated medical services constitutes a form of civil conscription that is constitutionally invalid.

In this sense, Chief Justice Latham argued in the British Medical Association case that civil conscription would include not only legal compulsion to engage in particular conduct but also the imposition by government of a medical duty to perform a service in any particular way.[5]  Constitutional limits on legislation which does not acknowledge this important guarantee were more recently acknowledged in Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee .  In this ruling the High Court restricted the capacity of both federal and state governments to implement mandatory vaccination, even recommendations from the National Health directives for either federal or state governments.

Of course, in the PSR case the Court was simply following precedent as per the previous 1949 decision which had already clarified the issue.  Accordingly, Chief Justice French and Justice Gummow held that civil conscription is a ‘compulsion or coercion in the legal and practical sense, to carry out work or provide [medical] services’.[6]

Importantly, the High Court also indicated that the prohibition of civil conscription must be construed widely, to invalidate any law requiring medical practitioners (expressly or by practical compulsion) to work for the Commonwealth government or any Australian State.  Simply put, no law in this country can compel any medical service on behalf of the Australian government.

As can be seen, section 51 (xxiiiA) maintains the prohibition of vaccination through any form of government-run health service, indicating that vaccination should only be through voluntary means in accordance with the free communications between medical doctor and patient, which is essential to achieve a high-quality healthcare. 

To conclude: the Australian Constitution explicitly prohibits any form of legal compulsion upon the medical profession to carry out any form of medication, including vaccination.

In fact, no government, either federal or state, can impose compulsory vaccination in this country, or prevent medical practitioners from remaining entirely free to choose whether or not to provide certain medical services, including vaccination.

[1] See: Alexandra Private Geriatric Hospital Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1987) 162 CLR 271 at 279; 69 ALR 631; Halliday v Commonwealth (2000) 45 ATR 458; [2000] FCA 950 AT [11].

[2] (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 287 (Williams J).

[3] (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 293 (Webb J).

[4] (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 295 (Webb J).

[5] (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 295 (Latham CJ).

[6] Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee (2009) 236 CLR 573, at [62]

Scomo to be summonsed over criminal cartel running law enforcement


On the………………………… day of……………….2021…………….am/pm

Peter Alexander Gargan

  Of, 1365 Corringle Road


Victoria 3886

In the Electorate of Gippsland

The Affiant,


The Prime Minister

Scott John Morrison

Parliament House,

Parliament Drive

Canberra ACT 2600.

REF: Being Grossly negligent in allowing the States of Australia to ignore the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and Constitution, Laws of the Commonwealth  and the Federal Court of Australia to ignore its obligations at law.

This document is Time Sensitive.


  1.  I, Peter Alexander Gargan (as commonly called), being the Undersigned Affiant, do solemnly swear, declare, and depose:
  2. That, I am competent to state the matters set forth herein. and
  3. That, I have first-hand knowledge of the facts stated herein. and                            
  4. That, I the Affiant am a Natural Human Man. and
  5. That, I the Affiant am within the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. and
  6. That, I the Affiant am a subject of Elizabeth the Second By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
  • For Consideration
  • I write in the utmost of good faith, as a law enforcement partner of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, to lay a complaint and information before you as Prime Minister, and a number of key members of your government with the aim that if you do not act upon it, it will be on the public record that you have offended S 44 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) which carries three years imprisonment and will forever be disqualified from sitting in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under S 44, of the Constitution.
  • I claim the status of law enforcement partner because in S 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second as heir and successor to the King in 1913 is bound to recognise this Act as legitimate, the High Court has confirmed it as legitimate in 1915 ( R V Kidman ( 1915) 20 CLR 425) In 1487, in the Statute 4 Hen VII Ch 20  ( Imp) the then King granted a franchise to every subject of the Queen of the Constitution to partner with the Crown to obtain a profit for the Crown as well as themselves, by involving themselves in law enforcement. This complies with S 5 Partnership Act 1891 (Q).
  • The partnership is further confirmed in S 42 and 43 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Q). The High Court has confirmed partnerships exist whenever two or more entities enter an agreement to work together to obtain a profit. (United Dominions Corporation LTD  V Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1.)
  • The partnership cannot be conducted uberrimae fidei by the Crown unless the Crown Courts abide the Free Access to Courts Act 1400, 2 Hen 4 Ch 1   S 4 and 5. In force in the Australian Capital Territory and cease protecting alleged criminals.
  • There is at present a criminal cartel running law enforcement in the Commonwealth, every bit as horrific as the Deep State that is being dismantled as we speak in the United States of America. That cartel is the legal profession, with large numbers of its members in the Parliament of the Commonwealth and in your government.
%d bloggers like this: