Blog Archives

Why hire a lawyer when you can rent a judge?

NSW Supreme Court judgement on Covid mandates just proves, like Queensland, NSW has the best judges money can buy!

Letter to the Editor

“Soylent green and gold” gave insight into the arrogance of some men in wigs in this Country but no one was listening. This legal grab really needs to be sorted before they announce the coming Marburg virus. That’s the one predicted by censored Scientists. It will be hemorrhagic and deadly as a symptom of those who continue, with boosters, to be jabbed. Like an Ebola. After 9/11 Australia created new Counter-Terrorism Laws (2008) and we still have rights under the International Human rights treaties including the Covenant on Civil and Political rights. Surely Section 100.1 of the Criminal code could be argued.

In this, “an action or threat of an action, is made with the intention of advancing….a political, religious OR ideological cause….and coercing or influencing by intimidation, the Government of the Commonwealth, State or Territory or the Government of a foreign country OR intimidating the public or a section of the public….it is a terrorist act if it causes serious physical harm or death, seriously damages property, endangers a person’s life, creates a serious risk to public health or safety….” All these things have occurred in 2020/21. Suicide, bankruptcy, family breakdown and violence, death in Nursing homes…people locked up in Unit blocks.

In my way of thinking, we continue to be terrorised (by fear tactics) and harassed, not by guns but by needles. International lawyers have already called out WHO and have already won. The PCR tests are redundant. They will no longer be used after Dec. The whole pandemic was based on a false test. We know who GAVI is. We know who turned up to influence the WHO in 2015. We know what the World Economic Forum want…for the serfs to own nothing and be happy. We know they are pushing for their NWO, a One World Government ideology. We know of the Biometric Digital ID pass system that they are trying to impose by DNA collection/PCR testing and jabs. This is an ongoing assault on our lives. We the people are being terrorised.

From Seb

NSW

Justice Beech Jones is supposed to be a Common Law judge. We doubt he has any knowledge of common law at all. Maybe he was a conveyancing clerk before he was appointed to the bench at the Inns-of-Court late one night while being jolly at the festive board. Editor

NSW Supreme Court upholds Hazzard’s medical tyranny

Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors told Monica Smit of Reignite Democracy he disagreed with the dismissal of the cases, but he was also an advocate for a bill of rights.

By TONY MOBILIFONITIS

PEOPLE were hoping and praying for an outcome in the Kassam and Henry v Hazzard cases that reflected Australia’s tradition of upholding the sacred rights of the individual. But they were instead shocked and disappointed by the dismissal of the cases by a judge who claimed the case failed because Australia does not have a bill of rights.

It seems Judge Beech-Jones has not been following what’s been happening in two countries with alleged human rights protections from a Bill of Rights – Canada and New Zealand. Both have exactly the same kind of medical tyranny that is happening now in Australia. Both, like Australia, are also common law jurisdictions, but that doesn’t appear to matter much to the judiciary these days.

The only positive outcome of the case was for the NSW government to admit it was “not forcing” people to get vaccinated because forced medical treatment without consent is a form of assault. But apparently the Australian legal fraternity believes a government could even legislate to make assault with a needle legal if they wanted to.

The Supreme Court of NSW in effect upheld the lying, bullying and coercion of the Liberal Party gang around the failed, corrupt premier Berejiklian and the nasty little bully otherwise known as Health Minister Brad Hazzard – the main defendant in the cases.

Cairns News was warned of this outcome because courts and law schools for years have increasingly swallowed the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty, that is, they compromise the rule of law, e.g. common law and constitutional law, in favour of parliaments and their power to make any law they want.

Judge Beech-Jones also rejected the constitutional issue raised in the cases, namely Sect.51 23(a) on the protection against civil conscription. It’s pretty clear that Hazzard and company were employing civil conscription against the people of NSW by coercing them into vaccination, but no, his legal eagles threw up pages and pages of nuanced technical legal twists and turns to put the argument in doubt, while throwing principle out the door.

So now we have the extreme situation where politicians and public servants, acting under the corrupt sway of the so-called global health network, corruptly and casually override constitutional principles and basic human rights such as freedom of movement and the right to work.

Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors told Monica Smit of Reignite Democracy he disagreed with the dismissal of the cases, but he was also an advocate for a bill of rights. Has Tony Nikolic or Judge Beech-Jones heard of the English Bill of Rights, that is actually a part of all legislation in Australia in the Imperial Acts Application Acts of the states? Does not the English Bill of Rights uphold basic rights to life, liberty and property?

Nikolic is probably well aware of that, and said his firm actually had provided folders full of evidence to the court showing the history of common law and its relevance to the cases. But apparently that’s old school and irrelevant to the progressive Judge Beech Jones.

The two lawsuits sought to invalidate the so-called Public Health Delta Order “to deal with the public health risk of COVID-19 and its possible consequences.” The order was based on section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010, which supposedly allows the health minister to implement actions and directives upon consideration of “reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health.”

The so-called Delta variant was a fast spreading but less infectious mutant of the supposed SARS-Cov-2 virus, which has not yet been isolated and is neither “novel” nor the result of a bat viruses mutating. Delta was originally the Indian variant, but changed when people suggested the name was racist.

Al-Munir Kassam and Natasha Henry challenged provisions of the Delta Order which required a relevant care worker whose place of residence or place of work was in an area of concern “to have at least one (1) dose of a COVID-19 vaccine” or in its absence, to have “been issued with a medical contraindication certificate”.

Under the dictatorial order, teachers, aged care workers and health care workers “must get vaccinated within specific periods” or not be allowed to enter their places of employment. Actually, the government itself admitted they’re “not forcing you to get vaccinated” so you can ignore the order if you want to.

The Delta Order also prescribes that the workers concerned carry with them proof of their vaccination status.

The state defended the Delta Order’s restrictions, saying they “can reasonably be regarded as necessary to protect public health and safety” while Section 7 of the Public Health Act and the NSW Delta Order “do not impose civil conscription,” the Commonwealth stated in its submission.

The Commonwealth said that the enactment of the Public Health Act was in line with its legislative powers, and the enactment of the Delta Order was in line with the power given to Hazzard.

In July Nikolic wrote a public letter to Hazzard, saying “a competent adult patient has the right to refuse medical treatment for whatever reasons, rational or irrational.” Hazzard’s lawyers eventually agreed, if that’s some small comfort from the case.

NSW court bombshell: Government admits by default vaccinations are not mandatory

Hazzard’s bullying tactics are coming back to haunt him.

By TONY MOBILIFONITIS

THE bully-boy bluffing tactics of NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard have been exposed in the ongoing case in the NSW Supreme Court because his barrister has been forced to admit the government “is not forcing” key workers to get mandatory vaccination.

All the while, Hazzard, Chant and company and their media cheer squad have been telling the people of NSW “the government is making vaccines mandatory”. But that is one big con and one big lie. No, they are “not forcing mandatory vaccinations” because they can’t. They don’t have any such lawful right, except in the most extreme, individual circumstances.

What Hazzard’s lawyer told the court is a defacto admission that our right at common law to informed consent to medical treatment prevails over the so-called “orders” and “directions” of chief health officers over the general population.

As pointed out by Mike Palmer of Know Your Rights and various lawyers, in Australian state law such orders lawfully only apply when a health officer identifies an individual deemed to be a threat to public health who is issued with a court-approved quarantine or treatment order.

The admission has exposed the fact that Hazzard and his so-called health minister colleagues and CHOs in other states have been using unlawful coercion and bullying of the general population to push the mass vaccination experiment. The stunning court developments have been ignored by all but one mainstream media channel, the online Daily Mail UK.

But word is getting out and the media and the remaining tyrant premiers are panicking, trying to defend their position. The new conservative Catholic NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet is no doubt briefed on the court case and is pushing economic recovery to fix Hazzard and Berejikilian’s trail of destruction – which includes the lives of those maimed or killed by the experimental mRNA and other COVID vaccines.

The Daily Mail UK report was headlined “Bombshell as court hears no one in NSW HAS to get Covid jab”. The Australian mainstream media ignored this development, instead, wailing about the loss of Berejiklian and attacking Perrottet, one day into his new job.

Hazzard’s smirking but probably very nervous barrister Jeremy Kirk explained to the court that “mandatory jabs are simply a way to become exempt from some lock down laws and workers can choose not to be vaccinated but then will stay in strict lock down.” Oh how very nifty Mr Kirk. But that’s not how your client put it to the people of NSW.

“There is no requirement for vaccination,” Kirk told the court. “There is a condition on the exception (to the stay-at-home orders) which people can take advantage of, or not.” He went on to say the state probably did have the power to force people to be vaccinated if ‘some terrible disease’ like Ebola were threatening society.

Yes Mr Kirk, that’s right. The right at common law to informed consent to medical treatment can only be overridden when someone or some group shows up with Ebola or some other plague and in these rare cases where there is a clear, serious public health threat, the medical officer gives an order, backed up by a court, for action to be taken e.g. quarantine or vaccination.

The case before Justice Robert Beech-Jones involves 10 complainants including a teacher, health care worker and mechanic, who are challenging the legality of the government edicts which “require” teachers and aged care workers to be vaccinated before returning to work and force some workers to be vaccinated against their will to be able to go to work.

They’re also fighting orders requiring authorised workers to prove they’ve been vaccinated before they can leave so-called coronavirus hotspots in Sydney and that Hazzard had no power to sign off on them.

NSW teachers and care workers have been told they must be vaccinated by November 8, or they won’t be allowed to attend schools and aged care workers “also need to have received at least one dose before the end of the month” with health care workers “having until the end of November to get both doses”.

Closing submissions in the case were heard last Wednesday October 6th. We await the judge’s rulings with interest.

Update: The comments we previously attributed to Professor Kristine Macartney who is a witness in this case appear to be incorrect and have been deleted. AFL Solicitors has advised: “This did not originate from AFL and we do not endorse that message. The statements made by Know your rights are not in the transcript.” Cairns News apologises for the error.

Covid Judge warns: “Do not send emails” about Thursday’s challenge to mandated Covid vaccines

from The Australian

A NSW Supreme Court judge has taken the extraordinary step of warning the public not to contact him as he gets set to hear a test case over NSW’s public health orders later this week.

Justice Robert Beech-Jones will oversee a three-day trial in which Health Minister Brad Hazzard will defend the state government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

NSW Chief Judge at Common Law and a Judge of Appeal Justice Robert Beech-Jones said he will not read the unprecedented deluge of thousands of emails and phone calls his Chambers received from people opposing the official Covid narrative and mandatory workplace vaccines

Two plaintiffs, Al-Munir Kassam and Natasha Henry, have filed civil suits challenging various aspects of the public health orders instituted in response to the latest outbreak fuelled by the Delta variant.

Starting this Thursday, Justice Beech-Jones will hear the challenge to the rules which state that essential workers must receive their first vaccination by September 19 if they are to leave an LGA of concern for work purposes.

The lawsuit is challenging rules which prevent unvaccinated workers from leaving their LGAs for their jobs. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Jeremy Piper.

And Justice Beech-Jones took the unorthodox step of warning those watching online not to contact him unless they were lawyers for the two parties.

He said that the deluge of emails and phone calls to his chambers had been so great, that those with legitimate business with the court were having trouble getting through.

He emphasised that he would not take any correspondence into consideration.

“Over the last few days, my office has been inundated with emails and telephone calls from people who are interested in the proceedings but are not lawyers or parties,” Justice Beech-Jones said.

“Please understand I will not read any of your emails or take any of your calls.

“People who do so risk interfering with the administration of justice. And anyone who encourages any of this to happen is equally encouraging the interference with the administration of justice.”

The matter will be subject to a three-day hearing starting Thursday, with Justice Beech-Jones on Tuesday morning ruling that evidence in one matter will be evidence in the other.

Ms Henry’s lawyers opposed the move, arguing that it would cause her legal costs to blow out.

The court heard that her matter was only expected to take up one day of the hearing and she would only be calling two expert witnesses, as opposed to Mr Kassan who is calling eight.

However Justice Beech-Jones said given the overlap in the two cases and their contentions, “the prospect of differential evidence in both cases leading to a differential outcome” was unsatisfactory.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian on Monday announced that on December 1, unvaccinated persons would have restrictions lifted as part of a staged repealing of lockdown measures.

Barrister Jeremy Kirk, acting for Mr Hazzard, said he did not know if this would include the easing of restrictions which are being challenged in the suit.

Editor: It now seems, in light of the overwhelming medical evidence we have seen that the so-called Delta variant is actually the result of mRNA vaccines.

%d bloggers like this: