I am going to say something that some people may not like – but due to the critical importance of this case for the victims of the mRNA injectables - and indeed for all Australians - it needs to be said.
Quoting from the article:
“…the class action got off to a rocky start, as the pleadings were found to be overly lengthy and unclear, resulting in multiple resubmissions. However, Justice Anna Katzmann said in her decision today that despite the “incoherent, unintelligible, ambiguous, impenetrable” nature of their submissions, “I have decided to give the applicants one further opportunity to fix their pleading.”
Most lay persons don’t have a clue about how litigation actually works in Australian courts – and unfortunately, some solicitors don’t either. The above statement by the judge is actually a polite coded message to the persons bringing this action saying that their case has been mismanaged.
In Australia’s two-tier advocate system, which consists of (1) the law firm solicitors, and (2) the courtroom advocate (the barrister), the expectation is that both groups work together as a close-nit team in preparing the case, thus guaranteeing good quality control and strategic planning. In actual practice, this often does not happen, because – like doctors - not all solicitors and barristers are equal. The submission of “incoherent, unintelligible, ambiguous, & impenetrable” evidence to the court is a disgrace. It indicates that there was no quality control of the evidentiary submissions that had been prepared. Was anyone actually managing the case? Were they trying to do it on the cheap? Were both the solicitors and the barrister(s) out of their depth? Were they only half literate? These questions need to be put to the law firm conducting the case.
What we may be seeing here is one of the end results of the ongoing decline in educational standards in Australia over the last thirty years, under the influence of the woke ideologists and educational faddists who have taken control of both the school & university systems, thus undermining the traditional quality outcomes of the Australian education system. I suspect that at least some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the universities, who in their indecent haste to grow rich on the big dollar foreign student market, has meant that the Australian students end up being seriously shortchanged on their literacy standards. Of all the professional callings in the world, that of a lawyer cannot afford to be illiterate. An understanding of how communication is put into practice is absolutely crucial for lawyers.
The Applicants to this case need to urgently get some alternative professional advice from other lawyers before making a decision to proceed. This is a complex and difficult matter and there must be no room for stuff-ups. This litigation needs really good managers to take control of it. I hope and pray that in the end they succeed.
You're right, and if you read the entire judgement, Justice Katzmann didn't hold back in ripping the submission to shreds. The submission was the work of Mark Robinson SC, who is a senior barrister specialising in administrative law. It should have been a great submission, and it wasn't. To the best of my knowledge, he was excused from the post after what some felt was a disastrous interlocutory hearing in December last year. It is very disappointing for Dr Mel, the applicants and the members that they now have to go back to the drawing board. However, Justice Katzmann was so forensic in her criticisms that they now have a guide as to what exactly needs to be amended, and how, for a new submission to be acceptable to the court.
This whole thing is distressing. I feel so sorry for the plaintiffs. I would say that such a failure is ‘unbelievable’, except I know that it isn’t. I have seen this sort of thing before. Thank you Rebekah for your comprehensive reporting on the matter. I assume that you will post an appropriate précis on the Brownstone website - I regard that as a key point of historical record of the ongoing Covid ‘vax’ disaster.
I have the utmost respect for those who continue the fight against insurmountable odds.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is a conspiracy between government, the public service, the courts, and Big Pharma to crush dissent.
Victories are rare and small.
My optimism that justice will eventually prevail has been eroded.
All power to those who maintain the rage.
I continue to see, in my medical practice, victims of the jabs on a daily basis.
Virtually none have any idea of the cause.
I no longer report these injuries as the links to the jabs become harder to prove over time.
How galling that while the vaccine injured and bereaved already have to attempt redress via a biased system whose wheels turn at glacial speed at the best of times, it appears that the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity whose weapons are rolled out at warp speed have managed to spike their legal team guns too.
It is so disappointing for them. However it also didn’t help that the pleadings do appear to have been done rather shoddily, if Justice Katzmann is to be believed. The upside is that the applicants now have a clear idea of exactly what the court wants to see and can hopefully find someone appropriate to prepare a new submission accordingly.
In this day and age one cannot rule out that possibility, Trevor, but it is unlikely. Shoddy legal work does occur from time to time in the world of lawyers, but the fact that these failures of quality control do occur is kept shielded from most of the public. Remember that 50% of litigants lose their case, although that doesn’t necessarily mean that the lawyers involved failed in their preparation & delivery - but sometimes it does. However from what Justice Katzmann said, quality control of the submissions in this particular case seems to have been shockingly absent. Read the comments by Rebekah Barnett on her ‘Dystopian Down Under’ Substack. Justice Katzmann didn’t hold back in her criticisms of how the plaintiff’s case was presented. Extraordinary, really.
I agree probably this is more cock-up than conspiracy, particularly as I assume the applicants couldn't afford top dollar for their legal team, but my prior belief that situations like this are 99% likely cock-up has been severely shaken over the last 5 years. It appears Justice Katzman has acted very reasonably in setting out a blueprint for what an acceptable application should look like and I just hope that a competent legal team can now take that on and Justice Katzman isn't subsequently "got at".
I am going to say something that some people may not like – but due to the critical importance of this case for the victims of the mRNA injectables - and indeed for all Australians - it needs to be said.
Quoting from the article:
“…the class action got off to a rocky start, as the pleadings were found to be overly lengthy and unclear, resulting in multiple resubmissions. However, Justice Anna Katzmann said in her decision today that despite the “incoherent, unintelligible, ambiguous, impenetrable” nature of their submissions, “I have decided to give the applicants one further opportunity to fix their pleading.”
Most lay persons don’t have a clue about how litigation actually works in Australian courts – and unfortunately, some solicitors don’t either. The above statement by the judge is actually a polite coded message to the persons bringing this action saying that their case has been mismanaged.
In Australia’s two-tier advocate system, which consists of (1) the law firm solicitors, and (2) the courtroom advocate (the barrister), the expectation is that both groups work together as a close-nit team in preparing the case, thus guaranteeing good quality control and strategic planning. In actual practice, this often does not happen, because – like doctors - not all solicitors and barristers are equal. The submission of “incoherent, unintelligible, ambiguous, & impenetrable” evidence to the court is a disgrace. It indicates that there was no quality control of the evidentiary submissions that had been prepared. Was anyone actually managing the case? Were they trying to do it on the cheap? Were both the solicitors and the barrister(s) out of their depth? Were they only half literate? These questions need to be put to the law firm conducting the case.
What we may be seeing here is one of the end results of the ongoing decline in educational standards in Australia over the last thirty years, under the influence of the woke ideologists and educational faddists who have taken control of both the school & university systems, thus undermining the traditional quality outcomes of the Australian education system. I suspect that at least some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the universities, who in their indecent haste to grow rich on the big dollar foreign student market, has meant that the Australian students end up being seriously shortchanged on their literacy standards. Of all the professional callings in the world, that of a lawyer cannot afford to be illiterate. An understanding of how communication is put into practice is absolutely crucial for lawyers.
The Applicants to this case need to urgently get some alternative professional advice from other lawyers before making a decision to proceed. This is a complex and difficult matter and there must be no room for stuff-ups. This litigation needs really good managers to take control of it. I hope and pray that in the end they succeed.
You're right, and if you read the entire judgement, Justice Katzmann didn't hold back in ripping the submission to shreds. The submission was the work of Mark Robinson SC, who is a senior barrister specialising in administrative law. It should have been a great submission, and it wasn't. To the best of my knowledge, he was excused from the post after what some felt was a disastrous interlocutory hearing in December last year. It is very disappointing for Dr Mel, the applicants and the members that they now have to go back to the drawing board. However, Justice Katzmann was so forensic in her criticisms that they now have a guide as to what exactly needs to be amended, and how, for a new submission to be acceptable to the court.
This whole thing is distressing. I feel so sorry for the plaintiffs. I would say that such a failure is ‘unbelievable’, except I know that it isn’t. I have seen this sort of thing before. Thank you Rebekah for your comprehensive reporting on the matter. I assume that you will post an appropriate précis on the Brownstone website - I regard that as a key point of historical record of the ongoing Covid ‘vax’ disaster.
I don’t have a say in what Brownstone publishes but they may do! Maryanne covered the matter as well so I imagine they will publish one or the other.
I have the utmost respect for those who continue the fight against insurmountable odds.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is a conspiracy between government, the public service, the courts, and Big Pharma to crush dissent.
Victories are rare and small.
My optimism that justice will eventually prevail has been eroded.
All power to those who maintain the rage.
I continue to see, in my medical practice, victims of the jabs on a daily basis.
Virtually none have any idea of the cause.
I no longer report these injuries as the links to the jabs become harder to prove over time.
How galling that while the vaccine injured and bereaved already have to attempt redress via a biased system whose wheels turn at glacial speed at the best of times, it appears that the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity whose weapons are rolled out at warp speed have managed to spike their legal team guns too.
It is so disappointing for them. However it also didn’t help that the pleadings do appear to have been done rather shoddily, if Justice Katzmann is to be believed. The upside is that the applicants now have a clear idea of exactly what the court wants to see and can hopefully find someone appropriate to prepare a new submission accordingly.
Suspiciously shoddily seemingly! Almost as if the legal team representing the applicants had been infiltrated by establishment agents!
In this day and age one cannot rule out that possibility, Trevor, but it is unlikely. Shoddy legal work does occur from time to time in the world of lawyers, but the fact that these failures of quality control do occur is kept shielded from most of the public. Remember that 50% of litigants lose their case, although that doesn’t necessarily mean that the lawyers involved failed in their preparation & delivery - but sometimes it does. However from what Justice Katzmann said, quality control of the submissions in this particular case seems to have been shockingly absent. Read the comments by Rebekah Barnett on her ‘Dystopian Down Under’ Substack. Justice Katzmann didn’t hold back in her criticisms of how the plaintiff’s case was presented. Extraordinary, really.
I agree probably this is more cock-up than conspiracy, particularly as I assume the applicants couldn't afford top dollar for their legal team, but my prior belief that situations like this are 99% likely cock-up has been severely shaken over the last 5 years. It appears Justice Katzman has acted very reasonably in setting out a blueprint for what an acceptable application should look like and I just hope that a competent legal team can now take that on and Justice Katzman isn't subsequently "got at".
Good work Rebekah and Dr McCann. God speed the applicants.
Thanks for writing a positive article from what many see as a disappointing result.
It is disappointing, but I suppose the point is it’s not over yet ….!