Thanks for this succinct description of what has happened Rebekah. Many of us who have had little to do with the law in our lives are flabbergasted at how the courts have behaved. We realise how little protection they afford us as citizen's. Irrespective of whether the technical evidence was correct or not, that measurements and analysis…
Thanks for this succinct description of what has happened Rebekah. Many of us who have had little to do with the law in our lives are flabbergasted at how the courts have behaved. We realise how little protection they afford us as citizen's. Irrespective of whether the technical evidence was correct or not, that measurements and analysis were not able to be presented in court, for what on the surface are administrative reasons, is terrifying.
Also it seems that it is money that controls justice, in the sense that only those with deep pockets have a chance in carrying through with seeking justice. The government has the deepest pocket it seems. We are proud of those in the legal profession who have had the courage to pursue this on behalf of us.
The Court rightfully and correctly rejected a matter for which the plaintiffs had no arguable case. For us to win cases in the Courts they need to be constructed skilfully.
Very timely. I was literally two minutes away from going to the local court to file an appeal against a traffic offense I just lost in the local court. The case, checked by two lawyers and considered bullet proof, hung on a crystal clear definition. The police made an obvious mistake and charged me with the wrong offence. But the judge sided with the police making such a bizarre illogical decision that the lawyers are totally flabbergasted . Never came across such a blatant disregard for the written code by a judge ever. He had the Fauci syndrom. He didnt apply tbe law, he was the law. There was no backup or logical explanation. He just ruled as he saw fit. I was shell-shocked. Not because I lost but how I lost. I was transported right back into the illogical random tyrannical world of the Covid response as well as the illogical random argumentation of radical trans activists. My first question after the loss was: How deep are the courts compromised? Is there any point to appeal? Obviously, that judge wasn't concerned to be laughed out of an appeal court. Thats ominous. Part of me just wants to appeal to find out how deep it goes. Another part is getting very careful. The judge gave me a relatively mild order, however, much harsher than my original ticket. You get punished for challenging the police. The appeal judge could be much harsher if I loose again but apparently there is the Parker rule which means he has to warn me if he thinks it might be harsher and I can withdraw the appeal. So I should be ok but what do I do if he doesn't care about the Parker rule? This article makes me believe in the saying that the fish stinks at the head first. Usually, the corruption of a culture or organisation is top down. I don't think I appeal today. I still have two weeks. Thanks for the great article.
Without going into details, unequal application of the law, even in small matters, is what happens at the end of empires. I know that's probably not a very satisfying answer but I get a lot of emails and know a lot of people, and judicial process is simply not being followed anymore.
Correction; I am a suspended doctor, and whilst i am not a lawyer I understand either are you, but regardless of who we are , surely we have the right to comment don’t we? And regardless, this non-lawyer asked the lawyers to do the right thing and advance a proper case and they chose not to. The High Court has found they were wrong now for the third time. It’s not the Courts fault they lost, it’s theirs.
I suggest you read the Arkmedic piece linked in the main article. 27 cases presented, all dismissed. To claim they were all constructed poorly would be almost impossible to back up.
Isn't it normal for a court to hear a case before deciding if it's been advanced properly? If courts can dismiss a case without even allowing any evidence to be presented, based on the personal biases of the judge or whatever bribes or threats they have happening in the background, do we actually have a justice system?
Don't agree. You don't consider the possibility that the court system is compromised and corrupted as has been happening in totalitaerian times before. It's a shocking, dark conclusion for a so-called democracy but I just had a tiny taste of it myself losing at court where the judge totally sided with the police turning a black and white crystal clear definition on its head, because he can and he doesn't seem to fear any negative outcome from an appeal court. Two lawyers considered the case bullet proof. Police made an obvious error charging me with the wrong offence. I wouldn't have taken it to court otherwise. There wasn't too much at stake for me paying the fine. But the error was so blatant obvious that it just seemed a formality. This ruling was in the same logic league as when an old man with a big beard claims he is a woman and can get pregnant.
Opining here: I am not a lawyer and don't fully understand the case Rebekah has written about, but I have seen lots of cases on the 'freedom' side of things poorly constructed or argued. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies - if I can use an example - particularly during what happened in the US with the 2020 election which I did follow closely (apples and boulders I know).
Yet, there is also the other argument that if the case fits the 'narrative,' then courts are more likely to overlook any inconsistencies in the case and construction in order to push it through, granting standing where they shouldn't etc. (demonstrating unequal justice/corruption).
I think both the above can be true because the judicial system (in every country) is politically motivated. The issue is that the Western world is suffering from an unequal application of justice, which happens during the decline of empires.
Having talked at length with Fam and Gillespie, I do not believe that this case was poorly constructed. This appears to be a clean cut case of procedural unfairness. I don't know the motive, but it's worth noting that the government has a LOT to lose should a case like this be heard in the High Court.
Having seen the case and other cases by Gillespie, his legal arguments are poorly thought out, lack a Constitutional basis and ignore processes of the Court in favour of likes and clicks and notoriety. It is unfortunate that misinformation continues to be spread. If you take a look at the initial case in the Federal Court, you will see the case lacked standing. His colleagues warned him of this. And yet they were silenced. In fact, when the issue of standing was brought to him prior to submission, he told his colleague to 'f .. off'. And now we are here, talking up his legitimacy. I have no doubt that the High Court is not operating as it should, and cases like the Babies case do nothing to expose that. In fact, all it does is make those of us seeking justice according to the processes of the Court, with arguments relating to jurisdiction and the Constitution, have to work harder to show the people that we are not all deluded and that some of us do have legitimate arguments.
Can someone kindly explain to me how all of this madness doesn’t violate the Nuremberg code? It’s a medical experiment under extreme coercion. What am I missing?
Rebekah is correct in a way. It is one pronged, but we have seen that the original jurisdiction of the High Court is not seemingly open to everyone, or indeed anyone bringing in legitimate arguments. We have also observed that the appellate jurisdiction is not necessarily open. What needs to occur to is to present cases to the High Court via the original and appellate jurisdictions including s40 matters too, and get public support. If you look to the wording of s40 of the Judiciary Act, it mentions 'significance to the public'. From my experience, the way the High Court is interpreting this is not matters that impact millions of Australians. Instead, they are interpreting it as matters that attract national interest. What Gillespie is doing - and others like AFL lawyers, is presenting poorly constructed cases that give the impression that the Courts are not functioning and there is no way to win. While it may be the case that the Court is difficult to access, my view is that we should be addressing this issue - access. To educate people - including yourself and the public at large about matters that need support and attention. Including Dr William Bay, Dr Mark Hobart, Ms Kiley in the VSC and other matters relating to our Constitution and the protections it affords.
Thanks for this succinct description of what has happened Rebekah. Many of us who have had little to do with the law in our lives are flabbergasted at how the courts have behaved. We realise how little protection they afford us as citizen's. Irrespective of whether the technical evidence was correct or not, that measurements and analysis were not able to be presented in court, for what on the surface are administrative reasons, is terrifying.
Also it seems that it is money that controls justice, in the sense that only those with deep pockets have a chance in carrying through with seeking justice. The government has the deepest pocket it seems. We are proud of those in the legal profession who have had the courage to pursue this on behalf of us.
From 1st hand experience, it is the deepest pockets that invariably 'get the best results' in the matter of 'justice'.
The Court rightfully and correctly rejected a matter for which the plaintiffs had no arguable case. For us to win cases in the Courts they need to be constructed skilfully.
Dr Bay I need to make note here that you are a doctor, not a legal practitioner.
You are welcome to contact me at mail@rebekahbarnett.com.au if you would like to make your case.
Very timely. I was literally two minutes away from going to the local court to file an appeal against a traffic offense I just lost in the local court. The case, checked by two lawyers and considered bullet proof, hung on a crystal clear definition. The police made an obvious mistake and charged me with the wrong offence. But the judge sided with the police making such a bizarre illogical decision that the lawyers are totally flabbergasted . Never came across such a blatant disregard for the written code by a judge ever. He had the Fauci syndrom. He didnt apply tbe law, he was the law. There was no backup or logical explanation. He just ruled as he saw fit. I was shell-shocked. Not because I lost but how I lost. I was transported right back into the illogical random tyrannical world of the Covid response as well as the illogical random argumentation of radical trans activists. My first question after the loss was: How deep are the courts compromised? Is there any point to appeal? Obviously, that judge wasn't concerned to be laughed out of an appeal court. Thats ominous. Part of me just wants to appeal to find out how deep it goes. Another part is getting very careful. The judge gave me a relatively mild order, however, much harsher than my original ticket. You get punished for challenging the police. The appeal judge could be much harsher if I loose again but apparently there is the Parker rule which means he has to warn me if he thinks it might be harsher and I can withdraw the appeal. So I should be ok but what do I do if he doesn't care about the Parker rule? This article makes me believe in the saying that the fish stinks at the head first. Usually, the corruption of a culture or organisation is top down. I don't think I appeal today. I still have two weeks. Thanks for the great article.
Sadly, your situation is not unique.
Say more. What have you heard?
Without going into details, unequal application of the law, even in small matters, is what happens at the end of empires. I know that's probably not a very satisfying answer but I get a lot of emails and know a lot of people, and judicial process is simply not being followed anymore.
Correction; I am a suspended doctor, and whilst i am not a lawyer I understand either are you, but regardless of who we are , surely we have the right to comment don’t we? And regardless, this non-lawyer asked the lawyers to do the right thing and advance a proper case and they chose not to. The High Court has found they were wrong now for the third time. It’s not the Courts fault they lost, it’s theirs.
I suggest you read the Arkmedic piece linked in the main article. 27 cases presented, all dismissed. To claim they were all constructed poorly would be almost impossible to back up.
Isn't it normal for a court to hear a case before deciding if it's been advanced properly? If courts can dismiss a case without even allowing any evidence to be presented, based on the personal biases of the judge or whatever bribes or threats they have happening in the background, do we actually have a justice system?
Yes, the normal procedure is to have at least a small hearing to give the plaintiffs the option of adjusting the case before it is remitted.
Yes because it is not at all possible the courts are manipulated and corrupted!!
They are just another company. Registered in the USA and illegal. UN puppets.
Don't agree. You don't consider the possibility that the court system is compromised and corrupted as has been happening in totalitaerian times before. It's a shocking, dark conclusion for a so-called democracy but I just had a tiny taste of it myself losing at court where the judge totally sided with the police turning a black and white crystal clear definition on its head, because he can and he doesn't seem to fear any negative outcome from an appeal court. Two lawyers considered the case bullet proof. Police made an obvious error charging me with the wrong offence. I wouldn't have taken it to court otherwise. There wasn't too much at stake for me paying the fine. But the error was so blatant obvious that it just seemed a formality. This ruling was in the same logic league as when an old man with a big beard claims he is a woman and can get pregnant.
Opining here: I am not a lawyer and don't fully understand the case Rebekah has written about, but I have seen lots of cases on the 'freedom' side of things poorly constructed or argued. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies - if I can use an example - particularly during what happened in the US with the 2020 election which I did follow closely (apples and boulders I know).
Yet, there is also the other argument that if the case fits the 'narrative,' then courts are more likely to overlook any inconsistencies in the case and construction in order to push it through, granting standing where they shouldn't etc. (demonstrating unequal justice/corruption).
I think both the above can be true because the judicial system (in every country) is politically motivated. The issue is that the Western world is suffering from an unequal application of justice, which happens during the decline of empires.
Having talked at length with Fam and Gillespie, I do not believe that this case was poorly constructed. This appears to be a clean cut case of procedural unfairness. I don't know the motive, but it's worth noting that the government has a LOT to lose should a case like this be heard in the High Court.
Having seen the case and other cases by Gillespie, his legal arguments are poorly thought out, lack a Constitutional basis and ignore processes of the Court in favour of likes and clicks and notoriety. It is unfortunate that misinformation continues to be spread. If you take a look at the initial case in the Federal Court, you will see the case lacked standing. His colleagues warned him of this. And yet they were silenced. In fact, when the issue of standing was brought to him prior to submission, he told his colleague to 'f .. off'. And now we are here, talking up his legitimacy. I have no doubt that the High Court is not operating as it should, and cases like the Babies case do nothing to expose that. In fact, all it does is make those of us seeking justice according to the processes of the Court, with arguments relating to jurisdiction and the Constitution, have to work harder to show the people that we are not all deluded and that some of us do have legitimate arguments.
Can someone kindly explain to me how all of this madness doesn’t violate the Nuremberg code? It’s a medical experiment under extreme coercion. What am I missing?
William what would have worked do you think?
Rebekah in my opinion we have to look outside of the box for solutions.
I agree. I'm a fan of the 'multi-prong' approach... courts are one prong, but hardly the only one.
Pitchforks have prongs
Rebekah is correct in a way. It is one pronged, but we have seen that the original jurisdiction of the High Court is not seemingly open to everyone, or indeed anyone bringing in legitimate arguments. We have also observed that the appellate jurisdiction is not necessarily open. What needs to occur to is to present cases to the High Court via the original and appellate jurisdictions including s40 matters too, and get public support. If you look to the wording of s40 of the Judiciary Act, it mentions 'significance to the public'. From my experience, the way the High Court is interpreting this is not matters that impact millions of Australians. Instead, they are interpreting it as matters that attract national interest. What Gillespie is doing - and others like AFL lawyers, is presenting poorly constructed cases that give the impression that the Courts are not functioning and there is no way to win. While it may be the case that the Court is difficult to access, my view is that we should be addressing this issue - access. To educate people - including yourself and the public at large about matters that need support and attention. Including Dr William Bay, Dr Mark Hobart, Ms Kiley in the VSC and other matters relating to our Constitution and the protections it affords.