Liz Hempel’s stupidity

My previously noted blast of Vazquez and those who supported me through this blog’s Facebook page attracted the attention of Liz Hempel, a typically ignorant Queenslander from Townsville who was revealed to be an anti vaxxer when she apparently made some sort of anti vax comment to Sam Redfern. Sam alerted the admins of the AAAV Facebook to this and Hempel was banned.

But Sam forgot the golden rule of fighting anti vaxxers. Throw them to me! Because I have the admin access to this blog and no restrictions like that of the Facebook Community Standards. And no fear of these nutcases. Sam isn’t afraid either but he isn’t as emotionally invested in this as I am.

I want to address the following comments that come from her timeline.

I asked Sam about this, and he pointed to his comment on her page denying that the remark was about her. It was about someone else who challenged his commitment to Anonymous and the use of the term “good citizen”. Hempel replied demanding to know why she was banned if that was the case. Sam told me that he knew she was a friend of Vazquez’s and that was enough for him to ban her. Fair enough as well. I think I showed very well in the previous entry how nutty he is.

Hempel though didn’t let it go, linking a screenshot of Sam’s About Page.

You need to care about reputation. It’s important in many parts of one’s life. I know – I’ve had my rep tarnished and I’ve fought back and won. Three times. It’s why I have the AV Name Check. These people need to be named and shamed ( and on the next update Hempel’s name is being added). It might be a social construct, but it’s a way more important one because it has a big say in employment and something I hold very dear – political power. Sam made that point about defamation and he also added the prison option for anti vaxxers per the core reason I name and shame. Speaking for myself, anti vaxxers are bullies because they try to scare with lies – which is distinct from scaring with the truth.

Hempel’s next timeline entry wasn’t aimed at Sam, but it was stupid.

Perfect example of anti vax rhetoric. It’s not a lie. It works and has been proven to work as well. As an aside, Fwankie came along with one of his memes – and it was one of the ones I had already corrected.

Now next was a generalised crack at the AAAV Facebook page after she was banned from it.

If one wants to protect themselves and their children from preventable disease, vaccines are essential. Declining it is neglect – the No Jab No Pay No Play laws are there for a reason. And child neglect is a crime. Coming to pages like AAAV is great because your name is now out there as dangerous. And one word of warning, Hempel. Get your flu shot. If you don’t it will get you and kill you. It nearly killed me in July 2014. I thought like a lot of people that my fitness level would protect me. It did the opposite. I only survived because I got myself into hospital at the right time and thank goodness. Nine days sedated from thirteen in ICU and 25 all up in hospital. NEVER EVER underestimate preventable disease.

Next up, Hempel responded to Sam’s rejoinder towards the reputation commentary mentioned above.

The civil court serves the will of the law, not the will of society. If it did serve the will of society, I wouldn’t have won my defamation cases as freedom of speech would have prevailed. And it’s funny that she claims society has double standards, and yet engages in that very tactic herself! What a hypocrite! I am yet to see a person who isn’t ashamed to be named as a child neglector – two legal threats so far. Her decisions have been guided by a total lack of knowledge as Sam pointed out in reply. Love is misguided because she thinks she is protecting her children when in fact she is putting them in harm’s way – and I again go back to what almost happened to me with the flu as an example. I know that Sam is not influenced by lobbyists, corporate interest or tabloid media. I’m not either. I can’t speak for Sam, but I go on logic and education. I remember my high school science, unlike most anti vaxxers. Hempel clearly has nothing – most anti vaxxers don’t. That’s why debating people like her is a waste of time. Not impossible – I disagree with Sam there – but just not worth the trouble. They are idiots, and in a debate they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

She then added this in the comments of the above status.

The best way to defend the body is with vaccines. She should be afraid, and the lion comment attracted a jibe from Sam Redfern and Hempel struck back thus.

What rubbish! She should take out a ticket in Tattslotto with that sort of luck – which ran out on me as I previously mentioned. Sam invoked the car seat belt analogy in response to that and Hempel couldn’t resist.

Seat belts do carry an inherent risk – and again I can talk through experience. Seat belt burn. It might not seem like much, but it stings. The note about faulty seat belts also applies to vaccines and are equally actionable. Vaccines are also adjusted for the individual – have you forgotten what happened in the fluvax incident in WA? It was an adult dose given to a child. There are DIFFERENT doses! It’s not one size fits all in that regard!

She pulled the typical anti vax stunt wanting a double blind placebo controlled study revealed to prove vaccine safety. On Sam’s page Melanie Jewell – a scientist – pointed out that the TGA does these tests and they are commercially confidential and therefore not available. She even pointed out that she helped with one. She added rightly that Hempel probably wouldn’t be a scientist. I’ve known that the TGA does all the tests for awhile now – they have to by law. If Hempel has proof that the test hasn’t been done, she should report it. Of course she won’t – because she has nothing.

I noted that Hempel shared the AAAV blog entry on Vazquez and it got comments from Fwankie. Both of them offered “unconditional love” – they can have their so called love. They don’t even know the meaning of it. And I don’t go for the tin foil hats idea because I don’t need it. You should go see a doctor about that thorn in your toe over vaccines, and a psychiatrist over your lap dog mentality towards Australia’s only anti vax terrorist – Vazquez.

Once I completed this entry in text file and took the screen shots, I suggested to Sam that he delete his page’s posts. He agreed.

Advertisement

The Infamous Fwankie

There are some complete nutcases within the anti vaccine community. It’s almost a prerequisite to be light on in the old belfry in order to be against vaccines. The stupidity is rampant. But this one takes the cake!

Frankie Vazquez is well known to the those involved in calling out anti vaxxers. His most infamous act was to threaten to blow up Michael’s Oriental Restaurant in Brisbane, the venue for one of Sherri Tenpenny’s seminars at the beginning of 2015; if the event was cancelled (which ultimately it was and no sign of a bomb). He did something similar to Sydney’s Kareela Golf Club (that was a fire and not a bomb). He has a history of making threats and engaging in vulgar language and he is also a prolific maker of inaccurate and offensive memes – many of which I collected and corrected. Some examples appear on the appropriate page on this blog.

Vazquez has a daughter, who is completely unvaccinated. He is a classic child neglector and has the poor girl completely hooked it would appear as the many pictures of the pair seems to show.

But recently he showed another aspect of his stupidity and I attempted to act. The stupidity stems from his refusal to pay his rates, claiming that his local council – Salisbury City Council in Adelaide’s northern suburbs – had no power or right to charge rates and were therefore illegal. He even tore up his rates notice right in front of the woman at the counter. It’s on a video that Vasquez uploaded to the public on one of his many Facebook pages, and I wish I could add it here but videos can’t be added here.

But here’s the reality of that, and here’s me putting on my legal hat (I’m pretty good at this – I am recognised by one Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria as a paralegal). Vazquez’s claim is derived from the idea that the Federal Constitution doesn’t recognise local government. Now whilst this is true, it is also totally irrelevant. The explanation for this is the fact that the Federal Constitution DOES recognise the States – heck it has an entire chapter devoted to it (Chapter V). That was a requirement as part of the deal to create the Commonwealth in the first place – that the colonies/states retain the powers they had where appropriate. Sections 106 to 108 gives the States that power. The history of the Salisbury council can be traced back to before Federation. The original Yatala Council was formed in 1853. The relevant Constitution therefore is the state Constitution of South Australia, the first edition of which was created in 1855. The current edition has it’s roots in 1934. Section 64A of that Constitution recognises local government thus;

There shall continue to be a system of local government in this State under which elected local governing bodies are constituted with such powers as the Parliament considers necessary for the better government of those areas of the State that are from time to time subject to that system of local government.

The manner in which local governing bodies are constituted, and the nature and extent of their powers, functions, duties and responsibilities shall be determined by or under Acts of the Parliament from time to time in force.

Now that insinuates that there may be state legislation governing rates. And lo and behold, the Local Government Act 1999 gives such power under section 147!

All land within the area of a council is rateable, except for land within a specific exemption (see especially subsection (2))

None of the exemptions listed applies to Vazquez.

I was in Adelaide late last week and on the back of the video I paid a visit to the very same counter Vasquez did on Thursday morning – August 25 – at about 9:30am, and sought to encourage them to take action. It was a shame I didn’t bring the video with me and I could have showed the girl at the counter (it was naturally a different girl to the one in the video). All I was told was that any special action would be seen as victimisation, and they had to follow proper procedure. I couldn’t say or do anything about it without more evidence – especially as I later remembered that in fact lawyers had apparently already been engaged by Salisbury Council according to Vazquez.

Another point – Vasquez apparently has a sign outside his property, invoking a High Court decision from 1991 to stop anyone entering his property without any consent. I had a look at Plenty v Dillon, a case where a farmer was successful in trying to stop the police from serving a summons. That doesn’t apply here, because the Council can take the matter to court, and a court can issue an order (not a summons – as was the case with that High Court case) demanding the debt be paid – even in Vazquez’s absence. This would go to a state collection agency, and the order would be valid legal reason to enter the property and seize goods to the equal value of the debt. If Vazquez has a car that would cover it.

I’m not giving up. I do have to make some time, but it is my intention to press ahead wanting action taken. I may even take it to a Change.org petition, but that almost seems like a waste of time. Of course I may reconsider, but it depends. There may be other options, like political at state level. But that may have to wait until I am next in Adelaide.