AVrN’s appeal is dead in the water

If ever there was proof of the delusion of Meryl Dorey, it appears in the appeal against not only the March 31 decision to strike out the case on the basis of a lack of standing but also the costs order of June 20.

It presumes an authority that it does not have.

The appeal details – provided on Twitter by Vaxatious Litigant (who presumably got it on an application for it on file in the Federal Court – assuming it’s the document I think it is) are here;

AVrN Appeal

It consists of 21 paragraphs – 20 of which I will quote and dissect here – plus a set or orders sought;

1. The primary judge erred at reasons [18], [19], [20], [31] and [89] in applying section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to the Affidavits of Meryl Dorey affirmed on 29 January 2022 and February 28 2022 in that the statutory test that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party or be misleading or confusing was not applied or was wrongly applied.

Section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 deals with the general discretion to limit use of evidence in the terms described. The sections referred to in the reasons were perfect for this purpose. Paragraph 18 clearly showed that in the case of Dorey, she was expressing an opinion – generally not permitted. The discretion applied for in this appeal can not hold up because of the lack of evidence to back up the opinions expressed. Paragraph 19 backed that up as does paragraph 20. There was no proof for example that their approaches to Parliament in 1997 had any influence on the legislation. None. It was all hearsay. The same applies to paragraph 31 – and is a perfect example of Dorey’s delusion. The AVrN is NOT the peak vaccine organisation in Australia and is not a leader in it. Anti vaccine groups like this never are and never will be. This is backed up by the primary judge in paragraph 89.

2. The primary judge erred at reasons [89] in that the appellant was denied procedural fairness or natural justice in that the Court failed to accept the unchallenged evidence of Meryl Dorey yet it criticised her or the appellant for not putting on more or further and expert evidence and holding that the evidence did not rise above the status of a bare assertion of her belief. The primary judge failed to first put this to Meryl Dorey before making this finding.

The primary judge didn’t need to. The respondent gave plenty of evidence to show how what was there failed – and that was the challenge this paragraph fails to acknowledge. Standing was challenged – and that includes a challenge to Dorey’s Affidavit in terms of accuracy. The demand for more evidence in submission was correct and it didn’t come.

3. The primary judge erred by failing to identify the content of the standing test as described in Bridgetown/Greenbushes Friends of the Forest Incorporated v Executive Director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (1997) (1997) 18 WAR 126 and Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook Inc. v Cook [2007] 1 Qd R 102 despite the reliance by the appellant on that content in the appellant’s submissions.

Clearly, as indicated in paragraph 109 of the decision, the lawyer who wrote this doesn’t know what he’s doing. The references to the first decision are clear as glass. The second decision was never mentioned even in the list of decisions relied upon by both parties unless I missed it somehow.

4. The primary judge erred at reasons at [87] in failing to find that the appellant established a special interest over and above that held by an ordinary member of the public.

This heavily relies on the objection to what was said already about paragraph 89 which has already been addressed.

5. The primary judge erred at reasons in [89] in failing to afford the proper and lawful degree of weight to Ms Dorey’s opinion that the appellant was the peak vaccines organisation in Australia.

As already said – the appellant failed to prove it.

6. The primary judge erred at reasons at [90] in wrongly finding that the appellant was merely “voicing a concern” and that the furtherance of its objectives was not an element of the standing test.

This is another misread by the lawyer who prepared this document. The paragraph actually criticises the AVrN’s lack of a cause of action that is more applicable to an individual – hence the reference to “voicing a concern” in reality. In other words – in order to have a case (having standing or not) you have to prove vaccine injury from any of the COVID-19 vaccines personally or within the immediate family. The AVrN’s objectives for the record are falsified.

7. The primary judge erred at reasons at [91] in wrongly finding that the objects of the appellant were not concerned with enforcing the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) (TG Act).

This is another fail by the lawyer who created this document. The judge was right – the objectives were concerned with the actions of the states in the administration of vaccines which has nothing to do with the TG Act. In other words – where in the objectives of the AVrN are the concerns for the registration of vaccines as an example?

8. The primary judge erred at reasons at [93] in wrongly finding that the objects of the appellant were not truly aligned with the objects of the TG Act.

See what I just said.

9. The primary judge erred at reasons at [92] in wrongly finding that the appellant was merely seeking to exercise free speech and seeking to influence public opinion and government views in pursuit of its objects and that this was not a factor in its favour in the standing test.

As the paragraph referred to says, there is no restraint on free speech or seeking influence. The objects as they stand – as I said – are best pursued through the states.

10. The primary judge erred at reasons at [94] in wrongly finding that the fact that the appellant had lobbied governments and made submissions to State and Commonwealth parliamentary committees and other government bodies on vaccine safety and efficacy, including with respect to the Three Vaccines and vaccination of children, and that it made available information to the public concerning vaccines, did not without more strengthen its claim to standing.

This goes back to what I said in reply to paragraph 2 of the appeal. Not enough proof of standing – or no proof as the case may be.

11. The primary judge erred at reasons at [95] in wrongly finding that the appellant was required to adduce expert evidence in order to establish that Ms Dorey and the other members of the appellant and their children suffered psychological or emotional harm or injury from vaccines.

This again goes back to the lack of evidence – and also draws unintentionally on the position I have always held about proof. See the blog entry “Once and for all prove it”. It also goes to my current belief that they are with holding information which should be a criminal offense.

12. The primary judge erred at reasons at [96] in wrongly finding that there were no indicia of standing in respect of third parties such as the appellant in the scheme established by the TG Act.

So where is the section of the TG Act that proves this? This is an empty argument and more proof of the failure of the lawyer who prepared this.

13. The primary judge erred at reasons at [98] in wrongly finding that the appellant was unable to demonstrate an interest greater than that of an ordinary member of the public.

The fact that the Attorney General didn’t intervene here shows that the submission by the appellant lacked a factor of interest to the AG and therefore to the public at large – in the process defeating the whole argument put here and making the paragraph referred to correct on the part of the primary judge.

14. The primary judge erred at reasons at [99] in wrongly finding that the appellant was merely seeking to right a wrong.

On the contrary this finding was spot on. They were seeking to right a perceived wrong.

15. The primary judge erred at reasons at [99] in wrongly finding that the appellant’s grievance with the impugned decisions the subject matter of the Mandamus Case did not extend beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.

This goes back again to the lack of proof as already mentioned.

16. The primary judge erred at reasons [111] in wrongly finding that the appellant was not aggrieved for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review} Act 1977 (Cth) because it could not establish a grievance which would be suffered beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.

I remember the argument put in the hearing – that the AVrN would not be disadvantaged in its objectives if the case went against them. It could carry on regardless. This would be the reason behind this observation by the primary judge and is correct.

17. The primary judge erred at reasons at [129] in wrongly finding that the joinder applicant, Mr Neugebauer, needed to challenge the South Australian Direction and that Mr Neugebauer’s interest would not in truth be affected by the grant to the relief sought.

The primary judge was right. As observed already, the decision of the TGA has no effect on the states when it comes to all factors of the administration of the vaccine. Therefore the challenge must indeed be to the South Australian government.

18. The primary judge erred at reasons at [141] in wrongly finding that the relationship between Mr Neugebauer and his foster child did not give rise to a sufficient interest in Mr Neugebauer with respect to the judicial review case.

Another fail by the lawyer preparing this document – this is covered in the next paragraph (142) where mention is made of the authority held over the foster child by the Chief Executive of the DCP (Department of Child Protection) as the child is presently a ward of the state. That’s how it works.

19. The primary judge erred at reasons at [143] in wrongly finding that the decision to vaccinate Mr Neugebauer’s foster child did not relate to any decision under the TG Act.

Of course it didn’t! What a ridiculous assertion! Who made the decision to mandate the vaccines? Not the TGA. It was in this case the South Australian government!

20. The primary judge erred at reasons at [144] wrongly found that there was insuffcient interest for Mr Neugebauer to seek to quash the Children Decision or any s 22D Determination.

This merely follows up what I already said.

Paragraph 21 of the appeal concerns the costs decision and gives no references – preferring only to object in general. So I can’t comment on it.

The rest of the document with regard to the orders sought are predictable and will fail. The Australian Vaccination-risks Network prove yet again that they think they know better than anyone else and they don’t. Their standing in vaccines in Australia is nothing in effect – whether they like it or not. Their insistence in with holding information backs that up. They think they are invincible. They are deluded.

Advertisement

AVrN’s moment in history – Quit and shut down

Back on May 28, the AVrN website published a blog entry that I simply have to take apart here. It is deluded and by itself proves a number of things Federal Court Justice Perry said in her reasons for decision affirming the AVrN’s lack of standing absolutely right. The quotes are from the following online location;

A moment in history – do we quit, or do we take the last few steps for embracing justice?

The AVN and our legal team have been working non-stop for the last 6 months to get our cases over the line in the Federal Court. If successful, we will see the end of COVID jabs for 5-11 year olds as well as a withdrawal of the provisional approvals for the experimental COVID jabs, meaning the immediate end to all COVID Vaccine mandates.

And an immediate disaster in a health system already stretched.

Our cases have always been straightforward; our evidence is damning and ready to go; however, the judge at first instance threw us an entirely unexpected curve ball recently, by denying each of the AVN and Mark Neugebauer’s legal Standing, a decision quite out of keeping with established legal precedent.

Their evidence is speculation, which is not admissible. They have no proof that any more than 11 deaths have been caused by any COVID-19 vaccine. Further – it was clear in the reasons that there was legal precedent, courtesy of the deluded Right to Life Association.

Consequently, we have been forced to go on appeal now, where we find ourselves having to present again this rudimentary issue of legal Standing to a higher Court, (the Full Federal Court composed of three senior justices), in order to get the case back on track so we can proceed to the substantive hearings, where the real evidence about the Secretary of Health will be presented.

I know as well as the respondent does – the AVrN have no real evidence. They don’t have standing to make this application – they can’t get around it.

This has forced us to perform a great deal of additional work never normally seen in Administrative Law matters, which we can’t help but opine has been by design.

Oh what a lot of rot! There was a time I went to the Supreme Court of Victoria for a brief mention in the middle of a major case that the same judge in my matter was looking after. I couldn’t help but see countless numbers of court books and law books all open. There must have been at least a dozen of them. That without doubt was a much larger amount of work, and that’s just one example.

In short, we have been forced to prepare for a hearing on legal Standing; another hearing with respects to the Costs that must be awarded following the Standing hearing; followed now with the work required for getting ready our appeal of the Standing hearing decision.

The real reason why all this has been “forced” is because the AVrN can’t stand the fact that they have been smacked in the gob as having no standing in this. Or to put it another way – they have nothing to complain about. They are making a mountain out of a molehill.

We have had one major donor come forward. He has committed to providing $50,000 towards the costs order. In return, we have promised in writing via our solicitors to refund these funds should our appeal against the adverse decision on standing be upheld, and costs returned to the AVN.

I don’t know who this donor is, but whoever it is they are clearly an idiot. They won’t get their money back, because the appeal will be dismissed.

So we are asking anyone reading this who is in a position to donate $25,000 or more to the AVN’s fundraising efforts, to please contact us by email or by phone – [redacted] – and we will put you in touch with our legal manager, Katie Ashby-Koppens. Katie can send you the written contract promising a return of your funds should our appeal be won and costs be returned to the AVN.

Note that your money is gone WHEN the AVrN lose.

As always, you can make any donation you’re able to spare to our Give Send Go appeal. Please read the terms and conditions carefully. They state that, should there be any funds left in the kitty after the case is won, the reminder will be refunded on a pro rata basis to anyone who has donated $500 or more.

The case will be lost.

And just so everybody is clear – the issue of legal Standing is normally discussed at the start of a substantive hearing, the same hearing where the evidence is presented. In our situation the Judge ordered a separate hearing on legal Standing alone, thereby preventing us from also presenting our damning evidence and arguing the nuts-and-bolts of the case.

The judge’s order was correct – knowing from submissions by the respondent that the AVrN were troublemakers. “Busybodies” was the term used per the AVrN’s written reply. Why hear the substantive case if they have no standing for not just these reasons but also the other reasons relied upon and upheld in the respondent’s submissions (written and oral).

So here we find our matter having walked the proverbial garden path, having to appeal which we believe and are advised will be successful, in order to go to a final hearing where our evidence finally gets laid before the Court against the Secretary.

It won’t get that far. This is why they are delusional – the appeal has no chance of succeeding. Remember, the procedure is firstly for the applicant to have leave to appeal to the full bench. That may be argued against by itself. And even if that is passed, the appeal itself has to fail.

As you can no doubt see now, this case within a case has greatly assisted the Secretary of Health to avoid answering in open Court the mountain of damning evidence that proves the Secretary has failed in his duties.

On the contrary – as stated – this “mountain of damning evidence” won’t be allowed. It is hearsay. There must be bona fide proof. Medical proof with full backing across the board. And the AVrN don’t have that. Therefore by default, the respondent has not failed in their duties.

As a consequence of this legal Standing decision by Justice Perry, which has so greatly assisted the Secretary of Health, our costs have increased far beyond what we initially budgeted for.

Of course it did. That’s karma for a pack of liars – the leader of which has already been caught lying about the very existence of COVID-19. Remember – she told Jane Hansen in front a live camera in reply to being asked if she believed in COVID; “Do you believe in Santa Claus?” There also the additional note that she claims to have suffered some sort of radiation poisoning from the protest in Canberra – when in fact she had COVID!

We are now left in a very uncomfortable position and we are coming to you – our supporters and community – to ask what you would like us to do.

I’ll tell you what to do. Quit.

We need to raise approximately $150,000 – $180,000 on top of what has already been donated – thanks to your generosity – to cover a likely adverse costs order arising from the hearing on Standing, and to cover the additional cost we have been put to for needing to appeal. Without these funds we cannot continue with our appeal on Standing – an appeal which we have been told has very good prospects of success.

Whoever gave this advice doesn’t know what they are dealing with. They don’t know how dishonest the AVrN is. At a guess they have been conned.

Should we win this appeal, then the monies paid for the adverse costs order will be returned to the AVN, and we can get on with the substantive hearing of our evidence against the Secretary.

Actually that’s not true. At the costs hearing, the AVrN can apply for the costs awarded against them to be deferred pending appeal, which would be launched straight away.

If we cannot raise the needed monies our case will be dead in the water, leaving a terrible precedent for future litigants seeking justice, while leaving this Secretary of Health free to continue supplying a dangerous substance to the Australian community, and particularly to 5-11 year olds who were never threatened by SARS-CoV-2, but who are threatened by what this substance can and has been doing – causing horrific injuries and illness and deaths.

The vaccine is not dangerous, including to the kids. There have been a limited number of proven injuries and deaths. Speculation does not count.

As it stands now, it is feared that a loss at this point in this case, “will shield the Commonwealth from many (if not most) future judicial review challenges as to the regulation of medicines in Australia” as stated by Senior Counsel, Mr Mark Robinson.

No it won’t. All it will do is label the AVrN what they are. Troublemakers with no standing in the field of vaccines. All of them, not just COVID-19.

I don’t believe that any of you reading this would consider that to be a positive outcome and nor do we.

It is. It will shut you lot up.

So, we are asking you a simple question – do we continue or do we call it quits at this point in time, when we are so close to the finish?

Call it quits – and shut down for good.

Time is pressing

That’s about the only thing they have said that I agree with.

Indeed, time is of the essence. We have been given a time frame of approximately 2 weeks to raise these funds in order to continue this historic case. If the needed funds are raised, our work continues for protecting our youngest, our children, while protecting our community from a health bureaucracy gone mad. We are so very close to achieving these outcomes.

You are not protecting the children. You are putting them in danger from COVID-19. No child has died from any COVID vaccine. Children have died from COVID-19. The health bureaucracy is doing it’s job and does not need protecting from. That is the problem – the AVrN think they are the keepers of vaccine injury information. They are not – they are in fact with holding information that should be in the hands of the very health bureaucracy they are attacking. The full details of injuries. They are hiding it, claiming to be the collectors of behalf of the government. That is delusional, and in fact – in my opinion – it is a criminal act.

That is the reason above all else that the AVrN has to be shut down.

You read that right – shut down.