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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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?

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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!

  1. 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.

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;

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.

Idiotics on the AVrN page

After the hearing on Wednesday, I wasn’t surprised that there was a lot of comment. Mostly hope for the objection being dismissed of course.

But after a video of that hack Julian Gillespie trying to explain in layman’s terms the legal arguments of both sides (I didn’t bother with the video myself because that’s not what this entry is about) we had some total rubbish.

Out of control, Miles? The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency do their job appropriately and correctly. They get rid of dangerous people when reported. Dangerous people should be deregistered. What’s out of control are idiots who think they can undermine medical health and get away with it.

Fast AJ was right. It wasn’t blatantly obvious of course, but the line of queries were along those lines and rightly because that is the base of the standing required. The reply by Attard was defamatory. All judges are honest and fair on the basis of the evidence presented. Soul’s agreement shows how easy it is to fall for the simple and incorrect argument.

More defamation by Pititto this time. None are corrupt – at all.

This is the comment that caused me to write this blog entry. It is rubbish. Parliamentarians have indeed been excluded for not being vaccinated. In Victoria both David Limbrick and Tim Quilty did their work remotely. I think Adem Somyurek did too, until he got the jab in order to get in there and try to stop the pandemic laws here. Pretty sure Pauline Hansen’s absence in Canberra was for the same reason. While it is so that the Constitution has nothing about it, it’s not true that the Constitution directly prohibits it. Mandates DO apply to the police – this witch Zag is going on the New Zealand High Court call which does not apply here in Australia. Natasha Henry is out of the NSW Police because of the mandate there (see Kassam and Henry v Hazzard). The so-called elitist do get COVID. Morrison got it, and he’s not the only one. The Queen got it for goodness sake – it gets everyone if allowed! The vaccine needs to be administered to bring this pandemic down to endemic levels – and this witch clearly considers just 11 deaths from the Astra Zeneca vaccine and none from Pfizer or Moderna to be enough of a concern. We need the Moderna factory, and the Pfizer one too. Jobs.

I know through experience that legal argument is complex and is not quick and easy. The guy representing the TGA and the Department of Health was excellent and he didn’t gas on at all. He introduced the Right to Life precedent as I mentioned in the last entry and made a series of very good arguments. I do have the advantage of understanding legals and this person commenting doesn’t. Both representatives did the same and I think Robinson (the AVrN’s rep) took even more time including the reply. Justice will be done, the TGA has plenty to stand on (that’s for Annells in reply) and the objection will be upheld. The people wasting taxpayer’s money is the AVrN – making the government employ lawyers to defend themselves easily and successfully.

More defamation. Prove it, Thompson!

Brendan Murphy will be vindicated. He is already accountable and the accusations made against him by the AVrN are false. The “hard work” will fail and the research they have presented will be tossed in the bin as the unvalidated pseudo science it is. The numbers they rely on are unproven and therefore wrong. The number of deaths in the US is not confirmed because the source (VAERS) in unreliable. I’ve already spoken of the number of deaths in Australia. The vaccines are not dangerous. Dehnert is lying and doesn’t know it.

Justice Beech-Jones in the matter of Kassam and Henry v Hazzard made it clear that choice still exists. The limited mandates are not based in forcing a person to be vaccinated – that is being held down on the table/floor/whatever and being given the jab in that forced situation. You can choose not to get it. You can also choose to rob a bank. His Honour settled that aspect. The other aspect that is settled was also in my last blog entry here – section 48 of the Disability Discrimination Act and section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act.

Walker doesn’t know what corruption is. The law is the law – true and right. Calling that corrupt is delusional. Semantics and wriggle room only comes from precedents otherwise, based in interpretation. The correct interpretation of the law will uphold the objection and the AVrN case will be thrown out as it should be.

Clobbering the AVrN’s Fed Court standing

I was intending to post this before today’s interlocutory hearing, but I figured I would adjust to the notes from the hearing (allowed under the orders of the Court that her Honour Justice Perry mentioned).

First off – the vaccines are not experimental. The trials were concluded at the end of 2020 prior to the TGA’s provisional approval. Secondly, VAERS in the US is not reliable as anyone can put in reports and have not been confirmed. So that number of 4 thousand deaths in the US can not be relied upon as accurate. Vaccines are not mandated as a whole, and a choice remains (this was established in Kassam and Henry v Hazzard) – even in state orders. Such orders are legal under section 48 of the Disability Discrimination Act. I have said that many times and I’m not the only one who has said it either. Indeed, Justice Beech-Jones referred to it in the aforementioned decision even if it didn’t go to the heart of the matter before that court.

Second, the pressing of the AVrN’s interests as valid without considering their standing within that is ridiculous. An attempt was made to push the claim that the AVrN had a positive effect on legislation – but there was no proof of it. Of course there wasn’t – because they didn’t. Bob Brown’s Amendments to legislation back in 1997 would have been proposed anyway, and they have since been removed in 2015 despite the AVrN’s objection. This refers to the conscientious objection clause. The special interest factor must carry valid backing and it has none. The backing claimed is controversial which I go to further down this blog entry.

Third – I go back to the state orders, specifically in South Australia with the joinder applicant. Again, section 48 of the DDA applies and so does section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act which goes to the employer’s primary duty of care to protect the health and safety of their employees. If a person isn’t vaccinated they present a threat to the health and safety of other employees. The idiot also apparently went to the ingredients in his objection to his dismissal – a basic error made by an anti vaxxer.

Fourth – the claim that the AVrN and the joinder applicant will be badly affected by a negative result is a lie. The AVrN will go on regardless and the joinder applicant will continue his life.

The written submission that the AVrN published on their website (the base of my original intent to post here) mentions the respondent’s objection using the word “busybody”. I agree with this word being used, and there is a very good example of it. Meryl Dorey’s treatment of the McAffrey family. As we know the McAffrey’s daughter died from whooping cough, and Dorey demanded access to the death certificate trying to prove that this was not the cause of death. She has denied it, but proof of this effort and other related efforts at the time to pressure the McAffreys exists in email records. That is just one example that is on the public record – thanks in part to Jane Hansen. I hate Sky News, but they did the right thing in transmitting Jane’s documentary promoted here;
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sky-news-presents-big-shots-antivaxxers-exposed/video/8de43cc1f34c41d772b298deffe169d7

One part of it that says plenty about Dorey’s attitude – a highly relevant question asked by Jane; “Do you believe in COVID?”. Dorey replies “Do you believe in Santa Claus?” That comment says a great deal about her core position on the prevailing situation. She doesn’t believe COVID-19 even exists. It does and we all know it.

The submission includes authorities to back their claims of standing and it’s clear – the matters referred to there carry none of the controversy surrounding the AVrN. The AVrN promote themselves as authorities on vaccines when they are not. The proof lies in the reason why I got involved in fighting this moronic lot to begin with – their claim that vaccines cause Autism;
https://avn.org.au/information/vaccine-injury/autism-and-vaccines/

I have made it clear over and over again my extreme offence to that and how that I consider it hate speech. That factor is hopefully in hand. This is aside from clear issues with the authorities in general that Her Honour Justice Perry identified. The barrister representing the respondent made a great point that the applicant must have something to lose to have sufficient interest, or conversely something to gain. Neither apply to the AVrN because they are busybodies. Likewise the fact that the TGA provisionally approved all the vaccines but had no say (in effect) in whether or not they would be used – either by the federal government through the roll out provisions, or the states through the provision of the vaccines themselves to the people. Also – in a really important note – no government (state or federal) recognises the AVrN in any way as an authority. In fact the New South Wales government through it’s Department of Fair Trading have gone in the opposite direction making them change their name from the original. And there was a great precedent to add to it, involving the equally controversial Right To Life group who were ruled as not having standing in an abortion matter – specifically an abortion pill for which similar circumstances applied.

The final reason the AVrN doesn’t have standing goes to their use of the Vaxxed Bus (which incidentally is being replaced after the original was wrecked by the recent floods in Northern New South Wales). It records stories of vaccination injury (in general – not just COVID). These stories should in fact be told to the TGA directly or to the health authorities in the relevant state. This goes directly to the allegation that the AVrN are busybodies. They are interfering. They are in effect hiding information from the health authorities that may be useful with a full investigation. I touched on this in the blog entry here Once and for all, prove it. I have long held that while it is fact that vaccines do not cause Autism, they could in certain circumstances play a role in sensory overloads – a very big threat to Autistic children. For example – some vaccines have a restriction of not being administered to any child running a temperature. Most do not have this restriction, but what if for an Autistic some more vaccines may be in this category and not for neurotypical children? We don’t know because these people are not presenting their children for a full evaluation. Indeed – over the Summer of 2016 and 2017 I spoke to the then head of immunisation in Victoria, Steve Pellisier. He told me that he had referred no less than eleven parents to either the Royal Children’s Hospital, or the children’s section of the Monash Medical Centre for said full evaluation – free of charge. And not one of the parents took up the offer.

The bottom line is that the AVrN do not have standing. Their character is poor. They are purveyors of misinformation. They rely on information that is falsified and inaccurate. Ultimately in the absence of proof of their claims, they are liars. They are afraid to pursue real proof because they know deep down they can’t prove anything and are afraid that alternative causes will arise and destroy their main purpose. Their purpose is not to inform about vaccines as they claim. Their purpose is to destroy the base of vaccines and in the process put children and adults in danger from preventable disease. An organisation like that can not and should never have standing to lodge claims in any Court let alone the Federal Court.

AVrN v TGA et al case management report

The first case management hearing in the AVrN’s attempt to get all the approvals for the COVID vaccines removed took place earlier this afternoon.

Her Honour Justice Melissa Perry was quick early on to identify an issue between two applications that had appeared conflated when they should be separated. That being the core application for the vaccine approval to be removed in general, and the injunction to get the approval for the kids removed specifically. So she asked for a follow up concise statement from the applicant to address this and some other issues.

To my disappointment, the respondent didn’t give notice of an application to have the matter struck out as an abuse of process and with no prospect of success. But what was done was that notice was given that the respondent’s position was that the applicant “lacked standing” to make the application. The effect of this in the end would in fact be the same – the matter would be tossed albeit for the different reason of being outside the Federal’s Court’s original jurisdiction as such. The respondent was also asked for a concise statement.

Hopefully both of those are unrestricted documents.

In addition – and this makes sense – is the note about the reasons for the TGA’s decision for approval. The public reasons are all there and always have been, but there are additional matters that would come under commercial confidentiality, or the equivalent government confidentiality. All this would do is prevent the publication of the documents (or rather no one outside of the proceeding could see it – including me, and rightly so). Such an application would need to be made through the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act and not Freedom of Information (an application under the latter would fail as the documents would be exempt from that).

There was a lot of cleaning up to do, and when the legal representative for the applicant, Mark Robinson (it would appear that I was wrong on my January 12 blog entry about him not knowing about this – add another fool who is putting ideals ahead of actual law alongside the idiots who prosecuted the Kassam and Henry cases in the Supreme Court of New South Wales) claimed they were ready to go, Her Honour respectfully informed him that they were not, and rightly so. One paragraph in the Statement of Claim needs better particulars for a start (I agree – it’s too general) and as a result the originating application needed to be amended. And one assumes substantively enough for it to need to be served on the respondent again.

One more note – the respondent hasn’t filed anything as of yet. One assumes that will be done over the next two weeks. The next case management hearing has been set down for March 3 at 4:15pm.

I will be keeping an eye on the AVrN website and their Facebook page for any more news from their end. There are three mystery Affidavits that have been filed by the applicant as well. I would love to know who they are from, but there is no way to find out unless I apply for access as a non party. Whether or not I do that is a decision I still have to make, but at present pending any changes in the meantime I won’t make that decision until after the next hearing on March 3.

AVrN file in the Federal Court after all

Back on January 12 in the last entry here I speculated that Meryl Dorey and her precious network were lying about taking the TGA to the Federal Court.

The information I was relying on hasn’t changed. They didn’t file when they said they did.

But there is now new information confirming that they have indeed filed. The filing is here;

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD52/2022/actions

What they have also done is publish on their website the originating application, a general steps taken statement (required as part of the Federal Court Rules) and two Affidavits. There is a third but the Affidavit itself is not there – only the annexures. That’s the Affidavit of Peter Lam – the lawyer running this case.

The two published are from Dorey and a statistician called Lisa Mitchell. A statistician, claiming to be an expert witness.

My views are as follows;

For Dorey’s Affidavit, the reference to the experiences of other individuals should be redacted. It’s hearsay – and the people referred to are available so they have to provide their own Affidavits or be available as witnesses. The claims made by Dorey herself aren’t backed up by medical evidence in any of the appendices so unless she coughs that up those claims end up being hearsay as well.

For Mitchell’s Affidavit, the whole thing should be redacted. Her expertise is outside the relevant lines of this case. She is using statistics that are not appropriate – that is the number of reports of adverse events. The key in decision making is the number of the reports that are confirmed – a factor that Mitchell fails to acknowledge. Claiming the reports are an issue require medical back up and an expert witness from that sector. They don’t have one.

For the originating application – first things first. I was originally planning on intervening. But for me to be able to do that, I need a cause of action – and there isn’t a door available for me to do that. But in the good news, it is a very poor application. It relies entirely on the reports, believing that to be enough for the TGA to withdraw the approvals. It isn’t. The reports have to be confirmed as I said. No confirmation means everything said in the application is manifestly wrong and untenable.

This case – subject to a skim of Lam’s Affidavit if it can be found – is dead in the water. Even with Lam’s covering document I can’t see anything changing judging by his massive list of annexures. The TGA should apply to have it thrown out as an abuse of process with no prospect of success.

Is the AVrN lying?

In December the anti vax cranks at the Australian Vaccination-Risks Network advised that they had sent a letter to Brendan Murphy, demanding that the Therapeutic Goods Administration withdraw all approvals of all COVID-19 vaccines forthwith. They threatened to take them to the Federal Court if there was no compliance with the demand by Christmas Eve.

The vaccines remain approved – as they should be.

And now the proven liars are claiming that the case is due to start next week.

A search of the Federal Court registry at comcourts.gov.au reveals a different result. No such case exists. A search in the applicant part gives no relevant results for any search term that would bring it up. With the simple restriction of “Vaccination” (as in the full name of the AVN) and the Federal Court of Australia – nothing comes up. Everything comes up. There is no way to hide it. And yet nothing comes up. It’s the same with “AVN” and “Dorey”.

One of my inner circle, who is no longer on Facebook, challenged the AVrN in the comments on their website under the name of this blog. It was trashed because it didn’t enter the moderation queue. That indicates that they have an auto trash for AAAV. Of course. So I make the same challenge my friend did – provide the file number. Until you do, there is no case.

This isn’t new. Dorey previously claimed that Polly Tommey had her three year ban reversed. Same thing – there was nothing anywhere in the Federal Court registry. It was subsequently found that there was no case – at all. Tommey never reversed the ban – she never even made an application (that would have shown up as well and it didn’t).

So in answer to the question in the title of this blog entry the answer at present is simple.

Yes.

As they always do.

Note – prior to noting that nothing has been filed that I could find, I did send a letter to the Federal Minister for Health making a number of recommendations in order to nip this in the bud. It looks like being a waste of time.

Edit (13/1) – corrected the name of the person claimed to have had their ban reversed. It wasn’t Suzanne Humphries. My mistake. Also, while I’m typing – the announcement that the case starts next week has now been removed from the website. Looks like my sharing of this on the AAAV Facebook page got out to them!

Edit (14/1) – Further information. The AVrN claimed in an update on January 6 that they had retained the services of barrister Jeremy Harrison of the Wentworth Chambers in Sydney, and Mark Robinson of the Maurice Byers Chambers. There is no such barrister in the Wentworth Chambers. There is however a Mark Robinson in the Maurice Byers Chambers, but on the basis of the first one – I doubt he even knows about this.

G&B Lawyers continue to fail

I am really getting sick and tired of G&B Lawyers and it’s main mouth, Nathan Buckly (no relation to the ex Collingwood AFL coach).

This is the High Court decision he is talking about;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1945/30.html

What Buckley doesn’t note, is that in 1946 the people voted in a referendum to effectively over rule this decision by approving the amending of the Constitution by adding Section 51 (xxiiiA). So as a result the points he puts are no longer correct;

1. Vaccinations and immunizations are matters that fall within the category of ‘quarantine’.

G&B Lawyers Facebook page on July 1, 2021

As of the amendment, no it does not. It falls within the category of medical and dental services.

2. Only the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to ‘quarantine’ under section 51(ix) of the Constitution.

G&B Lawyers Facebook page on July 1, 2021

As of the insertion of the amendment, not true.

3. The Commonwealth is prohibited from passing laws requiring citizens to submit to vaccination or immunization (which are quarantine matters).

G&B Lawyers Facebook page on July 1, 2021

There are NO laws that REQUIRE vaccination. There are laws that provide for a penalty for not vaccinating. The choice still exists. And it is empowered by Section 48 of the Disability Discrimination Act at a federal level. In Victoria (my home state) the empowerment lies loosely in Section 86 of the Equal Opportunity Act.

4. The States have no power to make laws with respect to quarantine, including matters dealing with vaccinations and immunizations (as Latham CJ held that these things are ‘quarantine’ matters).

G&B Lawyers Facebook page on July 1, 2021

As of the insertion of the amendment, not so.

5. The States are unable to do something that the Commonwealth is prohibited from doing under the exercise of the quarantine power.

G&B Lawyers Facebook page on July 1, 2021

Whilst this might be true, as of the amendment it is now irrelevant.

6. Therefore the States cannot pass any law that requires citizens to submit to vaccination or immunization.

G&B Lawyers Facebook page on July 1, 2021

See what I said in point 3 above.

7. Part 3B of the Public Health (COVID-19 Air Transportation Quarantine) Order (No 2) (NSW) 2021 is invalid.

G&B Lawyers Facebook page on July 1, 2021

I looked this up, and no it’s not. This order forms part of the responsibilities in quarantine (this has nothing to do with anything mentioned above by the way) that were returned to the States by the Commonwealth by agreement on March 27, 2020 in order to establish and maintain hotel quarantine. The last amendment to this order was a direct result of patient zero in the current Sydney outbreak and consequent lockdown. He was unvaccinated. The fact that this is about the international border makes that fact very important, on top of the fact that the ability to provide a penalty for the wrong choice still does not take away said choice.

Buckley – get out of this. You have already proven that you don’t care about community health. You are putting civil rights first, and COVID will trample all over that attitude. It already has in Sydney because that idiot driver has the same attitude and if the Premier hadn’t locked Greater Sydney and the surrounds down the number of infections would be at the same levels it was in Victoria nearly twelve months ago and increasing.

Keep this up, and it will be a case of three strikes and you’re out – courtesy of the OLSCNSW via NCAT!

G&B Lawyers get off too easy

This is not good enough, but there is nothing anyone can do about it.

On May 20, 2021, Nathan Buckley of G&B Lawyers copped the following penalties for unsatisfactory professional conduct from the Law Society of New South Wales;

  1. A fine of $2,500
  2. An instruction to undertake and complete further legal education
  3. A reprimand

This was for the following charges;

  1. Statements encouraging breaches of law
  2. Making unfounded allegations against other practitioners
  3. Failure to provide information to the regulatory authority
  4. Offensive, threatening and/or abusive language and threatening to institute legal proceedings

This was nothing more than a slap on the wrist, especially given that this isn’t the first time this fool has been called out. On January 31, 2020, he was also canned for unsatisfactory professional conduct for acting unethically in the course of legal practice by sending correspondence which was threatening, abusive and/or discourteous. In other words (per the fourth charge on the second report) he has form.

What really annoys me was the fact that the first charge only attracting the penalties given (combined with the others). That first charge by itself should have been worth a suspension or at the very least being referred to the disciplinary tribunal. Along with the fact that his false information about COVID-19 and the vaccine attracted nothing alongside his anti vax stance in general – a factor that is still going through the legal processes. In the last entry here I celebrated two Fair Work Commission decisions protecting mandatory vaccinations in child care and aged care. Buckley has led an appeal against the Kimber decision and this is being heard before the full bench of the FWC on June 28. In yet another act of unprofessionalism – Buckley has invited the public to attend. Now whilst this is permitted there are severe restrictions in place right now due to the pandemic – yet again, Buckley is showing no respect for it. The limit in the room is 20 people, including all parties. I did contact the FWC office in Sydney about this and plans are in place to handle it.

The grounds for appeal according to the website are limited. It can only be done in an error of law, or an error of fact. I can only see a possibility of the latter and that can only be the ruling that Kimber was unable to be vaccinated – unless something was missing. Beyond that there is an option to appeal to the Federal Court, but only on a question of law.

Bottom line – I am watching this guy. He is unprofessional and dangerous. If he crosses the line again I will report him (again) to the OLSC in New South Wales.

G&B Lawyers stance set back

Justice has prevailed in part.

Two matters G&B Lawyers brought before the Fair Work Commission trying to undermine the mandatory requirement of the flu vaccination in specific settings (one in child care and the other in aged care) have been dismissed in a valuable precedent supporting the need to protect young children and elderly Australians from disease – in particular all mutations of influenza.

The two anti vaccine applicants – Bou-Jamie Barber and Jennifer Kimber – tried to claim their sacking from their respective jobs was unfair in the face of both of them refusing to get the flu vaccination when it was mandatory. Barber tried to claim an exemption based on a flimsily presented claim of a “sensitive immune system” and an unproven claim to a reaction to the flu vaccine in 2010. Kimber claimed a reaction to a 2016 flu shot that was not proven to be related. Basically in both cases they failed to prove there was an actual issue – therefore, their refusal of the mandatory vaccine was grounds for dismissal. The FWC supported these actions.

This boils back to G&B Lawyers just refusing to do their homework. When one has a reaction you do all in your power to ensure it’s cause is found and proven first. It’s another example of my previous blog entry here; “Once and for all – prove it!” Not only that, there was much made about a nurse who got the COVID-19 vaccine earlier this year and suffered an anaphylactic shock. She had a history of such a reaction to vaccines and yet she still went ahead with it and prepared for the contingency. She knew how important it was – and I doff my hat to her for being so gutsy. This is the sort of attitude others in her position should take. Be prepared for the worst, even if it’s highly unlikely at best and next to impossible at worst.

Bottom line – do NOT claim exemptions or otherwise without solid proof. Anti vax attitudes (which Barber was definitely guilty of) are not protected before the law. The FWC has set a marvelous precedent here and G&B Lawyers should get off that bandwagon and quick smart.