Tag Archives: G&B Lawyers

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 penalities 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.

G&B Lawyers want Australia to be sick

This is ridiculous!

Yesterday the numbskulls at G&B Lawyers shared a picture of the front page of the morning’s Brisbane Courier Mail, which had a big headline in big bold letters – “The Jab or your job”. The sub header was “Queensland’s biggest employers consider ‘no jab no pay’ policy to force workers to get vaccine”.

Two points – first, no decision has been made yet. Everyone is watching the US and the UK as the Pfizer vaccine is being distributed. There hasn’t been such interest in a vaccine I think probably ever. Maybe the polio vaccine got lots of attention, but the ability of the media to spread the word was limited then. It’s not now.

Second – and more importantly – G&B lawyers yet again are proving that they are not taking COVID-19 seriously. This attitude they have persisted with basically since July is one of the many reasons they are in fact in trouble with the New South Wales Law Society and consequently the state’s Legal Services Commissioner. It’s plain for anyone to see – they want people to catch COVID-19. They are against any lockdowns – one of our main defences pre vaccine – and they are also against masks (having earlier this week filed in the Federal Court in a matter involving a refusal to employ someone who could not wear a mask). This case is in fact very similar to the challenge to South Australia’s No Jab No Play laws. There’s a killer blow for both cases – section 48 of the Disability Discrimination Act, allowing for discrimination on the basis of an infectious disease.

The reality is this – G&B Lawyers are claiming human rights over disease prevention. Anyone who is not vaccinated (good reason or not) is a threat to herd immunity. That is why Qantas started this thought bubble about keeping those who aren’t vaccinated away. Herd immunity is ESSENTIAL for a vaccine to work long term, and that is not just based in the whole community (like the whole of Melbourne for instance). It applies on a smaller scale as well – whether it be a day care centre, a kindergarten, an aged care facility or a hospital. Any other work place – especially indoors – also has to be wary.

But G&B Lawyers don’t care. The right to work comes first. The right to travel comes first as well. Late today we have a new COVID cluster on Sydney’s Northern Beaches – painfully close to the home suburb of a long time mate of mine. People have been told to stay home – as they should. But G&B Lawyers are bound to object to this.

The proof of the pudding is this tweet;
https://twitter.com/GandBLawyers/status/1337172674510917637

That is NOT what happened! These idiots don’t even understand vaccines, and worse they don’t even pay attention to reports! The vaccine did not cause the HIV virus! The vaccine created an immune reaction TO the HIV virus, which is not what it was supposed to do! THAT was the issue!

I am hoping that a decision is forthcoming in Adelaide – throwing that challenge out. It will create a precedent that will protect employers who have every right to keep their work place disease free, whether it be COVID or whatever else. Where herd immunity is compromised, the vaccine becomes ineffective. That’s not the fault of the vaccine. It’s the fault of the people who refuse to get it for no good reason. Herd immunity is essential for those who legitimately can’t get vaccinated for medically verified reasons. But if the cohort is too small even those who can’t be vaccinated have to be kept clear for their own safety and the safety of others. That’s the key. Those who demand the right to work over and above disease prevention are the real human rights abusers. There is one over riding human right that stands tall here – and it’s why section 48 of the DDA exists to begin with;

The right to live free of disease.

And G&B Lawyers oppose this right. I expect on January 19, 2021, they will be given a date before the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s Legal Disciplinary Board for unprofessional conduct. Human rights defenders my rear end!

G & B Lawyers – Medically incompetent

I’ll preamble this entry with a couple of notes – G & B Lawyers don’t take COVID-19 seriously. They are seeking to re-open borders immediately despite the continuing presence of the virus without any defence other than the restrictions we presently have and clearly don’t care about the consequences. For example just today they said; “There is no medical evidence whatsoever to support the ongoing direction for Victorians to wear a mask. Masks are of zero health benefit to anyone. Chairman Dan is simply a control freak.”

The story they are talking about said nothing about any actual challenge based on any medical advice. It was all about the Premier not being happy with a regional MP calling for masks to be made optional in regional Victoria – which would undermine the effort especially on the fringes (like the Macedon Ranges where I live – where yesterday there were still two active cases). G & B Lawyers have no evidence that fitted masks don’t work. The claim is rubbish.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Okay, this is American – but it’s no less relevant and comes from professionals. Masks work.

Another note – G & B Lawyers are also into conspiracy theories, stating in response to another story; “This is obvious”.

The story merely mentioned the conspiracy theory, and then shot it down as it deserved to be. It’s clear that G & B lawyers didn’t actually read the story. Nor do they get that the measures China took didn’t work as well as certainly they did here or more importantly in New Zealand. And we have great examples of countries who ignored the tactic – the USA and Brazil. G & B Lawyers can say “Chairman Dan” all they want – it doesn’t make it valid. Where are the “Chairperson Jacinda” jibes? Nowhere. Totally inconsistent. Moreover, China’s numbers are still way worse than ours – as I type this Wikipedia (with the appropriate source) has China’s total case load at 85,372 and 4,634 deaths. They have 185 active cases as well. In Australia we have had 27,044 total cases and only 875 deaths. We have more active cases of course (455) due to the ongoing recovery from Victoria’s second wave. It says plenty.

But the main reason for this entry is their act of total medical incompetence over No Jab No Play and related matters regarding compulsory vaccination for workers in day care and aged care – specifically the flu vaccine. I take the following from their Go Fund Me which should have been deleted and hasn’t been for some reason;

https://www.gofundme.com/f/no-jab-no-job-no-way

The updates are as follows;

AUGUST 12, 2020
Today we had a matter listed in the Fair Work Commission. It was the first telephone conciliation for this particular client.
Our client was terminated from the client’s job at an aged care facility in NSW for not having a flu vaccination when the client had a medical certificate that was in the approved form issued by NSW Health and in accordance with the Public Health Order (No 2) 2020 (NSW).
The respondent aged care facility did not agree to reinstate our client.
We will now have this matter determined by a Member of the Fair Work Commission.
Mr Jim Pearce, barrister has been engaged to appear for our client.
This is certainly looking like our test case.
If the Member of the Commission refuses to reinstate our client, our intention is to appeal the decision to the Full Bench of the Commission.
Thank you for your ongoing support.

AUGUST 28, 2020
Today we were before the Commissioner for a conference in the matter I referred to in the last update. The matter still hasn’t settled. So our test case continues. Keep sharing the campaign.
I’m also aware that a number of Goodstart Early Learning employees have been fired for not having flu and whooping cough injections. If you are one of those employees get in touch with Nathan. We can run a class action for you. <<

SEPTEMBER 4, 2020
We are now taking on Goodstart Early Learning for terminating employees for not having a flu shot.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2020
The Commonwealth Government plans to take away your rights to an education, employment and overseas travel. Read the second paragraph. You can’t make this stuff up.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
Big week next week in the Fair Work Commission. Conciliations with Goodstart and an aged care facility for firing employees for not having a flu vaccination. Bring it on.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
Goodstart did not settle at conciliation today. So we now progress to a Commissioner. Essentially Goodstart’s position is that in their view it is a lawful direction to engage in assault and battery without the consent of the employee. Such a direction can never be lawful. Please share this update widely to get further support for our client who was unlawfully terminated by Goodstart.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2020
Had another conciliation terminated today. This time it is Resthaven Incorporated, an aged care provider in SA who fired our client for not having a flu vaccination. We crack on to a Commissioner.

First, I’ll just reference the quote from September 6 – this is a reference to the standard letter from Medicare about immunisation’s being overdue. G & B Lawyers assert that it’s a blanket threat to their access to all education, employment or travel overseas. That is scaremongering at it’s finest. At worst all three could be restricted somewhat, but eliminated entirely? Absolutely not!

A background on the other parties. Goodstart Early Learning has centres in every state and territory in Australia totaling 644 facilities. The assertion of “assault and battery” is difficult to believe. I would suggest they are being facetious with the definition. Resthaven, as indicated, is an aged care provider that has 12 facilities in South Australia – 9 in Adelaide and the others in Murray Bridge, Port Elliot and Mount Gambier. The other aged care facility in New South Wales isn’t named.

The mention of Public Health Order (No 2) relates to COVID-19 from what I can tell. The claim on August 12 appears to suggest that the employee couldn’t have the flu vaccine for a legitimate medical reason. Under normal circumstances this would be fair enough – except in one circumstance that actually exists at present. The threat posed by COVID-19 makes herd immunity from the flu even more important than usual until such time as a vaccine for that is available. There will be a number of residents who could not be vaccinated for the same reason, meaning that employing someone with such a restriction would be too risky. Unjustifiable hardship would apply in that instance. The employer is therefore quite within their rights to say “No”.

I certainly hope the Fair Work Commission see this. Of course that argument would have to be presented to them and I can’t dictate that.

I’ll also take this opportunity to briefly address a document that was presented over the Supreme Court of South Australia case in similar terms. It was written by their barrister Julian Burnside QC, who I would have thought would know better than to get involved in this with his human rights history. I will be reviewing the document in a future entry once I get my podcast out of the way this week.

Bottom line – G & B Lawyers are medically incompetent. They are trying to undermine the flu vaccine and place our senior citizens and our young children in danger from the flu. And the flu is dangerous. I know. It nearly killed me in July 2014, and I was (and still am to a degree) a fit person for someone my age. I wasn’t vaccinated. Dumb move and will never happen again. Same goes for everyone else. Get the flu jab if you don’t have a legitimate medical reason not to. If you do – don’t bother working in child care or aged care because you are a threat to herd immunity. You have plenty of other employment options.

And hopefully the present proceedings against G & B Lawyers presently being investigated by the Law Society of New South Wales result in them being thrown out of legal practice.