A lesson in bypassing Justice to get a lot of people off the hook

.. simply make the public irrelevant

good substack Folk,

we return to the tawdry tale of the Complaint against Justice Helen Rofe

TLDR .. Helen Rofe was given a free pass from her boss

.. this will not be a funny post, because this is not a funny subject

in the picture above the onlooking public are You

.. no one is smiling .. the lady can be assumed to be Helen Rofe .. smug AF

you the public

the reasonable observers

the people who pay for justice and expect real justice

well ..

that justice idea you pay for slipped vanishingly by

again

first, you have to pardon me for bringing you this news late .. we have been in the trenches dealing with the synthetic DNA contamination findings, elevating those findings through Port Hedland council, all other councils, and sharing that information with all Australian Councillors in every council .. an enormous and ongoing effort by a small team trying to make a difference .. more on that effort later in a separate stack

returning to it ..

back on 10 October we received the following decision on the Complaint against Justice Helen Rofe from the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Debra Mortimer, which proudly trumpeted the result in the opening lines

Dismissed by the Chief Justice

Decision Of A Complaint Chief Justice Mortimer (10 10 24) 1

1.13MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

---

.. and just to refresh everyone’s memories, here is the Complaint we filed against Rofe way back in March

---

Letter Of Complaint Re Decision Of Justice Rofe

215KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

---

at this point I need to go into full lawyer mode for helping Folk breakdown what Debra Mortimer has done .. and did

lawyer mode: ON

In examining Debra Mortimer’s decision on the Complaint against Justice Helen Rofe, it becomes apparent that her approach reflects a narrowly procedural, legalistic perspective that reframes the complaint around bias considerations while bypassing substantive issues of transparency, nondisclosure, and the appearance of impartiality.

My analysis critically evaluates the specific sections where Mortimer reframes the Complaint to address it solely within procedural bias, leaving broader ethical issues unexamined. Additionally, it assesses the flaws and omissions in Mortimer’s response that neglect public trust concerns and constitutional provisions. These deficiencies hold substantial implications for judicial conduct standards and the perception of impartiality by the public, particularly given the nature of the case and its heightened public and legislative scrutiny.

Procedural Reframing of the Complaint to Bias Considerations

1.     Reframing the Complaint as Procedural Bias Allegations

Mortimer’s decision repeatedly characterizes the Complaint as solely involving bias or apprehended bias, effectively narrowing the scope of her examination, avoiding the reasonable public perception that Rofe intentionally concealed her prior relationship with Pfizer, thereby connoting dishonesty.

In section 27 of her decision, Mortimer asserts that "all the conduct and circumstances of which Dr. Fidge complains could have been dealt with in the application for leave to appeal," framing the complaint within a procedural framework rather than engaging with its substantive elements, which involve nondisclosure and intentional concealment. By reducing the complaint to a matter of judicial bias, Mortimer avoids directly addressing the core issue: that Justice Rofe’s historical representation of Pfizer and her affiliations with entities connected to Pfizer were not disclosed, signalling a lack of transparency to the reasonable observer​.

2.     Limiting the Analysis to Technical Bias Criteria

In sections 36 through 41, Mortimer’s reliance on the legal criteria for determining bias and apprehended bias shifts the focus away from broader ethical questions raised by the complainant. She emphasizes the “double might” standard, requiring that a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend bias, framing the Complaint within rigid legal standards rather than acknowledging the potential erosion of public trust that nondisclosure could bring about. Mortimer’s focus on procedural bias standards disregards the reasonable observer’s concerns about judicial transparency, especially in a case involving Pfizer and Moderna, where public trust in impartiality and accountability are particularly pertinent​.

3.     Dismissal Based on Bias Law Precedents Without Contextual Adaptation

Mortimer references established legal precedents to argue that prior representation does not necessitate recusal or disclosure, effectively downplaying Rofe’s specific history with Pfizer. In sections 43 to 49, Mortimer dismisses the significance of Rofe’s past representation of Pfizer by focusing on how judges’ prior roles as barristers often involve representing major institutional clients. This interpretation ignores the Complaint’s core argument that nondisclosure is critical here due to Pfizer’s involvement in the current case, with substantial implications for public perception of fairness. By strictly adhering to legal precedents that permit nondisclosure without considering the specific context, Mortimer’s analysis fails to address how a lack of disclosure might damage judicial transparency in high-profile cases​.

Ethical and Public Trust Concerns Left Unaddressed

4.     Neglect of Judicial Transparency and Accountability

Mortimer’s decision omits meaningful engagement with the ethical issues raised in the Complaint, specifically regarding the duty of transparency. In sections 34 and 35, she asserts that Rofe’s past work with Pfizer occurred almost two decades ago and thus does not necessitate disclosure. This argument disregards the Complaint’s emphasis on public perception and the reasonable observer’s expectation .. Your expectations, dear readers, who pay these people .. that judges disclose any historical ties that might create the appearance of partiality. The Complaint properly and correctly demands transparency as a cornerstone of judicial integrity, especially in cases with significant public interest. Mortimer’s omission of this conerstone consideration underscores her prioritization of procedural technicalities over the broader ethical expectations that underpin public trust.

5.     Failure to Address the Reasonable Observer Standard’s Ethical Dimension

Mortimer’s decision largely disregards the reasonable observer's perspective .. in other words, she disregarded You, dear readers .. failing to recognize that a fair-minded observer might reasonably perceive a judge’s past associations with a major party as requiring disclosure, regardless of time elapsed. By downplaying the cumulative effect of Rofe’s connections to Pfizer and related institutions, Mortimer’s analysis misses the Complaint’s point that nondisclosure may have created an appearance of partiality detrimental to public confidence. Sections 42 to 53 focus on dismissing Rofe’s scientific background and affiliations as too minor to impact impartiality, thus sidestepping the ethical obligation of transparency, particularly in a high-stakes case involving Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers, involving the injection of GMOs without legally valid informed consent from over 20 million Australians.

6.     Downplaying the Constitutional and Legislative Framework

The Complaint explicitly invoked section 72(ii) of the Australian Constitution, emphasizing the role of Parliament in overseeing judicial conduct. Mortimer, however, reframed the issue as primarily one of procedural jurisdiction under the Federal Court’s appellate system, as seen in sections 56 and 57. By doing so, Mortimer minimized the significance of the constitutional provision cited by the Complainant, which calls on Parliament to address alleged judicial misbehaviour.

Mortimer’s approach sidesteps the Complaint’s argument that alleged misconduct should be viewed within the context of parliamentary oversight rather than confined to internal judicial mechanisms

.. you know, where the latter involves one judge handling the complaint about another judge, their friend ..

This dismissal of legislative oversight, grounded in section 72(ii), highlights a legalistic stance that disregards the public accountability mechanisms embedded within the Constitution.

Legalistic Approach and its Limitations in Addressing Judicial Integrity

7.     Emphasis on Legal Technicalities Over Ethical Examination

Mortimer’s decision relies heavily on technical arguments about bias law, such as the “passage of time” argument, without addressing the ethical obligation of judges to disclose past associations with parties involved in their current cases. For instance, she argues that a historical relationship with Pfizer does not automatically imply bias, failing to acknowledge that disclosure is essential in preserving public trust in judicial impartiality. This legalistic reliance on established standards without adapting them to the case’s unique public scrutiny disregards the broader ethical obligations that the Complaint argues should apply here.

8.     Minimal Acknowledgment of Public and Legislative Outcry

Mortimer’s decision barely acknowledges the significant public and parliamentary response to Rofe’s nondisclosure, dismissing it as “scandalous.” Go figure. Sections 60 and 61 reflect Mortimer’s view that these concerns are unworthy of serious consideration .. namely, your views are unworthy .. further indicating a legalistic approach that distances the judiciary from public accountability. By characterizing these concerns as unsubstantiated, Mortimer downplays the importance of judicial transparency in a case that has drawn widespread public attention, particularly from Federal Senators and the public. This dismissal highlights a disconnect between judicial reasoning and the expectations of transparency and impartiality held by the broader public​.

.. yes, disconnect .. I am trying to remain polite here

9.     Neglect of Ethical Guidance on Disclosure in Judicial Conduct

The Complaint references the Guide to Judicial Conduct, which advises transparency in relationships that might affect impartiality. Mortimer’s decision in sections 56 to 59 dismisses the Complaint’s contention that Rofe’s nondisclosure breached these guidelines, instead framing it as a matter of procedural discretion ..

ie, Rofe alone was was allowed to choose what to disclose and what not to disclose

.. this is Debra making it up now

By sidestepping this ethical guidance, Mortimer’s decision fails to address the ethical expectations outlined in the Guide, which advises judges to err on the side of transparency to avoid even the appearance of partiality. Mortimer’s technical focus bypasses the Guide’s emphasis on upholding public trust, further underscoring a legalistic stance that disregards ethical standards of judicial conduct​ .. and disregards the public’s expectations to get what they pay for - justice and the appearance of justice.

Conclusion

Debra Mortimer’s dismissal of the Complaint against Helen Rofe demonstrates a predominantly procedural, legalistic approach that reframes the issues as mere bias allegations without engaging with the ethical and public trust concerns raised by the Complainant. Mortimer’s focus on bias law precedents and technical standards leads to a dismissal that minimizes the complaint’s emphasis on transparency and nondisclosure, particularly regarding Rofe’s past affiliations with Pfizer. This narrow interpretation overlooks the ethical expectations of public trust and transparency in the judiciary, particularly in cases involving significant public scrutiny.

The decision to limit the scope of analysis to procedural bias considerations leaves substantial ethical concerns unexamined, including the reasonable observer's perception of impartiality and the implications of nondisclosure on judicial integrity. Mortimer’s approach also bypasses the legislative and constitutional elements invoked by the complainant, framing the complaint within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction while overlooking the role of Parliament under section 72(ii) of the Australian Constitution. This omission underscores a disconnect between procedural judicial reasoning and the broader ethical responsibilities and public accountability expected of the judiciary.

Ultimately, this analysis highlights how Chief Justice Mortimer’s decision reflects a rigidly legalistic interpretation that arguably fails to engage with the broader implications of judicial transparency, integrity, and public trust. These unaddressed ethical concerns underscore the potential need for judicial conduct standards that prioritize transparency and the appearance of impartiality in high-profile cases, ensuring that judicial integrity aligns with the public’s expectation of impartial and accountable governance.

lawyer mode: OFF

.. sooo good substack Folk, what do you think?

I can’t shake the image of Debra Mortimer sitting back, smugly, having finally finished writing her tortuous decision, finding, surprisingly, in favour of her friend Helen, thinking to herself about what the public will think when they finish reading her decision, and thinking ..

how do you like them apples?

knowing as she does .. knowing as i do .. that through her contortions of the law and legal reasoning, she has served up everyone a steaming pile of sh*t

but no one is allowed to say that .. no .. You dear substack Folk, must honour Her Honour as impeccable and unfailing and ever forever looking to uphold every honest tenet of the law, to ensure justice is not only done but also seen to be done

.. we have all heard that tripe before

.. lawyers when receiving a sh*t decision will front cameras and say how disappointed they are with the ruling, and how they do not agree with the decision reached, and how they will examine the decision for possible points of appeal

.. all very polite stuff

because after all, those same lawyers you see on the tele have to return into those places, those same court rooms, and stand before those same judges to earn a crust, so politeness must be used to conceal the bleed’in obvious of having been obviously slapped in the face again and again and again by a decision that simply insults everyone’s intelligence

look .. this decision is way open to appeal for its laundry list of errors, and in my view, errors made knowingly .. I mean look at the stakes .. had the result been what many here had expected the notion of real justice to serve up, then we would have seen Rofe being referred to the Attorney-General for recommending that a formal inquiry for the purposes of section 72(ii) of the Constitution get underway, for ultimately ejecting Rofe from the bench

right onto the f*cking sidewalk

but Folks, the stakes .. the stakes were just too high

.. why?

because doing the right thing, the just thing, and referring Rofe to the Attorney-General would have brought the entirety of the Australian media .. and international media .. spotlight onto the matter, to see what the hell is going on

and that would have involved extensive coverage

and extensive efforts at breaking-down for punters everywhere

the underlying GMO proceedings

.. you know ..

those GMOs nobody in Australia or anywhere for that matter

consented to

those GMOs also now found to have always contained grossly excessive levels of

synthetic DNA contamination

that changes your genes

changes your babies

.. and yeah ..

gives Folk cancers

…

killing them

..

dead

.

Folks, I could clearly go on and on and on here .. if I haven’t enough already

in brief, the Mortimer decision is eminently appealable .. in a real landscape where real justice exists .. but we will not be wasting our time or the donated monies going down the appeal garden path in Australia, because that would see us in the High Court again, a place we have already clearly established is under orders to assist the government .. Labour and Liberal, and every other shade in between (barring a few) .. with trying to get clean away from having to answer for its deeds of poisoning Australia with these .. well, poisons

the legal team proper has been assessing all the next steps and is in the throws of initiating those next steps

a few formal arrangements need to be sealed off behind the scenes first, then what those steps will be, will be shared widely here and elsewhere, as usual

to say I am disappointed and found writing up this note difficult would of course be an understatement .. but with the rest of the judicial sh*t we have seen and all bore witness to during the Covid era, I cannot impress anyone with any sense of surprise

no .. the surprise will be when our kids or grand kids wake-up one day to find justice restored in Australia

right now, it is a theatre of death

please share widely and restack if you can

---

---

---