If you wanted to challenge the OGTR over a GMO vaccine approval you could take them on over their decision that Astrazeneca was a suitable person to hold a licence. Given all its fines I'd like to see how the OGTR justifies that.
Mind blowingly predictable but it confirms what we already know about capture. Rinse and repeat, and if they come back for another look... rinse and repeat again. If you keep on saying it enough times, the idea is that everyone will believe it - it seems.
My God... They didnt even budge... as expected. Its like the trained parrot show! Must have had a hot date at the coffee shop...
ORDER MADE BY:
ROFE J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01(1)(a), (c) and (d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the proceedings against the first respondent and second respondent be dismissed on the grounds that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceedings against the respondents because the applicant is not an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of s 147(1) of the Gene Technology Act 2001 (Cth), and otherwise has no standing to bring the proceeding.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s and second respondent’s costs of, and incidental to, the proceeding.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Shame on Justice Rofe🤯. To determine Dr Fidge has No Standing and is not aggrieved is unbelievable. Every Australian who was mandated to take the shot has Standing.
There is a special place in hell for people in privileged positions who choose not to do the right thing.
dear Substack folk,
many by now have heard of the perverse decision returned earlier today
know this
.. this story is far from over
more details coming soon
No matter the outcome, great job to all involved. Thank you!
She/Her !
Thanks Jules. You are great.
Post your bank details and I will donate more than a cup of coffee. I do not feed the visa monster on principle
good morning Robin,
very kind of you
Acc: 385364728
BSB: 014043
Thanks Geoff for the heads up!
Sharing this info in Ireland ☘️
Outstanding, as ever. Thank you, Julian and the whole team.
Heart full with inexpressible appreciation.
🙏 for a full hearing and a judge who will be on the right side of history. Have shared the link, positive thoughts for tomorrow🤗
Fantastic work - now shared with Canadian oncologist Dr William Makis, on his interesting Substack post today: https://open.substack.com/pub/makismd/p/video-fda-director-dr-peter-marks?r=20pd6j&utm_medium=ios
If you wanted to challenge the OGTR over a GMO vaccine approval you could take them on over their decision that Astrazeneca was a suitable person to hold a licence. Given all its fines I'd like to see how the OGTR justifies that.
Good work. Will be watching from WA.
Commiserations, that verdict was a knife in the guts of all Australians
Mind blowingly predictable but it confirms what we already know about capture. Rinse and repeat, and if they come back for another look... rinse and repeat again. If you keep on saying it enough times, the idea is that everyone will believe it - it seems.
My God... They didnt even budge... as expected. Its like the trained parrot show! Must have had a hot date at the coffee shop...
ORDER MADE BY:
ROFE J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01(1)(a), (c) and (d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the proceedings against the first respondent and second respondent be dismissed on the grounds that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceedings against the respondents because the applicant is not an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of s 147(1) of the Gene Technology Act 2001 (Cth), and otherwise has no standing to bring the proceeding.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s and second respondent’s costs of, and incidental to, the proceeding.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0161
Shame on Justice Rofe🤯. To determine Dr Fidge has No Standing and is not aggrieved is unbelievable. Every Australian who was mandated to take the shot has Standing.
There is a special place in hell for people in privileged positions who choose not to do the right thing.