thank you for the support shown towards this critical information
it is of historic importance where the country has only once before been confronted with the exercise of the unique jurisdiction enlivened by Section 72(ii) .. as such, most of our politicians need to be brought up to speed about their Constitutional duties
.. and when they exercise their Constitutional duties, they need to know The Will of The People
so please know we have received confirmation from an Australian organisation that will undertake the enormous task of informing Australians of what has occurred with respect to Justice Rofe and the Federal Court, assisting Australians should they choose, with contacting and informing their MPs and Senators (a) that they perform their Constitutional duty under Section 72(ii), and (b) if, as an Australian citizen, they consider this conduct amounts to 'misbehaviour' .. and if so, recommend to their MP and Senators that Justice Rofe be removed, and the Federal Court possibly sanctioned, possibly heavily
once Senators and MPs receive correspondence en mass about this affair, they will have no choice but to act, despite what their party may want
again, as this is a Constitutional matter now, it is a matter for all The People, just as though being a party to legal proceedings against this judge and this court
The People v. Rofe & Anor
more information about the organisation taking lead to inform Australians coming soon
To be fair Mark, Julian is not the people's enemy. If he supports going to the Australian Courts then he must learn to respect that they are Commercial Courts run by dishonest people and designed to collect money - nothing to do with justice or rights which they do not deal in. Work in the court in commerce and maybe there is a slight chance of succeeding - only slight I suspect.
It is a hurdle, to be sure - but - not insurmountable. Remember: they are playing the game of 'squeaky wheel gets the oil'. When the People apply the same strategy, we have achieved meaningful change. Create a short summary of Julian's excellent post here, include a link to this, and a direct link to the official complaints page (also here in his post) - and share strategically - not just once. Ask people how they feel. Do they understand. Get them discussing and asking questions themselves - so they build momentum to phone their MPs. MPs use the public contact point (people phoning or emailing them directly) as a barometer for the overall mood on something. While they might not reply - or not even personally interact - their assistance let them know: people are speaking up about 'x/y/z'.
A former Federal Minister said to me that ONE (1) phone call or letter is counted by Politicians' as ONE HUNDRED constituents are thinking the same way.
Yes. Numbers matter. And they are representative of many more. By degrees. This is why we should never think 'my voice is only one - so what difference does it make'. It DOES make a difference - because each voice speaks on behalf of many more.
As has been explained to me, statistical surveys identified that the effort an individual invests in making a public statement equates to a representation of more people who would have taken similar action, given the opportunity. So, the more effort required, the greater number of people are represented. Stats might have changed since I first encountered this, but it is calculated in these levels - approximately :
~ answering a survey = 5x
~ signing a petition = 10x
~ sending an email = (hard to calculate, since these can be ignored, land in junk, etc - but - when MPs' assistants must make time to filter through all the emails - especially when there is a flood of them focused on a particular topic - it is still an indicator that people are engaging in the topic
~ phone call = 100x (using your stats, Gumnut)
~ hard copy posted letter = 100x (also here)
~ in person - to an MP office, or to a public gathering = ?x (exponentially more than the other categories)
And the officials know this. So when they see a signature count on a petition, or when their assistant says they got so many emails or calls or letters or visits - they know - multiply the number, and they will get an idea of how engaged the community really is or would be, if they could.
This might explain why policies are rushed through, or votes on them are done late at night, or the media don't regularly update or inform the public. Anyone who wants to know what the decision-makers are doing must dig it up. Part of the problem - part of why so many remain ignorant or confused - they have not been given the chance to find out, ask questions and/or share an opinion.
Keep the conversation going. We are reaching critical mass, when everyone puts their pens, or tools down - and requires transparency and accountability.
"requires sitting Australian Senators and Members of Parliament to perform their Constitutional duties and make all necessary inquiries pursuant to Section 72(ii) - we appear to have a rogue judge whose conduct appears to be assisting all the wrong interests get away with Australia's greatest ever crime .."
Given that, with a few notable exceptions, all Members of Parliament were in on the scam, I think it quite unlikely they'll be doing as you suggest they should.
I've created a sharable summary Julian's post - with links, if it helps:
Julian summarises the cliff edge we are on, with an urgent call to action and links to official complaint. Fast action required on this one.
Short version:
~ corrupt judge blocking life-saving progress of justice, re DNA contamination in CV injections, given without knowledge or consent, entering cells, changing people's DNA
~ contact MPs to urge they uphold the complaint
~ cite previous much milder case of court corruption, which fired up the country for 2 years (see Julian's post for details)
~ help people understand that if we don't stop this, we LET THEM become the oppressive tyranny we have been fearing and complaining about in dark corners for the past four years
Yes, but we know it. And they know we know it. And because their situation is based on lies, it cannot last. We reach critical mass in our response - and they shift. This is historically reflected in all societal changes: when enough people realise those individuals in government are abusing them and the system - either the governing changes - or it does not end for those holding the positions (or both). We don't need actual violence. But we do need to be violently assertive in expressing that we know our rights and their wrongs. Have courage. Keep speaking up.
It’s deceitful, and non disclosure is considered malfeasance at least. Turnbull and wife had shares in pharma and green energy ( subsidies?). He also had shares in dot com and got out before the crash ( insider trading). He was also employed by Goldman Sachs, and overvalued the share price of another company causing the HIH crash. He was then cut loose by Goldman-Sachs with a 5 million dollar handshake, and guess what he’s now employed by them again. Then there’s the greens wanting a rent freeze etc , when most of them own multiple properties. Or the Aquas, a number owned by fossil fuel share portfolios. Would anyone vote for these people if they knew the truth and there was compulsory disclosure rules/ regulations? Lobbyists have more access to our politicians than we who elect them.
The Rot goes a long way back, much futher than most can imagine. The judiciary failed way more than 50 years ago.
BUT. In 1900 Australians voted to adopt a Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 including the Preamble Clauses 1 to 9 and The Schedule as Proclaimed and Gazetted in January 1901. This document including all the parts mentioned above with ONLY 8 carried amendments by Referendum of the people IS THE LAW. And no parliament or executive or court has any authority to alter the wording OR the meaning of these words (by legislation in Acts Interpretation Act) as intended when written. Austalians have sufferd a political coup by definition change in the meanings of words which has been done to comply with the intentions of foreign interests which is probably Treason.
Do NOT ask, request or demand the rights already bestowed on every Australia in LAW, USE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE LAW OF THE PEOPLE IN 1900/01.
How correct you are. The students of national (statute) law learn the language and professional practices of being a lie-yer in their so called Law School. Simple test for anyone especially the Professors of Law - Question? Is Law Merchant, sometimes called Lex Mercatoria, actual Law in Australia, along with Common Law?? Almost to a man or woman they will say no, it was never Law as it was never written down and only used by Merchants in ancient times like the Middle Ages. Next one for our 'learned friends of the BAR' - Question? In current legislation is Law Merchant shown as applicable Law in Australia? If they say No refer them to Part 1, Item 5 subpart 2 of Bills of Exchange Act 1909 which clearly states, and is current,
(2) The rules of common law, including the law merchant, save in so
far as they are inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act,
shall continue to apply to bills of exchange, cheques, and
promissory notes.
OOOops!!!
Despite the endless efforts to disconnect Australians from English Law we are still subject to that Law and as we are all Merchants we may make Contract with any other living man or woman in the private according to Law Merchant in Common Law.
Quos Vult Perdere Jovis Prius Dementat when the gods want to destroy a nation they first make their leaders mad Evelyn Mcmenamin it is safer to trust in the one who loved us enough to die on the cross for our sin and rose again the third day to resurrection life
Actually all Australian people are listed as Chattels in a 103 ish page Prospectus for Investors and report to shareholders in a Corporation (with Company I/D number) titled COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA registered with the US-SEC. Go look it up for yourself. Search around and you can download the latest Prospectus for this Corporation with everything listed - including us people. That is what the Census is about folks - required for the Corporate Report.
They just have to go through the motions and appear to be 'sort of' accurate BUT that said you may be quite correct. The point is that we are included in chattels in a commercial prospectus meant for international investors in a corporation which MUST provide a return on investment. That is ALL Australia and Australians are in this structure - pieces in a profit making system and the parliamentarians knowingly or not must play their part in this too.
It must stick in your craw calling these creatures "honourable." Swapping a crook for a crook within the crooked "system", best wishes with that attempt. If they ALL knew in the first instance, it'll be same 🐎 different jockey.
I thank you for providing me the ability to support you directly without the leaches that get in on the act and act in unconscionable ways so that I have to close my bank accounts and re-open them to remove their cheating sticky fingers from my money.
So enjoy your second cup of coffee on me.
I think I have said it before but given the comments below it bears repeating.
In about 2020 I saw a presentation which characterized what was happening as being like a cruise ship taken over by pirates in the dead of night. When the passengers wake up in the morning the ship has changed course, the former crew is nowhere to be seen. Life is different on board, to some unbearable but for most on balance just get on with it after all what is there to do the former system is gone.
What you describe today is this situation playing out.
The task in front of us is overwhelming but if we do nothing we accept the pirates.
All judges worldwide were bought off and corrupted by George Soros and his World Economic Forum accomplices long before they started the covid19 scam. Obviously they knew what would be coming down the line in the future. There will be no justice, or accountability until the judiciary system worldwide is dismantled and built against from scratch. This also applies to the political system,even the so called security systems have all been corrupted by the World Economic Forum and their associates worldwide. What's happened over the past four years,was pre-planned decades ago.
While these cases are useful as a means of communication from the government via the legal system in terms of further revealing the 'state' of vaccine production and procurement under Emergency Use Authorisation (see Brooke Jackson in the US), I would caution people against getting excited that what they are seeing is any form of 'justice.'
I published Australia's Novavax contract and two of the clauses were:
-No guarantee of successful vaccine development, no guarantee of positive clinical outcome.
-The Australian government indemnified Novavax from any losses originating from the vaccine - from testing to deployment.
I do not have the Pfizer or Moderna contracts for Australia, but one would think that before submitting a case, this would be a matter of discovery or at least curiosity.
I also wonder why the doctor who was the plaintiff in this case injected so many people without performing due diligence that these injections were dangerous, and kept injecting people over such a long time period. If one were to find a plaintiff that could demonstrate 'GMO injury,' one would have to demonstrate that one's DNA was changed as a result of the injections or suffered a physical 'GMO injury,' not a plaintiff that had suffered spiritual/moral regret. In my opinion it was a poor choice of plaintiff in the case and this line of enquiry will always be tenuous.
Yet, if lawyers were actually interested in effecting change they would look at (for example) the legal structure behind the CMO's ability to declare an Emergency based on one letter under the Human Biosecurity Act 2015 and challenge the burden of proof of the contents therein, then, the legal structure itself.
However, there is zero chance of any lawyers taking this route above because there is no chance of financial compensation from damages awarded, does not generate sexy headlines, and requires a lot of difficult political work at the grassroots level. However, it is the only way we can ensure there will be no Emergencies and, therefore, vaccine mandates like we saw, ever again.
While I don’t disagree with your analysis, those considerations don’t arise here. This was an application for summary dismissal. That means the merits of the case were never considered. The issue of standing being a preliminary question to be decided…ie once the applicant was found to have no standing to bring the action the substantive case does not proceed, it’s dead in the water.
thank you for the support shown towards this critical information
it is of historic importance where the country has only once before been confronted with the exercise of the unique jurisdiction enlivened by Section 72(ii) .. as such, most of our politicians need to be brought up to speed about their Constitutional duties
.. and when they exercise their Constitutional duties, they need to know The Will of The People
so please know we have received confirmation from an Australian organisation that will undertake the enormous task of informing Australians of what has occurred with respect to Justice Rofe and the Federal Court, assisting Australians should they choose, with contacting and informing their MPs and Senators (a) that they perform their Constitutional duty under Section 72(ii), and (b) if, as an Australian citizen, they consider this conduct amounts to 'misbehaviour' .. and if so, recommend to their MP and Senators that Justice Rofe be removed, and the Federal Court possibly sanctioned, possibly heavily
once Senators and MPs receive correspondence en mass about this affair, they will have no choice but to act, despite what their party may want
again, as this is a Constitutional matter now, it is a matter for all The People, just as though being a party to legal proceedings against this judge and this court
The People v. Rofe & Anor
more information about the organisation taking lead to inform Australians coming soon
Will do. Writing to our local MP now.
To be fair Mark, Julian is not the people's enemy. If he supports going to the Australian Courts then he must learn to respect that they are Commercial Courts run by dishonest people and designed to collect money - nothing to do with justice or rights which they do not deal in. Work in the court in commerce and maybe there is a slight chance of succeeding - only slight I suspect.
I remember that case and was appalled at her treatment, and the refusal to deal justly with the case
Without honest media we can’t ever get the message out to the majority. They know this and use it to their advantage!
It is a hurdle, to be sure - but - not insurmountable. Remember: they are playing the game of 'squeaky wheel gets the oil'. When the People apply the same strategy, we have achieved meaningful change. Create a short summary of Julian's excellent post here, include a link to this, and a direct link to the official complaints page (also here in his post) - and share strategically - not just once. Ask people how they feel. Do they understand. Get them discussing and asking questions themselves - so they build momentum to phone their MPs. MPs use the public contact point (people phoning or emailing them directly) as a barometer for the overall mood on something. While they might not reply - or not even personally interact - their assistance let them know: people are speaking up about 'x/y/z'.
Never give in.
Stay connected.
Always take action.
A former Federal Minister said to me that ONE (1) phone call or letter is counted by Politicians' as ONE HUNDRED constituents are thinking the same way.
Yes. Numbers matter. And they are representative of many more. By degrees. This is why we should never think 'my voice is only one - so what difference does it make'. It DOES make a difference - because each voice speaks on behalf of many more.
As has been explained to me, statistical surveys identified that the effort an individual invests in making a public statement equates to a representation of more people who would have taken similar action, given the opportunity. So, the more effort required, the greater number of people are represented. Stats might have changed since I first encountered this, but it is calculated in these levels - approximately :
~ answering a survey = 5x
~ signing a petition = 10x
~ sending an email = (hard to calculate, since these can be ignored, land in junk, etc - but - when MPs' assistants must make time to filter through all the emails - especially when there is a flood of them focused on a particular topic - it is still an indicator that people are engaging in the topic
~ phone call = 100x (using your stats, Gumnut)
~ hard copy posted letter = 100x (also here)
~ in person - to an MP office, or to a public gathering = ?x (exponentially more than the other categories)
And the officials know this. So when they see a signature count on a petition, or when their assistant says they got so many emails or calls or letters or visits - they know - multiply the number, and they will get an idea of how engaged the community really is or would be, if they could.
This might explain why policies are rushed through, or votes on them are done late at night, or the media don't regularly update or inform the public. Anyone who wants to know what the decision-makers are doing must dig it up. Part of the problem - part of why so many remain ignorant or confused - they have not been given the chance to find out, ask questions and/or share an opinion.
Keep the conversation going. We are reaching critical mass, when everyone puts their pens, or tools down - and requires transparency and accountability.
Every voice is vital.
"requires sitting Australian Senators and Members of Parliament to perform their Constitutional duties and make all necessary inquiries pursuant to Section 72(ii) - we appear to have a rogue judge whose conduct appears to be assisting all the wrong interests get away with Australia's greatest ever crime .."
Given that, with a few notable exceptions, all Members of Parliament were in on the scam, I think it quite unlikely they'll be doing as you suggest they should.
Yep we have a unaparty .
I've created a sharable summary Julian's post - with links, if it helps:
Julian summarises the cliff edge we are on, with an urgent call to action and links to official complaint. Fast action required on this one.
Short version:
~ corrupt judge blocking life-saving progress of justice, re DNA contamination in CV injections, given without knowledge or consent, entering cells, changing people's DNA
~ contact MPs to urge they uphold the complaint
~ cite previous much milder case of court corruption, which fired up the country for 2 years (see Julian's post for details)
~ help people understand that if we don't stop this, we LET THEM become the oppressive tyranny we have been fearing and complaining about in dark corners for the past four years
~ speak up NOW and URGE justified objection
~ link to official complaints letter will be presented to all sitting MPs next week: https://tinyurl.com/GMOjudgeOBJECTION
~ link to Julian's substack post with all details: https://julesonthebeach.substack.com/p/gmo-case-constitutional-complaint
Yes, but we know it. And they know we know it. And because their situation is based on lies, it cannot last. We reach critical mass in our response - and they shift. This is historically reflected in all societal changes: when enough people realise those individuals in government are abusing them and the system - either the governing changes - or it does not end for those holding the positions (or both). We don't need actual violence. But we do need to be violently assertive in expressing that we know our rights and their wrongs. Have courage. Keep speaking up.
Is 'conflict of interest' misbehaviour?
It’s deceitful, and non disclosure is considered malfeasance at least. Turnbull and wife had shares in pharma and green energy ( subsidies?). He also had shares in dot com and got out before the crash ( insider trading). He was also employed by Goldman Sachs, and overvalued the share price of another company causing the HIH crash. He was then cut loose by Goldman-Sachs with a 5 million dollar handshake, and guess what he’s now employed by them again. Then there’s the greens wanting a rent freeze etc , when most of them own multiple properties. Or the Aquas, a number owned by fossil fuel share portfolios. Would anyone vote for these people if they knew the truth and there was compulsory disclosure rules/ regulations? Lobbyists have more access to our politicians than we who elect them.
Brilliant summary and call to action. Thank you, Julian and team. Sharing!
The Rot goes a long way back, much futher than most can imagine. The judiciary failed way more than 50 years ago.
BUT. In 1900 Australians voted to adopt a Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 including the Preamble Clauses 1 to 9 and The Schedule as Proclaimed and Gazetted in January 1901. This document including all the parts mentioned above with ONLY 8 carried amendments by Referendum of the people IS THE LAW. And no parliament or executive or court has any authority to alter the wording OR the meaning of these words (by legislation in Acts Interpretation Act) as intended when written. Austalians have sufferd a political coup by definition change in the meanings of words which has been done to comply with the intentions of foreign interests which is probably Treason.
Do NOT ask, request or demand the rights already bestowed on every Australia in LAW, USE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE LAW OF THE PEOPLE IN 1900/01.
Hi Mark,
How correct you are. The students of national (statute) law learn the language and professional practices of being a lie-yer in their so called Law School. Simple test for anyone especially the Professors of Law - Question? Is Law Merchant, sometimes called Lex Mercatoria, actual Law in Australia, along with Common Law?? Almost to a man or woman they will say no, it was never Law as it was never written down and only used by Merchants in ancient times like the Middle Ages. Next one for our 'learned friends of the BAR' - Question? In current legislation is Law Merchant shown as applicable Law in Australia? If they say No refer them to Part 1, Item 5 subpart 2 of Bills of Exchange Act 1909 which clearly states, and is current,
(2) The rules of common law, including the law merchant, save in so
far as they are inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act,
shall continue to apply to bills of exchange, cheques, and
promissory notes.
OOOops!!!
Despite the endless efforts to disconnect Australians from English Law we are still subject to that Law and as we are all Merchants we may make Contract with any other living man or woman in the private according to Law Merchant in Common Law.
Quos Vult Perdere Jovis Prius Dementat when the gods want to destroy a nation they first make their leaders mad Evelyn Mcmenamin it is safer to trust in the one who loved us enough to die on the cross for our sin and rose again the third day to resurrection life
There are Zero (0) citizens in the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia.
There are 'People of the Nation', 'Peoples of the States', and 'Electors'.
Actually all Australian people are listed as Chattels in a 103 ish page Prospectus for Investors and report to shareholders in a Corporation (with Company I/D number) titled COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA registered with the US-SEC. Go look it up for yourself. Search around and you can download the latest Prospectus for this Corporation with everything listed - including us people. That is what the Census is about folks - required for the Corporate Report.
They just have to go through the motions and appear to be 'sort of' accurate BUT that said you may be quite correct. The point is that we are included in chattels in a commercial prospectus meant for international investors in a corporation which MUST provide a return on investment. That is ALL Australia and Australians are in this structure - pieces in a profit making system and the parliamentarians knowingly or not must play their part in this too.
It must stick in your craw calling these creatures "honourable." Swapping a crook for a crook within the crooked "system", best wishes with that attempt. If they ALL knew in the first instance, it'll be same 🐎 different jockey.
Asking pirates to not kill you? Begging a Mafia boss not to send the 'enforcers'? Please be nice and play fair.
FAT CHANCE.
Wonderful as usual.
I thank you for providing me the ability to support you directly without the leaches that get in on the act and act in unconscionable ways so that I have to close my bank accounts and re-open them to remove their cheating sticky fingers from my money.
So enjoy your second cup of coffee on me.
I think I have said it before but given the comments below it bears repeating.
In about 2020 I saw a presentation which characterized what was happening as being like a cruise ship taken over by pirates in the dead of night. When the passengers wake up in the morning the ship has changed course, the former crew is nowhere to be seen. Life is different on board, to some unbearable but for most on balance just get on with it after all what is there to do the former system is gone.
What you describe today is this situation playing out.
The task in front of us is overwhelming but if we do nothing we accept the pirates.
You do not and neither do I.
My comment suggests 3 actions:
1. Visualise the joy and justice you want . . and hold it in your heart.
2. Make those calls/emails/letters until you get a human response.
3. Dig in and donate. The money puts 3d wheels on your intention . . this action needs traction!
Enough said.
💯 percent correct.
All judges worldwide were bought off and corrupted by George Soros and his World Economic Forum accomplices long before they started the covid19 scam. Obviously they knew what would be coming down the line in the future. There will be no justice, or accountability until the judiciary system worldwide is dismantled and built against from scratch. This also applies to the political system,even the so called security systems have all been corrupted by the World Economic Forum and their associates worldwide. What's happened over the past four years,was pre-planned decades ago.
While these cases are useful as a means of communication from the government via the legal system in terms of further revealing the 'state' of vaccine production and procurement under Emergency Use Authorisation (see Brooke Jackson in the US), I would caution people against getting excited that what they are seeing is any form of 'justice.'
I published Australia's Novavax contract and two of the clauses were:
-No guarantee of successful vaccine development, no guarantee of positive clinical outcome.
-The Australian government indemnified Novavax from any losses originating from the vaccine - from testing to deployment.
https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/australias-novavax-contract
I do not have the Pfizer or Moderna contracts for Australia, but one would think that before submitting a case, this would be a matter of discovery or at least curiosity.
I also wonder why the doctor who was the plaintiff in this case injected so many people without performing due diligence that these injections were dangerous, and kept injecting people over such a long time period. If one were to find a plaintiff that could demonstrate 'GMO injury,' one would have to demonstrate that one's DNA was changed as a result of the injections or suffered a physical 'GMO injury,' not a plaintiff that had suffered spiritual/moral regret. In my opinion it was a poor choice of plaintiff in the case and this line of enquiry will always be tenuous.
Yet, if lawyers were actually interested in effecting change they would look at (for example) the legal structure behind the CMO's ability to declare an Emergency based on one letter under the Human Biosecurity Act 2015 and challenge the burden of proof of the contents therein, then, the legal structure itself.
However, there is zero chance of any lawyers taking this route above because there is no chance of financial compensation from damages awarded, does not generate sexy headlines, and requires a lot of difficult political work at the grassroots level. However, it is the only way we can ensure there will be no Emergencies and, therefore, vaccine mandates like we saw, ever again.
While I don’t disagree with your analysis, those considerations don’t arise here. This was an application for summary dismissal. That means the merits of the case were never considered. The issue of standing being a preliminary question to be decided…ie once the applicant was found to have no standing to bring the action the substantive case does not proceed, it’s dead in the water.