GMO case goes to the High Court of Australia

.. the Defendant: The Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Debra Mortimer

good Substack folk,

---

intro

late yesterday afternoon, on behalf of Dr Julian Fidge, a Writ of Mandamus was filed/lodged in the Brisbane registry of the High Court of Australia, naming Debra Mortimer, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, as the Defendant

in brief, a Writ of Mandamus seeks a court to compel a decision maker to do their job .. we say Debra Mortimer is intentionally not doing her job, in failing to properly or adequately investigate the Complaint into judge Helen Rofe, the judge in the GMO proceedings

now stick with me on this one, because it is a fascinating little story of our times, explaining how the law works in this instance, and how the law is not working in the GMO proceedings

.. it is also a story that concerns literally billions of People on this planet, and whether they will hear and see The Truth, or not, due to the goings-on and theater of fellow Australians who were elevated to the jobs of judges within our judiciary .. which was meant to protect The Australian People

---

meat and potatoes

back on 22 March we updated everyone on the extraordinary and absolutely necessary step of filing a Complaint against judge Helen Rofe, which Complaint became the province of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to handle, Debra Mortimer

since that date the Chief Justice has had very little to do, namely

to investigate the Complaint in a timely manner, and

determine

whether Helen Rofe in fact failed to disclose her prior and significant relationship with Pfizer

in terms of a fact-finding mission, the task really could not have been any simpler

Debra: Helen, did you fail to tell the parties about your prior and significant relationship with Pfizer?

Helen: Yes Debra, I didn’t mention it.

and as part of the investigation, once it was confirmed Helen Rofe did not, in fact, disclose her prior relationship with Pfizer, the Chief Justice then needed to confirm that as a consequence of the failure to disclose her prior relationship, then Helen Rofe had effectively cancelled out her own judicial authority

you see, when a judge has been discovered to have not played by the rules, by intentionally concealing a prior and significant relationship, then at law that judge is regarded as having behaved not-as-a-judge

the misconduct in other words, cancels out their judicial authority

immediately

from the moment the misbehaviour began

meaning, in the circumstances of the GMO proceedings, Helen Rofe cancelled out her judicial authority before hearing the Summary Dismissal Application brought by Pfizer and Moderna

.. meaning .. the later 1 March decision by Helen Rofe where she sought to say Dr Fidge had no legal standing (surprise surprise) to bring the GMO proceedings, well, that 1 March decision also lacks any judicial authority because the person who wrote the decision, Helen Rofe, had already cancelled out her own judicial authority

meaning her 1 March decision is not worth the paper it is written on

and the High Court of Australia is clear on the point: see QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15 (17 May 2023), where at paragraph 26 the High Court confirms:

The question arising in the circumstances of the present case falls to be resolved at the level of principle within the framework established in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. Foundational to that framework are two propositions. One is that impartiality is an indispensable aspect of the exercise of judicial power. The other is that "[b]ias, whether actual or apprehended, connotes the absence of impartiality" … an actuality or apprehension of bias is accordingly inherently jurisdictional in that it negates judicial power.

.. negates judicial power

negate = to cause to be ineffective or invalid

and to be clear, we are not talking about textbook bias or apprehended bias here, we are talking about a judge who intentionally concealed her prior relationship with Pfizer

.. intentionally concealed information (her relationship with Pfizer) that not only should have caused Helen Rofe to disqualify herself from sitting on the case, but in boldly choosing to take to the bench to hear the case, then the first words out of her mouth when she first met with the parties should have been:

“I had a long and significant relationship with Pfizer before becoming a judge. If you think I should not remain on this case I will receive your written submissions about why I should disqualify myself.”

so to return to the point - because Helen failed to make the above disclosure, then after about the first 10 minutes of meeting the parties for the first time in the GMO proceedings, Helen Rofe had become not-a-judge

Justice Helen Rofe had cancelled her own judicial authority

so a person who was not-a-judge was sitting before the parties, namely

a person only, without title, called

Helen Rofe

so as you can all see now, the subsequent 1 March decision by Helen Rofe trying to kill-off the GMO proceedings had no legal effect, because it was written by a person who cancelled their own judicial authority

and respectfully, if all the good folk reading this story can appreciate the straight forward reason for why the 1 March decision by Helen Rofe means nothing at law, then why do you think Debra Mortimer is having such a hard time understanding this straight forward legal conclusion, too?

the above has been pointed out to Debra Mortimer in countless correspondence with her office ever since the Complaint was lodged with her, but to date, over 3 months after the Complaint was filed, the Chief Justice refuses to comment on this legal issue

and this legal issue of Helen Rofe having cancelled out her judicial authority is very important for the Chief Justice to acknowledge, because:

(a) it is the proper thing at law for the Chief Justice to acknowledge as correct, and

(b) by acknowledging we are correct and the law is clear on the point, it means the 1 March decision of Helen Rofe is incapable of being appealed

.. in other words, the 1 March decision is ‘unappealable’

.. meaning, the Federal Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the 1 March decision of Helen Rofe, because:

(i) the Federal Court of Appeal only has jurisdiction to examine a ‘judicial decision’,

(ii) from ‘a single judge’.

in circumstance where Helen Rofe cancelled out her judicial power and authority, we

(a) never had a single judge, and

(b) have no decision vested with judicial authority, because the person who wrote the decision (Helen Rofe) had cancelled out her own authority

it all seems rather convoluted, but I am sure you can all follow what I am saying here

.. but Debra Mortimer refuses to concede the above points as part of her legal responsibility for properly investigating Helen Rofe, her workmate

instead, Debra Mortimer wants to see us appeal the 1 March decision despite Dr Fidge’s legal team telling her that decision is unappealable

if we were wrong, you would think the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia would happily correct us and kindly show us why we are wrong - instead, Debra Mortimer refuses to discuss the issue entirely - staying absolutely silent

.. hence why now Dr Fidge finds himself having to knock on the great doors of the High Court, to request they tell Debra Mortimer to do her job

some may question - Why isn’t Debra Mortimer doing her job, and making the issue of the 1 March decision clear, and showing why it can be appealed?

first .. and again, the 1 March decision cannot be appealed .. it is unappealable

second .. by the Chief Justice acknowledging that it is unappealable, Debra Mortimer will in the same breath be essentially admitting that it is unappealable .. because the 1 March decision has no effect at law .. because the person who wrote the decision lacked judicial authority (Helen Rofe) .. because Helen did something she ought not to have done .. something so serious, something so wrong, she cancelled out her own judicial authority

in a nutshell, if the Chief Justice acknowledges the 1 March decision is unappealable, she will at the same time be concluding that Helen Rofe is guilty of judicial misconduct, and misconduct sufficiently serious to warrant referring the matter to the Attorney-General of Australia, so Australian Senators and MPs can consider bringing a Commission of Inquiry into the misconduct of Helen Rofe, as a step towards requesting the Governor-General remove Helen Rofe from office

in terms we should all understand by now - a request made under Section 72(ii) of the Constitution that Helen Rofe be sacked

this does appear to be why Chief Justice Debra Mortimer is utterly failing to do her job in respect of the Complaint against judge Helen Rofe, because doing her job should see her acknowledging and confirming the 1 March decision is unappealable, which confirmation will also destine her work colleague Helen Rofe to the Constitutional gallows

so the Chief Justice appears to be refusing to undertake her duties to protect her friend .. at least, that’s what it looks like to me .. I am interested to see what readers think in the comments

so good Substack folk, a messy situation has gotten a whole lot messier, with now the Chief Justice failing to dispense justice for what appears to be no good reason other than to stall what appears to be an inevitable outcome .. that judge Helen Rofe did serious wrong, and needs to pay her dues like the rest of us are required to when any of us find ourselves appearing before them, for them to mete out justice

for now the website www.Section72.au is for Australians to inform their MPs and Senators about their wish to see judge Helen Rofe made the subject of a Commission of Inquiry, as a step towards a possible Section 72(ii) removal from office

.. if this business with Debra Mortimer is not cleared-up quick smart, how much longer must we sit and watch this failure of the justice system in Australia, before we need to also request our elected representatives widen their inquiries to more judicial officers seemingly behaving not-as-judges?

hopefully this High Court excursion resolves very quickly .. at the end of the day Dr Fidge and the GMO proceedings are being held out from being allowed to start all over again, with a new judge .. proceedings of the utmost global significance, especially to billions of good folk everywhere duped into taking the Covid cocktails .. billions of People deserve the Truth

but for now it does appear to this fair minded observer that the Federal Court of Australia has been tasked to shut-down the Truth, at all costs

again, I am looking forward to your comments which we will be directing Australian Senators and MPs to read, so they understand the thoughts and sentiments of the People they are elected to serve and represent

.. so bring those comments on, and do not be afraid to share your true thoughts and feelings

and .. please share widely & Restack if you can

---