Mar 3Liked by Julian Gillespie

I look forward to contributing to the appeal Julian. I’m in awe of your character and grit.

Expand full comment
Mar 3Liked by Julian Gillespie

The stakes are very high in this case.

Powerful forces are involved.

I hope the least that will come of this is that it wakes up some of the legal community to the level of corruption in our system.

Expand full comment

We say this a lot don't we. 'The stakes are high and powerful forces at play'. We accept that our justice system is not a level playing field, the rich and powerful influence outcomes. This is not justice, our courts do not administrate nor concern themselves with justice. It is merely pay to play.

Expand full comment

Nothing should surprise us after the last few years, yet I am still staggered by this gross conflict of interest. The work you, Katie and Peter are doing in this space is of paramount importance, and your tenacity is beyond admirable; thank you. I eagerly await further updates on this development.

Expand full comment
Mar 3Liked by Julian Gillespie

After the last several years, nothing is a surprise any more. Gross conflict of interest and a legal system the best money can buy. Look forward to reading the following updates.

Expand full comment
Mar 3Liked by Julian Gillespie

You have standing if you transport the sealed product but no standing when you are preparing to inject the unsealed product or have it in your body - this does not pass the pub test

Expand full comment
Mar 3·edited Mar 4Author

Dr Fidge walks to the fridge .. removes a vial .. carefully raises to target his needle into the small space on top .. inserts the needle .. draws some poison .. walks to his patient .. swabs the site of injection for delivering the product .. inserts the needle .. plunges the poison into their deltoid muscle destined for everywhere throughout their body

-- Dr Fidge just completed the final moments of transportation of the product to its ultimate delivery site .. a human body

.. he withdraws the needle .. caps it .. walks to the corner of the room, presses down his foot on the dustbin peddle .. the lid flips up, the bin opens .. he drops the used needle into the bin .. releases his foot .. the lid drops

-- Dr Fidge just disposed of the product

Dr Fidge was directly involved in two Dealings with a GMO for which a GMO licence is required, but, neglecting his health and safety, the OGTR waved Pfizer and Moderna through (illegally) without having to first obtain GMO licences, which if granted, would have informed Dr Fidge and millions of other Australians they were/are dealing with GMOs, and receiving them (delivery site) into their bodies : see section 10

"deal with" , in relation to a GMO, means the following:

(h) transport the GMO;

(i) dispose of the GMO;


feel aggrieved, much?

.. is Dr Fidge aggrieved, do you think?

Expand full comment

No explanation needed mate, it is a farce.

The worrying thing is like the rest of the fraud so brazen.

Nice work as usual. Don't be disheartened mate because the tide is slowly turning and when it does the flow will be quick.

Expand full comment
Mar 3·edited Mar 4

My God I hope you’re right. It will be a long time coming but as Dr David Martin said ‘it took 10 years to get the thalidomide scandal done and dusted’. We’re in the early stages and we must try and remain positive. Educating more people is the answer. May the afterlife reserve a special place for the evil doers without parole.

Expand full comment

I can tell a massive difference in the online support(def offline as well). I lived in a tiny Suzuki apv for 13 months as a f you to Maogowan and his mandates and for the last 3 years have been a busy little beaver, learning and sharing information and visiting prominent peoples social media pages.

One thing I can say with confidence is the number of people waking up and or speaking out. At the start it was just a handful of us but now you barely have to post something negative at all because others are doing so already.

Do yourself a favour and visit the World Harm Organisations Facebook page, or Albanese, Trudeau, Cook etc. At the start they didn't need the fake accounts or the tax payer funded nudge units because they had so many sheep.

But now there are plenty of people raising their distrust and the passionate defence from real people has disappeared leaving a wary watch and see(which CT will be true next)

Julian's team are critical and this loss is almost as important as if we won because it fractures the illusion that our country is run on law. While this perception of law remains in place the sheep follow the arse they are staring at in front but when the herd slows to a halt the heads raise and the perception shifts to a reality based view.

My two cents, we're just finished cresting the hill and original pace requires almost no effort to maintain as it is becoming almost autonomous as the herd pick up the banner we all waved.

Expand full comment


Expand full comment

Yes, it's already quickening. When we take a step back and look at how we have all progressed over the past 4 years we can see the pace of progress is exponential.

Expand full comment

"Dr Fidge walks to the fridge ...."


Expand full comment

Thank you for your unwavering dogged determination and commitment Julian. Maybe Justice Rolfe needs it explained like this. She seems to have not been able to understand the sequence of events you’ve very clearly explained here. They’re pretty obvious, no? Not to mention the question of the conflict of interest. What… did she just forget? How will she explain that huge brain fart?? Surely she will need to explain that…?

Expand full comment

Share the substack , everywhere, we may not have the education, contacts or experience in law but thats what Jillian and his team are for. When on a platform, whether Facebook or telegram share share share.

A channel 7 news feed, share.

Abc, share

A dog c..t like AnAl Sleezy, share.

The predictive programming works for us as well as them. The more the docile see it the more open to suggestion they are

Expand full comment

I dont have social media dont trust it. Shared on You tube hundreds of posts from Ics And the truth tellers. I have bee n stopped on You tube. So much for free speech. I wsant giving an opinion just hilighting attention on the topic i shared. We are being squeezed.

Expand full comment

Yeah I agree and it's its bs but slowly slowly people are seeing the cracks. They may have been oblivious and ignorant on the vaxx but the voice fractured their safe space and they are seeing the states try and do what federal couldn't.

Nothing's is guaranteed but thats for them as well as us.

Expand full comment

Q: Why can't we get a seat @ the Federal Courts? A: They've already sold out.

Expand full comment

To anyone who's been paying attention over the past 4 years, this info should be both alarming, and also entirely unsurprising.

That said, I'm more interested in how the team proposes to rebut Her Honour's arguments on standing. I look forward to that, because although I'm not a lawyer I found some of Her Honour's arguments about standing to have merit. Because I think the substance of the case desperately needs a public airing and the avoidance of that via this ruling on standing is a terrible development, I'm hoping to hear from Fidge's team some absolutely rock solid rebuttals of Her Honour's arguments. My fingers and toes are crossed. If, on the other hand and as my read of her ruling goes, there is a legal loophole in the current GMO legislation regarding who fits the moniker of "aggrieved person", colour me worried that this case won't see the light of day. To that point, would not having a physically injured (jab injured) person as an applicant a way to possibly prevent a ruling on appeal from being tempted to lean on this possible loophole?

Expand full comment

Lots of people have profited from dealings with Pfizer.

Perhaps we could start a database with those who have Substacks who describe themselves as "independently wealthy" and those promoting Pfizer products including Paxlovid.

Expand full comment

It's infuriating. Last week a doctor was interviewed on the News regarding the new guidelines for covid boosters.

It was made out to be official govt advice.

This doctor was from an organisation called the Immunisation Coalition. An organisation which has on it's management board a long string of highly qualified doctors & other experts, & describes itself an an "independent" & not for profit body.

So scroll down, their "research" is made possible due to their generous sponsors.

Scroll down some more.

Their major sponsors pfizer/sanofi/novovax/moderna & the list goes on.

There is nothing independent about them at all, they are a pharma funded group recommending their own products.

Expand full comment

How in the heck was that judge not found out early? I recalled Lily and their ass being covered by the Homeland Security Act post 9-11 which ushered in the BIC big time.

(BIC Bioweapons Industrial Complex) Heck, just one of their drugsters campuses at Foster City, CA , that of Gilead looks like a conventional weapons manufacturing complex on steroids.



"Beyond Zyprexa, in 2002 fingers were pointed at Lilly for tampering with the Homeland Security Act. On November 25, 2002, soon after George W. Bush signed the Act, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert discovered what had been slipped into it at the last minute, "Buried in this massive bill, snuck into it in the dark of night by persons unknown . . . was a provision that -- incredibly -- will protect Eli Lilly and a few other big pharmaceutical outfits from lawsuits by parents who believe their children were harmed by thimerosal."

While it was recently revealed that research published in 1998 that linked vaccine use to autism was fraudulent, in 2002 the harmfulness of thimerosal (a preservative that contains mercury and used by Lilly and other drug companies in vaccines) was not clear. Specifically, in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service had urged vaccine makers to stop using thimerosal, and in 2001 the Institute of Medicine concluded that the link between autism and thimerosal was "biologically plausible." So in 2002, drug companies such as Lilly which had used thimerosal in vaccines were nervous about what scientists and the courts would ultimately determine.

How then did a drug-company protection provision get inserted in the Homeland Security Act? Here's my bet for one of Herbert's "persons unknown." In June 2002, then President George W. Bush had appointed Lilly's CEO, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on his Homeland Security Advisory Council. Ultimately even some Republican senators became embarrassed by the drug-company protection provision, and by early 2003, moderate Republicans and Democrats agreed to repeal that particular provision from the Act.

The year 2002 was a banner one for "Lillygates," with "60 Minutes II" ultimately airing another juicy Lilly scandal. Lilly's patent for Prozac had run out, and the drug company began marketing a new drug, Prozac Weekly. Lilly sales representatives in Florida gained access to patient information records, and, unsolicited, mailed out free samples of Prozac Weekly. Though they primarily targeted patients diagnosed with depression who were receiving competitor antidepressants, at least one such Prozac Weekly sample was mailed to a sixteen-year-old boy with no history of depression or antidepressant use. Law suits followed."


P.S.I haven't rechecked it but I also seem to recall the BIC got another benefit from Homeland Security regarding Smallpox vaccine production.

Expand full comment

There's always another angle. I knew something was amiss as I've come to expect corruption and conflict interest on a grand scale when justice or freedom or human rights are violated by the systems that control us all. The systems include the judicial, the executive, the parliamentary, the financial, the medical, the religious, the agricultural, the scientific, the electoral, the academic, and so on. Those who inhabit the upper levels of these systems are inexorably linked in dark ways and will never allow events under their watch to go off script. The narrative and the plan must be followed by whatever it takes. This ensures corruption and conflict of interest become the lowest common denominator and pervasive at every level in every system.

Expand full comment

Jules & Co,

Well done for your efforts to date and on going determination.

No one should be under any illusions about the depth and scale of corruption that spans special interests, philathropaths, corporations, governments, the judiciary, institutions and individual agents. For those who were asleep to this, Covid and subsequent geopolitical and economic events continue to illustrate this as the mask slips further and faster than before.

What this and other high importance/visibility cases demonstrates is the the need for meticulous investigation and testing of every integrity point in the legal chain, as early as possible, and the generation of Standard Operating Procedures so others are adequately empowered by such procedures going forwards. No doubt these things are a matter of experience, suspicions and resources, but they are shown again and again to be necessary.

In this case, is it more or less advantageous to have discovered these COIs now or would it have been better to have known up front?

On one hand, there is benefit now because: it further exposes corruption; puts two positions in a degree of jeopardy; is a provable connection between corporate interests, the courts and the resulting decision; provides ammunition for publicity campaigns to help take down the corruption and help rise the minions from slumber. On the other, this now draws out the process, expense and efforts to overcome the hurdle of this bent judge's decision.

I'm curious to hear Julian's view of the above and which scenario is ultimately more advantageous.

Tangentially, I wonder about whether efforts to increase the publicity of this case would bring benefits? If so, how might this best be done? I can think of a few ways, including:

- Recruitment of supportive media outlets to run specific media items/releases from J's team, in the same way MSM run repetitive agitprop output.

- Establish the same among the myriad SocMed (X) accounts who are on board with the anti-Covid effort.

- Prep maybe three key releases to form a "Where we've been", "Where we are" and "Where we are going" narrative to educate, concisely, readership on this case and certain key surrounding issues including gene therapy regulatory failure/absence, contamination (resulting from previous), genetic design anomalies (frameshifting etc), round up of gene therapy spike characteristics and previously unknown and untested effects on humans e.g. the massive duration and durability of spike production, amyloidgenic prions, etc.

What is clear to me about communicating with the public on all of this is that MSM suppression is as strong and selective as ever, with deliberately delayed, piecemeal reporting controlling the narrative for the the masses. Additionally, what people laud as "social media news freedom" is a lie. SocMed is a massive perception management system that delivers entirely individualised and fully controlled perceptive experiences to each user. Therefore, one can have no faith that what you see is what I see. Therefore, to deal with this one must undertake concerted & co-ordintated, ongoing/repetitive, wide-band information release across many sympathetic outlets. To achieve this takes a lot of effort to get each alt media outlet on board. And not all alt media outlets are doing the right things for the right reasons (Democracy Now and The Intercept being the perfect example of utterly corrupted and false "Alt" outlets designed to box in the unaware dissidents).

Also, one should ask why no one in the UK, EU or other territories have been willing to port this case to their jurisdictions, where the workload is minimal and the reg system close/same?

This case is one of few that paves the way for lawyers to get stinking rich. In the US, Aaron Siri is scaling up his Vax Injury op because he has done foundational work. This case will bolster all of that and open the litigation pathways for millions if not billions of people. Glyphosate cases prove this. This is the biggest class action in the history of mankind. Why aren't lawyers piling in?

Is it because Pharma etc have actually co-opted many law firms in any way on any matter, small or large, to take them out of the running to act against Pharma?

Of course, this begs the question of where the money for cases but also the compo comes from, and hence why this is a case that must be shut down and destroyed by the establishment and its masters.

People cannot be allowed to remain so dumb as to think that publicly funded compo is adequate and a win. It's not. It's the shit trap in this massive, closed loop con: "even if you get us, we will still get away and you'll be paying each other for the harms we did to you, then paying off the notional debt as we use the increasing public debt to create other control narratives like increased taxation, spending opportunity cost etc." The pain has to be taken into the corporations and the corrupt state and private agents who enabled them. It even must envelope negligent medics and off-the-street vaccinators where it can be shown that they have breached informed consent etc.

The public are so slow and docile that they are their own worst enemy and the job for the asymmetric warriors will never be anything other than extremely difficult UNLESS the sleeper can be awakened from dreams into the true living nightmare of what this rotten system is and who is truly responsible. Trouble is, the truth is of truly nightmarish scale and the MSM is never, ever going to begin to lay out the depth of the con, because they are neck deep in it.

I despair at the above, such is the price of the burden of truth.

Expand full comment

Great comment.

Expand full comment

Many of the judges in the Australian courts, and many countries elsewhere, have been "got at". There is no doubt in my mind that justice has not been seen to be done with Rofe's clear conflict. The best lawyers are not going to the bench, because they know how political it has become. We need retired judges who are committed to the rule of law to speak out about this politicization, that then leads to a corrupted legal system. I will do some thinking about my links to such retired judges.

Expand full comment

I feel we have faced Godless evil. Evil controls after it mollifies its prey. Then its prey walks in mindless dream and hears nothing. Perhaps even a conflicted judge.

But we can all break free of that dream and win ... how?

By example, after Jesus was crucified the disciples prayed together for ten days, healed their differences, dissolved their egos, acted in true accord, and THEN achieved exponential improvement.

Here is the formula, by serendipity the crux of our sermon this Sabbath:

Seek God with all our hearts (Jer 29:11-13); Repair our differences (James 5:16); Repent (Acts 2:38); Pursue righteousness (Matt 6:33); Surrender fully (Romans 12:1); and ask God for the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:9-13, Acts 4:31)

And now we take strength and notice our increasing strides that began in such small steps four years ago.

Expand full comment
Mar 3Liked by Julian Gillespie

Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do. Our judges just as our healthcare leadership, politicians and any leadership positions, should all possess the ability to share any possible or potential conflict in integrity and transparency and let the people not conflicted decide what is suitable. Integrity is lacking at the highest levels. Thank you for uncovering and exposing the systems that do exist so we can work towards the systems that we want to create. It humbles my heart to see an Australian legal team dedicated to values and integrity that possess the courage to walk towards that, no matter what.

In gratitude to you all and all the work you have done and continue to do. Your work is valued and greatly appreciated as you are all valued and greatly appreciated. Thankyou Julian, Peter Fam and Katie Ashby-Koppens from the bottom of my heart for being the legal change we want to see in this world and creating a better world for ourselves, our children and all future generations.

Expand full comment

very well said Lucinda! Thank you for expressing the sentiment that I'm sure many of our fellow followers have

Expand full comment

Julian, it would be great if you could explain for readers in a future post what the procedure is for Judge's to disclose if they have worked with a party prior, and how common (or not) such an event may be. ie: Is it common that Judges step aside or very rare? Are there any conceivable reasons that Judge Rofe may have thought it was not required to produce this information? Are there loopholes in the procedure?

Expand full comment

Good question Rebekah. As a former decision maker, the first thing you look at when you are assigned a case is to consider the issue of bias. That is “what dealings or connections have I had with any person linked to this matter”…..even second hand. For this judge to have proceeded with this matter on these facts is simply astonishing. Did she disclose her former dealings to the chief justice or whoever assigned the matter to her? And as for Standing. That’s actively looking for a technical out so that the primary facts won’t need to be considered. I simply don’t understand why justice Rolfe thought she could hear this matter. Go for it Julian.

Expand full comment

good morning Rebekah,

without going into much detail right now ..

but it can be simply stated .. the very first thing drilled into new judges is to always consider first when receiving a new case:

"Did I have any former relations with any of the parties to the proceedings?"

.. if the answer is "Yes", and especially in the context of having previously represented one or more of the parties in prior proceedings when formerly a barrister, then a judge MUST disclose all the relevant details from the outset of the proceedings, and invite submissions from the parties appearing before them, as to whether or not the judge should consider disqualifying themself from sitting on the case

there is no wriggle room

.. full disclosure is the rule

.. it is MUST DO obligation on all judges

Expand full comment

Makes her ruling even more disgusting. I wait to see if there are any better judges in UK s benighted judicial system when Mark Steyn goes against OFCOm in June for contravening the "guidelines "when having vaccine injured on his GBNews evening slot 2 years ago. EVIL isnt a strong enough word for these snakes in the grass like judge Rolfe.

Expand full comment

MIT PhD Reveals the BIG LIE About GMOs


GMO 2.0: What It Is & How It Threatens Our Existence w/ Jeffrey Smith


...both of these landed in my email just minutes ago.......

Expand full comment

The revealing of unclean hands continues and continues and continues UNTIL enough eyes are on the bench/bank. Then we will see the traitors persecuted like the rats they are. Let them find no shelter, except inside a jail cell.

Expand full comment