A second line of attack Re: Legal Challenges to the Jab Mandates in Australia (a Letter to AVN)

Hello Australian Vaccination-risks Network,

I just watched your latest update on the High Court case with Julian Gillespie and have a suggestion based on material I shared on my blog (Spookyweather/Spookyweather2).

I have been following developments in the UK and the strategy they took was to use human rights law, that cannot be suspended, to directly inform people in authority, and institutions, that they were engaged in a crime by facilitating/pushing people into a medical experiment. There is a great video from human rights lawyer Anna De Buisseret on Bitchute where she nails the issue:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/UbTyAxUCwO2S/

Hospitals, police, schools and other locations were put on notice that the law was being broken. It seemed to have worked, at least to a certain extent.

The big problem with this grass roots tactic is the lack of force when it comes to backing up the legal threat/notice. This is something our Government has that a people’s tribunal would lack, unless you could get local courts and police to flip. It all comes down to weight of force if the legal/human rights notices are ignored. An effective action could start with local arrests and a press conference outlining the charges and that further warrants were being prepared.

With your High Court case, and other courts, their questionable decision making could be subject to tribunals, where the test would be simple. The question being: did they facilitate, through negligence or wilful measure, forcible experimentation on the human population where they had ample access to the relevant information showing it was both dangerous and experimental. It would be a criminal act, imho, for courts to close down arguments pertaining to human right violations rather than pursing them, regardless of whatever legal offramp they used. There is an intrinsic safety issue at the centre of the matter. The reverse position for the judges would be for them to use the law, not as an offramp, but to rationally assess the serious situation put before them. Their choice to ignore evidence and side with authority figures seems indefensible to me.

In correspondence and blog posts I often reference the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Laws that Australia has signed up to – both of which forbid forced medical experimentation under all circumstances.

Please note I have been a blogger since 2007, being fully aware of the extent the general corruption since 2004. I had (document) training in the mid to late 90s that later allowed me to think objectively about various issues.

Thanks for your time,
 
XXXXXXXX


See the interview with Julian Gillespe for details on the High Court case:



[Posted at the SpookyWeather2 blog, August 18, 2022.]