Graham and John speak with Jacquie Dundee...(Graham Hood)

Tonight on Club Grubbery.

Eighty year old twins fighting medical tyranny.

Taking on the High Court of Australia is Dr Beverley Peers and she may just pull this off.

Ably assisted by volunteers like Jacquie Dundee, octogenarian Dr Beverly might just confound the highly paid legal profession by taking her case to the full bench.

Are we in for another "Castle moment."



Possible justice in Australia against the jab mandates in the High Court (results expected in a month or so). The argument being put here is an old one, where State laws cannot override Federal law or The Constitution.

If Federal industrial law forbade coerced injections, that would strip people of their employment unless they took them, then the States had no right to demand employers make it a condition of employment for their workers. It is a fact that during the pandemic Federal employees were not subject to the 'no jab, no job' policies meted out by the States.

It is surprising that this kind of argument had not already been put to the High Court. Previous cases apparently rested on a merit based argument asking the courts to step in to prevent harm from occurring. Unfortunately the courts, in that regard, were both blind and deaf to what was happening and sided with official bodies as 'the best arbiters of the truth'. Their argument would have been that they were not expected to weigh up scientific evidence. However, this case deals with jurisdictional matters of law, which is something they must rule upon in a State vs Federal/Constitutional law situation. 

As an aside, the courts could have actually heard a merit based argument and stepped in to act to prevent harm. They could have weighed basic scientific arguments and recognised that truth does not come from authority and acted to stop harm being done to the public from those in authority. What else are the courts for if not to step in and act in such a way? 

Another simple law-based argument one could have used is that the jab mandates violated Article 7 of the ICCPR (International Law to which Australia is a signatory) that forbids coerced medication/experimentation, where Article 4 prevents suspension this law (where you cannot suspend your human rights). This ICCPR law was written from the Nuremberg Code, and should be applied in prosecutions against those that coerced or tricked people into taking the mRNA jabs - a clear crime against humanity.   

[Posted at the SpookyWeather2 blog, May 15, 2025.]