Daniel Andrews Case: MAJOR Legal Strategy Update! (Monica Smit)

I am so excited to announce that we now have a solid strategy and will be drafting the paperwork over the next few weeks.

I can’t say too much, for obvious reasons. As soon as I can share the plan with you, I will.

I have spent countless hours contemplating this, and I’m certain the right path presented itself clearly to me. I wanted to give up and walk away, that's the easier option, but I guess God has different plans.



Excellent news, the prosecution of Daniel Andrews, the former Victorian Premier, that instituted the Covid lockdowns, plus the obviously criminal "no jab, no job" dictate, is set to face trial. No exact details yet on what the argument will be. Also, the former Chief Health Officer, Brett Sutton, is named in this clip. If you read the justifications for what they did, in the Public Health Order, that these guys had a hand in, it is admitted in writing, in section 52 and 53, that they were suspending human rights. I'm pretty sure that this included the jab policy so it's a clear admission of their guilt and a totally unreasonable act (not backed by International human rights law - they said they were following what was being done in New Zealand, which was faulty, see further down).

The fundamental issue is that the jab policy was completely unreasonable because they were railroading people into taking an experimental medicine (which was insanity), and SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. They bear responsibility.

However, the case being put forward might focus on the lockdowns that we now know were instituted without proper advice and likely flew in the face of earlier pandemic plans that were on the books.

This is clipped text from a (editorial) letter written in March 22 that lays out some of the issues with the Public Health Order in relation to the termination of employees that refused to take the jabs:

"My understanding is these medical mandates must expire and may have already expired. Please bear with me while I explain further.

The key thing to recognise is they are admitted violations of an individual's human rights, and were enacted under an Emergency Powers Act. These sorts of Emergency Powers are intrinsically transitory.

The PHO actually admits in section 52 that what is occurring is a violation of human rights law. In section 53 the 'justification' for this suspension of human rights is given through the citation of three earlier court cases occurring in New Zealand. In each case the Government won against the plaintiffs who had argued the Government had no sound justification to suspend their human rights. I would argue that there are terminal faults in each of these cases, that the judges were misled, and therefore ruled in error.

However, ignoring that these cases were faulty, there has been a recent decision in the NZ High Court (25/2) that overturns the previous rulings. The recent High Court ruling found that the nature of the Omicron outbreak (it is mild & the injections have negligible effect) overrules the need for any of the jabs, or the barring of employment, which would be considered a violation of the person's human rights.

As things stand, with the recent NZ ruling, the PHO justification, under section 53, becomes invalidated. Therefore a rush to terminate staff at this point onwards may be illegal (under the existing legislation).

While the PHO orders are indeed set to end at some point I also recognise that there may be a view held by some that the company's Covid Policy could be made permanent. As mentioned before, this cannot be done since this would violate individual human rights, as was admitted in writing in the PHO.

The suspension was only 'enabled' through a temporary Emergency Powers Act. Once the Emergency has been declared over (or when the Emergency duration expires), it will be illegal to coerce workers into undergoing an irreversible medical procedure in order to work (given this framework).

Note: I personally do not consider what has happened to be legal despite the Emergency Powers Act when juxtaposed to International Human Rights Laws and Treaties. My argument here is based on the information proved by the PHO."

[Posted at the SpookyWeather2 blog, July 16, 2025.]