Tag Archives: Julian Gillespie

Fidge v Pfizer: The constitutional complaint dismissed

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Immunisation, Legal by

I shall confess to some procrastination on this topic, dear reader, as it was back on 10 October that the conspiratorial constitutional complaint against Justice Helen Rofe was dismissed. It appears Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, as we shall see, found the proposed bases for the complaint as bereft of legal integrity as any who struggled through the convoluted contortions composed by the discombobulations of retired barrister, Julian Gillespie, and company.

Memories may be refreshed about the original Fidge v Pfizer case here, the extensive accusations within said complaint (lodged 22 March 2024) here, and the High Court writ of mandamus courageously cobbled to force Chief Justice Mortimer to acquiesce to the complaint (filed 3 July 2024), here. I should rush to add that the complaint and writ were filed on behalf of Dr. Julian Fidge, who is the applicant in all things Fidge v Pfizer. Thus, rulings and complaint dismissals refer to Fidge’s arguments. However, the conspiratorial allegations serve to remind us that Gillespie, enabled by Katie Ashby-Koppens of PJ O’Brien & Associates, are the individuals shaping Fidge’s legal moves.

In her dismissal ruling (also embedded below) Chief Justice Mortimer notes that Fidge’s legal firm lodged an amended draft notice of appeal on 27 March 2024, containing 24 grounds of appeal. Mortimer highlights key allegations against J Rofe, on page 3 of her dismissal (the “First Respondent” is Pfizer):

23. There is a reasonable apprehension that the learned judge’s decision was affected by bias by reason of the factual matters and circumstances of the relationship of the learned judge to the First Respondent thereby manifesting a reasonable apprehension that the learned judge possessed a motive to decide the case in favour of the First Respondent.

24. The learned judge erred by failing to accord the appellant procedural fairness and natural justice by failing to disclose material adverse to the interests of the appellant thereby failing to grant to the appellant an opportunity to be heard adequately or at all concerning those matters, specifically the relationship of the learned judge to the First Respondent manifesting a reasonable apprehension that the learned judge possessed a motive to decide the case in favour of the First Respondent.

On 2 August Fidge withdrew the application for leave to appeal, and on 26 August the High Court proceeding was discontinued. Feel free to read more of the specifics pertaining to the relevance of both procedures over pages 4 and 5 below. A complaint to the Chief Justice may be dismissed if it relates to judicial findings subject to appeal, as Fidge was seeking. However, to his benefit it was held in abeyance. By discontinuing both leave to appeal, and the High Court proceedings (which complained about his complaint being in abeyance), Fidge was open to grounds for dismissal of the complaint as it related to “matters which could have been the subject of an appeal”. Mortimer observes:

I reject the contention in Dr Fidge’s lawyers’ correspondence that there was more to Dr Fidge’s complaint than allegations of bias (actual or apprehended; see below) against Justice Rofe. […] It was the conscious election of Dr Fidge, I infer on legal advice, not to continue pursuing this avenue. I reject the contention in the complaint that the alleged conduct could not be raised on appeal because the Court’s orders were “void ab initio” (invalid from the start). […] I consider this contention nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the appellate processes of the Court.

Mortimer continues, arguing allegations within the complaint have no basis or merit. She adds that some are scandalous, “and this provides an independent basis for their summary dismissal”. None of the allegations were presented in court to J Rofe, leading Chief Justice Mortimer to mention the “causal connection” between Fidge’s unsuccessful application and the lodging of the complaint (para 32):

In my opinion the causal connection is clear and Dr Fidge has made these complaints at least in part because his originating application was unsuccessful.

Continue reading →

TGA refutes DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines but anti-vaxxers double down

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Immunisation, Legal, Science, Social Media by

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is aware of misinformation in recent media and online reports that claim the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are contaminated with excessive levels of DNA. This is not the case.

TGA 18 October 2024

So opens the TGA report Addressing misinformation about excessive DNA in the mRNA vaccines. It is, for those of us aware of this issue, an understatement. The sheer volume and scope of misinformation, combined with relentless pressure from repeat offenders including members of the Australian parliament, more accurately suggests a campaign. A calculated campaign of misinformation designed to spread fear and intimidate the vaccine hesitant. Despite there being accepted means for discerning DNA residue in vaccines, two claims persist. Namely levels are hundreds of times greater than the accepted safe level, and that aggressive cancers will, and do, directly result.

Background

The original claim stems from a preprint paper by Kevin McKernan dated 11 April 2023. Amplitude, via the Australian anti-COVID vaccine lobby, was lent to this claim in July 2023. The legal guru behind all Australian court cases to challenge approval of COVID-19 vaccines, retired barrister Julian Gillespie, penned The Canaries in the Human DNA Mine. Falsely labelled “peer reviewed” by his anti-vaccine compatriots, it was published in the unabashedly anti-vaccine International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. Gillespie also crafted the case material used by Dr. Julian Fidge, in what became known as the Fidge v Pfizer case in which Fidge was represented by Katie Ashby-Koppens of P. J. O’Brien and Associates. I summarised the unsuccessful case here, in April this year. Gillespie and Co. followed with a conspiratorial constitutional complaint against the presiding judge, Justice Helen Rofe. Then via a High Court writ they targeted Chief Justice Debra Mortimer for not accepting their complaint. Both complaints were lodged on behalf of Dr. Fidge

Around the same time, the outrage manufactured by the anti-vax lobby shifted from the claim in Fidge v Pfizer that mRNA vaccines were Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), to the claim that vast amounts of DNA were contaminating these vaccines. Julian Gillespie, who wants a COVID Royal Commission, publishes for his “good substack folk” regularly on DNA contamination. He claims to have commissioned Canadian molecular virologist Dr. David Speicher to pursue said contamination, ultimately announcing confirmation on 6 June. Speicher was not a surprise choice for Gillespie. He had published with McKernan, Jessica Rose, Maria Gutschi, and David Wiseman in Canada in October 2023, reaching the contamination conclusions Gillespie wants to hear about.

It bears stressing that Kevin McKernan’s preprints lost credibility long ago, when it became apparent the vials he tested were of unknown origin. More so, if origin is unknown then cold chain transport requirements are by default, breached. In October 2023, David Gorski referred to McKernan’s initial preprint as an “awful study” and follow up studies being “equally as bad”. Thus it is unsurprising further attempts were made to label COVID vaccines as DNA contaminated. The Global Vaccine Data Network provide an excellent refutation of what they call Plasmid-Gate. As a highly COVID-19 vaccinated nation, Australia is used in their piece as an example to debunk the claim of so-called “turbo cancers” resulting from COVID-19 vaccination. SBS recently reported that last year, biologist Phillip Buckhaults from the University of South Carolina spoke before a state panel postulating the possible consequences of DNA contamination. When his comments took flight on social media he quickly followed up on X with insistence that such a risk was “purely theoretical”. They further reported that:

Dr Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia said [DNA] fragments were “clinically and utterly harmless”.

“These DNA fragments would have to enter the cytoplasm, which is that part of the cell outside of the nucleus, and our cytoplasm hates foreign DNA,” Offit said. “It has innate immune mechanisms as well as enzymes to destroy foreign DNA.”

Also interested in supposed DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines are Senators Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Russell Broadbent. Rennick has pushed both the GMO and DNA contamination angle for well over a year. Broadbent remains vocal in parliament to this day, has congratulated Port Hedland Council for calling for an end to COVID vaccines and has furnished Australia’s PM with material on the matter. Broadbent raised his concerns in parliament on 18 November, and I recommend watching this 5 minute video of him speaking.

Another voice to echo Julian Gillespie, is erstwhile ABC journalist Maryanne Demasi. Perhaps her contribution is best summed up in the COVID vaccine conspiracy film she narrated, The Truth – About COVID-19 shots. Erroneously labeled a documentary, it was raved about by Gillespie. And understandably so, given that it includes all his favourite vaccine conspiracies, champions the case and complaints associated with Fidge v Pfizer and lists Gillespie as a source. Demasi also has a Substack account, and has kept her subscribers up to date with DNA contamination developments. In addition Demasi claims the TGA “hides from” reports of SIDS, post vaccination, the TGA and FDA ignored DNA contamination of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, and of course that the TGA response to the claim that mRNA vaccines exhibit DNA contamination, is wrong.

Continue reading →

Fidge v Pfizer: High Court writ targets Chief Justice Debra Mortimer

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19 Vaccine, Legal by

Last we visited developments related to the Fidge v Pfizer case, we had a long look at ambitious arguments arranged to convince Federal Court Chief Justice Debra Mortimer to uphold a constitutional complaint against Justice Helen Rofe. Rofe had summarily dismissed Dr. Julian Fidge’s application for injunctive relief under the Gene Technology Act on 1 March 2024. The judgement is here and my post summarising the case is here.

Fidge was found to lack standing and the case did not proceed. As I mentioned at the time, this was the latest failure of case design by solicitors Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam, and retired barrister Julian Gillespie. By 22 March Ashby-Koppens and PJ O’Brien and Associates had filed the constitutional complaint with the Chief Justice, alleging Justice Rofe had concealed “her connections to Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry, before dismissing a case to Pfizer’s advantage”. Reading the complaint, one is struck by both the tenuous nature and the sheer range of the arguments put forward to establish motive, as alleged by the complainants.

Justice Rofe omitted to disclose her role as a barrister acting for Pfizer in patent law cases around 20 years before; hence the “connections to Pfizer”. Yet her connections to “the pharmaceutical industry” rely on one following a convoluted web of associations, that are presented by the complainants as potentially nefarious only through the lens of conspiracy theory thinking. In fact the reader must also accept there are inherent flaws and a predisposition to deception associated with scientific and medical research per se, and indeed any acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines and/or COVID public health initiatives.

On 27 June a writ of mandamus was lodged on behalf of Dr. Julian Fidge at the Brisbane registry of the High Court of Australia. The defendant named was Chief Justice Debra Mortimer. As we’ve observed before, such a writ commands or dictates that an individual or government department carry out a duty that falls within their remit. We saw this in the AVN case targeting the Secretary of the Department of Health to use his powers under the Therapeutic Goods Act to cancel or suspend the provisional registration of three Covid-19 vaccines, including the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Incorporated v Secretary, Department of Health [2022] FCA 320). They too were found to lack standing.

Clearly Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens feel that three months is long enough to wait. Justice Mortimer has not commented and Gillespie writes that they have argued in “countless correspondence with her office ever since the Complaint was lodged with her”, pointing out their argument. It basically runs as follows:

Helen Rofe did not disclose her prior relationship with Pfizer and thus cancelled out her own judicial authority. This invalidated her 1 March ruling. Justice Mortimer should have informed her of this, Gillespie reasons. He has also peddled ad nauseam his “not a judge” theory. So, let’s look at this. Gillespie cites the High Court ruling QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (May 2023), paragraph 26. He quotes:

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.

With the negation of judicial power Justice Rofe is apparently “not a judge”. But let’s read that paragraph again, with all the text and a minor change in emphasis:

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”. Leaving to one side exceptional circumstances of waiver or necessity, an actuality or apprehension of bias is accordingly inherently jurisdictional in that it negates judicial power.

Exceptional circumstances of waiver or necessity. Could there be circumstances of necessity? I’ve no idea at this point, but it seems relevant. Gillespie assumes he and others so inclined deserve the attention of one of Australia’s most senior judges. Despite being wrong five times in two years, they now seek to force the hand of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. He accuses Chief Justice Mortimer of not “properly investigating Helen Rofe, her workmate”.

Another key reason to take this position is the belief that the ruling by Justice Rofe on 1 March is “unappealable”, yet Chief Justice Mortimer “wants to see us appeal the 1 March decision despite Dr Fidge’s legal team telling her that decision is unappealable”. The logic for this also stems from the “not a judge” mantra. The Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear a judicial decision from a single judge. As Gillespie alleges Justice Rofe negated her judicial authority, the case did not have a single judge and they “have no decision vested with judicial authority”. Thus, the Gillespie contention is that it follows that the case is “unappealable”.

Finally, this entire manufactured affair provides an opportunity for chasing donations and to promote Australia’s anti-science senators in attacking COVID-19 vaccines. An initiative of Children’s Health Defense Australia Chapter is Section 72. The website seeks to direct devotees to lobby MPs to act in response to the constitutional complaint against Justice Rofe, and to date claims almost 9,000 have “taken action”. It also claims without any evidence that, “there is also the possibility other members of the same court are implicated in this misconduct of Justice Rofe”. Also:

Senators Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Russell Broadbent all intend to support the Complaint being dealt with properly by Parliament under Section 72(ii) of the Constitution…

Section 72(ii) of The Australian Constitution states:

The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament–

  (ii.)   Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity: 

The proposed aim of this constitutional complaint has been to push for Justice Rofe’s removal from the Federal Court. Allegations of corruption and COVID conspiracy theories shape the thinking of those involved. It will be interesting to see what response if any the complaint elicits and how the recent High Court filing targeting Chief Justice Mortimer for “not doing her job” plays out.

This particular anti-vax legal saga is likely far from over.