Since Update #7, Dr Fidge has been put in the extraordinary position of having to file an application for constitutional writ against the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, CJ Mortimer (HC Writ).

The Complaint

The Chief Justice has refused to engage with the Complaint our client raised about Justice Rofe's conduct, where Justice Rofe failed to recuse herself or inform the parties of close familial and business associations with the pharmaceutical industry and that she had acted for one of the Respondents, Pfizer, in a number of significant cases before hearing and handing down her Decision finding in favour of Pfizer and Moderna (Rofe J Decision).

Withdrawal of Federal Court applications to appeal

Dr Fidge has also been put into the difficult and costly position of withdrawing the Federal Court applications to appeal the Rofe J Decision so as to force CJ Mortimer to determine the Complaint.  

Because the Complaint goes to the heart of whether the Rofe J Decision actually has any judicial authority and is therefore unappealable, the Complaint, now HC Writ, needs to be dealt with first.

As the Federal Court, Pfizer and Moderna, and CJ Mortimer were forcing Dr Fidge onto appealing the Rofe J Decision, even though it might not even be appealable, Dr Fidge determined to save costs and court time by withdrawing the Federal Court Applications for initiating the appeal for the moment.

HC Writ

Dr Fidge has had to bring the HC Writ asking the High Court to order Chief Justice Mortimer to determine the Complaint, and thereby determine the issues in the proper order in which they should be determined.

Chief Justice Mortimer's position under the Complaint is difficult:

1. She is being asked to investigate a complaint against a colleague, Justice Rofe, an inherently biased situation for the Chief Justice.
2. There is High Court authority that supports the position that the Decision by Justice Rofe is not appealable: ‘an actuality or apprehension of bias is accordingly inherently jurisdictional in that it negates judicial power’.
3. The Chief Justice, by failing to engage in the Complaint, is denying Dr Fidge his absolute right to procedural fairness and natural justice by a chief law officer who is meant to serve and ensure these rights are never violated.  

Another avenue: Section 72(ii) of the Constitution

Section 72(ii) of the Australian Constitution empowers both house of Parliament to investigate a Judge who has behaved inappropriately so as to put into question their ability to remain a judge.  

If you don't think any of this passes the pub test, then voter pressure helps.  You can write to your local MP and State Senators here: https://section72.au  

As always, we look forward to supplying you with the next update.

warmest regards

Katie Ashby-Koppens

Lawyer, NSW

Well it's been a whirlwind couple of weeks since we received Justice Rofe's decision on 1 March 2024 that dismissed Dr Fidge's claim on the grounds that she did not consider him to be an aggrieved person for the purposes of the Gene Technology Act 2000.

Since our last update, we have taken a number of steps, first a formal complaint about Justice Rofe's previous relationships with the First Respondent (Pfizer) and big pharma in Australia. Secondly, we have had to take steps to preserve the position on any appeal.

We deal with each under their own headings below.

1. A formal complaint lodged against Justice Rofe for conflict and bias

A formal complaint has been sent to the Chief Justice to take steps under the Federal Court Act, but also sent to all MPs and Senators by way of a Constitutional complaint.

A copy of our complaint letter is available here.

2. Leave for Appeal filed

In order to preserve any court steps while the complaint is being considered by the Chief Justice and both Houses of Parliament, we have filed an application for leave to appeal.  

The court has received these documents and we are waiting to hear whether the appeal steps will be stayed while the Chief Justice takes the time she needs to assess the complaint.

In the meantime, if required to proceed in lieu of the complaint lodged, counsel has confirmed our assessment that there are grounds and merit in an appeal.

Court of public opinion

Our next steps are to continue to raise the profile of the complaint against Justice Rofe to garner support in the court of public opinion.  You can help by sharing this page and updating all your contacts and followers on socials. 

This is a vitally important strategy as the issue is very much a political one now: and we all know politics is a numbers game!

A big THANK YOU!

As always, your unwavering support is the reason we are able to take on this fight.   

As always, we look forward to supplying you with the next update.

warmest regards

Katie Ashby-Koppens

Lawyer, NSW

On 1 March 2024, Justice Rofe, judge of the Federal Court (VID510/2023), handed down a preliminary decision dismissing Dr Julian Fidge’s injunction application against Pfizer and Moderna.  

Her Honour dismissed the action on the grounds that the case did not have any reasonable prospects of success, as she did not consider Dr Fidge to have standing. To have standing, her Honour was required to consider whether Dr Fidge was ‘any other aggrieved person’ for the purposes of the Gene Technology Act. 

Her Honour considered that Dr Fidge was not an aggrieved person as he was not aggrieved by specific conduct regulated by the Act, namely dealings with GMOs such as importation, distribution or disposal.  In other words, her Honour did not consider that administration of an alleged GMO was covered by the Gene Technology Act.

In the action, Dr Julian Fidge alleges the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that should have received the appropriate licence from the Gene Technology Regulator for the pharmaceutical companies to deal with the products in Australia.

This was a preliminary hearing where her Honour did not even consider whether the products were GMOs. 

Naturally, we are disappointed.  We are considering further steps and obtaining instructions.

We cannot thank you enough for your continued support and encouragement.

Another update will follow shortly.

Warmest regards

Katie Ashby-Koppens

Lawyer

Dear GiveSendGo supporters,

On 4 December 2023 the Australian Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), Raelene Sharp KC, received a criminal brief of information evidencing the probable alteration of the human genome by the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 products, and information alleging both companies are committing serious criminal offences. 

The brief was lodged by myself, Katie Ashby-Koppens of PJ O'Brien & Associates, and was co-authored with lawyers Peter Fam and Julian Gillespie.

The brief can be downloaded here.

The brief provides video testimony by Australia's Gene Technology Regulator, Dr Raj Bhula, confirming the Covid-19 vaccines of Pfizer and Moderna meet Australian legal definitions under the Gene Technology Act 2000 for being properly deemed and called Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs.

Under the Gene Technology Act any person or company who seeks to 'deal' with GMOs in Australia must first apply and be granted a GMO licence from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, where a failure to first obtain a GMO licence before dealing with a GMO is a serious criminal offense.

This is of course the same position at law we are advancing in these civil proceedings against Pfizer and Moderna.

The criminal brief further alleges Pfizer and Moderna knew their Covid-19 vaccines required GMO licences in Australia, but did not apply for licences like AstraZenca did for their Covid-19 vaccine.

This failure to seek GMO licences raises the seriou issue of no Australian recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines having been informed they were being asked to receive an experimental GMO drug, which directly calls into question whether valid Informed Consent could have occurred in such circumstances.

The brief further details how Senator Gerard Rennick has since 27 September 2023, and then again on 13 November 2023, been seeking to raise serious issues arising from these criminal allegations with Australia's Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, who has failed to reply or respond.

A central and alarming concern raised by Senator Rennick is that both the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 products have been independently confirmed by several laboratories to contain excessive synthetic DNA contamination, which risks being easily integrated with natural DNA in recipients, and is quite possibly productive of genetic disorder disease in vaccine recipients and the myriad adverse events documented globally.

This DNA contamination is also another form of undeclared GMO that would never have led to the grant of GMO licences in Australia, if detected when both companies sought provisional approvals in 2020 and 2021.

The criminal brief lodged with the CDPP arises out of the civil proceedings being advanced by this GiveSendGo campaign, where Dr Julian Fidge is seeking injunctions against both companies for their failures to first seek GMO licences before approaching the TGA for approval.

The information and evidence presented to Australia's Attorney-General and now Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions deserve national and international discussion, and answers.

Co-author of the criminal brief Julian Gillespie is a Director of Children’s Health Defense, Australia, and writes a substack with further background and details available here.

Our previous updates #1 to #4 update you on the civil action to date.

Once again we thank you for your ongoing and continued support.

Kind regards

Katie 

Dear GiveSendGo supporters

We wish to bring to your attention important information that directly bears upon our GMO proceedings against Pfizer and Moderna.

On 26 October 2023, the Australian Gene Technology Regulator, Dr Raj Bhula, appeared before a Senate Estimates committee.

During questioning from Senator Gerard Rennick Dr Bhula admitted the following:

“If, indeed, the mRNA was being manufactured here—and it's correct that gene technology was used in the modification of the mRNA—then, under the Gene Technology Act, an approval would have been required for that manufacturing step.”

This is a startling and welcome admission.

Dr Bhula has now publicly acknowledged the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 products would have required 'approval' if manufactured in Australia.

Dr Bhula heads the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in Australia (OGTR). The OGTR only 'approve' one type of product or substance in Australia, namely, Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs for certain 'dealings' in Australia.

As a consequence, this statement by Dr Bhula on 26 October 2023 appears to confirm the first contention in our Federal Court proceedings, that the Pfizer and Moderna products are properly deemed GMOs under Australian law, and indeed, by the OGTR who are required to implement that law - the Gene Technology Act 2000.

Further commentary by retired barrister Julian Gillespie on these issues, and how they also further implicate Pfizer and Moderna in ongoing criminal offenses under the Gene Technology Act can be read here:

https://julesonthebeach.substack.com/p/australian-gene-technology-regulator

And:

https://julesonthebeach.substack.com/p/australian-criminal-brief-update

For the convenience of GiveSendGo supporters we also bring to your attention a page kindly hosted by the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS) who have taken a keen interest in our proceedings, providing further details which are updated regularly here:

https://amps.redunion.com.au/australian-court-covid19-drugs-gmo-pfizer-moderna-law

Once again we thank you for your ongoing and continued support.

Warmest regards

Katie

On Monday 23 October 2023, the summary dismissal applications brought by Pfizer and Moderna were heard by Justice Rofe in the Federal Court at Melbourne.

As expected both Pfizer and Moderna continued with oral submissions peculiar to those normally heard for a summary dismissal application.

Normally, such an application would seek to show the evidence Dr Fidge relies upon is incapable of proving the case against Pfizer and Moderna, meaning he has no reasonable prospects of success, so the case should be dismissed sooner rather than later.

That would make sense when an Applicant comes to Court with next-to-no reliable evidence, where it is the duty of the Court to dismiss cases that are frivolous, vexatious, or simply have no reasonable prospects of success.

But that is not what Pfizer and Moderna sought to show the Court last month (October 2023).

Instead, the Respondents took a novel approach by asserting Dr Fidge has no reasonable prospects of success, because he lacks standing to bring the proceedings. In short, they say Dr Fidge should not be seen as an 'aggrieved person'.

The nub of their primary position is found under section 147 of the Gene Technology Act, (the Act under which we brought the proceedings), which states that a person can only be aggrieved by 'any conduct that is or would be an offence against this Act'.

We say Dr Fidge is aggrieved by the Respondents not having obtained GMO licenses (if indeed they would ever have been granted), which failure on the part of the Respondents is not only an offense under the Act (because a failure to hold a GMO license is an offense) but further - by not having obtained GMO licenses and having to thereby publicly declare their products are or contain GMOs, as an individual and as a doctor, he was deprived of this information their products contained GMOs, which was information he needed to know when considering to receive these drugs himself, and it was definitely information he needed to know before administering these drugs to his children, and equally, it was information he should have been provided for advising his patients prior to their receiving, or not receiving, these products.

We say the above considerations plainly make Dr Fidge 'aggrieved'.

Pfizer and Moderna contended otherwise, stating an applicant can only be aggrieved by 'conduct' that is an offense under the Act, where they say they never took part in 'conduct' amounting to an offense under the Act. Specifically, they say no aspect of their importation and supply of their C19 products into Australia amounted to 'dealings' that under the Act requires a GMO license, therefore, absent conduct that would amount to an offense, any aggrievement Dr Figde may be experiencing is not due to their presumably, good conduct, in the manner of their handling their C-19 drugs in Australia.

These submissions by Pfizer and Moderna really do boil down to factual matters and assertions that require a full hearing to determine.

When real facts like the nature of the 'dealings' with the C-19 products are contested, such contests are not to be summarily dealt with, but given an opportunity to be presented with supporting evidence and witnesses.

As such the submissions advanced by the Respondents should have been placed forward with much more evidence to prove their submissions, in a full and open hearing, not in a summary dismissal application.

We consider the case law on summary dismissal applications that must guide the Court and Justice Rofe, strongly favour Dr Fidge.

Should this be so, then the summary dismissal applications should be dismissed in favour of Dr Fidge, with Dr Fidge allowed to proceed to a full and proper hearing of these most serious allegations.

We await now the decision of Justice Rofe who has reserved her decision, to be handed down we expect in the not too distant future.

Once again we thank you for your ongoing and continued support.

Dear Donors and Valued Supporters

This is our second update on the Fidge v Pfizer matter. The previous update is below in this thread.

Since filing on 7 July 2023, we have now had two brief case management hearings:

• The first related to urgency, which was not granted due to our previous barrister making several missteps.
• The second, both Pfizer and Moderna sought timetabling orders to be permitted to file applications seeking to have our injunction application summarily dismissed. 

Both Pfizer and Moderna filed their summary dismissal applications and evidence last month.

Pfizer and Moderna's respective applications appear to be suggesting that the applicant's case has no prospects of success and therefore should be struck out. Both respondents appear to be taking the position that the relevant regulators' decisions (TGA and Gene Technology Regulator) shield them from prosecution. This is a completely novel position we have never before seen argued in law. We are undertaking a deeper dive into their evidence they say supports their position, but at this stage consider their summary applications to have low prospects of success.

Counsel, Joseph Manner, agrees. Joseph has extensive experience with Covid matters having presented the case for Doctors Against Mandates in Queensland, and recently settled the pleadings in the McCann class action lawsuit.

After having closely reviewed the submissions from Pfizer and Moderna, Counsel agrees with our initial view that their applications for summary dismissal are based upon tenuous grounds.

We have now filed submissions in response to the submissions filed by Pfizer and Moderna.

The summary dismissal hearing on 23 October 2023 before Justice Rofe. That hearing will be in person in the Federal Court in Melbourne and a link for the public to watch will be made available here.

We thank you for your continued support and faith in what we are doing and are always available to answer any queries you may have.

Thank you for your continuing and unwavering support, following is an update on the status of the Court Action, Recent Events of a monumental nature and an update on all of our recent media, all in one place.

Recent Events:

In the week of 11 September 2023, Professor Phillip Buckhaults, Professor of Cancer Molecular Genetics, presented his findings on the DNA contamination to a South Carolina Senate hearing, corroborating the findings of Kevin McKernan, who is one of the expert witnesses in our case.

The Associate Dean of Medicine and Director of the Cancer Centre at Brown University, Dr Wafik El-Deiry tweeted in response to the Buckhaults’ testimony stating, Professor Buckhaults:

“...explains how pieces of naked DNA allowed in protein vaccines at a certain threshold was not so problematic in a different era but that with encapsulation in liposomes they can now easily get into cells. If they get into cells they can integrate in the genome which is permanent, heritable and has a theoretical risk of causing cancer depending on where in the genome they integrate. 

There is need for more research into what happens in stem cells and I would add germ-line, heart, brain etc.” 

Kevin McKernan commented on Dr Wafik’s comments: “When the Director of the Cancer Center at Brown University takes note [on the Dr Buckhaults’ testimony], the FDA should listen.”

Kevin McKernan has also presented the most succinct and clear explanation on his findings to date when he spoke with Jan Jekielek of American Thought Leaders through the Epoch Times (behind paywall). 

Media:

While the legal team has been busy preparing the response to the summary dismissal application, there have been much media coverage:

• Rebekah Barnett of Dystopian Down Under substack. 
• Julian Gillespie and Dr Julia Sladden have had two articles printed in The BrownStone Institute: ‘The Vax-Gene Files: An Accidental Discovery’ and ‘Have the Regulators Approved a Trojan Horse?’ 
• Julian Gillespie’s paper ‘Canaries in the DNA Coalmine’ has been peer reviewed and published in The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research. 
• Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens recently spoke on the case with Shabnam Palesa Mohammed on CHDTV’s show Good Morning CHD.  
• Katie Ashby-Koppens and Julian Gillespie joined Associate Professor Chris Neil and Dr Julie Sladden to discuss the GMO contamination of C-19 drugs with John Larder and Graham Hood on Club Grubbery.  

There is much more to go and we that you for all your support.