This is going to be long so grab a beer or a cup of tea and settle in. I need to take you on a journey in time and show you how the capture of the judiciary in Nazi Germany has been directly mirrored in Australia today. And this capture is the primary reason why employee mandates - for investigational gene therapies - have been allowed to be implemented despite a promise to the world in 1947 that this would never happen again.
Let me first introduce these two people who look eerily similar. It’s probably not an accident.
On the left is “Dr”Otto Thierack. On the right is “Justice”Iain Ross.
The pictures are taken roughly 70 years apart. They are obviously different people because Iain is happy to have his picture taken with his glasses on, and doesn’t have Otto’s scar. I presume they are unrelated by birth but we are going to get into the similarities.
Otto Thierack
Otto Thierack was one of the most infamous jurists in history. You see, old Otto was the head of Hitler’s judiciary and was officially the Reich Minister of Justice (Reichsjustizministerium). One of his jobs was to clear the backlog of clemency hearings which he did, sending off untold people to their execution for “not fitting in” with the Nazi (National Socialist) society that Hitler had built. He was Hitler’s judicial lapdog. His job was essentially to make sure that any judicial actions that occurred in Germany followed the state (aka government aka Hitler’s) party line. That ensured that anybody that wished to push back against the totalitarianism of the state could not do it through the courts.
Hitler achieved theNazification of the courtsover ten years or so, using his “nudge units” to make small changes over time that eventuated in a totally captured judiciary.
From “Law and Justice in the Third Reich”:
Jewish lawyers line up to apply for permission to appear before the Berlin courts. New regulations set forth in the Aryan Paragraph (a series of laws enacted in April 1933 to purge Jews from various spheres of state and society) allowed only 35 to appear before the court.Berlin, Germany, April 11, 1933. Otto was, of course, a socialist - as all of Germany had to be. It’s important to recognise that the Nazi party (NSDAP -Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparteior National Socialist Workers Party) was fully based on socialist doctrine. Don’t take my word for it, take theirs¹:
German Labour Front (DAF) monument, Dortmund, 1935. The caption translates: “I am a socialist, because it seems incomprehensible to me to care for and treat a machine with care, but to let the noblest representative of work, man himself, degenerate.”
Why is this relevant? Because what is happening in the “post-pandemic” society is entirely enabled by the “greater good” concept - where your bodily autonomy is irrelevant whilst “the needs of society” are more important. Sounds dystopian? Absolutely. And it is a fundamental tenet of all flavours of socialist society - and enshrined in the 25th point of the national socialist manifesto on which Hitler’s regime was built²:
Following the Nuremberg trials, where doctors, journalists andjuristswere convicted of crimes against humanity on precisely this doctrine, the alternative was supposed to be enshrined into human ethics. Here is the UNESCO bioethics declaration 2005, article 3:
Now, if you’re a Nazi (or, it seems these days, any other flavour of socialist) you don’t agree. What you will do instead is use “the greater good” dogma to treat sections of society as inferior, dirty or an infection risk. Sound familiar? This is literally what the Nazis did when they created the Warsaw Ghetto, described brilliantly by my friend Filipe Rafaeli in his substackherethat I have referenced before (because it’s so important):
Of coursethe “good German”refers to the whole population of Germany who stood by and allowed a section of their own society to be ostracised and imprisoned en masse. Why? Well, firstly because they were indoctrinated bymass media and propaganda (nudge) unitsto believe that it was “for the good of society” and secondly, because if you tried to push back you were sent to jail. Sound familiar?
Which brings us back to Otto and the courts. The point of Otto was that if anybody dared to push back against the “greater good” regime he was there to ensure that the judge knew that they were to be sent to jail. And you would get a trial that was described as being “fair” - but you damn well knew what the outcome was.
And this dogma was enabled through the courts by a letter from Thierack to all judges
You will see that The Letter has an eerily familiar tone to it when we get back to Iain Ross (soon, I promise) with phrases such as:
The judges knew that if they did not do what they were told by Otto, it would be them going to jail. Ordinary citizens did not stand a chance.
Yes, it required a World War to fix thecapture(takeover by influence of another entity) of the courts in Germany. Once the courts are captured, there is no way out for the freedom of citizens of a country. They become fully enslaved in a totalitarian dictatorship.
Of course it was no great surprise that a large number of the judiciary were actually card carrying members of the Nazi party, meaning that they saw what they were doing as normal and of course for the “common good”:
Perhaps the equivalent in today’s scenario would be the enforcement of COVID vaccination on the judiciary, such that because they are all vaccinated their will to uphold the rights of people who chose not to be coerced into the largest medical experiment in history would be dissipated (yep, this happened³)
As for Otto… has was arrested for crimes against humanity but decided to Epstein himself before he faced court in theNuremberg Jurists Trial. Oh well.
Now we need to get back to Iain.
Iain Ross
Iain Ross was - until his surprising resignation in November 2022 - the head of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) of Australia. During the same time period he was also appointed a judge in the Australian federal court. So, a senior member of the judiciary in a very authoritative position.
The FWC is a judicial tribunal whose responsibility is to manage workplace legislation under the Fair Work Act, a legislative instrument designed to protect employees from discrimination by employers yet maintain business productivity in a fair manner (presumably, that means not enslaving the population). In theory it is supposed to be independent, but of course that would only be the case if the Australian judiciary were not following Thierack’s model.
Note that the Act specifically declares fairness and anti-discrimination as (laudable) aims
Now, looking at these clauses without even needing to delve into the whole Fair Work Act, you would think that one of two possibilities will arise when it came to the time that the government and its beholden corporations (which of course are alsotools of the state) decided to implement employee mandates for an investigational therapy - marketed as a vaccine - “for the greater good”
You can guess where this is going…. But before we go there let’s just look at a brief history of “Justice” Iain Ross. This guy. I don’t know what to say about this picture other than it appeared in a piece entitled “Fair Work commission president accused of ostracising dissenters” in the Australian Financial Review.
The appointment of Ross was intriguing as it was made by the Labour government of the day under extremely sketchy arrangements such that theregular hierarchy of promotion was usurped. Just like you would expect in a politically motivated appointment. And it will come as no surprise at all that Ross was appointed to a senior position on the bench with less than 2 years experience as a solicitor. In other words, somebody knew someone and pulled a favour. The perfect conduit, of course, for the actions of an imminently corrupted state.
Appointed in an environment of nepotism and favouritsm, Iain Ross had not even been a solicitor for 2 years before being given a senior judicial role by the outgoing labour government
It wasn’t long either before Ross was embroiled in another messy affair relating to thehandling of a commissioner whose wife was eventually convicted of fraud⁴. Of course, the commissioner remained in place on sabbatical picking up a $400,000+ salary. Nice work if you can get it.
So just to recap, we have a president of the Fair Work Commission who:
Perfect for the job ahead, which came in 2021 with a letter thatOttoIain Ross sent to one of the most senior and respected senior commissioners - Deputy President Lyndall Dean. Here she is. Such a threat.
Dedicated, honest and putting the rights of Australian citizens first. Lyndall Dean was sidelined and bullied by Iain Ross for daring to push back against the mandatory vaccine dictats.
In fact Lyndall Dean was touted as the poster child of the FWCwhen she was appointed- these are the words of Minister Michaelia Cash at the time:
So what exactly did she do wrong?
Well,she dissented. Not allowed in a totalitarian judiciary.
The heinous crime that she committed was that she dared to cast a dissenting opinion on a vaccine mandate case (for a mandated flu vaccine⁶in NSW - not even the precious COVID vaccine).She egregiously used universally agreed and enshrined human rights codes in her opinion as well as referencing theNuremberg Codeof 1947- derived following thedoctors’ trialat which Karl Brandt and others⁷were convicted of human experimentation and mass murder.
Section from transcript of Kimber vs Sapphire 2021, Justice Dean’s opinion
If you have time you should certainly readthe whole opinion, which provides the context. I don’t think any reasonable, humane person who acts in accordance with the Nuremberg codes and international bioethics principles could possibly object to Justice Dean’s opinion - but “Justice” Iain Ross did.
So he sent her a letter.Just like Otto did in 1942 - 80 years ago.
The Letter
Within a few days of Justice Dean’s dissenting opinion in September 2021, she was publicly and privately reprimanded and told to toe the line. This was officially documentedherewith the ominous “Iain Ross’ final warning…”
Essentially a letter was sent from Iain Ross to Lyndall Dean which formally removed her from hearing vaccine mandate cases. There was an implied threat that she would be removed from office but that is actually not in the power of Führer Ross. Justice Dean’s appointment is a parliamentary appointment and she can only be removed by parliament - hence the reticent “advised the Morrison government that it should consider giving the boot… if she again misused her office”.
Misused her office? Give me strength - that was her job. And she was the ONLY one in the FWC doing their job. It was clearly frustrating for Führer Ross that he had no power to sack her.
Instead, he insisted she be sent to a re-education camp. Room 101 anyone?
So Justice Dean was not only stood down from hearing vaccine mandate cases but was sent for re-education. For daring to uphold ethics principles that had emerged from the horrors of Nazi Germany. And this all happened from an Otto Thierack-style letter sent by Iain Ross.
The effect of this one letter was intentionally the following:
I don’t need to tell you that this is exactly the way that the Nazis’ judiciary worked.
So what was the result of Herr Ross’s dictat?
Let’s see…
The Fair Work Commission is working for the state, not the people
After Justice Dean the only deputy presidents (senior commissioners) to be appointed to the NSW region, where the firstemployer mandateswere implemented, were:
Mr Tony Saunders (2018)
Mr Gerard Boyce (2019)
Mr Bryce Cross (2019)
The only pandemic-era appointment in 2021 was oneMichael Easton
So, shall we see how the FWC has been performing since the vaccine mandates started?
Well they tell you. They are proud to tell you. In facttheir own page sends a message- and the message is “DO NOT PUSH BACK AGAINST STATE MANDATES”
Just like Otto.
So, can you see a common theme? It’s as if there is a mandate within the Fair Work Commission itself - to automatically reject any mandate case however valid.
In fact there are 27 casescurrently listed on the FWC websiteas “examples” of “what happens if you try and fight the government and its corporations”.
Guess how many were awarded in favour of the applicant?Zero. Ja richtig - Null!
Now we can do a little bit of calculation here to see whether the FWC are acting independently or politically. You see, on the basis that the vaccination mandates have produced a swathe of cases appearing before them it is clear that there are a lot of disgruntled workers who have either refused the “vaccine” outright, wished to wait for a safer vaccine, had recovered from COVID itself or were injured after the first vaccine. Remember too that the vaccine mandates - which were subsequently pulled from the legislature - were based on a now disproven assumption that they would reduce transmission. In fact, theyincreasedtransmission.
“The vaccine reduces transmission” was always a lie. Cases spiked massively after the booster campaign in November 2021. Case data from
covid19data.com.au, the official AU repository.
So on that basis - that enough “reasonable people” believed it to be unfair to dismiss someone on the basis of a vaccine mandate that a deluge of cases ensued - you would have to estimate that the probability of a success in a mandate case might be 50%. Or let’s be conservative and say 33% - so 1 in 3 cases might be expected to have merit. What is the probability that ZERO out of 27 cases would succeed? We can do this easily with a binomial calculator and the answer is:
In other words the probability that with a 1 in 3 chance of success in court we ended up with the result laid out by the FWC - was near zero.
Which means that the prior probability of success in the “Unfair” Work Commission must be considerably less than this. In fact, reversing the calculation gives us an idea of the prior probability that you might succeed with a mandate case if you dare to front up toDieUnfair Arbeitskommission. For a >50% probability that we will get zero successful cases out of 27…. the prior probability that your case will succeed (before you even walk in the door) based on those published cases is a whopping:
Yep. Two percent. I think that tells us that we can safely guess that the probability that the FWC has been captured (i.e. is acting on behalf of entities that are not independent, as it should) is about 100%.
And what is the probability (given that the most senior Deputy President in the NSW region has been silenced) that the most junior Deputy President will find in favour of an applicant? Well, you can find all the decisions listedherein the FWC bulletin. And of course you can search for your favourite Deputy President.
And if we search for the newest addition DP Easton we find 8 COVID vaccination cases in the bulletin for 2022.All of them were dismissed.Not one case - however minor - was granted in favour of the applicant (the employee). So Mike gets to pick up his $450k and gain brownie points for the next promotion. Never mind that peoples’ lives were destroyed in the process.
So much for “Fair Work”.
Of course the (Un)Fair Work Commission are the epitome of honesty and transparency aren’t they? - they are after all the judiciary. So when an Australian citizen sends them a Freedom of Information Request they would honour it immediately, because they havenothing at all to hide, right?
You decide. This was the request⁸.
And this was the response.
The response further goes on to clarify the reason for the refusal being thehuge amount of resouces it would take to get out all the emails sent from Iain Ross to Lyndall Dean (which should be zero, because she hadn’t done anything wrong and he should have kept his grubby nose out).Just how many pages of dictats from Fuhrer Ross and Heinrich Furlong were there?
Freedom of Information? Not if it involves exposing undue influence in our very own court system. Nope, not a chance. Oh and if you want to try it on with my buddy the Information Commissioner….
Yeah well I’ve written about that guy too if you remember….
Bear in mind of course that the FWC has been emboldened in taking this action by an earlier and now (in)famous court case -Kassam vs Hazzard -which I have touched onin a previous article. The result of this case - which was fought in part on the basis of a citizen’s rights under section51.23aof the Australian constitution - was that the judge (“Justice” Beech-Jones) found thatcoercion was consent. No, I’m not kidding - paragraph 56 of the ruling is pretty much what Harvey Weinstein would have said, something like:
As a point of circular interest, section51.23aof the Australian constitution was implemented as a direct result of the Nuremberg doctors’ trial. It was specifically included to prohibit conscription of doctors by the state:
This is discussed in an excellent article in theSpectator on August 11th 2021⁹highlighting the legal ramifications of vaccine mandates and why the constitutional protection existed. But it didn’t matter, did it? Because when the courts are captured, what the government says goes. That is precisely what happened inKassam vs Hazzardwhere high level scientific evidence from the likes of Jay Battacharya, Peter McCullough, Sabine Hazan, Brian Tyson and other hugely published medical scholars was waved away in favour of the government’s one “expert” witness - Kristine Macartney - who had never treated a single COVID patient andhad received $65m in government grants over just 3 years¹⁰. And of course it would be a complete coincidence that the judge presiding over such a hugely important case was just appointed to the Supreme Court on the 11th August 2021 - only a few weeks prior to the trial.
A further unbelievable revelation from theKassamtrial was thereplacement of the TGA’s lawyer by Pfizer’s lawyeron day 3 of the trial, in response to a subpoena by the applicants to the original animal studies from the Pfizer trial. The reason for the subpoena was that it wasknown that the TGA was suppressing the informationbased on a prior freedom of information request. What was not expected was that the TGA would lie about appearing in court, sending in a patsy called “Mr Glover” who never made it into court and paving the way for the Pfizer lawyer to quash the subpoena. All documented in FOI by that pesky mouse.
How is the sneaky substitution of a corporation with vested interests in lieu of a government representative in a Supreme Court trial in any way scrupulous? It’s not, and it was just one example of where the courts lost their way when it came to vaccine mandates.
Non-antipodean readers might be thinking “well this is just the Australian Court system (and the whole of the government) that has been captured and no longer represents the very people it swore an oath to” - but you’d be wrong. Every judgement in a Commonwealth jurisdiction can be used as evidence in any other jurisdiction. The people who are controlling this just need to control the Australian court system and their job is done.
Now, the Fair Work Commission has the chance to change their path and regain some credibility.In particular because Iain Ross, who arguably has permanently stained the reputation of the Commission for impartiality, has now left - just over a month ago.
Adam Hatcheristhe new chiefand hopefully not the new Otto. I sincerely hope that one of his first tasks is to revoke the letter to Justice Dean and reinstate her to her designated position without any further political interference - because that would be the right thing to do.
His second task should be to make sure that every single mandate case now being heard is independently reviewed.
The world is watching the Fair Work Commission rulings closely and Australian citizens will eventually be forced to call for criminal investigations via the Attorney General and ICAC if this untenable situation continues in the current climate.
More and more people are waking up to the corruption that has pervaded the vaccine studies, the clandestine contracts, the suppressed government documents and the politicised trials. There will be a tipping point where criminal referrals start rolling in.
That tipping point is near. Australians will not allow what happened in Nazi Germany - or any other totalitarian state - to happen in Australia. Relying on Aussie apathy is a fool’s errand
This is the chance to have your say.
Is this article right to compare the current judicial situation in Australia to Nazi Germany, or are the courts acting with probity and independence? And should people start grouping to make referrals to investigational bodies over the conduct of the judiciary in Australia?
Have your say either by voting or commenting but - however strongly you may feel about this subject - remember that this is an open blog.
| POLL | | Have the courts been captured such that the separation of powers has now been compromised to a point that institutionalised bias is the new normal? | |
|
|
| POLL | | Now it has been shown that the vaccines do not reduce transmission can vaccine mandates be reasonably considered to be "lawful and reasonable"? | |
|
|
| POLL | | If Commissioners continue to dismiss vaccine mandate cases, should they be referred to ICAC (the corruption commission) or the Attorney General? | |
|
|
1This is such a controversial picture that it was removed from wikipedia and is extremely difficult to find online. The reason why is clear to those like me who are old enough to remember the history of these people and to see how history is shaped to control the narrative. Not only was itremoved from wikipediabutthe deletion was removed from the deletion log so it is not possible to find the audit record on wikipedia. That is how propaganda works - by suppression of history. George Orwell of course called it the “memory hole” in the book 1984.
2There are plenty of online arguments about whether the National socialists were socialists or not in practice, but that was their name and their declared philosophy. It is beyond the scope of this article however I will point out that most of the articles written by socialists to distance themselves from nazism universally fail to define “socialist”. Socialism as defined here is based on collectivism - the idea that personal property is devolved from the state rather than the individual.
More examples of this discussion arehereandhereandhere
3This is the document sent to the NSW judiciary in October 2021 enforcing COVID vaccination as a requirement of attending court
 | 2021 10 08 Covid 19 Update Court Operati... 337KB ∙ PDF File |
|
6The influenza vaccine doesn’t work. It doesn’t stop infection, transmission or severity of disease. It is so bad that the Cochrane collaboration havestopped writing about how useless it isfor fear of further undue pressure from the pharma lobby.
7Joseph Mengele, the most famous of the Nazi doctors, in fact evaded capture and the trial, supposedly “accidentally released” by the Americans. He then settled in Brazil and had children and grandchildren. It is likely that his release was not accidental at all but part ofOperation Paperclip.
Pharmaceutical corporations were also included such asIG Farbenthe executives of which of course escaped under operation paperclip. IG Farben became Bayer and Bayer was conjoined to Monsanto. Nothing much changed, did it?
8FWC FOI 21/22-19 refusal
| 21 22 19 Request Consultation Notice Red... 211KB ∙ PDF File |
|
10The exposure of Dr Macartney’s huge grant awards (which was submitted in documentation to the court and therefore was a public document) was originally posted on twitter but, after attracting 2M impressions it was removed under a veiled threat from the government’s lawyers. The tweet has not been reposted but survives on **. I can vouch for the probity of Liz68’s copy of the original posthereand archivedhere
