People who have Taken Action:
1954WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT A JUDGE HEARING A COURT CASE WHERE ONE OF THE PARTIES WAS HER FORMER CLIENT FOR YEARS?
A FORMER CLIENT THAT THE JUDGE APPEARED FOR WHEN A BARRISTER IN AT LEAST 5 SEPARATE COURT CASES?
A FORMER CLIENT THAT WOULD HAVE PAID THE JUDGE HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN LEGAL FEES?
WHERE THAT FORMER CLIENT IS A BIG PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, AND THE JUDGE IS ALSO RELATED TO AN AUSTRALIAN BIG PHARMACEUTICAL DYNASTY?
DOESN'T PASS THE PUB TEST, DOES IT?
A judge is always required to disclose any perceived or actual conflicts of interest, to give the parties an opportunity to request the judge disqualify themself if warranted. Disclosure is a cornerstone obligation of anyone acting in the law, especially for the judges who judge us.
JUSTICE ROFE DID NOT COMPLY WITH HER DISCLOSURE OBLIGATION TO INFORM THE PARTIES THAT SHE PREVIOUSLY ACTED FOR ONE OF THE PARTIES BEFORE HER, IN A CASE SHE WAS JUDGING.
In the recent case brought by Dr Fidge against Pfizer and Moderna for failing to obtain the legally required GMO licences (genetically modified organisms) for their Covid-19 drugs in Australia, Justice Rofe failed to mention to any of the parties that she had acted for Pfizer on at least 5 prior occasions.
JUSTICE ROFE SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THAT SHE HAD WORKED FOR PFIZER IN NUMEROUS LONG RUNNING COURT CASES.
Failure to mention this key information gives rise to an allegation of bias, especially when her Honour decided the GMO case in Pfizer's favour.
Some may consider not disclosing this key information an intentional act of concealing critical information from Dr Fidge that he could have used to request her Honour disqualify herself from the case.
NO JUDGE SHOULD EVER INTENTIONALLY CONCEAL CRITICAL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED.
And .. there is also the possibility other members of the same court are implicated in this misconduct of Justice Rofe.
IT DOESN'T PASS THE PUB TEST
A Complaint has been made to the Court and to all Members and Senators of Parliament but now we need your help to tell your Member of Parliament and your Senators how concerned you are with this situation, and demand they take action to investigate the Complaint.
Every Senator and MP has a duty to uphold the Australian Constitution on your behalf, and to protect the Australian people from a judge they deem has misbehaved under Section 72(ii) of the Constitution.
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, but they need your help and support to show in numbers that you too are concerned about judicial misbehaviour.
Your help is needed to write to your local MP and Senators to let them know that you support the Complaint and are concerned about the situation.
Take action today!
Most Effective Write a letter
For every letter received, MPs consider this to represent the voices of 1000 constituents. We'll help you generate your letter for maximum impact.
WRITE MY LETTERAlternatively, handwrite and post a letter, every handwritten letter is the equivalent of 1000 emails.
Very Effective Make a phone call
Making the effort to call your MP shows how serious you are about an issue. We'll provide you with some talking points to help guide you on what to say.
MAKE MY CALLEffective Visit MP in person
Your silence is your consent. It only takes a few minutes to let your MPs know how you feel. Click below to find out what your action could lead to.
VISIT MY MPEffective Send an email
Each email sent to MPs is said to represent 100 voters. This quick and effective method will help convey your message with some guidance from our email writing tool.
SEND MY EMAIL
STAY IN THE LOOP
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
©2024 Section 72™, an Initiative of Children’s Health Defense Australia Chapter®.
All Rights Reserved.