An important update from Julian Gillespie

.. perhaps the most important BCC note i have ever shared

many of you have by now heard that (Dr) William Bay is seeking to intervene in the Australian Babies Case

.. his application to intervene requires the High Court to grant him leave to intervene, so the High Court must consider whether there is any legal merit to the positions he seeks to advance

in his materials filed in the High Court, William advances three basic propositions:

1. None of the six Applicants in our case have a proper Standing interest in the decision of the Secretary of Health extending the Moderna 'vaccine' to Babies, so the case should be thrown out;

2. Where the Applicants request the High Court to recognise a new 'special' Standing interest, (namely, in Applicants who approach the Court seeking the preservation of human life, from preventable deaths and injuries), William says such a new special interest in not needed, and further asserts that should the special interest be granted, it will allow in the future, private parties like a teacher or a healthcare worker to sue for instance, a parent who refuses to get their child 'vaccinated' with say a Covid-19 'vaccines', as the teacher or healthcare worker will be granted a right to sue the parent by invoking the new special we are seeking the High Court to recognise;

3. Lastly, if the High Court grants leave to William to intervene, and if he is unsuccessful with the above positions, William is urging that the Australian Babies Case be remitted to the Federal Court .. which is entirely where no one wishes to see the case dealt with, as while we continue to experience a historic iatrogenic catastrophe, we have already observed in the AVN case the Federal Court being unwilling to address the evidence of the catastrophe .. thus this third position is put forward in the hope the Federal Court will kill off the Australian Babies Case too

As to point 1 - William is simply advancing a position we expect the Secretary of Health will advance, therefore he is supporting the Secretary of Health

.. should the High Court arrive at the view that none of the Applicants have proper Standing to challenge the decision extending these lethal drugs to Babies, then in short, that will be as a consequence of what we say is a very real deficiency in the preexisting law of Standing in Australia, unable to absorb the facts and effects upon Applicants of an unfolding iatrogenic catastrophe .. and that in and of itself speaks to a grave deficiency in the law that places the Australian people at risk of preventable deaths and injuries.

As to point 2 - thus, should the Court recognise what we assert is a grave deficiency in the preexisting law on Standing, we have squarely put to the Court in our Application that this deficiency can be remedied by the Court recognising a new 'special' interest on Standing being, when an Applicant comes to the Court seeking the preservation of human life from preventable deaths and injuries

.. now that new special interest has been clearly stated in our Application for the Court to read and consider .. and it requires the Court to sensibly ask: What preventable deaths and injuries are you talking about?

and by the asking of that question we are afforded the opportunity to present to the Court an extraordinary collection of evidence proving, prima facie, that there exists a compelling relationship between the rollout of the C19 drugs, and unprecedented deaths and injuries across our country, hand-in-hand with a surge in 'unexplained' Excess Deaths .. in circumstances where we can evidence SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 illness represents a statistically insignificant threat, a threat that further pales into further insignificance when compared to the likelihood of suffering a severe adverse event (injury) or death as a consequence of these still experimental C19 drugs

in the event the Court looks to this evidence and agrees, probably on the balance of probabilities, that indeed something is going terribly terribly wrong with these drugs, and agrees that Babies are at no risk from Covid-19, and that should the C19 drug made available by the Secretary of Health pose a real threat that Australian Babies may become included in the death and injury counts being experienced by older Australians who took these drugs .. then the High Court will hopefully grant the new special interest we seek for all or some of the Applicants, to challenge and hopefully have the decision by the Secretary properly declared invalid, thereby saving Australian Babies

But returning to William's point 2 above ..

William says that if the new special interest for Standing is granted, it will become available for exploitation by private persons wishing to interfere with the medical decisions of others

please see this recent interview with William from the 40 minute mark to understand his position: https://rumble.com/v270mew-suspended-dr.-william-bay-provides-court-action-update.html

in a nutshell, William believes that if the new special interest is granted in the Australian Babies Case, then in the future, someone like a teacher or a healthcare worker who disagrees with a parent who chooses not to have say a C19 'vaccine' administered to their baby .. this hypothetical teacher will be able to sue the parent by asserting the new special interest grants them the right to sue the parent, because the teacher wishes to 'preserve human life (the baby's) from preventable death or injury (from Covid-19 illness)', thus seeking to have a Court order the parent to get their baby C19 'vaccinated'

.. though the above hypothetical is alarming and would involve a Court divesting a parent of their legal right to make informed decisions for their child, it is a hypothetical that fundamentally misunderstands the law

let us be very clear on the following legal point - the Australian Babies Case is seeking the new special interest be made available to Applicants in an Administrative Law setting .. not a Private Law setting which is what the hypothetical by William involves

the High Court is thoroughly aware that the Australian Babies Case is an Administrative Law case, that ultimately seeks Standing inorder to have the decision by the Secretary of Health extending Moderna to Babies, be subject to Judicial Review

critically, should the new special interest be granted by the High Court, it will only be available to Applicants in Administrative Law cases, who seek to challenge the decision or actions of a government department or government decision maker

.. can you see the difference?

if granted, the new special interest will not be available to the private citizen teacher or healthcare worker who disagrees with the private decision of a private parent

the special interest, if granted, will only be available for use by private citizens or organisations seeking redress against government decisions

.. this is the clear distinction between Public Law and Private Law that William Bay has failed to appreciate, or communicate and share with those he is currently conducting interviews with, thus viewers of his interviews are not aware of this critically vital distinction (Public Law v. Private Law), which makes his scary hypothetical just that, scary, but without any legal substance

the consequences of this failure to appreciate how the hoped for new special interest will not see personal legal rights challenged by other private citizens is most unfortunate

it is also unfortunate that the time and energies of the Justices of the High Court are now being called upon by William Bay, to discover this fundamental lack of knowledge of the law

.. but William has once again chosen to self represent himself, (he has brought the application without a lawyer), believing his recent readings of Australian law adequately equips him for enlightening Australia's greatest legal minds in our High Court

.. instead, this effort will likely serve to aggravate our High Court judges

hopefully they will address the materials of William Bay with great patience, and respectfully point out the errors, and deny William leave to intervene, and allow the Australian Babies Case to proceed to a proper hearing, of a case that has required over 6 months of intense legal thought and preparation, from a legal team possessed with decades of practice, experience, and knowledge

hopefully this disturbance of the Court's time and resources does not serve to find the end of the patience of Australia's most Honourable Court, where the Justices find themselves not wishing to deal with this self represented applicant, and instead they remit the matter to the Federal Court to have issues like this ill-conceived application to intervene dealt with there

.. should that occur, then we all know what to expect from a Federal Court that wants ever so much not to look at our evidence of unprecedented deaths and injuries that continue to rise

if we land in the Federal Court due to Willam Bay, we face wasting approximately $500,000, and likely any chance of saving Australian Babies from death and injuries

.. William will have ended up running Brendan Murphy's case better than Brendan is currently able to do .. and William will have trodden on, dashed, and extinguished the private hopes of Australian parents everywhere, leaving untold many parents to suffer for the rest of their lives after they realise too late, that it was the very lethal nature of these C19 drugs that killed or maimed their child

all because one curious man thought he had learnt Australian law in 6 days

please do share the above widely

Julian Gillespie
LLB, BJuris