Blog Archives

There is an interesting matter that I have been confronted with.

A patient goes to see a Medical Practitioner (who is a Doctor registered with the Australian Medical Board) about obtaining the Doctors written recommendation as to the start date for a treatment program to begin for her son.

In this case there were multiple injections involving 11 different types of medication that would be injected into the body of the 18 month old child. The mother was concerned about a scientific report she read in the The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which is a weekly medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is among the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals[1] as well as the oldest continuously published one.[1]

The Doctor would not give her opportunity to discuss science and shut her down saying “we are not obliged to provide scientific evidence as per legal advice (Citing name of Insurer). So now that science was off the table in things to discuss, the Doctor then discussed the risk versus benefit of the treatment, saying things can go wrong, allergic and other reactions can occur however these risks are accepted by the Australian Government who approved the treatment through the Therapeutic Goods Administration and “mainstream medical literature” says the risks are “vastly outweighed by the potential benefits.”

If EVERYBODY followed this method, a MASS ACTION which is Co-ordinated, each step of the way the team analyses results from each response, collaborating together in refining each persons unique complaint as a hive. This kind of action is virtually unstoppable.

Fair enough I suppose, but is it signalling a kiss good bye to the McKenzie Friend? They are related in that the McKenzie friend is the big brother of little amicus curiae in that little amicus would normally only put in a written submission for the Court to consider where as McKenzie friend gets to speak before the Court.

The law he quotes and cites throughout the Video sounds impressive to a layperson. However anyone who has studied Constitutional Law and Administrative Law is laying on the floor pissing themselves laughing at this fool.

This paper examines the legality and enforceability of the new Australian Government “No Jab, No Pay/Play” Legislation with the view of potential aspects to challenge the validity of this new law.

The Key for a public Interest proceeding seems to be that there is a genuine cause of action, which is legally arguable without personal interests at stake or expectation of gain and of high public importance

“The plaintiff contends the words used convey a defamatory meaning because the natural and ordinary meaning of the words ‘Dennis Denuto’ is a lawyer who was:

(a) Unprofessional in the exercise of his said profession;

TweetAUSTRALIA OWNS ITS HISTORY Letters sent from the Governor General, Sir John Kerr to the Queen in October and November 1975 must remain unavailable to Australian historians because of an agreement reached between Government House and Buckingham Palace in 1978[1]. The current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will advise Buckingham Palace and Government House to agree […]

You do have the right to ask questions also, just as the officer may have the right to ask for your name and address.

Although it is not entirely clear that she was properly informed that the Magistrate could not act on factual statements she made unless she did give evidence.

%d bloggers like this: