Interpretation of Court: Day 4 – 2 June 2022 – Brisbane Supreme Court
By Truth Seekers-Channel
I will just put it here for you guys.
Interpretation of court today:
DAY 4 – 2 JUNE 2022 – BRISBANE SUPREME COURT
This morning they had prof Paul Griffin (director of infectious disease at mater, a medical doctor and researcher and vaccine Advocate plus coi with Astrazeneca and they mentioned something about Pfizer…. (He advises people on improving vaccine uptake, same as Holly Seale)
So for someone so credentialled he was using the “economist” magazine as a source of modelling for under reported covid deaths. He tabled documents saying covid mortality was 20-40% but finally admitted that might be in over 90 and way back in early 2020.
He was caught out using mortality Graphs from a website called “info is beautiful” with no knowledge of the data behind the graphs. He did not think natural immunity was relevant and after a long long time he admitted that mortality was about 0.01% for under 60 and probably lower if you included asymptomatic infections GOOD GRIEF, is this guy for real.
Then the deputy police commissioner is up next I’m the box, under oath (he got thrown under the bus by the commissioner yesterday)
At the start it was thought he was counter arguing with paper trails to defend himself but then it was slowly realised he was equally as incompetent as his boss (the blonde fuhrer), Seale and Griffin were.
There were significant differences in timelines between his paper trail and the CoP account (she claimed she didn’t discuss mandates until a few days before the Sept 7 2021 mandate but he showed paperwork from almost 3 weeks earlier…WHOOPS.
Turns out, he was almost solely responsible for getting the mandate document together. He consulted crown law regarding a human rights compatabilty test but wrote up his interpretation of that verbal consultation to present to CoP prior to crown law actually verifying it.
It seems he failed to disclose that there were two human rights documents and he tabled version 2 only..whoops…Version 1 only had medical and religious exemptions and after the mandate was initiated they were informed this violated the rights of those that conscientiously objected, so they added the extra “exceptional circumstances”…He admitted that was only to comply with crown law and they never intended to grant exemption to conscientious objection..OH DEAR ME…WHOOPS.
The police involved in these cases have an injunction order over them that prevents action until the outcomes of these trials, but in Feb the deputy sought crown law advice to remove the injunction so he could terminate the police…OH, REALLY…
He was asked if that was the only options explored and he answered “that was the only one I was exploring”…. Some of that detail was argued to be privileged and the lawyer for the police asked that to be waived given the inconsistency of testimony between deputy and commissioner (that decision is pending)….I BELIEVE DEPUTY SMITH HAS AGAIN BE CAUGHT OUT IN A BLATANT LIE..WHOOPS.
Then he was asked about his definition of informed consent (it really was clever questioning) and he gave the same definition we use in our case, he was then led into whether any form of pressure or coercion would negate informed consent to which he said it would…well, fancy that, whadda-ya-know
He was then led into whether any form of discipline or threats to employment might be considered “pressure and coercion” and he answered that it was and that ergo, informed consent could not be given …WHOOPS
Tomorrow will be great because all of this will be re-explored…with the blonde fuhrer expected to be in the witness box for up to 6 hours.
I GUARANTEE THE PHONES OF THESE ABSOLUTE GRUBS ARE RUNNING RED HOT TONIGHT
LIARS & CHEATS NEVER PROSPER BOYS AND GIRLS
INTEGRITY AND MORALS RULE
