I recently appeared as an expert witness in an Australian Fair Work Commission case opposing vaccine mandates. A comprehensive and fully referenced Expert Report was written by myself and submitted to the court in the usual way.Thanks for reading phillip.altman’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Philip this is a fantastic simple article and should go down in the annals of how the judiciary was corrupted. I shall be referring to it in a related piece soon!
Let's hope a Royal Commission that has the ability to compel testimony and use the Australian Federal Police to deeply dive into communication network history will be held in one of the states. But it might take the Florida Grand Jury to get things moving in Australia.
Many years ago I recall a judge saying during an inquiry into how Australian law dealt with the standard of medical care, how important words are in the judicial process. Words are the legal bread and butter. Not all lawyers and judges will understand or attempt to understand the scientific approach. So how the lawyer who called an expert witness questions that witness and how that expert witness answers is vitally important.
Where government policy states X, and X is wrong, and there is strong evidence X is wrong, then one could try stating that - “ Although the words in the government policy state X, there is strong evidence that these words are wrong and the evidence is Z plus Y plus A. “ There is then likely to be all sorts of objections by the lawyers for the other side, and the expert witness will get asked all kinds of irrational questions from a scientific point of view or the same question over and over again expressed slightly differently. But one has to keep answering the questions factually as simply and strongly as possible. In my experience this can go on for protracted periods. There are other methods to try and destroy the evidence by attacking the credibility of the expert witness.
With issues related to covid and the vaccines it will be doubly difficult because many of the players in the legal process are likely to have a personal conflict of interest.
Eg Say the judge has received 3 doses of a covid vaccine and believes the narrative that these vaccines are safe, effective, and prevent transmission. Will that judge state this at the start of the legal proceedings ? Would these beliefs and personal experience disqualify the judge ? Or could the judge take the position that although I have personally received these vaccines into my body and I have these beliefs I am open to evidence that the vaccines may not be safe and effective and may not prevent transmission, and I can cope with the possibility that my own future health may have been harmed by these vaccines. The same problem may apply to all the players in the court process.
Phillip, all good questions you ask. But it seems to me you have been poorly used by the legal teams who called you to give evidence on behalf of their clients and against the prevailing 'wisdom'. Why did those lawyers not ask you these questions in order to get the answers into evidence?
It’s a excellent question you ask at the conclusion of this piece. I understand why the opposing side doesn’t want test your knowledge but what about the other side? Don’t they lead you to an argument to further their position?
The Fair Work Commission must be disbanded. They are complicit in this crime against humanity. Employers and employment lawyers rely on their corrupt ruling to continue the coerced injections.
Incredibly important information here Phil. Putting thinking cap here on how to get this information out . As we all know, it will be resisted by most, & other organisations are just too frightened to pursue it. Will Quadrant pursue it again? I have brought it up with the Sydney Institute but was told that their members would not be really interested enough to attend! Says it all. People are still struggling with the prospect that a massive assault on their health by the authorities had taken place.
This odd 'governmental behaviour' may be due to the fact that the "Australian Government" is not a government based on the real, original Constitution, which would be "for the people". It's a [profit-making, prospectus-wielding] corporation, registered on the SEC and has been since around 1973 apparently (I'm not sure why the Annual Reports stopped in 2010 though). In all seriousness, please watch the 52 minute documentary here (scroll down in the website), my jaw dropped https://truth-now.net/what-the-fuq-frequently-unanswered-questions-of-the-australian-government/
The whole system is not what it is supposed to be. Maybe you will have ideas about what it means in relation to Sasha Latypova's work (the contracts with DoD/HHS for the Countermeasures/bioweapons), and how it all got implemented here, but also how to get us out of this pickle.
In addition to judiciary corruption, most studies published on safety of pharmaceuticals/vaccines are fraudulent. The FDA makes it’s decision on drug approval based on feedback from criminal organization, such as CDC/NIAID. Every government agency & agencies affiliated with government are corrupt to the core & a danger to society.
Good news is, everything’s about to change for the better, as our country has returned to being a Constitutional Republic.
If you’d like to know what’s really going on behind the scenes in our country “TheDocuments.Info” is a good place to start.
Philip this is a fantastic simple article and should go down in the annals of how the judiciary was corrupted. I shall be referring to it in a related piece soon!
Let's hope a Royal Commission that has the ability to compel testimony and use the Australian Federal Police to deeply dive into communication network history will be held in one of the states. But it might take the Florida Grand Jury to get things moving in Australia.
Many years ago I recall a judge saying during an inquiry into how Australian law dealt with the standard of medical care, how important words are in the judicial process. Words are the legal bread and butter. Not all lawyers and judges will understand or attempt to understand the scientific approach. So how the lawyer who called an expert witness questions that witness and how that expert witness answers is vitally important.
Where government policy states X, and X is wrong, and there is strong evidence X is wrong, then one could try stating that - “ Although the words in the government policy state X, there is strong evidence that these words are wrong and the evidence is Z plus Y plus A. “ There is then likely to be all sorts of objections by the lawyers for the other side, and the expert witness will get asked all kinds of irrational questions from a scientific point of view or the same question over and over again expressed slightly differently. But one has to keep answering the questions factually as simply and strongly as possible. In my experience this can go on for protracted periods. There are other methods to try and destroy the evidence by attacking the credibility of the expert witness.
With issues related to covid and the vaccines it will be doubly difficult because many of the players in the legal process are likely to have a personal conflict of interest.
Eg Say the judge has received 3 doses of a covid vaccine and believes the narrative that these vaccines are safe, effective, and prevent transmission. Will that judge state this at the start of the legal proceedings ? Would these beliefs and personal experience disqualify the judge ? Or could the judge take the position that although I have personally received these vaccines into my body and I have these beliefs I am open to evidence that the vaccines may not be safe and effective and may not prevent transmission, and I can cope with the possibility that my own future health may have been harmed by these vaccines. The same problem may apply to all the players in the court process.
Phillip, all good questions you ask. But it seems to me you have been poorly used by the legal teams who called you to give evidence on behalf of their clients and against the prevailing 'wisdom'. Why did those lawyers not ask you these questions in order to get the answers into evidence?
It’s a excellent question you ask at the conclusion of this piece. I understand why the opposing side doesn’t want test your knowledge but what about the other side? Don’t they lead you to an argument to further their position?
The Fair Work Commission must be disbanded. They are complicit in this crime against humanity. Employers and employment lawyers rely on their corrupt ruling to continue the coerced injections.
Incredibly important information here Phil. Putting thinking cap here on how to get this information out . As we all know, it will be resisted by most, & other organisations are just too frightened to pursue it. Will Quadrant pursue it again? I have brought it up with the Sydney Institute but was told that their members would not be really interested enough to attend! Says it all. People are still struggling with the prospect that a massive assault on their health by the authorities had taken place.
this is an encouraging article for Australians: https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/an-enlightened-man-among-lawyers
This odd 'governmental behaviour' may be due to the fact that the "Australian Government" is not a government based on the real, original Constitution, which would be "for the people". It's a [profit-making, prospectus-wielding] corporation, registered on the SEC and has been since around 1973 apparently (I'm not sure why the Annual Reports stopped in 2010 though). In all seriousness, please watch the 52 minute documentary here (scroll down in the website), my jaw dropped https://truth-now.net/what-the-fuq-frequently-unanswered-questions-of-the-australian-government/
The whole system is not what it is supposed to be. Maybe you will have ideas about what it means in relation to Sasha Latypova's work (the contracts with DoD/HHS for the Countermeasures/bioweapons), and how it all got implemented here, but also how to get us out of this pickle.
In addition to judiciary corruption, most studies published on safety of pharmaceuticals/vaccines are fraudulent. The FDA makes it’s decision on drug approval based on feedback from criminal organization, such as CDC/NIAID. Every government agency & agencies affiliated with government are corrupt to the core & a danger to society.
Good news is, everything’s about to change for the better, as our country has returned to being a Constitutional Republic.
If you’d like to know what’s really going on behind the scenes in our country “TheDocuments.Info” is a good place to start.
God bless America.