Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Freedom activist Monica Smit wins case against Australian gov’t but still must pay $240k

Published

13 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

I accused the police of unlawfully arresting me those three times. I was offered $15,000 to walk away. I said no because I wanted my day in court. I wanted to use my story to highlight the injustices that many Victorians experienced during 2020-2022.

Recently I represented myself against a team of government lawyers during a 13-day trial over 7 weeks and won! That’s great news, isn’t it? But there is a twist that has become far more important to this story than the victory itself. It will have you asking, “What is the price of justice?”

Imagine you’ve been wronged by a government body.

Imagine your liberty was taken from you without just cause.

Imagine that no one was willing to take accountability or admit any fault.

Imagine you were offered a measly $15,000 with no private or public vindication.

If you take the money, you have permission to keep asserting that you think you were wronged, but you will never get closure. It will always be your word against theirs.

Who benefits if you take the deal?

Well, the government benefits because they are using taxpayers’ money to pay you off and they will avoid public embarrassment or taking accountability. You benefit a little because you win a bit of money and avoid the stress that comes with a long trial.

You get to skip away into the sunset with your ‘hush money’/bribe, and nothing changes for anyone else. The government continues to feel emboldened by their limitless power and gets further confirmation that they are invincible. The ‘little people’ like you and me stay in our box and accept that we are powerless against authority, even when we’re victims.

Who benefits if you don’t take the deal?

The court makes money regardless of what the trial is.

The team of lawyers bill out their hours as usual. They get paid regardless of the outcome. The longer the trial. the better.
You might benefit because you get to air your grievances publicly and have a chance at vindication and closure.

Even better. if you set a precedent, it could benefit every single person in the country, The government might be forced to be accountable and implement new policies and procedures to ensure other don’t lose their liberty without just cause.

These are your options; take the money, avoid inevitable stress and at least a few people benefit…including the perpetrators, or say no to ‘hush money’, pursue justice, have your voice heard, and hope that more people benefit in the end, despite the risks.

But wait. There’s a catch to the second option: if you choose the full trial and win, you might have to pay the cost of the government’s legal fees. If the judge gives you the public vindication you seek but awards you less money than the government offered to shut you up, then technically you lose because the outcome would have been ‘better’ had you taken the deal.

My name is Monica Smit, and this is my story.

On October 31,  2020, I was arrested three times in one day while working as an independent journalist at a protest in Victoria, Australia. Victoria has since been correctly labelled the ‘worst locked down state in the world.’ I was on the ground at a protest reporting on a significant period in our history. I had a big following and was openly critical of the current government’s restrictions around the so-called pandemic.

I accused the police of unlawfully arresting me those three times. I was offered $15,000 to walk away. I said no because I wanted my ‘day in court’. I wanted to use my story to highlight the injustices that many Victorians experienced during 2020-2022. And despite the risks, I went all the way. I represented myself in a 13-day trial that spanned over 7 weeks.

The government’s team consisted of two barristers and two solicitors in the court room working full-time every day of the trial. On the other side I was standing on my own, sometimes with a McKenzie friend beside me, and with supporters in the audience.

Appearing at that trial was the most stressful thing I’ve ever done in my entire life. The emotional and mental energy needed to pull this off far exceeded my expectations. On top of that, I had to pay around $1,500/day to the courts every day for the use of the room and resources.

Despite all the difficulties, I did my best, and I am pleased with my efforts. I convinced the court that two out of the three arrests were unlawful. What a victory!

Or at least that’s what I thought until the judge awarded me only $4,000 in damages.

Again, I had been offered $15,000 to avoid court. I then won the case by two-thirds. But instead of celebrating my win, I had to spend the night preparing to fight tooth and nail to avoid paying for the government’s legal costs. How is this fair?

To restate this, on Thursday, September 12, I won my case against the government. Two out of the three arrests were found to be unlawful. On Friday, September 13, I was ordered to pay over $240,000 to cover the costs of the government’s loss to an inexperienced self-represented citizen.

I represented myself and won against an experienced team of barristers and lawyers. I got the public vindication I was seeking—but then I was punished for the pleasure of daring to seek justice.

I don’t view success in monetary terms. For me, it was always about using my voice to speak for those without a voice. Thousands of Victorians were abused during the COVID lockdowns, and they and don’t have the resources to pursue justice for themselves. The offer of $15,000 did not have justice attached to it in any form whatsoever. It was the proposed exploitation of taxpayers’ money to make me shut up and go away.

I would never do that, and I don’t care what the consequences are. The ‘safe option’ is never the right option for me.

What is the price of justice? I guess you could say that in this case, the price of justice was $240,000. But how can justice be available to everyone if it cost that much? The answer is simple. Justice is not available to everyone. In fact, it’s available to almost no-one at all.

Every single person at the bench and bar tables in that courtroom got paid every single day, except for me!

I paid to be there, I paid to have my voice heard, I paid to represent myself, I paid to win, and I paid for justice.

To be frank, I never thought this could happen. How naïve I was that I thought I could seek justice and walk away unscathed.

But who was I kidding? Ever since I  first opened my mouth and created a platform over 4 years ago, I have been punished over and over, and there is no end in sight.

Luckily for me, I can handle this. I was born a little crazy, and I possess the right amount of crazy to deal with these intense mental hardships. I have a supportive network of family and friends. I have complete faith in God, and I just go with the flow. It’s how I am, and I thank God every day for giving me the strength to keep laughing punishment in the face.

A year after this first incident, I was punished again by being arrested and charged with incitement. I was given bail conditions that could have been written in Communist China. They wanted me to shut down my business which had 6-7 staff members and hundreds of thousands of members. My website got over 5 million views that year, and they wanted me to shut it down.

I refused to sign those draconian bail conditions and was sent to maximum security prison, even put in solitary confinement, to await the appeal of the conditions. I won the appeal and was let free. I pleaded “not guilty,” and soon after they dropped the charges. I will be suing them for my imprisonment despite the difficulties I faced in this recent trial.

The ‘system’ needed to do this to me to discourage other people from pursuing public vindication. I refused to take a deal outside of court, and so they needed to make an example out of me. They need others to fall in line, to think that if they don’t, they’ll be punished just like Monica Smit.  I think that they want to scare me from pursuing my next court case.

Well, it won’t work.

I am skilled at finding silver linings.  My experience will highlight the injustice within the justice system. How can someone win their case but pay over $240.000 for the pleasure of winning? It’s so shocking that it will inevitable get noticed. I have complete peace that I did my best and had pure intentions. I put the rest in God’s hands.

Thank you everyone for your support and prayers along the way.

Monica’s note:I will not be conducting a fundraiser for this. I am confident God will look after me and I will be able to figure this out. But you can my audiobook for only $10 (Australian)  here.

COVID-19

New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility

Published on

Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity

What was once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” now has hard data behind it.

A new peer-reviewed study out of the Czech Republic has uncovered a disturbing trend: in 2022, women vaccinated against COVID-19 had 33% FEWER successful conceptions per 1,000 women compared to those who were unvaccinated.

A “successful conception” means a pregnancy that led to a live birth nine months later.

The study wasn’t small. It analyzed data from 1.3 million women aged 18 to 39.

Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity.

First, let’s talk about the study.

It was published by Manniche and colleagues in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal respected for its focus on patient safety and pharmacovigilance.

The study was conducted from January 2021 to December 2023 and examined 1.3 million women aged 18–39. By the end of 2021, approximately 70% of them had received at least one COVID-19 vaccination, with 96% of the vaccinated cohort having received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

By 2022, a stark difference was clear.

The vaccinated cohort averaged around 4 successful conceptions per 1,000 women per month.

That’s a staggering 33% LESS than the 6 per 1,000 seen in the unvaccinated group.

This means that for every 2 vaccinated women who successfully conceived and delivered a baby, 3 unvaccinated women did the same.

In 2022, unvaccinated women were 1.5 times MORE likely to have a successful conception.

Again, that’s a conception that led to a live birth nine months later.

The authors did not jump to the conclusion that their study proved causation. They cited that other factors may have played a role, such as self-selection bias

However, the researchers noted that self-selection bias does not explain the timing and scale of the observed drop in fertility.

Moreover, birth rates in the Czech Republic dropped from 1.83 per 1,000 women in 2021 to 1.37 in 2024, adding further evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines may be contributing to the decline in fertility.

That downward trend, the researchers argue, supports the hypothesis that something beyond individual decision-making may be affecting conception rates.

As such, they argue that the study’s results warrant a closer and more thorough examination of the impact of mass vaccination.

If this study holds true, and vaccinated women are really much less likely to have successful conceptions, the implications for humanity are massive.

Millions of babies could be missing each year as a result of COVID vaccination, and recent data from Europe and beyond already point to a deeply disturbing trend.

NOTE: Europe experienced a sharper decline in births than usual from 2021 to 2023.

Live births fell from 4.09 million in 2021 to 3.67 million in 2023, marking a 10.3% decline in just two years.

The new Czech study adds to growing evidence that COVID vaccines may be contributing to a dramatic decline in fertility, just as many feared all along.

As Elon Musk warns, “If there are no humans, there’s no humanity.”

Whether the shots are the cause or not, the trend is real—and it’s accelerating.

It’s time to stop dismissing the signals and start investigating the cause.


Thanks for reading. I hope this report gave you real value. This is a critically important topic that deserves attention.

If you appreciate my work and want to help keep it going, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

99% of readers get this content for free. But just $5/month from the 1% keeps it flowing for everyone else.

If this work matters to you, this is the best way to support it.

Be the 1% who makes it possible.

Catch the rest of today’s biggest headlines at VigilantFox.com.

See More Stories

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that Ontario resident George Katerberg has launched a legal challenge against the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for banning roadside billboards with social or political messages. Mr. Katerberg believes that the Ministry’s policies go too far and undermine the freedom of expression of all Ontarians.

This case goes back to March 2024, when Mr. Katerberg, a retired HVAC technician, rented a billboard on Highway 17 near Thessalon, Ontario, that featured images of public health officials and politicians alongside a message critical of their statements about vaccines.

After the Ministry rejected his proposed billboard several times on the grounds it promoted hatred, a constitutional challenge was launched with lawyers provided by the Justice Centre. Mr. Katerberg’s lawyers argued that the Ministry’s position was unreasonable, and that it did not balance Charter rights with the purposes of relevant legislation.

The Ministry later admitted that the sign did not violate hate speech guidelines and agreed to reconsider erecting the billboard.

However, in April 2025, the Ministry quietly amended its policy manual to restrict signs along “bush highways” to those only promoting goods, services, or authorized community events.

The new guidelines are sweeping and comprehensive, barring any messaging that the Ministry claims could “demean, denigrate, or disparage one or more identifiable persons, groups of persons, firms, organizations, industrial or commercial activities, professions, entities, products or services…”

Relying on this new policy, the Ministry once again denied Mr. Katerberg’s revised billboard.

Constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury explains, “By amending the Highway Corridor Management Manual to effectively prohibit signage that promotes political and social causes, the Ministry of Transportation has turned Mr. Katerberg’s fight to raise his sign into a fight on behalf of all Ontarians who wish to express support for a political or social cause.”

No date has yet been assigned for a hearing on this matter.

Continue Reading

Trending

X