Connect with us

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.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X