MONICA SMIT - COURT HEARINGS.

Request a publicly-available livestream link for the trial,

All you need to do is email [email protected] and request a zoom link.

The email must follow this format;

Subject heading ‘Zoom link for CI-21-01328″
The full name and residential address of the person requesting the zoom link
The following words (cut and past the below into the email body):
I understand and accept that:
a) I must not make a recording (including audio recording, visual recording,
audiovisual recording, photograph or screenshot) of any part of the hearing.
b) I must not provide the zoom link to any other person.
c) I must not permit any other person to make a recording (including audio recording, visual recording, audiovisual recording, photograph or screenshot)
of any part of the hearing.
d) I must not re-transmit or otherwise publish any part of the hearing, or permit
any other person to do so.
e) Under section 4A of the Court Security Act 1980 it is an offence to record a
proceeding except in accordance with subsection (2), (3) or (4).
f) Under s4B of the Court Security Act 1980 it is an offence to publish a recording of a proceeding except in accordance with subsection (2).

https://www.monicasmit.com/monica-vs-vicpol/

⚔️
https://t.me/ORGANISEDSUPPORTCROWDSPERSTATE
⚔️

Monica Smit

Monica Smit VS Vicpol - Monica Smit

How to get involved Come to the court case and let’s make this OUR trial, not just mine. Pray for me please. Subscribe if you want to be updated on […]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRw-Qc4nYB4

YouTube

Trial update - Day no.6

Be sure to subscribe to not miss out on any updates. https://www.monicasmit.com/#subscribe You can watch the trial live. Follow these instructions; https://shor.by/trial-livestream

https://michaelwest.com.au/department-of-justice-and-ncat-in-child-protection-cover-up/

In the wake of a scathing report into Child Protection by the NSW Auditor-General, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has consciously delayed well into next year the release of crucial child protection oversight documents. Rex Patrick reports on a government tribunal serving its masters.

I can comfortably say that I’m one of, if not the most experienced Freedom of Information litigants in the country. I’ve had matters in the Federal Court (including the Full Court), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the South Australian and NSW Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal and with various Information Commissioners around the country.

I mostly win FOI cases, but not always. I react to the losses with quiet reflection or an appeal. So, this article of criticism of NCAT is a little out of the ordinary but justified.

Put it in the post, please
My first strange experience with NCAT was when I tried to make an application for the review of a GIPA decision (the NSW equivalent of an FOI). Like I do in all other jurisdictions, I emailed my application to NCAT.

"The response I got from the Registry was one of, sorry, we don’t accept applications or submissions, via email."

I was told to package my documents up and send them via Australia Post. It was like something straight out of the 1980s – and certainly a first deterrent to anyone under 50 in NSW that wants to challenge a Government decision.

Get a lawyer, really?
The next strange experience I had was when NCAT refused to let me represent (free of charge) ‘Sally’, a whistleblower who was then forced out of the NSW Health System.

Sally suffered from mental health issues following a complaint she made about corruption in the senior echelons of NSW Health. She FOI’d the report generated in response to her complaint and was refused access to it. She’d gone to NCAT to have the refusal independently reviewed and found herself up against a seasoned barrister representing NSW Health.

She asked me for help. I said yes. NCAT said no. They weren’t about to let me, a non-lawyer assist her. Principal Member Aaron Suthers, clearly oblivious to what someone has to pay to have a lawyer to represent them in a complex FOI matter, suggested Sally hiring a lawyer was her best course of action.

https://michaelwest.com.au/lawyers-picnic-ncat-fails-to-protect-whistleblower-in-case-against-nsw-health/

Sally withdrew her application. A later FOI showed that NSW Health’s costs for its legal team, paid for by the taxpayer, was $47,509.

https://michaelwest.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Screenshot-2024-07-29-at-6.13.32%E2%80%AFAM.png

(Source: FOI) Money paid to Clayton Ute to Resist Sally’s FOI
(Source: FOI) Money paid to Clayton Ute to Resist Sally’s FOI

Smelling a rat
As a former senator I’m experienced at smelling a government rat.

Hearing that NSW child protection was in total disarray, on May 20 this year I made a request for the Budget Estimates brief that had been used by the NSW Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) Deputy Secretary Simone Czech when she appeared before a NSW Legislative Council budget estimate committee in March. At the national level, I’ve successfully FOI’d Senate Estimates briefs many times.

Just over two weeks later, the NSW Auditor-General handed down a scathing report into the State’s Child Protection System. He found:

“The NSW child protection system is inefficient, ineffective, and unsustainable. Since 2018–2019 there have been increasing child protection reports, escalating out of home care costs, insufficient placement options for children with complex needs, and limited services or support for children and families engaged in the child protection system. Despite numerous reviews into these issues, DCJ has failed to make the necessary changes to ensure its child protection service model meets the needs of children and families.”

Thanks always to God for equipping me with the strength to fight the worst side of evil.

Laura really needs your support. She is a courageous, brave warrior.

The Courts, prosecutors, police and child protection workers are ganging up on her like rabid monsters.

I am reminded of the case of Lindy Chamberlain. And her persecution and jailing for a crime she was innocent of 40 years ago.

Darwin NT has sunken into a cesspool of criminality like no other since then. Things have not changed, things have gotten worse. The cruelty of these judges, prosecutors and police is unparalleled.

They have denied Laura legal aid, told her she will be unsuccessful, the prosecutors are having private discussions with unrelated people that Laura will be ‘incarcerated’ and ‘deported to England’. In turn, these people are openly making these threats.

These people have no boundaries.

I have been denied the role of amicus (friend of the court) in an attempt to silence all truth from coming out.

We will be requesting for me to be a support person only. It is likely that the Court will use violence to remove Laura’s supports as she is meant to face these demons unrepresented and alone.

But Laura a lioness of courage will do anything for her children. She is an example for us all.

We will be taking her case to the higher courts and to international lobby groups. I will put some material for you to send out to create awareness on this issue framed within what we can speak about.

We must support Laura. This is the rape of parental rights and the criminalisation of innocent protective parents.

The evidence in her case is probative and the predators in our establishment are everywhere.

Please pray for Laura and show your support by sending a prayer for her in the comment section ????

NICE ONE NICK, ROOBS, & REEVES!???

[97] Turning to paragraph (c) the nature of the offending, whilst not to be dismissed
as trivial, compromises a 30 second incident from start to finish. The alleged injuries fell at the more minor end of the scale. It is to be noted that the authorities make it plain that the gravity of the alleged offending is a significant matter to be taken into account. Thus where significantly grave offences are being considered such as murder, the infliction of serious injury or serious
drug offences, the discretion [SEE: 'balancing exercise'] is less likely to be exercised in favour excluding the impugned evidence. In my view the charges faced by Mr Patterson and Mr Roob do not fall into that category.

[98] Turning to paragraph (d) in my view the gravity of the impropriety was
concerning involving as it did the ❌unjustified infliction of violence by police❌ who
bear particular responsibility by reason of their office and the powers imposed
in them, and in a situation where their numbers greatly exceeded the group of
persons involved in the protest. It was in my view clear from the footage that
the numbers of the group protesting were vastly exceeded by the number of
police present.

[99] As to paragraph (e) at the very least in my view the *❌impropriety by police was
reckless*❌. The actions of Mr Reeves and the accused during the day presented no threat to police and did not warrant the violence they eventually inflicted upon Mr Reeves. Given the briefing police received in relation to Mr Patterson, it should also have been clear to police that in treating Mr Reeves as they did, they would most likely incite responsive action by Mr Patterson. ❌POLICE NEGLIGENCE?❌

[100] Additionally, I am satisfied that❌police were cavalier in the way they delivered
information to those men they had arrested of the grounds for that arrest.❌ At
one stage a police officer is heard saying, 'There will be a lot of charges that you face'. That would seem to be in relation to Mr Patterson and Mr Roob. At another stage well after he had been arrested, and was in fact standing up and facing a wall, Mr Reeves was informed that he would be charged with affray. This was well beyond the permissible time limit or opportunities said by
the authorities to constitute an appropriate period of time for information about
the grounds for arrest to be made known to the subject of that arrest. ❌POLICE MISCONDUCT?❌

[101] In relation to paragraph (f) Mr Nayel made a number of submissions about the
unlawfulness of the arrest of Mr Reeves referring to the Charter of Human
Rights, specifically ss21 and 22. Section 21 deals with the right to liberty and
security. S21(2) states a person must not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or
detention. I am satisfied that in the way that police behaved towards Mr Reeves, he was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention.❌POLICE BREACH HUMAN RIGHTS❌

[102] Further s21(3) states a person must not be deprived of that person's liberty
except on grounds and in accordance with procedures established by law. I
am satisfied that police failed to have regard to the grounds and procedures
established by law in the way they arrested Mr Reeves.❌POLICE LAWLESSNESS?❌

[105] In all the circumstances I am satisfied that ❌the evidence was obtained in
consequence of an impropriety ❌and it is also my view the undesirability of
admitting this evidence obtained as it ❌was as a direct result of unlawful police
violence❌ outweighs the desirability of admitting it.

❌❌POLICE OVERSTEP LAWFUL AUTHORITY, ATTACK PEOPLE, THEN LIE ABOUT IT❌❌
..THEN LOSE...??????

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-21/church-of-ubuntu-loses-vaccination-dismissal-case/103608482

www.abc.net.au

Woman wins damages after being sacked by wellness clinic for getting COVID vaccine

The Newcastle-based Church of Ubuntu sacked Lainie Chait when she got vaccinated against COVID, but the Fair Work Commission has ruled that her dismissal was "inherently unreasonable".

It went in Pfizer's favour and took about 180 seconds.

1. DISMISSED for no reasonable prospect of success (though no reasons, substantiating this position, were provided). The applicant was not an aggrieved person (directly a victim) therefore they had no standing in the matter.
2. Costs awarded against the applicant.

The judge was sure to keep her face out of the camera frame, which is interesting.

Full report soon...

To read about the history of this case:
www.itsy.pub/courtcase

To watch a short video featuring Dr Russell Pridgeon:
www.itsy.pub/fc

Follow us @didyouknow_ink