Australia’s “Fair Work” Commission has become a tool of the state. Its capture mirrors Nazi Germany and has worldwide implications for fundamental human rights that everybody needs to understand.
This is going to be long so grab a beer or a cup of tea and settle in. I need to take you on a journey in time and show you how the capture of the judiciary in Nazi Germany has been directly mirrored in Australia today. And this capture is the primary reason why employee mandates – for investigational gene therapies – have been allowed to be implemented despite a promise to the world in 1947 that this would never happen again.
Let me first introduce these two people who look eerily similar. It’s probably not an accident.
The pictures are taken roughly 70 years apart. They are obviously different people because Iain is happy to have his picture taken with his glasses on, and doesn’t have Otto’s scar. I presume they are unrelated by birth but we are going to get into the similarities.
Otto Thierack was one of the most infamous jurists in history. You see, old Otto was the head of Hitler’s judiciary and was officially the Reich Minister of Justice (Reichsjustizministerium). One of his jobs was to clear the backlog of clemency hearings which he did, sending off untold people to their execution for “not fitting in” with the Nazi (National Socialist) society that Hitler had built. He was Hitler’s judicial lapdog. His job was essentially to make sure that any judicial actions that occurred in Germany followed the state (aka government aka Hitler’s) party line. That ensured that anybody that wished to push back against the totalitarianism of the state could not do it through the courts.
Hitler achieved the Nazification of the courts over ten years or so, using his “nudge units” to make small changes over time that eventuated in a totally captured judiciary.
All professional associations involved with the administration of justice were merged into the National Socialist League of German Jurists. In April 1933, Hitler passed one of the earliest antisemitic laws, purging Jewish and also Socialist judges, lawyers, and other court officers from their professions. Further, the Academy of German Law and Nazi legal theorists, such as Carl Schmitt, advocated the nazification of German law, cleansing it of “Jewish influence.” Judges were enjoined to let “healthy folk sentiment” (gesundes Volksempfinden) guide them in their decisions.
Jewish lawyers line up to apply for permission to appear before the Berlin courts. New regulations set forth in the Aryan Paragraph (a series of laws enacted in April 1933 to purge Jews from various spheres of state and society) allowed only 35 to appear before the court. Berlin, Germany, April 11, 1933.
Otto was, of course, a socialist – as all of Germany had to be. It’s important to recognise that the Nazi party (NSDAP – Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist Workers Party) was fully based on socialist doctrine. Don’t take my word for it, take theirs1:
German Labour Front (DAF) monument, Dortmund, 1935. The caption translates: “I am a socialist, because it seems incomprehensible to me to care for and treat a machine with care, but to let the noblest representative of work, man himself, degenerate.”
Why is this relevant? Because what is happening in the “post-pandemic” society is entirely enabled by the “greater good” concept – where your bodily autonomy is irrelevant whilst “the needs of society” are more important. Sounds dystopian? Absolutely. And it is a fundamental tenet of all flavours of socialist society – and enshrined in the 25th point of the national socialist manifesto on which Hitler’s regime was built2:
Following the Nuremberg trials, where doctors, journalists and jurists were convicted of crimes against humanity on precisely this doctrine, the alternative was supposed to be enshrined into human ethics. Here is the UNESCO bioethics declaration 2005, article 3:
This is not ambiguous. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.
Now, if you’re a Nazi (or, it seems these days, any other flavour of socialist) you don’t agree. What you will do instead is use “the greater good” dogma to treat sections of society as inferior, dirty or an infection risk. Sound familiar? This is literally what the Nazis did when they created the Warsaw Ghetto, described brilliantly by my friend Filipe Rafaeli in his substack here that I have referenced before (because it’s so important):
Of course the “good German” refers to the whole population of Germany who stood by and allowed a section of their own society to be ostracised and imprisoned en masse. Why? Well, firstly because they were indoctrinated by mass media and propaganda (nudge) units to believe that it was “for the good of society” and secondly, because if you tried to push back you were sent to jail. Sound familiar?
Which brings us back to Otto and the courts. The point of Otto was that if anybody dared to push back against the “greater good” regime he was there to ensure that the judge knew that they were to be sent to jail. And you would get a trial that was described as being “fair” – but you damn well knew what the outcome was.
And this dogma was enabled through the courts by a letter from Thierack to all judges
You will see that The Letter has an eerily familiar tone to it when we get back to Iain Ross (soon, I promise) with phrases such as:
“At a time when the best of our people are risking their lives… and… tirelessly working for victory, there can be no place for criminals who destroy the will of the community.”
The judges knew that if they did not do what they were told by Otto, it would be them going to jail. Ordinary citizens did not stand a chance.
This tyrannical judicial dogma could not be stopped by any member or members of society who were powerless in the face of judiciary, state police and government acting in synchronicity.
The only thing that stopped it was a World War.
Yes, it required a World War to fix the capture (takeover by influence of another entity) of the courts in Germany. Once the courts are captured, there is no way out for the freedom of citizens of a country. They become fully enslaved in a totalitarian dictatorship.
Of course it was no great surprise that a large number of the judiciary were actually card carrying members of the Nazi party, meaning that they saw what they were doing as normal and of course for the “common good”:
Perhaps the equivalent in today’s scenario would be the enforcement of COVID vaccination on the judiciary, such that because they are all vaccinated their will to uphold the rights of people who chose not to be coerced into the largest medical experiment in history would be dissipated (yep, this happened3)
That is why the third Nuremberg trial was for the judiciary – the Jurists’ Trial.
As for Otto… has was arrested for crimes against humanity but decided to Epstein himself before he faced court in the Nuremberg Jurists Trial. Oh well.
Now we need to get back to Iain.
Source: The Australian
Iain Ross was – until his surprising resignation in November 2022 – the head of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) of Australia. During the same time period he was also appointed a judge in the Australian federal court. So, a senior member of the judiciary in a very authoritative position.
The FWC is a judicial tribunal whose responsibility is to manage workplace legislation under the Fair Work Act, a legislative instrument designed to protect employees from discrimination by employers yet maintain business productivity in a fair manner (presumably, that means not enslaving the population). In theory it is supposed to be independent, but of course that would only be the case if the Australian judiciary were not following Thierack’s model.
Note that the Act specifically declares fairness and anti-discrimination as (laudable) aims
Now, looking at these clauses without even needing to delve into the whole Fair Work Act, you would think that one of two possibilities will arise when it came to the time that the government and its beholden corporations (which of course are also tools of the state) decided to implement employee mandates for an investigational therapy – marketed as a vaccine – “for the greater good”
- The fair work commissioners would act independently of the state or any external or internal controlling authority and perform their duty with probity and independence, in accordance with the law.. OR..
- The fair work commissioners would be told what to do and what not to do, either directly by written instruction or indirectly by making an example of someone who was acting in accordance with tenet (1) above.
You can guess where this is going…. But before we go there let’s just look at a brief history of “Justice” Iain Ross. This guy. I don’t know what to say about this picture other than it appeared in a piece entitled “Fair Work commission president accused of ostracising dissenters” in the Australian Financial Review.
Iain Ross in a “pose” [AFR.com]
The appointment of Ross was intriguing as it was made by the Labour government of the day under extremely sketchy arrangements such that the regular hierarchy of promotion was usurped. Just like you would expect in a politically motivated appointment. And it will come as no surprise at all that Ross was appointed to a senior position on the bench with less than 2 years experience as a solicitor. In other words, somebody knew someone and pulled a favour. The perfect conduit, of course, for the actions of an imminently corrupted state.
It wasn’t long either before Ross was embroiled in another messy affair relating to the handling of a commissioner whose wife was eventually convicted of fraud4. Of course, the commissioner remained in place on sabbatical picking up a $400,000+ salary. Nice work if you can get it.
So just to recap, we have a president of the Fair Work Commission who:
- Was appointed in dubious circumstances by an outgoing labour government mired in a history of corruption and backhanders5.
- Had experience which was inconsistent with the position
- Was accused of bullying dissenters
Perfect for the job ahead, which came in 2021 with a letter that
Otto Iain Ross sent to one of the most senior and respected senior commissioners – Deputy President Lyndall Dean. Here she is. Such a threat.
Dedicated, honest and putting the rights of Australian citizens first. Lyndall Dean was sidelined and bullied by Iain Ross for daring to push back against the mandatory vaccine dictats.
In fact Lyndall Dean was touted as the poster child of the FWC when she was appointed – these are the words of Minister Michaelia Cash at the time:
“She is highly regarded as a workplace relations lawyer and brings high level analytical, negotiation and conflict resolution skills to this role, as well as a demonstrated capacity for complex decision making.
“I’m sure the skills and experience she will bring to the Commission, including understanding the needs of small business, will assist the Commission’s work to ensure Australia has fairer and more productive workplaces.
“It is important that the Commission reflects the diversity of the people they serve and I am delighted to appoint an exceptional woman to this important role.
“I congratulate her on the appointment and thank her for agreeing to serve the Australian community in this capacity,” Minister Cash said.
So what exactly did she do wrong?
Well, she dissented. Not allowed in a totalitarian judiciary.
The heinous crime that she committed was that she dared to cast a dissenting opinion on a vaccine mandate case (for a mandated flu vaccine6 in NSW – not even the precious COVID vaccine). She egregiously used universally agreed and enshrined human rights codes in her opinion as well as referencing the Nuremberg Code of 1947 – derived following the doctors’ trial at which Karl Brandt and others7 were convicted of human experimentation and mass murder.
If you have time you should certainly read the whole opinion, which provides the context. I don’t think any reasonable, humane person who acts in accordance with the Nuremberg codes and international bioethics principles could possibly object to Justice Dean’s opinion – but “Justice” Iain Ross did.
So he sent her a letter. Just like Otto did in 1942 – 80 years ago.
Within a few days of Justice Dean’s dissenting opinion in September 2021, she was publicly and privately reprimanded and told to toe the line. This was officially documented here with the ominous “Iain Ross’ final warning…”
Essentially a letter was sent from Iain Ross to Lyndall Dean which formally removed her from hearing vaccine mandate cases. There was an implied threat that she would be removed from office but that is actually not in the power of Führer Ross. Justice Dean’s appointment is a parliamentary appointment and she can only be removed by parliament – hence the reticent “advised the Morrison government that it should consider giving the boot… if she again misused her office”.
Misused her office? Give me strength – that was her job. And she was the ONLY one in the FWC doing their job. It was clearly frustrating for Führer Ross that he had no power to sack her.
Instead, he insisted she be sent to a re-education camp. Room 101 anyone?
So Justice Dean was not only stood down from hearing vaccine mandate cases but was sent for re-education. For daring to uphold ethics principles that had emerged from the horrors of Nazi Germany. And this all happened from an Otto Thierack-style letter sent by Iain Ross.
The effect of this one letter was intentionally the following:
- Justice Dean – the only commissioner to stand up for enshrined bioethics principles – could no longer participate in mandate cases, however valid they were
- A message was sent to all commissioners that if they followed the pathway of Justice Dean – they would also be stood down
- No applicants (the sacked employees) must be allowed to win a vaccine mandate case
I don’t need to tell you that this is exactly the way that the Nazis’ judiciary worked.
So what was the result of Herr Ross’s dictat?
The Fair Work Commission is working for the state, not the people
After Justice Dean the only deputy presidents (senior commissioners) to be appointed to the NSW region, where the first employer mandates were implemented, were:
- Mr Tony Saunders (2018)
- Mr Gerard Boyce (2019)
- Mr Bryce Cross (2019)
The only pandemic-era appointment in 2021 was one Michael Easton
So, shall we see how the FWC has been performing since the vaccine mandates started?
Well they tell you. They are proud to tell you. In fact their own page sends a message – and the message is “DO NOT PUSH BACK AGAINST STATE MANDATES”
Just like Otto.
So, can you see a common theme? It’s as if there is a mandate within the Fair Work Commission itself – to automatically reject any mandate case however valid.
In fact there are 27 cases currently listed on the FWC website as “examples” of “what happens if you try and fight the government and its corporations”.
Guess how many were awarded in favour of the applicant? Zero. Ja richtig – Null!
Now we can do a little bit of calculation here to see whether the FWC are acting independently or politically. You see, on the basis that the vaccination mandates have produced a swathe of cases appearing before them it is clear that there are a lot of disgruntled workers who have either refused the “vaccine” outright, wished to wait for a safer vaccine, had recovered from COVID itself or were injured after the first vaccine. Remember too that the vaccine mandates – which were subsequently pulled from the legislature – were based on a now disproven assumption that they would reduce transmission. In fact, they increased transmission.
“The vaccine reduces transmission” was always a lie. Cases spiked massively after the booster campaign in November 2021. Case data from covid19data.com.au, the official AU repository.
So on that basis – that enough “reasonable people” believed it to be unfair to dismiss someone on the basis of a vaccine mandate that a deluge of cases ensued – you would have to estimate that the probability of a success in a mandate case might be 50%. Or let’s be conservative and say 33% – so 1 in 3 cases might be expected to have merit. What is the probability that ZERO out of 27 cases would succeed? We can do this easily with a binomial calculator and the answer is:
- 0.00002, or 0.002%
In other words the probability that with a 1 in 3 chance of success in court we ended up with the result laid out by the FWC – was near zero.
Which means that the prior probability of success in the “Unfair” Work Commission must be considerably less than this. In fact, reversing the calculation gives us an idea of the prior probability that you might succeed with a mandate case if you dare to front up to Die Unfair Arbeitskommission. For a >50% probability that we will get zero successful cases out of 27…. the prior probability that your case will succeed (before you even walk in the door) based on those published cases is a whopping:
- 2% (two percent)
Yep. Two percent. I think that tells us that we can safely guess that the probability that the FWC has been captured (i.e. is acting on behalf of entities that are not independent, as it should) is about 100%.
And what is the probability (given that the most senior Deputy President in the NSW region has been silenced) that the most junior Deputy President will find in favour of an applicant? Well, you can find all the decisions listed here in the FWC bulletin. And of course you can search for your favourite Deputy President.
And if we search for the newest addition DP Easton we find 8 COVID vaccination cases in the bulletin for 2022. All of them were dismissed. Not one case – however minor – was granted in favour of the applicant (the employee). So Mike gets to pick up his $450k and gain brownie points for the next promotion. Never mind that peoples’ lives were destroyed in the process.
So much for “Fair Work”.
Of course the (Un)Fair Work Commission are the epitome of honesty and transparency aren’t they? – they are after all the judiciary. So when an Australian citizen sends them a Freedom of Information Request they would honour it immediately, because they have nothing at all to hide, right?
You decide. This was the request8.
And this was the response.
The response further goes on to clarify the reason for the refusal being the huge amount of resouces it would take to get out all the emails sent from Iain Ross to Lyndall Dean (which should be zero, because she hadn’t done anything wrong and he should have kept his grubby nose out). Just how many pages of dictats from Fuhrer Ross and Heinrich Furlong were there?
“The Commission estimates that the scope of your FOI request includes a significant number of documents. Initial searches have identified in excess of 500 pages of documents that include a reference to Deputy President Dean.
I therefore consider your request, in its current form, is unreasonably onerous. As Branson J noted in Radicic v Australia Postal Commission the FOI Act is concerned with the provision of access to documents and does not, by its provisions, require the handing over of large portions of the records of a government agency to allow an individual to search them for himself or herself.”
Freedom of Information? Not if it involves exposing undue influence in our very own court system. Nope, not a chance. Oh and if you want to try it on with my buddy the Information Commissioner….
Yeah well I’ve written about that guy too if you remember….
Bear in mind of course that the FWC has been emboldened in taking this action by an earlier and now (in)famous court case – Kassam vs Hazzard – which I have touched on in a previous article. The result of this case – which was fought in part on the basis of a citizen’s rights under section 51.23a of the Australian constitution – was that the judge (“Justice” Beech-Jones) found that coercion was consent. No, I’m not kidding – paragraph 56 of the ruling is pretty much what Harvey Weinstein would have said, something like:
“If you take this prick you can have a job, and if you refuse you’ll be sacked and never work again… by not physically assaulting you I have committed no crime against your bodily autonomy. It’s just a prick, what’s the problem?”
As a point of circular interest, section 51.23a of the Australian constitution was implemented as a direct result of the Nuremberg doctors’ trial. It was specifically included to prohibit conscription of doctors by the state:
“the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;”
This is discussed in an excellent article in the Spectator on August 11th 20219 highlighting the legal ramifications of vaccine mandates and why the constitutional protection existed. But it didn’t matter, did it? Because when the courts are captured, what the government says goes. That is precisely what happened in Kassam vs Hazzard where high level scientific evidence from the likes of Jay Battacharya, Peter McCullough, Sabine Hazan, Brian Tyson and other hugely published medical scholars was waved away in favour of the government’s one “expert” witness – Kristine Macartney – who had never treated a single COVID patient and had received $65m in government grants over just 3 years10. And of course it would be a complete coincidence that the judge presiding over such a hugely important case was just appointed to the Supreme Court on the 11th August 2021 – only a few weeks prior to the trial.
A further unbelievable revelation from the Kassam trial was the replacement of the TGA’s lawyer by Pfizer’s lawyer on day 3 of the trial, in response to a subpoena by the applicants to the original animal studies from the Pfizer trial. The reason for the subpoena was that it was known that the TGA was suppressing the information based on a prior freedom of information request. What was not expected was that the TGA would lie about appearing in court, sending in a patsy called “Mr Glover” who never made it into court and paving the way for the Pfizer lawyer to quash the subpoena. All documented in FOI by that pesky mouse.
How is the sneaky substitution of a corporation with vested interests in lieu of a government representative in a Supreme Court trial in any way scrupulous? It’s not, and it was just one example of where the courts lost their way when it came to vaccine mandates.
Non-antipodean readers might be thinking “well this is just the Australian Court system (and the whole of the government) that has been captured and no longer represents the very people it swore an oath to” – but you’d be wrong. Every judgement in a Commonwealth jurisdiction can be used as evidence in any other jurisdiction. The people who are controlling this just need to control the Australian court system and their job is done.
Now, the Fair Work Commission has the chance to change their path and regain some credibility. In particular because Iain Ross, who arguably has permanently stained the reputation of the Commission for impartiality11, has now left – just over a month ago.
Adam Hatcher is the new chief and hopefully not the new Otto. I sincerely hope that one of his first tasks is to revoke the letter to Justice Dean and reinstate her to her designated position without any further political interference – because that would be the right thing to do.
His second task should be to make sure that every single mandate case now being heard is independently reviewed.
In the current environment where Australia’s death rate has skyrocketed after the COVID vaccine rollout and infection rates were far worse instead of better, it is not conceivable that any further vaccine mandate case can be dismissed in favour of the employer enforcing the mandate.
The world is watching the Fair Work Commission rulings closely and Australian citizens will eventually be forced to call for criminal investigations via the Attorney General and ICAC if this untenable situation continues in the current climate.
More and more people are waking up to the corruption that has pervaded the vaccine studies, the clandestine contracts, the suppressed government documents and the politicised trials. There will be a tipping point where criminal referrals start rolling in.
That tipping point is near. Australians will not allow what happened in Nazi Germany – or any other totalitarian state – to happen in Australia. Relying on Aussie apathy is a fool’s errand
This is the chance to have your say.
Is this article right to compare the current judicial situation in Australia to Nazi Germany, or are the courts acting with probity and independence? And should people start grouping to make referrals to investigational bodies over the conduct of the judiciary in Australia?