In a sensational twist, Federal Circuit Court judge Anthony Kelly has ordered the immediate release of tennis star Novak Djokovic from detention after overturning the federal government's decision to cancel his visa.
The judge told the hearing that the decision to cancel the temporary visa was 'unreasonable' and will be quashed with the respondent, the Minister for Home Affairs, to pay his costs and to take 'all necessary to steps' to release Djokovic immediately and return his passport and all other personal effects.
Proceedings regarding Djokovic's visa application were rushed through in the hope that he will be able to defend his title and compete in the Australian Open.
A failure to succeed in this case could have caused Djokovic significant problems in accessing other countries for ATP tournaments and impact his ranking as Number One.
The hearing got off to a slow start, with the court suffering repeated interruptions - first from users gatecrashing the online event with inappropriate content, and then again as the bandwidth for the hearing was exceeded.
Lengthy delays in streaming service was more than just an annoyance for the public trying to watch, with one lawyer commenting that there was a concern about 'open justice' if the public could not access the feed.
"But the risk is high that if the technology [for streaming court hearings] fails, you have zero open justice, you have secret justice. And in a case like this, that can lead to rumours, speculation and innuendo about what's really going on," said Thomson Geer lawyer, Justin Quill, who is representing several media organisations.The need for 'open justice' is even more important, as the Djokovic case has international interest, particularly from Serbia.
During proceedings, Judge Kelly appeared as frustrated as the Djokovic team, at one point declaring, "What more could this man have done?"
It has already come to light that Tennis Australia, responsible for organising the visa, had repeatedly asked the Department of Home Affairs to check that everything was in order for their players before they boarded their aircraft to Australia. The request was refused by department officials, setting in play the diplomatic mess unfolding in Victoria.
The denial was issued by the Federal Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt and addressed directly to Craig Tiley, CEO of Tennis Australia.
"Health and Home Affairs are unable to provide or review certificates. Certificates are reviewed at check in," said the letter.From the correspondence detailed in court, the paperwork appeared to be in order as far as Djokovic and Tennis Australia were concerned. When Djokovic's arrival became public, a storm of angry public opinion took over the conversation in Victoria, with blame directed at Premier Daniel Andrews and the inconsistency of health orders between sports stars and the general public.
**********
Dances with Bear's John Helmer weighs in:
From The Telegraph:
Novak Djokovic will not be re-arrested in Australia tonight after winning a court battle on the revocation of his visa, but still faces the threat of deportation in the coming days.
According to Australian media reports, the government has decided to allow a four-hour time window, during which it could have detained the tennis star once again, to elapse.
But the immigration ministry says it is still considering the use of discretionary powers to deport Djokovic later this week.
Reader Comments
RC
R.C.
LadyRad Glad to hear!!!
RC
RC
I am good. Been preoccupied about the Qld border being open. Just booked my flights to Melbourne. Also working out what to say at our rally group on Sunday. I think I am going to attack the germ theory and the cabal plans for the next Plandemic. And stress the importance that everyone learns about our common law rights and how to protect them. This is war and it ain’t gonna be won overnight.
I'd be careful on the whole germ theory. That's kind of a level 3 or 4 issue* and you'll probably want to be converting the level 1.1 folks who are preprogrammed to write off things as a conspiracy theory. Good luck and I'm sure you'll approach it appropriately! Keep on fighting the good fight!
Hang tough.
RC
*After all, it led to like 400-500 comments and rather heated debate here among SOTTites around 18 months ago.
rc
But it is still a big leap from covid scamdemic to all pandemics have been thanks to big pharma and global health bodies. But we have to tackle it because it won’t end with covid, the next psyop is waiting in the wings.
Because the propaganda is going to continue I think it is a good time to expand the view and look at the whole picture. We have to be ready to defend our rights. So common Law is the answer.
Did you know that he got canceled by idiot society back then also? See The Age of Reason and the fallout from it. And he did super duty during the Revolution - really making the difference. If we'd lost that, the narrative nowadays would be that he was an early Goebbels.
RC
People are learning we are paying the price of complacency for the last fifty years. Now we are in catch up and having to learn more, share more, get involved, recognise our duty to stand up against wrongful law. Non action is compliance.
Well I introduced the germ theory vs terrain (toxicity) telling them there is more to come. As an intro as to why we have to understand our rights, and know how to defend them in Common Law. About 1/4 knew. And everyone listened. It is a start.
One couple in our Freedom group have been harassed by police for not wearing masks in their shop. They were overcome by all the real help and support they received from strangers: helping with legals, moral support, and dropping off food. It is generating community spirit never seen before. Another couple in Toowoomba were arrested by 6 cops at 1 am in the morning in their home!!!! For non compliance. (Masks)
We now have subgroups forming and discussing ways forward in home schooling, food supply, and common Law.
These discussions did not exist one month ago. It is powerful.
Keep up the good fight!
RC
Would not they be better to argue that even if he did have such an attitude (which we deny) what Law has he or would he be breaking. Aren’t we allowed to have our own opinions, attitudes, choices about vaccines? Where is that enshrined in law?
It seems like his lawyers accepted the underlying premise and argued the wrong facts. It is like it is already accepted as fact that one cannot have any attitude that is opposed to the official narrative. And that would have been an argument worth spending 8 hours on.
What do you think?
Here's an article on that malevolent tactic which I've not read but since it's in our bar news, I imagine he'll end up toadying and spouting the bar/app courts' conclusions which are simply bullshit. [Link] There are lots of others.
Though it wasn't always thus - things were pretty good until around 1995 - it became that and has gotten ever worse to this day. And now it has
everlong been thus.Welcome to the practice my dear. VERY anger inducing but what can you do.I bet Spur has some good and similar or worse stories. I look forward to our other attorneys' inputs. (I have guesses on who some might be - but only me and Spur I am sure of - have claimed to hold the obsequious membership of the bar
They were probably trying what they thought had the best chance to win. You know I've said countless times how controlled the courts have become. You now see how it's done. Here, it's via a PCA (Per Curiam Affirmed) which is the appellate court saying 'The sky was purple that day and you lose.' When you get one of those no matter how right and correct under the identical case and case law (it's called the case being on 'all fours' meaning the sheet of paper proves your case) and yet the app court hits you with a you lose just because we said so and don't ask again! Literally, that's what it means. IF you have the 'petulance, temerity, audacity (whatever) to file a motion for rehearing because they've denied your right of appeal, they also send you to the bar for a grievance.
Here's an article on that malevolent tactic which I've not read but since it's in our bar news, I imagine he'll end up toadying and spouting the bar/app courts' conclusions which are simply bullshit. [Link] There are lots of others.
Though it wasn't always thus - things were pretty good until around 1995 - it became that and has gotten ever worse to this day. And now it has ever long been thus.
Welcome to the practice my dear. VERY anger inducing but what can you do? I bet that Spur likewise has many similar or worse stories. I look forward to our other attorneys' inputs. (I have guesses on who some might be - but only me and Spur I am sure of - have claimed to hold the obsequious membership of the bar (after all, I might be lying, etc. I hope to never argue from a position of authority here, which is a logical fallacy etc.)
OK, I told myself I wouldn't write this but this is Joyly so I decided to. This was around 2008 I'd guess. (This is hearsay/inside gossip probably originating with appellate judicial clerks who get to know appellate attorneys - I've probably done 90 appeals I'd guess - but I'm not the attorney they would ever chat with. What happened was a local Tallahassee WC attorney won a case and by on point caselaw out the ass, he was due a fee of about 200K from the trial court and not the piddly ~$9K the trial court gave him. (The trial and appellate courts are both there - so those judges all know each other etc. and almost surely the trial judge of compensation claims (JCC) and one certain appellate judge probably had a friendly lunch and the appellate judge was converted - i.e., they conspired off the record to screw over that attorney*) appealed it. Some appellate judge in Tallahassee didn't like that guy (this I heard from him as he was also on the claimants' bar and I called him about it) and judge Jerk instructed his new clerk to write an opinion ruling against the attorney. The clerk, like most attorneys, was clueless about workers compensation which is a very esoteric practice here. Also, it's quite often Quixotic for we claimant attorneys..
So the clerk wrote up an opinion that said the claimant’s attorney could not get fees because he over collected for his client because the three appellate judge panel's opinion said something like "WC chapter 440.xxx only provides “no more than one year of benefits which was far less than the claimant had gotten paid through the attorney's efforts - it was a gift to the client and not the attorney” or such. It got published. The only problem was that the clerk failed to notice that the statute he was quoting only applied to dates of accident through 1955!!! He moved for a rehearing the embarrassed court withdrew the 6th grade level opinion. They pretended to weigh the matter and a week or so later they instead issued a PCA - and that’s how it ended and he got fucked out of hundreds of hours of time the carrier clearly owed him. .
It has been thus and getting worse since around 1995. Welcome to the club. Can't say I didn't warn you.
*I have no dog in the fight. This was just his story which also is well known to the claimants' bar and of course is hearsay but typical legal background attorney office chatting etc.
RC
What do you know of this international Common Law Court that has just found 75 people guilty of crimes against humanity and issued warrants for their arrest.
As BK just said somewhere, we're already in a war - and they're attacking us full spectrum dominance attempt.
Hang tough.
RC
RC
RC