Australia’s ‘Fair Work’ Commission has become a tool of the state

Written by Dr Ah Kahn Syed on May 3, 2023. Posted in Current News

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.

On the left is “Dr” Otto Thierack. On the right is “Justice” Iain Ross.

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

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.

From “Law and Justice in the Third Reich”:

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.

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 theirs 1:

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 built 2:

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 happened 3)

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.

Iain Ross

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”

1. 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..
2. 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.

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 fraud 4. 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:

1. Was appointed in dubious circumstances by an outgoing labour government mired in a history of corruption and backhanders 5.
2. Had experience which was inconsistent with the position
3. 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.

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 vaccine 6 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 others 7 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.

The Letter

Within a few days of Justice Dean’s dissenting opinion in September 2021, she was publicly and privately reprimanded and told to tow 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.

This is taken from a long document. Read the rest here substack.com

Header image: Fair Work Commission

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.