Gladys, Andrews and Co. countersue in slander case

Gladys Berejiklian, former NSW Premier and Dan Andrews, Current Victorian Premier are two of the more prominent defendants in an ongoing slander and defamation case brought by ‘the unvaccinated’. The plaintiffs claim that these leaders, along with a cohort of other joint defendants, are guilty of slander, defamation and fraud. The claim is that they invented data, then used those lies to label the unvaccinated the cause of a worldwide pandemic, as murderers of grandmothers, and as the group ultimately, if indirectly responsible for forcing widespread police brutality, child abuse, human rights abuses and discrimination.

The defendants agree that they did all those things, and that they blamed them on the unvaccinated, however, their key defense rests on these points:

• They never really defined what ‘unvaccinated means’, and depending on their whims, the unvaccinated could mean no one (as in we slandered no one) or everyone (as in even people who took jabs and were sick, hospitalized or dead we still class as unvaccinated, so they did cause a fake pandemic and grandma to be killed somehow and we were not wrong to say so)

• The unvaccinated launched a public campaign to self-identify as ‘vaccine free’ and not ‘unvaccinated’, so there cannot be any defendants, so nyah nyahdy nyah nyah.

• There is ample legal precedent that people in leadership roles are not accountable for their words and actions, and can ‘reasonably assume that they can say or do whatever suits their vested interests'.

• Double Jeopardy. The defense argues that, even if found guilty again, Gladys has already been convicted and punished for corruption via the sham justice system, and is currently serving what the media has labelled an “inordinately harsh punishment” of now receiving her corruption money via the shameful position as a board member for Optus. Likewise, Dan Andrews considers his second term of ongoing oppression of the Victorian citizens as a public service in recompense for his first term.

• People are sick of talking about Covid, can’t we talk about something else?

Berejiklian and Andrews also lead the counterclaim against the unvaccinated for negligence. They claim that the unvaccinated, failed to adequately warn their fellow man, even though they were clearly privy to privileged information and understandings of the genocidal campaign. As key witnesses, they are bringing forth:

• The police officers who assaulted and pepper sprayed ‘dangerous spreaders of disease and misinformation’, and were at no point warned by those victims that they were actually assaulting free, healthy citizens who committed no crime.

• The media representatives who bravely tried to censor, slander and shame the unvaccinated to force them to ‘really believe in their own humanity before bothering the rest of us with it, and since none of them managed to get any of their warnings published in our corporate press after our campaign of psychological warfare, how seriously could they have tried?’

• Members of the public who can attest that while they were discriminating against their fellow man, harming themselves with masks and injecting dangerous experiments, they were not adequately warned by those who loved them of the ‘easily verifiable as false’ fake pandemic they used to justify their actions.

• Scientists and researchers who ‘couldn’t have known better’, since they did not have the training’ - having only sat through years of indoctrination, and continued to make that choice for years, been historically happy to study a model of healthcare which has yielded such poor results, and still work within it, gained an understanding of physiology, then read the standard treatment protocols which never looked for a root cause or gave due respect to the complexity of the body, and not questioned it further, never really had the opportunity to spot the hypocrisy of the hippocratic oath + the standard treatment for so many things being so needlessly invasive, then survived the 3 year purging of the most honest doctors from the profession, or the previous decades of more subtle culls, and hence could not have known of the obvious capture of their profession by psychopathic institutions which would clearly harm others in pursuit of profits.

• Regulatory bodies who paraded a litany of warnings, letters, and collations of research from well respected and honest members of the medical profession or public - “none of which contained any bribes of any form! So how were they to know to take them seriously?”

In a morale boosting speech, the presiding judge declared his intention to resolve all these cases without bias.

“As the Justice with the least personal investment in the medical industrial complex (at just 60% of my wealth and 80% of the favours I owe to hold this position), I am confident that we can fairly and equitably deal with both these cases, which should stop these antivaxxers from wasting any more of the public’s time and resources with frivolous accusations and flimsy excuses for crimes they are clearly guilty of”.