Intrepid Lawyer Sue Grey Wins One Against the Empire
Freedom New Zealand's Battle of Trenton
When a globalist mafia cartel — or a garden-variety tyranny — wish to silence dissent, they like to make ‘examples’ of those who resist. Here in New Zealand, under the sway of Jacinda Ardern’s ‘single source of truth’, a few doctors who three years ago raised their voices against the government’s woefully destructive covid measures — measures that included severe lockdowns, ineffectual masking, anti-social distancing, and the vehement suppression of early treatment, so that the one-size-fits-all death jab could be introduced as our salvation — found that their practising certificates were suspended by the FSMB-directed Medical Council of New Zealand. I was unfortunately one of these, as I discovered when I went to renew my certificate in November 2021.
If any other doctors dared to uphold the principles of their profession and inveigh against the demolition of informed consent, individualised treatment, and the Hippocratic Oath they swore when they received their medical degrees, they knew what was coming. Thus the silence of the sheep, which paved the way for the consequence of excess deaths and debilities thanks to the mandated jab, along with all of the other globalist paraphernalia, most of which I have described in many other essays.
As I write a number of good decent doctors who dared, for example, to prescribe Ivermectin, or who opposed the topsy-turvy institutional recommendations to jab as many people as possible so that we may all ‘stay safe’, are being persecuted and harassed when they should in fact be commended by the very Medical Council that purports to be protecting the public weal.
Suppressing dissent is something far more contagious than covid, and the New Zealand Law Society, taking a leaf out of the Medical Council’s playbook, decided to go after intrepid lawyer Sue Grey, hauling her before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal for charges of misconduct and ‘unsatisfactory’ conduct.
Ms Grey represented herself at the Tribunal hearing and a decision has been rendered in her favour.
I frankly admit to being shocked by this decision — not because I questioned Ms. Grey’s fact-founded defense, but because I had resigned myself to believing that the fix was in.
Fortunately, we now have glimmers that truth will out, that not all institutions are irrevocably corrupt, and that standing tall in defense of the rights and principles of free speech can result in victory even within a system that is itself compromised.
This is our first real legal victory, in my opinion, a victory that paves the way for others, such as physician Peter Canaday who, fifteen weeks after his appearance at the Health Professionals Disciplinary Tribunal, has yet to receive a decision.
We’ve been fighting a long and irregular war in defense of freedom and good medical and legal sense, a fight against mandates and against the upending of professional duty and responsibility.
Sue Grey has been a beacon all along and her surprising triumph deserves accolades.
It reminds me, if you will permit a moderately hyperbolic analogy, of George Washington’s pivotal battle against British forces in Trenton on the day after Christmas 1776. Washington’s crossing of the Delaware was a highly risky enterprise that came after a string of woes; with it he turned the tide and the rest, as they say, is history.
Sue Grey has made history. Let us now go forward and press our rightful and truth-inspired advantage.
Emanuel E. Garcia, M.D.
August 2023
Yeah for Sue.
My blood pressure is hovering around 170/110, head ache and back ache I assume are my kidneys as they are already damaged. My pills ran out 3 weeks ago and the only Doc I now trust (who didn't try to poison me) just retired. I'm nearly 65 maybe that's enough anyway, the world looks bleak, the Lord of the Flies has command, and the decay and squirming maggots in the Beehive, Medical Council, Medsafe, WHO, UN, WEF, etc., have riddled the core.
Gog and his hoards will fail in the end, I take comfort in that, in the meantime I will not comply. Bless all those integrity keepers who stood by their vows. Yeah!
G'day NZD, I had a squiz @ the "judgement"( a bit like the curates 🥚) & imo it also looked like it was written by the work experience kid. I agree that you sometimes have got to take the small wins but those joker's should have had their collective noggins around this BEFORE any attempts of a public humiliation of a colleague unless they were told to do something about it, maybe. Hence my comment about part good, part bad, they couldn't find her guilty but put the squeeze on her as an attempt to keep her in line, moving forward. I think they had no choice but to dismiss so as to avoid an appeal. If they found her guilty under those t's & c's they'd have to investigate themselves.