Avi Yemini: “I know I often crowdfund for other people’s cases, couple times for myself”. In this thread I fact check Avi’s claim that he’s crowdfunded only “a couple of times” for himself (1)
To set the scene: Avi / Rebel News have registered a dedicated URL for Avi’s personal crowdfunding - “AviLegalFunddotcom”. Surely that’s not necessary for someone who’s only crowdfunded “a couple times” for themselves? (2)
Campaign 1 - Sept 2020: Avi was arrested whilst at a lockdown rally. He was never charged. A week later, he filed a lawsuit against VicPol for alleged false arrest & assault. He ended up raising at least $100k in donations (3)
Campaign 2 - Jan 2021: Avi was detained for a brief period during an Invasion Day rally. He pleaded to his supporters for financial help (4)
Avi told his followers he’d been arrested. However police subsequently confirmed no arrests had been made that day (5)
Campaign 3 - Nov 2021. Avi’s website “Kill The Bill dot com dot au” was temporarily shut down. He suspected Dan Andrews was involved & asked his followers to donate so he could take legal action to unmask the person responsible. To my knowledge nothing was ever filed (6)
Campaign 4 - Dec 2021: After Avi was denied a parliamentary media pass, he filed proceedings in the Supreme Court to challenge the decision (7)
The trial was heard in March 2022, over the course of two days. Avi was confident of a win. But he was in for a surprise. In Dec 2022, the Court handed down its judgment dismissing Avi’s lawsuit (8)
Campaign 5 - Jan 22: Avi received a letter from police asserting he was in breach of the Surveillance Devices Act by publishing police bodycam footage. He asked followers to chip in to his “legal defence fund” so he could take on VicPol. No charges were ever laid (9)
Campaign 6 -Feb 22: Avi took Twitter to Court in a bid to unmask PRGuy hoping to prove that PRGuy worked for Dan Andrews. Avi was in for another big disappointment! Avi also said he wanted to sue PRGuy for defamation but so far no lawsuit has been filed (10)
Campaign 7 - Aug 2022: Avi was denied entry to New Zealand b/c he didn’t have the right paperwork. He crowdfunded legal action to appeal the decision however no appeal has been filed (11)
At the time, Avi said NZ Immigration told him they could refuse entry pursuant to s 97 of the Immigration Act. Decisions under s 97 are not subject to appeal. Perhaps that’s why he is yet to file an appeal? (12)
Campaign 8 - Dec 2022: Avi is suing RMIT for fact checking him (13)
CONCLUSION:
What was claimed: Avi Yemini has crowdfunded for himself “a couple of times”
Verdict: Avi Yemini has crowdfunded for himself at least eight times (14)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Bike Boy’s private criminal prosecution of Daniel Andrews will go nowhere
Allow me to explain…
2. For your continued education, the Victorian legislation that delegates the plenary power of the Crown (the Victorian Governer General to be exact) to the Victorian Director of Public prosecutions is the Public Prosecutions Act 1994 (Vic)
3. Section 22(1) (a) of the Act gives the DPP, and ONLY the DPP, the absolute authority to institute (initially charge), prepare and conduct indictable offences
1. Bec Freedom, who’s one of the organisers behind the 31 August “anti immigration” rally claims she’s not a racist & that any recordings of her making statements to the contrary have been taken out of context
Let’s see if Bec’s claims stack up!
2. Here’s Bec sharing the tweet of a neo-Nazi, promoting her rally on 31 August
3. I asked Bec why she was re-tweeting the post of a neo Nazi and she replied with this:
1. A Pauline Hanson fan’s hope for a High Court showdown has ended before it even began!
The self represented litigant tried (& failed) to get the High Court to declare 18C invalid & overturn Pauline Hanson’s Federal Court loss
🧵
2. Heidi Ward filed a writ naming the Cth, Federal Court & Senator Mehreen Faruqi as defendants. She wanted to overturn decision in Faruqi v Hanson, declare s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act invalid & have Faruqi ruled ineligible to sit in Parliament
3. Because her proposed writ was so obviously lacking in legal basis, she needed the High Court’s permission just to file it!
(This only happens when an application on its face is lacking in merit!)
🧵1. Earlier this year, conservative US commentator Candace Owens was denied a visa to Australia on grounds she has “capacity to incite discord”
She’s now challenging that decision in the High Court of Australia!
In this thread I explain what her case is all about!
2. This case is very different to Djokovic’s legal challenge over the Minister for Home Affairs’ decision to deny him a visa. In that case, Djokovic essentially challenged the WAY the Minister made his decision to deny him a visa
3. HERE, Candace is challenging the LEGISLATION that gives the Minister the power to deny her a visa!
🧵 1. The no longer suspended doctor Bay vs AHPRA & the Medical Board.
In this thread, I summarise the court’s decision: why Bai is no longer suspended, why his Constitutional argument failed, and what the possible future brings for Dr Bay
2. This case was an application for “judicial review” by Dr Bay. He applied to the QLD Supreme Court for a review of the following 2 decisions of the Medical Board: the decision to suspend him & the decision to investigate his conduct
3. What is judicial review? It’s the power of a Court to review decisions of government agencies or public bodies. The role of the Court is to determine if the decision was properly made – the focus is on the law & how the decision was made, not the MERITS of the decision
🧵 1. What happens when lawyers behind a failed lawsuit against Pfizer & Moderna accuse the presiding judge of bias because the judge happened to have a science degree & a cousin who once supported medical research?
A judicial smackdown of course!
2. Background to this drama:
Controversial doctor Julian Fidge decided to sue Pfizer & Moderna, claiming their COVID vaccines were genetically modified organisms & illegally unlicensed under the Gene Technology Act
3. Justice Rofe of the Federal Court dismissed the case summarily, on the basis that Fidge lacked “standing” to bring the proceedings. Fidge used the same lawyers who’d once represented the Australian Vaccination-risks Network (cont)