1. Conspiracy theorist Dave Oneegs, a founder of “Aussie Helping Hands” is in court next month facing charges of alleged unlawful fundraising. So is Hayley Birtles-Eades, another person assoc w/ AHH. I’ve been looking into Hayley & uncovered some interesting information
2. According to a Whois search from March, website Aussie Helping Hands dot com dot au was originally registered to Hayley’s business “Beinc”. The Whois search says Beinc is a company. However the ABN listed is not for Beinc, it’s for a discretionary trading trust
3. A Whois search for the Beinc website lists a company called Love Jewellery Pty as the owner. However, that company was deregistered by ASIC in Feb 2020.
4. Beinc is actively trading according to their Facebook page & website
5. Hayley has a second business called “Love Lockets (actually she has MANY businesses but that’s a story for another day!). A Whois search says for the Love Lockets website lists a company called Born Brands Pty Ltd as the owner
6. Born Brands Pty Ltd was deregistered by ASIC in May 2016! The Love Lockets business still appears to be trading too.
7. There’s no business name registration for BEINC. There is one for BEINCS (with an “s”), but that has been cancelled and appears to have no association w/ Hayley. And Hayley’s own ABN was cancelled in November
8. When Aussie Helping Hands was first set up in early March, the website listed Dave Oneegs & Beinc/Hayley as co-founders.
9. The website was suddenly updated on 25 March to remove all references to Dave Oneegs, Beinc and Hayley!
10. That same day Dave suddenly started referring to himself as a “volunteer”. On March 27, Dave randomly made a post emphasising he was not a founder. “It’s not my account”.
11. Obviously something happened on March 25. It wasn’t until April 10 that Dave announced his own bank account had been frozen. He said Fair Trading froze it on 8 April. What happened on 25 March?
12. Dotty, the purported founder of AHH, also had her bank account frozen. She was raided by FT on suspected misappropriation of funds. Dotty says FT couldn’t find any evidence of funds misappropriation. However she was fined for not having a licence to fundraise
13. Dave’s first court appearance is on 20 Jan. Hayley also has two court appearances coming up in Jan (she’s had two already back in Sept & Nov). It’s not clear whether these are related to the Fair Trading investigation
14. Interesting- Hayley is looking to sell Love Lockets. With the website domain in the name of a deregistered company, she’s going to find it v difficult to transfer the domain name to a new owner!
• • •
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)