Window into a weird world … Sydney solicitor, the hero of anti-vaxers … Turning the wolves on a journalist seeking information … Harassment … Media lawyers at 10 paces … Unsuccessful litigation on behalf of vax refuseniks … Crowdfunding for High Court challenge … Whether funds held in trust … Alan Zheng reporting 

His latest target is Sydney Morning Herald reporter Harriet Alexander whose email correspondence with Buckley was recently published on the G&B Facebook page for the world to see.

While writing a recent article about Buckley’s vocal encouragement of civil disobedience, Alexander reached out to Buckley for a reasoned conversation about his “role in the provision of public health advice, as opposed to legal advice”. 

Alexander’s email, which contained her mobile number, landline number and email address, was promptly screenshot and splashed over the G&B Lawyers’ Facebook page. 

When asked why Buckley had made posts criticising the use of PCR and antigen testing following the CDC’s changing advice around the PCR test, Buckley shot back sharply:

“I understand it. Clearly you don’t.

Sent from my Galaxy.”

Not even a “kind regards” for good measure.

Buckley’s posts on the subject have since been flagged by Facebook as containing “partly false information” after being “checked by independent fact-checkers“.

Hundreds of Buckley’s loyal foot soldiers flocked to the comments section lobbing all manner of criticisms at Alexander’s professional competence and integrity. 

Alexander called in the cavalry, instructing Nine’s executive counsel Larina Alick to go after Buckley.  

In a letter, Nine’s in-house lawyers alleged that Buckley’s sharing of the screenshots on Facebook could make him liable in defamation, equitable breach of confidence and the tort of negligence.

The claim was that Buckley’s post, captioned “when the mainstream media don’t like facts they resort to harassment” carried the imputation that Alexander harassed Buckley, a “serious accusation of criminal conduct”. 

The letter also suggested that Buckley could also be liable for the comments made under the post which variously insinuated Alexander was “corrupt, a liar, a dishonest weasel and [likened] her to the German stasi”, though Voller might have something to say about that. 

For good measure, the letter from Nine’s lawyer also claimed that Buckley and his co-partner Kim Glassborow, were liable for breach of confidence because Alexander reasonably expected her personal contact information to be kept confidential. 

To take things further, the letter caps off with a claim that Buckley owed Alexander a duty of care in possessing her personal contact information and by publishing it to the general public, including Buckley’s “particularly aggressive and confrontational” followers, made it reasonably foreseeable that Alexander would be harassed and abused over phone, emails and social media. 

Commenters had said things like “we should all bombard [Alexander’s] email” and other things that Buckley was aware of because he had “reacted” to the comments.

But as damage is the gist of negligence, it’s not entirely clear what damage Alexander has suffered and how it would be compensated. 

As if those causes of action were not enough, the letter also noted that Buckley could be criminally liable for misusing a carriage service to stalk, menace and harass and that he could be responsible for unprofessional conduct. 

Staring down the sea of liability, Buckley wrote back to Alick: 

“Your letter amounts to further harassment. Demand that you cease and desist immediately. 

Regards,
Nathan

Sent from my Galaxy”

Nine’s letter was then promptly published onto G&B’s Facebook page.

Two days after Nine’s threatened deadline for removing the posts, they were still online.

In the comments, there was worship of Buckley’s sheer disregard of the “not for publication” tagline in the letter, the “intimation” of journalists like Alexander and even an attempt to instruct Buckley to sue Nine in defamation for claiming the commenters were “particularly aggressive”.

One user queried, in a sentence that needed several more drafts, “who is this Mr/Mrs/Miss ‘Executive Council’ the lack of full disclosure is safe on their end for penalties pursuant to malicious threats of disbarment”.

The experience of Nadya Haddad of the Law Society’s professional standards department also comes to mind, after Buckley made a similar manoeuvre publishing the society’s letters to him last year.

See: Sovereign Lawyer and Delusions Dossier

Despite once more showing that he knows how to publish images on Facebook for effect, not everything has been rosy for the solicitor.

In the truncated prose, the envy of Lord Denning, Buckley claimed that he is starting to see public opinion shift. 

“A turning of the tide. Scomo’s approval rating is at all time lows. The quiet Australians are speaking up. People are no longer afraid of tyranny. People are now starting to live their lives without fear. Without masks. Without QR codes. Without checks on their kilometres from home. I hope this movement continues to build and grow stronger. We can do this Australia.” 

Yet, those shifts in public opinion are not flowing into outcomes for his crusade against mandatory vaccination. 

The courts have rejected unfair dismissal actions brought by G&B Lawyers on behalf of ex-employees of a childcare centre and an aged care centre who refused to be vaccinated and were terminated as a result.

In Kimber, the applicant – who shared that she practises “good gut health” and “makes her own kombucha” – claimed to have suffered a severe skin inflammation which persisted for ten months and was said to be a result of the flu shot.

There was no contemporaneous examination or diagnosis by a medical doctor of the condition. Expert evidence also suggested that it was improbable that the condition was caused by the flu shot. 

In Barber, the story was much the same. The applicant claimed to have a “sensitive immune system” and reacted badly to a flu vaccination “11 years ago”. But no medical exemption was substantiated.

All the cases that Buckley is bringing must be blurring together because he’s mixing them up. As Fair Work Commissioner McKenna noted in Kimber: 

“Mr Buckley’s correspondence to the respondent included certain earlier correspondence exchanged between Mr Buckley and NSW Government health officials about another client or clients of his. The facts of this application for an unfair dismissal remedy are particular to the applicant and the respondent. 

I do not consider communications between the applicant’s solicitor and NSW Government health officials concerning a third party or parties to be a relevant matter in the determination of this application.”

Another action planned against “No jab, no play” laws in South Australia ended before it could even start because the applicant in the case had commenced primary school and was no longer affected by the law.

Not to mention Arnold which was filed out of time, had no exceptional circumstances and was dismissed before substantive issues could be raised.

All the money that Buckley has gathered from his crowdfunding campaign for a High Court challenge against mandatory vaccination has yet to yield an outcome for donors.

Yet, he is certainly making moves for success, writing in the 3.3K strong private Facebook group “Aged Care Workers High Court challenge”:

“Is there anyone in this group that would be prepared to be a plaintiff in the matter and does not care whether a costs order is made against them if we lose? 

“Put another way, is there anyone with nothing to lose? Or is impecunious? If so, please let me know asap. Why? This may allow us to get the matter started sooner rather than later.” 

While the Friendlyjordies defamation claim has also relied on crowdfunding, donors have been told their donations “will be transferred into the Xenophon Davis trust account” with funds “only used for legal fees and expenses“. 

Any similar advice from G&B Lawyers that donations to its fundraisers were being held on trust was not readily identifiable (see here, here and here). 

However, the fundraisers do indicate that donations will be used for legal costs and disbursements.

The coverage has only enlarged Buckley’s profile. Likes on his Facebook page continue to increase. With every post which suggests COVID-19 jabs don’t work or that testing is flawed, an ever-larger audience of anti-lockdown guerilla forces joins Buckley’s cause.

On July 16, a post suggested that “government will make a COVID-19 vaccination mandatory, once a vaccine is available” and “mandatory vaccination will apply across the entirety of the Australian community”. 

It seems to suggest that a vaccine doesn’t exist.