Novak Djokovic's Vaccine Stance & Visa Troubles

[BratSrbin]

Judges in Australia ruled that he was a threat to public order, due to his anti-vaccination status.

"A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth."

What court decision are you referring to, may I know?

 

[BratSrbin]

This is not Novak-hating. This is what three judges in a court of law decided. You may not like it, but he and his lawyers went through the process, and that was the outcome. And they accepted it. There's no point in re-litigating it here. What's decided is decided, no matter what your opinion is.

Novak won a trial in court and no one contested that trial or the court's decision!

 

[BratSrbin]

The factual evidence is that Novak wasn’t entitled to enter Australia, and he lied and cheated to try to get in.

Have you ever seen these facts? Share them with us, that documentation, I think. No ramblings.

 

[Kieran]

Have you ever seen these facts? Share them with us, that documentation, I think. No ramblings.

Stop this. We had a thread on this, and it was proven time and again that Australia doesn’t consider previous exposure to a pathogen as an eligibility for entering without a necessary vaccine. They still don’t. Look it up. I’m not sure you will, and I’m not sure you’ll be honest enough to admit you’re wrong - but wrong you are. So stop all this nonsense. You djokovic fans are all starting to sound like flat earthers…

 

[Moxie]

"A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth."

Exactly my point to you.

What court decision are you referring to, may I know?

This is where we went all through this with you, on the thread about Novak's vaccination status. Just because you ask all the same questions again on a different thread doesn't justify your feigning ignorance.

 

[BratSrbin]

Stop this. We had a thread on this, and it was proven time and again that Australia doesn’t consider previous exposure to a pathogen as an eligibility for entering without a necessary vaccine. They still don’t. Look it up. I’m not sure you will, and I’m not sure you’ll be honest enough to admit you’re wrong - but wrong you are. So stop all this nonsense. You djokovic fans are all starting to sound like flat earthers…

I didn't start this now, it was you. But anyway, give us any proof of your insane claim.

 

[BratSrbin]

Exactly my point to you.

This is where we went all through this with you, on the thread about Novak's vaccination status. Just because you ask all the same questions again on a different thread doesn't justify your feigning ignorance.

Da, prošli smo dosta puta ali nikad nisi potkrepila svoju izmšljenu (ili isisanu od drugih) tvrdnju.
Zar ti je toliko teško da pronađeš tu sudsku odluku kojom ćeš potkrepiti svoju tvrdnju?

 

[Kieran]

I didn't start this now, it was you. But anyway, give us any proof of your insane claim.

Listen, I like you and I’m happy that Serbia have a champ to be proud of, but you’re not parting attention and you’re wasting people’s time. You quoted my response to another poster and yet you say I started it!

Go read that thread. Go look up the Australian immigration rules when it comes to a person’s exemption from needing a necessary vaccine in order to enter. You’re wrong on this, but you’re stubborn. That’s not an admirable position to be in if you want to learn why you’re wrong. So do the legwork yourself. I’ve wasted a lot of time on dishonest Djokovic fans who pretend he was treated bad in Australia.

Don’t be like them. Go do your research…

 

[Kieran]

Da, prošli smo dosta puta ali nikad nisi potkrepila svoju izmšljenu (ili isisanu od drugih) tvrdnju.
Zar ti je toliko teško da pronađeš tu sudsku odluku kojom ćeš potkrepiti svoju tvrdnju?

I totally disagree…

 

[Moxie]

Da, prošli smo dosta puta ali nikad nisi potkrepila svoju izmšljenu (ili isisanu od drugih) tvrdnju.
Zar ti je toliko teško da pronađeš tu sudsku odluku kojom ćeš potkrepiti svoju tvrdnju?

Is it so hard for YOU to find that court decision to support your claim? The rest of us already know the truth.

 

[BratSrbin]

Is it so hard for YOU to find that court decision to support your claim? The rest of us already know the truth.

It is your obligation to substantiate any claim you make. If anyone doubts it.

 

[Moxie]

It is your obligation to substantiate any claim you make. If anyone doubts it.

Dude, you're the one here that's back making claims which have already been debated with you. Click on the blue in my post or Kieran's above and reread, since you've clearly forgotten.

 

[Kieran]

It is your obligation to substantiate any claim you make. If anyone doubts it.

That’s not true, actually. If a claim is made that’s widely known to be false, then the burden is on the person who made the claim, but that’s not the case in this…

 

[BratSrbin]

Dude, you're the one here that's back making claims which have already been debated with you. Click on the blue in my post or Kieran's above and reread, since you've clearly forgotten.

"Prepared in the Melbourne Registry
Level 7, Owen Dixon Law Courts, 305 William Street, Telephone 1300 720 980
IN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT and
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
AT MELBOURNE
File No: MLG116/2022
NOVAK DJOKOVIC
Applicant
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE: JUDGE A KELLY
DATE: 14 January 2022
MADE AT: MELBOURNE
APPEARANCES:
Mr P Holdenson QC, Mr N Wood SC, Mr J Hartley and Mr N Dragojlovic of counsel
for the Applicant,
Mr S Lloyd QC, Mr C. Tran, Ms N. Wootten and Ms J. Nicolic of counsel for the
Respondent,
UPON THE APPLICANT, THROUGH HIS COUNSEL, UNDERTAKING:
1. To file and serve as soon as is reasonably practicable:
(a) an originating application respecting the interlocutory and final relief to be
sought in this proceeding;
(b) an affidavit to which is exhibited a copy of the respondent’s statement of
reasons for the decision made, purportedly pursuant to s 133C(3) of the
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) together with the submission for decision by the
respondent;


- 2 -
Prepared in the Melbourne Registry
Level 7, Owen Dixon Law Courts, 305 William Street, Telephone 1300 720 980
2. To submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the
payment of compensation, (to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct), to any
person, (whether or not that person is a party), affected by the operation of this
Order or Undertaking or any continuation (with or without variation) of the Order
or Undertaking; and
3. To pay the compensation referred to in paragraph (2) above of his Undertaking to
the person affected by the operation of the Order or Undertaking,
AND UPON THE RESPONDENT, THROUGH HIS COUNSEL, UNDERTAKING
THAT:
1. Pending the final hearing and determination of this proceeding (or unless the
applicant makes a written request of the respondent for his removal from
Australia), he will not, whether by himself, his servants, his agents, the
Department of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural
Affairs, the Australian Border Force, or howsoever otherwise, take or attempting
to take any step to remove or purport to remove the applicant from Australia,
whether pursuant to ss 198 or 199 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or otherwise;
2. The applicant will not be taken into detention before attending for interview at
the offices of the respondent in Lonsdale Street, Melbourne (or such other
address as may be agreed by the parties in writing), at 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, 15
January 2022;
3. The applicant may continue in detention from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. on
Saturday, 15 January 2022, such detention to be effected by his being delivered
by the respondent to the offices of the applicant’s solicitors where he shall
remain subject to the supervision of two officers of the Australian Border Force;
and,
4. The applicant may continue in detention from 9:00 a.m. on Sunday, 16 January
2022, until the conclusion of any hearing of the proceeding, such detention to be
effected by his being delivered by the respondent to the offices of the applicant’s
solicitors where he shall remain subject to the supervision of two officers of the
Australian Border Force."

 

[BratSrbin]

Following the court's decision, the Government of Australia submitted a request for review of the court's decision. They received the following response:

"Federal Court of Australia

Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3

File number:	VID 18 of 2022
Judgment of:	ALLSOP CJ, BESANKO AND O’CALLAGHAN JJ
Date of judgment:	16 January 2022
Date of publication of reasons:	20 January 2022
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – application for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power under s 133C(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where Minister satisfied that a ground for cancelling the visa under s 116 of the Migration Act existed – where Minister satisfied that the presence of the applicant in Australia may be a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community under s 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act – where Minister satisfied under s 133C(3)(b) of the Migration Act that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa – application dismissed"

Bold mine.

 

[BratSrbin]

That’s not true, actually. If a claim is made that’s widely known to be false, then the burden is on the person who made the claim, but that’s not the case in this…

Read the court decisions, if you know how to interpret them, before you continue to ramble.

 

[Kieran]

Following the court's decision, the Government of Australia submitted a request for an application for review of the court's decision. They received the following response:

"Federal Court of Australia

Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3

File number:	VID 18 of 2022
Judgment of:	ALLSOP CJ, BESANKO AND O’CALLAGHAN JJ
Date of judgment:	16 January 2022
Date of publication of reasons:	20 January 2022
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – application for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power under s 133C(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where Minister satisfied that a ground for cancelling the visa under s 116 of the Migration Act existed – where Minister satisfied that the presence of the applicant in Australia may be a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community under s 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act – where Minister satisfied under s 133C(3)(b) of the Migration Act that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa – application dismissed"

Bold mine.

Whose application was made - “for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa” - and whose application was dismissed?

 

[BratSrbin]

Whose application was made - “for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa” - and whose application was dismissed?

You don't understand anything, don't bother anymore.

 

[BratSrbin]

I think I've disproved no1ehaters claims with these previous posts for all time. For ever.

 

[Kieran]

You don't understand anything, don't bother anymore.

You’re wrong there, actually. I understand that Djokovic lied and tried to cheat his way into Australia under false pretences. That much is fact.

What’s also fact is that Djoker fans as a group seem to lack either intelligence or integrity to accept this. The worst cases of this show Djoker fans lacking both.

We discussed all this for ages. Go back in time and read the thread. Stop being that person who can’t think objectively when it comes to their crush…