Australia's corrupt legal system, deliberately against you from the get go:- Unchecked and untouchable: the judicial watchdog answering to no one

The colony's Anglo-Masonic set up legal system, is (deliberately) against the 'serfs' or plebs or general population, but it helps those within the brotherhood.

Corruption is rife within all the states and territories of this nation, where upon the setup of this colony, the original so called police force was not made up of of 'honourable' persons, but rather criminals.

Over the generations it has become a well oiled machine of corruption, that is difficult to the Joe (Below) Average to comprehend, just the way the authorities want it to be.

One of the most important aspects of today's society is that the mainstream media is allowed to report what the so called authorities allow them to put into print. 

What The Australian is allowed to inform the masses is the following:

This is a story about how a group of lawyers, most of them judges, who sit on the Judicial Commission of NSW hold other judges to account.

It’s done mostly in secret, using highly subjective and uncertain criteria, and the end result is shrouded in darkness. Even after a finding is made against a judge, the law says the commission will not make that finding public. It is a criminal offence for anyone at the Judicial Commission to utter a word about these findings. This is a very bad law.

It’s only when a finding against a judge is referred to what is called the conduct division of the commission that a sliver of sunlight shines on the commission’s work.

This means that there is a category of findings against sitting judges by the commission that we will never know about. This secrecy means we can’t know about a judge’s alleged misbehaviour on the bench, as decided by the commission. It also means we can’t judge the judges for their findings against other judges – findings that are set in stone, leaving a secret but permanent black mark against a sitting judge.

When a finding is made against a judge, even if it is not referred up to the conduct division, there are often consequences for the sitting judge. Anywhere from a grovelling apology to the head of their court to a stint in re-education camp. Or both, and more. We kid you not. And all of this happens far away from the public eye.

This secrecy invites serious questions, starting with: What does the NSW Judicial Commission have to hide? Could it be that this body is using its position as apex judicial predator to impose some form of ideological purity on judges? We are also entitled to ask about those who make the complaint that kicks off these findings. The relevant legislation allows any person to make a complaint. It doesn’t have to be a party to the court matter but can be any officious bystander – even someone who has a grudge against a judge or is acting as an ideological vigilante. Many complaints are tossed out, but not all of them.

On that note, this is also a story about how apprehended violence orders are not always used for their intended purpose.

Protecting women (and men) from the evil scourge of domestic violence should be one of society’s highest priorities. It’s why there is a system in place for police and the courts, depending on the state or territory, to issue AVOs. It’s why we have new laws against coercive control that police and the courts take very seriously.

NSW chief prosecutor Sally Dowling. Picture: John Feder/The Australian

Two things can be true at once. Despite the important purpose of AVOs and other similar orders, Inquirer has been told about rising concerns that AVOs are being used not as a form of protection but as something entirely different – and improper. Lawyers who work in family law have told Inquirer that it is not uncommon for women to use applications for AVOs as strategic tools to gain legal advantage in messy family law disputes.

This means there is a category of victims that get very little attention. Anecdotal evidence suggests they are mostly men whose liberties and rights are restricted when a bogus allegation of apprehended violence leads to an AVO.

Most concerning, these victims are prevented from seeing their children because of the lie. This sets off other lasting consequences for families. Once a father has been successfully prevented from seeing their children for a period, family law will often favour the status quo when deciding parenting orders, meaning the mother benefits permanently even if the basis for the AVO was false. There is also a provision in the Family Law Act that means AVOs and similar orders are taken into account in property settlements.

The use of AVOs for legal advantage is not uncommon because there are no penalties, in reality, for women who lie about being in fear of violence. Worse, there are concerns that some lawyers are advising their female clients to apply for an AVO with no evidence of apprehended violence simply to gain legal advantage.

These two stories are troubling in their own right. When they collided last year, the result was even more disturbing.

 

District Court judge Peter Whitford, who have accused NSW chief prosecutor Sally Dowling of running meritless rape cases over the past 18 months.

In a NSW local court last year, a couple whose relationship ended several months earlier were fighting over an interim AVO against the husband, the father of the couple’s two small children. Before the court case, the couple had agreed to a shared parenting arrangement. That ended soon after the woman applied for an AVO. Police issued an interim AVO to protect the woman and the children.

When the matter came to court last year, local court judge Roger Clisdell had a formal application in front of him that said the woman “attended … police station to report a history of coercive control and other behaviours by the defendant with an escalation in behaviour since their separation … The matter remains with police and is pending investigation.”

The identity of both parties are on the court record but Inquirer has chosen not to name them. This story is about a system open to abuse.

There were suggestions in court that the mother had agreed to consent to the children being removed from the AVO so the father could see the children according to the couple’s shared custody arrangement. But she changed her mind, opposing any variation to the AVO to stop the father seeing his children. The question for Judge Clisdell was this: What evidence was there to warrant a variation to the AVO so that the father could see his two young kids?

According to the transcript, the policeman in court appearing on behalf of the mother, acknowledged that the AVO application provided “quite scant detail”.

Running to just 8½ lines, the application claiming “a history of coercive control” said the father “has begun to contact her employer to negatively impact her mental and financial wellbeing”.

“She is extremely fearful of retribution and a further escalation in behaviour for reporting the incident to police.”

Before deciding the matter, Judge Clisdell said: “I can think why (the children) are on the order (for an interim AVO), it’s called a tactical approach in family law matters … It’s not uncommon, and I’ve been saying it for most of the time I’ve been on the bench, which is coming up for 18 years now, that tactical AVOs were very common when I practised in family law back in the 1980s, 90s and early 2000s, and this has all the hallmarks on what’s alleged. They’ve separated, they’ve got (shared) custody and suddenly, she starts saying, ‘Oh, there’s coercive control and l want the children not to go near him’.”

According to the transcript, the judge also said the court would give the mother “the opportunity of saying what the urgency is in relation to the children”.

The transcript does not show what else the judge apparently said. Inquirer has been told by a person who was in the local court that day that Judge Clisdell added caveats about the specific case he was hearing in addition to his general observation about the misuse of AVOs.

The person recalls the judge saying “I might be wrong” and “there may be something I don’t know about and we’ll find out”.

The woman gave evidence later that day. She offered little detail about her fears of psychological harm. Importantly, when asked, she said: “I have no fears of physical harm.”

The judge decided there was not enough evidence to stop the father seeing the children. “These are always difficult situations,” Judge Clisdell said. Referring to the shared custody, he said: “I have got to somehow restore that at this stage because there is no physical threat to the children and though there is some concern about psychological harm, these (interim) orders are primarily designed to provide protection from violence.”

NSW Chief Justice Andrew Bell. Picture: John Feder/The Australian

A person in court that day – not one of the parties – complained to the NSW Judicial Commission about Judge Clisdell’s comments about tactical AVOs. Inquirer understands that in April this year the commission upheld that complaint, although it did not think the matter warranted a referral to the conduct division.

Still, Inquirer has been told it is common for the commission to demand something akin to re-education camp for judges they reprimand, overseen by the relevant head of jurisdiction.

Was this Judge Clisdell’s fate? Neither he nor the Chief Judge of the Local Court of NSW, Michael Allen, or the NSW Judicial Commission will say. In fact, each of them declined to answer any of Inquirer’s questions. So much for open justice when it comes to the secretive work of the NSW Judicial Commission.

Interestingly, when the dispute about the AVO returned to the local court this year, police withdrew the AVO. It is not unreasonable to wonder whether that was done for lack of evidence once the investigation had been completed.

Nor is it unreasonable to ask the follow-up question: Was Judge Clisdell correct to point out that AVOs are sometimes used for tactical reasons?

It’s a pity the NSW Judicial Commission, a body headed by NSW Supreme Court Chief Justice Andrew Bell, was so keen to shoot the messenger that it didn’t bother to wait for the final outcome of the AVO.

Canberra-based Anthony Williamson SC regularly appears in complex AVO matters in NSW. Picture: Keegan Carroll / The Canberra Times

Canberra-based Anthony Williamson SC regularly appears in complex AVO matters in NSW and in similar matters involving their equivalent, called family violence orders, in the ACT. He says AVOs and FVOs are important tools in preventing harm and violence against vulnerable people.

“However, the critical question is not whether AVOs/FVOs should be available; rather, the question is whether the current system has struck the correct balance, and whether it currently causes too much collateral damage to innocent parties in the pursuit of protecting those who genuinely need protection.”

The respected barrister says most legal practitioners who work in this area will readily acknowledge that “tactical AVOs/FVOs are commonly sought to advance a litigant’s case in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia”.

“Abuse of the system is widespread,” Williamson tells Inquirer. He says most lawyers “muse over how AVOs/FVOs are dished out by the courts like confetti”.

According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 67,319 apprehended domestic violence orders were made from July 2023 to June 2024, a 40 per cent increase from the 48,241 orders made from July 2019 to June 2020.

These orders are critical tools to protect those who fear domestic violence, but Williamson says an interim AVO or FVO can be obtained on the most slender evidentiary basis.

“The rules of evidence are often not applied to such proceedings, meaning all manner of untested hearsay and opinion evidence can be admitted against a respondent … resulting in parents having their children taken from them, or people being kicked out of the home they own with nowhere else to go, without having an opportunity to first be heard in court.”

Williamson has seen how the “status quo” principle in the family law system means that the courts are slow to disrupt existing child custody arrangements, which are already in place when a case first comes before it. “By obtaining an interim AVO/FVO which prohibits one parent from having contact with their children, the other parent automatically has a head start in the (family law) litigation.”

‘Even when police officers privately believe the complainant may be untruthful or embellishing, they are often too scared to call out this behaviour … They then proceed with an AVO application or lay criminal charges anyway’

The top silk says there is an “unfortunate misunderstanding” among police, local court judges and magistrates about what coercive control is and is not.

“There is substantial guidance from superior courts that the mere fact of there being arguments or disagreements, even spirited ones, is not coercive control.”

Yet Williamson says AVOs and FVOs are frequently made on this misconceived basis alone.

“Even when police officers privately believe the complainant may be untruthful or embellishing, they are often too scared to call out this behaviour, afraid of being criticised as having antiquated attitudes to domestic violence. They then proceed with an AVO application or lay criminal charges anyway.

“I have been involved in both AVO/FVO and criminal cases where the complainant has positively been proved to have made false allegations, lied to the police or court, and perverted the course of justice, only for police to refuse to take any action.”

Williamson says authorities don’t act because they argue “it sends the wrong message” to real victims and might have a chilling effect on them coming forward. Williamson disagrees.

“Genuine victims who are telling the truth have nothing to fear in coming forward,” he says.

“One can be committed to protecting people from domestic violence while at the same time insist on sufficiently cogent evidence in any given case before profoundly life-changing orders are made.”

Williamson says the problems are exacerbated by the fact even the most obviously innocent respondent to an AVO/FVO will usually have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to defend the matter in court and is unlikely to recover their real costs.

Williamson, who has appeared before Judge Clisdell, says the local court judge, who has been on the bench for more than 18 years, is well regarded by legal practitioners.

“He is well known for his direct and no-nonsense approach. He has an ability to see through all the fluff and white noise in a matter and quickly identify what the real issues are.”

The NSW Judicial Commission took a different view when Judge Clisdell exposed to the public what lawyers and other judges know: that AVOs are commonly used for tactical advantage in family law matters.

The commission’s secret censure of Judge Clisdell continues a disturbing practice where this body uses its wide and vague statutory powers, along with its secrecy provisions, to try to enforce a form of ideological uniformity on judges.

Though the numbers of these secret censures are not high, the message to other judges in the tight legal industry is unmistakeable, and the pattern equally clear.

District Court judge Robert Newlinds was castigated by the commission after he called for “lazy and perhaps politically ­exped­ient” referrals of baseless rape accusations to the court to stop. Judge Newlinds was taken off criminal cases, with the commission holding that he should return only after a stint of counselling and when chief judge of the District Court Sarah Huggett “considers it appropriate to do so”.

Newlinds was one of five judges, including District Court judge Peter Whitford, who have accused NSW chief prosecutor Sally Dowling of running meritless rape cases over the past 18 months. After Dowling complained, Judge Whitford incurred the wrath of the Judicial Commission too.

Last month, Federal Court judge Ian Jackman publicly expressed concerns about this pattern. “It saddens me that the Judicial Commission appears to have been used as a way of enforcing uniformity of opinions when the opinion, which was being expressed by the judge … seemed to me an entirely justifiable opinion to hold,” Justice Jackman told the Rule of Law Institute annual dinner. The judge was talking about what happened to Judge Newlinds and Judge Whitford. We can now add Judge Clisdell to the targets of a doctrinaire Judicial Commission.

While its procedural principles recall historical forerunners such as the Star Chamber, a closer precedent for the Judicial Commission may be the Spanish Inquisition.

The commission looks for all the world like a modern Tomas de Torquemada forcing ideological orthodoxy on judges who are simply trying to warn the public about legal injustices.

These Police TRICKS Work on Everyone in Australia Unless You SAY THIS (One Sentence)

The colony's police forces are corrupt, which is a matter of fact and not speculation.

Quite simply put MANY motorists get deceived by police either on the road or in the courtroom.

In the courtroom police also have the support of magistrates and/or even judges.

See explanation by Benny Brown in his approx 20min video:

You can cross reference what Benny says in this clip for the state you live in.

False charges against Atlanta man Sam Tunick at US border crossing?

Governments, authorities and prosecutors cannot be trusted, period.

The ‘United Snakes of America’ is definitely a subset of the above.

The anti-privacy agenda, under the excuse of child protection is in full swing against the good citizens of the world.

‘Everyday’ people, whatever that means, are not afforded privacy, yet billionaires, CEO’s, politicians et al are shielded.

IF ‘child protection’ (meaning children of the cannon fodder), truly is so important to the authorities, then charges would arise from the Epstein Files, where the full treasure trove would be released and not deliberately suppressed, but in reality people should be aware that will never happen, as for one reason, the statute of limitation has expired, in many ‘allegations’ of criminal activity.

Over the past few days the online world has been set ablaze, with the news of an Atlanta man, Sam Tunick, ALLEGEDLY destroying 'evidence' from his Google Pixel smartphone.

With all this noise about this matter, Australia’s ‘news’ agencies are mute on this topic.

Why?

Do they not want to draw the corporate fodder’s attention that there is another operating system apart from the global duopoly from Apple and Google that prioritises privacy and security?

Do they not want the Aussie serfs (as opposed to surfs) to know that the world’s (allegedly) most elite smartphone hacking tool, by Israeli firm Cellebrite is apparently useless against up to date Pixel phones that have GrapheneOS instead of the spyware loaded factory (e.g. Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, Sony, LG, etc) flavour of Android?

So the ALLEGED criminal action is that a Mr. Sam Tunick, has wiped/destroyed ‘evidence’ from his phone, as a result of a ‘duress’ PIN being typed in by the officer, where that action alone is beyond the scope of this article.

And this is where the FALSE charges / scam by the authorities begins!

Putting aside any legalities of the US Constitution, request for lawyer being denied, and the holding area of the airport, the focus in this article is on the alleged destruction of evidence.

So, let’s make a simple analogy to obtain a clear understanding of what factually happened.

Let’s just say that the phone is equivalent to a file storage cabinet which has a key to open the drawers, where the only way to read the files in their original format /legibly is to use that unique key.

In order to gain access to the files/'data’ on that smartphone the correct PIN (Personal Identification Number) must be entered in order to read those files, otherwise they will remain ‘scrambled’, or in an  encrypted state, and unreadable, BUT most importantly they still reside ON the phone.

A ‘feature’ of GrapheneOS is that a user can set a ‘duress’ PIN, which is obviously different from the one that decrypts the data from the phone, where if a person uses that PIN, the decryption key is removed from the device and the smartphone restarts.

Because the decryption key is removed that phone is not in an operational state.

THE most factual and important part of this action is that the phone does NOT ‘wipe itself’ nor is the data on it ‘destroyed’.

The 'data' that they seek is still there.

It’s just the the key to unscramble this data is not present.

Therefore the person cannot be charged for ‘destroying evidence’ as it is still on the phone.

Could a person be charged for destroying evidence (i.e. the files within a filing cabinet), by throwing away the key?

IF the US courts find that the ‘accused’ did ‘erase evidence’, which the ‘key’ is not part of, then the courts are corrupt beyond any shadow of a doubt.

In any event if you only rely on Australia’s ’news’ outlets to inform you on what’s going on in the Information Technology & Telecommunications world, you will truly be doing yourself a disservice.

See articles:

https://www.techspot.com/news/113236-us-prosecutors-charge-atlanta-man-after-grapheneos-phone.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/28/us/duress-password-phone-wipe-charge.html

Australian Census 2026 - Another Government Farce?

Right now the federal (or feral, as we like to call it) government is advertising for the people to participate in an action in business/commerce/trade called the Census.

The excuse is that it needs to know certain things about you, but in reality, this is false and/or misleading information as they already have all this information through something called ‘surveillance capitalism’, from your electronic devices where they 'just' need you to confirm it.

If the government is advertising for you (the general population) to do something, you should realise it’s dodgy.

The most important aspect about this action is that a fundamental question needs to be asked:

• Is the ABS request for your information ‘lawful’?

The short answer is no, but that should come as no surprise or shock, as many actions by state or federal governments in this colony are not lawful, where they may be ‘legal’ but not necessarily lawful.

Remember a previous time when they sold your data and YOU (the stakeholder) received zero financial compensation?

Well they’re going to do it again.

At the end of the business day, the Census is another farce the authoritarian state wants you to participate in.

See other articles on this topic:

Australia's Census fail - You did not have to fill it in?

Census a failure admits the Australian government.

I don't trust ABS with my personal data: ex-ABS staffer

Australian Bureau of Statistics sells YOUR data for $41 million

Letter from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for census not a lawful request

WHEN PRIVACY IS A CRIME: US government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system

Concern over US effort to prosecute Sam Tunick, accused by authorities of wiping his phone using GrapheneOS

A memorial to Manuel Terán, also known as Tortuguita,

a Cop City protester who was killed by police in January 2023.

The US Department of Justice is attempting to prosecute an Atlanta resident in connection with the movement against the police training center known as Cop City because he had GrapheneOS on his phone, an open-source operating system that enables users to enter a passcode and wipe a phone clean.

The case, which had its first hearing on Monday, centers on a little-known US federal statute that makes it a crime to destroy property in an effort to prevent it from being seized.

Experts said it may be the first time the law has been aimed at the operating system, which works on Google Pixel phones, and expressed concerns about a technology created for privacy and security being used to criminalize protesters.

“It’s concerning – and sends the message that [GrapheneOS] is criminal by default,” said Christophe Boutry, a cybersecurity and surveillance expert. Boutry and Bill Buddington, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, both said they had not seen a similar case.

The defendant, Sam Tunick, was stopped for interrogation at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport on 24 January last year, after vacationing in the Dominican Republic. Unbeknown to him, federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.

Opposition to the $109m police training center, which opened last spring, came from a wide range of local and national organizations and protesters, centered on concerns around police militarization and clearing forests in an era of climate crisis. Atlanta police said the center was needed for “world-class” training and to attract new officers.

Several state attempts to prosecute Cop City protesters have foundered in the last several years, while this is the second recent federal effort, after the justice department announced another indictment last month.

The case began shortly after Tunick got off a plane in Atlanta, returning from a vacation spent whale-watching and enjoying nature on a friend’s boat. He did not know that a homeland security agent had circulated an email three hours before. The email contained Tunick’s name and photo and indicated he was being investigated for “suspected terrorism activities”. It was sent to agents on the Customs and Border Patrol tactical terrorism response team and an FBI Atlanta joint-terrorism taskforce officer.

When Tunick arrived in Atlanta, an agent took him to a room with a table, several chairs and a camera and microphone, and several agents began a “secondary inspection”. But all their questions were centered on child sexual abuse images.

These and other details were revealed in Monday’s hearing, held for a judge to hear testimony on a motion filed by Tunick’s federal public defenders, asking the court to suppress all evidence the agents obtained, including the erasure of the phone’s contents after he gave them a passcode, due to violations of his constitutional rights.

The interrogation, including the questions about child sexual abuse images, was “a pretext for a fishing expedition into Mr Tunick’s connections” to the movement against Cop City, according to the motion.

Tunick asked four times during the interrogation to speak with a lawyer, but was rebuffed each time, according to courtroom testimony. Additionally, the agents produced no warrant and did not read Tunick his rights.

But a justice department attorney and the airport agents testifying on Monday asserted Tunick was merely subjected to an everyday interrogation at an international airport, “looking for anything that’s prohibited”, as Larry Findley, a CBP officer, said.

Agent Findley and several others repeatedly asked Tunick to open his phone during the interrogation, telling him they would seize it if he did not. When he finally provided a passcode, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart”, according to the motion.

The motion filed on Tunick’s behalf draws into focus the question of which constitutional rights apply and which ones are suspended at national borders, including international airports.

A judge’s decision on the motion will take at least until end of October.

Marlon Kautz, a member of the Atlanta Solidarity Fund, said: “We all have a right to secure our private data against unconstitutional searches. And we should – especially in a time of rising authoritarianism.”

Meanwhile, Boutry, who lives in France, said Tunick’s case was of a piece with tendencies in France and Spain, where authorities have been frustrated in attempts to gain access to the phones of journalists, lawyers and political opponents due to GrapheneOS.

In Catalonia, Spain, police have been profiling people with Google Pixel phones, assuming they have GrapheneOS installed and are drug dealers or gang members.

At the same time, Boutry said, the “main goal [of the operating system] is protection of privacy”.

“They’re our phones and the state can’t tell us how to use them.”

Source:The Guardian

Corporations DICTATE how we communicate on the internet.

Today the internet is not the same as the one that came into the homes of the general population, even though it is a government controlled carriageway.

FIRSTLY, there is no such thing as ‘freedom of speech’.

Your ‘opinion’, or even facts that you present are censored, moderated and/or removed by corporations, especially if they do not fit the current political/mainstream media narrative.

Today the internet is under the control of a corporatocracy, a handful of billionaires, also a totalitarian (virtual) state, that would make Mussolini smile in his grave, as it’s thriving in a world beyond his dreams.

Surveillance capitalism is also the order of the business day, where if something is for ‘free’, YOU are the product, period.

You are conned that the information collected is for 'advertisers', where it primarily goes into the annals of governments. 

The world’s best surveillance device (for governments and corporations) is this self sponsored invention called the smartphone.

Governments and corporations are forcing, or rather ‘enticing’ the general population to use them, in order to monitor and later control them.

Personal Computers pale in comparison to the treasure trove of data that a smartphone produces.

Data is the new gold, as it has a many to one, sale relationship, compared to gold’s one to one.

A very popular resource/forum is reddit, where now it’s limiting how you communicate through it.

Before one could communicate via a browser on a PC or smartphone, whereas now if reddit detects that you’re using a browser on a smartphone, it will terminate your browsing where one MUST download the app to keep on using reddit.

So, where is the 'democracy' there? OOPS! There is none!

This is the way of the order of the new world, where privacy is becoming a criminal act.

The terrifying reason the internet exists - Weaponised against the masses from its inception?

Today, the 'interwebs' has fascist elements that would make our 'mate' Benito a proud man, as it's ideology was born before the tech was made to implement it.

Police and government surveillance is masquerading as so called 'advertisements'.

Deception by government and corporations is rife in the digital realm, where now, people who expose these ('alleged') criminal activities will be silenced through various new laws being put into place.

For those who are interested in a narrative format of an accurate account of what happened and what's going on, with regards to the tech, you can tune in to Cyb3rMaddy's Youtube channel, while you still can, where with regards to this topic you can see the video of the title:

The terrifying reason the internet exists:

Apple conning you that iPhones need to verify your age in the UK.

People should all be aware that governments and corporation lie to us every single day.

Apple are prolific liars, and that’s without any exaggeration whatsoever.

The new age verification laws put in place all over the world have seriously nothing to do with ‘child safety’ but rather everything to do with data collection, so that this can be used against the people to not only monitor and control their movements, but more importantly especially to stifle so their so called ‘free speech’.

Corporations (and governments) are now dictating how people can communicate on the internet, and that's deliberate by design.

See approx. 17 minute explanation by David Bombal on YouTube within the video of the title: Install GrapheneOS Before Your Phone Becomes the Checkpoint:

Laws like the Online Safety Act 2023 (UK) apply to websites and online services, where a phone's operating system does not fall under any of the two categories of the said Act.

Keeping in mind that Apple is an active participant of the FiveEyes 'Anglosphere' global surveillance network.

If you truly value your online security and privacy, the use of Apple products is not recommended.

What is Australia 101: Still a (penal) colony?

MANY people get it wrong what this land mass called Australia is factually at law.

If your so called 'legal representative' has got it wrong, maybe you need another one?

It may be seen as an island or even a continent, but that’s really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Some may call it a republic of the CCP (Chinese ‘Commie’ Party) according to the actions of a state so called ‘leader’ (or rather premier puppet, who runs over under aged persons AND gets away with it, with the help of corrupt police, oopsie, that’s another topic for another article) by the name of Daniel Michael Andrews.

It can be seen as a fascist state that would make Mussolini (and his mate, Adolf) proud.

It’s part of the top tier of global surveillance that being the Five Eyes (FVEY) ‘Anglosphere’  network, where the Five Eyes ‘Anglosphere’ does not answer to the known laws of its own countries, as exposed by Edward Snowden.

Over decades, Australian law makers have put in law, say for example at 2am or during major sporting events that that turned the nation into a totalitarian state, where realistically democracy has been thrown under a bus, or more politely put; into a museum in Canberra (MOAD), where things of the past, that are no longer current reside, like dinosaur bones and fossils, etc.

So let’s get into the ‘meat and potatoes’ of this story, where at law Australia is a colony, albeit a self-governing one, as seen in paragraph 8 of the second page of the Constitution.

See excerpt below:

And with the colonialists in charge, 'Penal Colony Policies' apply. 

Moira Deeming a LIAR, should be removed from office! #Headlockgate

Australia is FULL, of low quality ‘persons’ in politics, period.

Ms. Deeming came to the top of the cesspool, as she made false accusations against another politician Mr. Matthew Guy, accusing him of a headlock.

After police reviewed the camera footage of the ALLEGED ‘assault’ they saw no criminal action or even an action according to her so called description, hence no charges were ever laid.

In order to gaslight the population, Ms. Deeming then lied that she misunderstood the term headlock.

illustration of a headlock at ground level

ANY person who grew up or went to primary or secondary school in Australia, which Ms Deeming did, would be aware of the ‘real’ action associated with the term headlock, therefore the public accusation against Mr. Guy is deliberately false.

Australia’s parliaments have too many low quality person siphoning from the public purse, where taxpayers pay dearly for this 'joke'.

At the end of the business day, there should be an action analogous to the US’s ‘drain the swamp’, but as we know there will never be such action in this (penal) colony. 

Also at the end of the day, she should be charged for making false accusations, where too many women get away with this type of action against men, but that is another topic outside the scope of this article.

Opinion:supplied.