Sunday, September 25, 2016

Victoria Police asks for your money citing part of their oath




As many people would be aware the communications medium called television is used for corporations and business to promote their products via commercials or advertisements.

Victoria Police have started an advertising campaign where they are asking the public to dig deep into their pockets to support the Victoria Police charity.

Also as part of the advertisement (see screen capture in illustration below), it can be seen how an employee of Victoria Police is citing their oath.
 

Many people nowadays (via social media, blogs, etc) would be aware that an important feature of a person in office (power) is their 'oath'.

A few years ago a document was brought out into the public domain on the unlawful activities of Victoria Police.

The document was complied by an ex Victoria Police officer, citing various acts also including the oath of Victoria police.

The oath of Victoria Police is as follows:

I swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of the Police Force of Victoria in such capacity as I may be hereafter appointed, promoted, or reduced to without favour or affection malice or ill-will for the period of from this date, and until I am legally discharged; that I will see and cause Her Majesty's peace to be kept and preserved; and that I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against the same, and that while I shall continue to be a member of the Police Force of Victoria I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties legally imposed upon me faithfully and according to law.”

This can be found in a document of the title:

Ex Victorian Police officer comments on Fines

where it is available at:


The blog Corporate Australia, has received accounting information pertaining to charities, where the figures show that 90% of funds are swallowed up by administration costs including high salaries for key personnel including CEO's.

Therefore no recommendation can be given to  any person give their hard earned cash to charities.

  • Would you support a corporation that falsely prosecutes people in the name of the Crown?
  • Would you support a corporation that sends out millions of  [unlawful] 'fines' every year?
  • Would you support a corporation whose members deliberately lie under oath in the courts every day?
  • Would you support people who deliberate destroy incriminating evidence against themselves?
  • Would you support  people who assault you if you ask about their oath of office?
  • Would you support people who commit more criminal offences every day than the public they are supposed to allegedly 'serve and protect'?
  • Would you support people who believe their uniform allows them to assault you without repercussions?
Please note:

  • Victoria Police is an arm of the executive, meaning they work for the benefit of government.
  •  Employees of Victoria Police are not 'public servants' (meaning 'employed' by the general populous, where the people are their 'masters') as mistaken by many a lay person.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Vic police suspended for leaking info



There are plenty more actions of police corruption that the corporate media has not reported.

One example is one that occurs every day in the so called (kangaroo) courts of Australia.

For one the police swear an oath to a false entity namely the Queen of Australia.

As of 2013 Victoria Police was made a corporation with a CEO, arising from the Victoria Police Act 2013.

Is the corporate media protecting the names of criminals in Victoria Police?

Normally the corporate media publishes the names of (alleged) criminals in society.

When you are taken to court for an alleged criminal offence, you do not know (the legal name of the person) who takes you to court in the case of police, whereas your name is published in the court list.

As an example the name of an officer is published as P. Smith, which is NOT a legal name.

See article from news.com.au from 22 September 2016 of the headline:

Vic police suspended for leaking info

Four serving police officers and a former officer are being investigated in Victoria over drug use and the leaking of police information to criminals.
Search warrants were executed at five Melbourne properties on August 17 and the five were all interviewed and released as part of an ongoing investigation, Victoria Police say.

"The arrests and searches relate to a protracted investigation into the improper release of police information to people not entitled to be in possession of such information, including criminals," a police spokesman said.

The investigation is also looking at drug use.

The four police officers, a female senior constable and three male detective senior constables, have been suspended with pay pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

Police would not comment any further, saying it would be inappropriate "as the investigation is ongoing".

Over 700 Million People Taking Steps to Avoid NSA Surveillance



There's a new international survey on Internet security and trust, of "23,376 Internet users in 24 countries," including "Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States." Amongst the findings, 60% of Internet users have heard of Edward Snowden, and 39% of those "have taken steps to protect their online privacy and security as a result of his revelations."

The press is mostly spinning this as evidence that Snowden has not had an effect: "merely 39%," "only 39%," and so on. (Note that these articles are completely misunderstanding the data. It's not 39% of people who are taking steps to protect their privacy post-Snowden, it's 39% of the 60% of Internet users -- which is not everybody -- who have heard of him. So it's much less than 39%.)

Even so, I disagree with the "Edward Snowden Revelations Not Having Much Impact on Internet Users" headline. He's having an enormous impact. I ran the actual numbers country by country, combining data on Internet penetration with data from this survey. Multiplying everything out, I calculate that 706 million people have changed their behavior on the Internet because of what the NSA and GCHQ are doing. (For example, 17% of Indonesians use the Internet, 64% of them have heard of Snowden and 62% of them have taken steps to protect their privacy, which equals 17 million people out of its total 250-million population.)

Note that the countries in this survey only cover 4.7 billion out of a total 7 billion world population. Taking the conservative estimates that 20% of the remaining population uses the Internet, 40% of them have heard of Snowden, and 25% of those have done something about it, that's an additional 46 million people around the world.

It's probably true that most of those people took steps that didn't make any appreciable difference against an NSA level of surveillance, and probably not even against the even more pervasive corporate variety of surveillance. It's probably even true that some of those people didn't take steps at all, and just wish they did or wish they knew what to do. But it is absolutely extraordinary that 750 million people are disturbed enough about their online privacy that they will represent to a survey taker that they did something about it.

Name another news story that has caused over ten percent of the world's population to change their behavior in the past year? Cory Doctorow is right: we have reached "peak indifference to surveillance." From now on, this issue is going to matter more and more, and policymakers around the world need to start paying attention.

Related: a recent Pew Research Internet Project survey on Americans' perceptions of privacy, commented on by Ben Wittes.

schneir.com 15 Dec 2014

Thursday, September 15, 2016

The Banking Swindle - Daly v First National of Montgomery (US)

Just substitute the names and this is also what happens in Australia



I. MONEY FROM NOTHING.

It’s been called the most astounding sleight of hand ever devised. The creation of money privatized, and usurped from Congress by a private banking cartel. Most people think money is issued by fiat through the government, but that is not the case. Except for coins, which compose only about one one-thousandth of the total U.S. money supply, all of our money is created by private banks.

Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) are issued by the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation, and lent to the government at interest, creating a huge debt to the nation. A debt the nation can never get out of unless the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is abolished. Moreover, Federal Reserve Notes and coins together compose less than 3 percent of the money supply. The other 97 percent is created by commercial banks as loans, and backed by nothing.

You don’t believe banks create the money they lend? Neither did the jury in a landmark Minnesota case, until they heard the evidence. First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script. Every American that is facing a housing crisis should take note.

Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank’s foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. “Consideration” (“the thing exchanged”) is an essential element of a contract. All contracts need an offer, acceptance and consideration to be valid.
Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn’t given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank’s president, took the stand. To everyone’s surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money “out of thin air” for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. “It sounds like fraud to me,” intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,  did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

The court rejected the bank’s claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world. He wrote in a local news article:
This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.

Needless to say, however, the decision failed to change prevailing practice, although it was never overruled. It was heard in a Justice of the Peace Court, an autonomous court system dating back to those frontier days when defendants had trouble traveling to big cities to respond to summonses. In that system (which has now been phased out), judges and courts were pretty much on their own. Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank. He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning. Since that time, a number of defendants have attempted to avoid loan defaults using the defense Daly raised; but they have met with only limited success. As one judge said off the record:

If I let you do that – you and everyone else – it would bring the whole system down. I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank. We are not going behind that curtain!

From time to time, however, the curtain has been lifted long enough for us to see behind it. A number of reputable authorities have attested to what is going on, including Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s. He declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927: “The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.”

Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in the Great Depression, wrote in 1934: “We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.”

Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955, acknowledged: “Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created — brand new money.”

Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, said in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report: “[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”

II. The Following is the Actual Court Record of:
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MONTGOMERY VS. JEROME DALY
IN THE JUSTICE COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY
First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly,
Defendant
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am.   Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.
Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
3.That the Sheriff’s sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.
4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.
5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.
The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.
BY THE COURT
Dated December 9, 1968
Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota
MEMORANDUM
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558.   The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree.   Only God can create something of value out of nothing.
Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd “Actions” on page 584 – “no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party.”
Plaintiff’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.
Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties.  Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void.  No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.
No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury.  Their Verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.
BY THE COURT
December 9, 1968
Justice Martin V. Mahoney
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota.
Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void.  It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal.  The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful.  See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912.   This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty.    M.V.M.
JEROME DALY had his own information to reveal about this case, which establishes that between his own revealed information and the fact that Justice Martin V. Mahoney was murdered 6 months after he entered the Credit River Decision on the books of the Court, why the case was never legally overturned, nor can it be
III. JEROME DALY’S OWN ENTRY
REGARDING JUSTICE MAHONEY’S MEMORANDUM
FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December 9, 1968. The issue there was simple – Nothing in the law gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit $2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice when he made his return to the District Court.  The Bank deposited two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System. The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouri set out in the decision should be studied very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the Crux of the whole issue.   Jerome Daly.
SPECIAL NOTATION.  Justice Mahoney denied the use of Federal Reserve Notes, since they represent debt instruments, not true money, from being used to pay for the appeal process itself.  In order to get this overturned, since the bank’s appeal without the payment being recognized was out of time, it would have required that the Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota bring a Title 42, Section 1983 action against the judicial act of Justice Mahoney for a violation of the Constitution of the United States under color of law or authority, and if successful, have the case remanded back to him to either retry the case or allow the appeal to go through.  But the corrupt individuals behind the bank(s) were unable to ever elicit such a decision from any federal court due to the fact that because of their vile hatred for him and what he had done to them and their little Queen’s Scheme, had him murdered (same as them murdering him) just about 6 months later.  And so, the case stands, just as it was.  Amazingly, if they hadn’t been so arrogant about the value of their federal reserve notes and paid the Justice just 2 measly silver dollars, or else 4 measly half dollars, or else 8 measly quarters, or else 20 measly dimes, or else 40 measly nickels, or else 200 measly pennies, they could have had their appeal and would not have had to get blood on their hands.
As it is, they are now known for their bloody ways, and the day will come when the American people will reap vengeance upon them for such a heinous and villainous act.  Amen.

Do not take photos of your boarding pass


Steve Hui from iflyflat.com.au decided to see how easy it was to obtain personal details from an innocent snap of a boarding pass. The results were frightening.
Steve Hui


YOUR boarding pass contains far, far more information than you might think. 
It doesn’t just display your name and where you’re flying, but gives people access to some highly confidential information, as well as providing the ability to modify or cancel your booking.

Just how easy is it to gain access to someone’s information?

I come across posts like the one below everyday. Pictures in which people show off a flashy boarding pass emblazoning their name and destination. Some may even be flying first or business class, so they want to share the excitement.

There are some very key pieces of information printed on most boarding cards: your name, your ticket number or booking reference, and a barcode.

On August 30, someone posted a photo of their boarding pass, so I decided to investigate how much information could be accessed. (The vital details have been blurred for the passenger’s sake.)

I decided to see how far I could go with this image posted online on August 30. Picture: Steve HuiSource:Supplied
The image was posted by an Australian Virgin Australia passenger, who was flying co-share on Delta Airlines.
Delta publishes an astonishing amount of information, including the E-Ticket number, booking reference, frequent flyer number and even how many bags you have checked in. I decided to test just how vulnerable the system was, and headed to the Delta website.
Under “Manage My Booking” all that is needed is a passenger name and an E-Ticket number or booking reference.
As all that was on the boarding card, I was quickly able to log into the booking and see all the passenger’s details.

A lot of information could be accessed on Delta’s website. Picture: Steve HuiSource:Supplied
From that information, I could view the passenger’s entire itinerary, and see when and where they were going to travel.

Details also included their seat numbers, frequent flyer details and ticket numbers.

It didn’t end there. Picture: Steve HuiSource:Supplied

Taking it even further, it was easy to see a full breakdown of the fare paid, including the date of purchase and the last four digits of the credit card used.



The personal details kept rolling in. Picture: Steve HuiSource:Supplied

People with malicious minds could use that information to potentially cancel or change your flights, change your seat or cause other issues.

BEWARE: THE BARCODE HIDES EVEN MORE INFO

Even scarier than this is what can come up on a barcode.

In this example is another social media photo, where the passenger has attempted to cover up the important information.



This passenger hid her full name but left the barcode in full view. Picture: Steve HuiSource:Supplied

She has unknowingly left the barcode visible (which I’ve covered up), something even savvy travellers may commonly overlook.

The barcode contains basically all the information on the boarding pass, stored in a specially readable format.

You may think that airport computers are the only devices that can read this, but the truth is, anyone can read a barcode. There are dozens of online barcode readers that provide information based on a photo you upload.

In this case, I was able to retrieve all the passenger’s details without seeing the rest of the boarding card.

The text provided full name, flight number, route, booking reference, ticket number, frequent flyer number and more.

Accessing all this information is a lot easier than you may have thought, and there is a great risk associated with publishing uncensored images of boarding passes.

Not only can these details be used for identity theft purposes, but you can suffer major financial loss if someone were to use this method to take control of a frequent flyer account.


Barcode readers are easy to come by. Picture: Steve HuiSource:Supplied

It’s easy to see just how revealing these seemingly innocent pictures can be.

In a social world where we want to share everything instantly on a global scale with Facebook or Instagram.

IDENTITY THEFT RISK IS REAL

Beware that the risk of identity theft is very high. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t post images of boarding passes at all — if you want to show off that hard-earned business or first class ticket to the world, just be sure to cover up or blur out any vital information.

A much safer idea is to share pictures of you drinking champagne in the lounge or on board the plane.
It’s much more than just a boarding card, so be smarter and please take care.

Research carried out by Steve Hui, CEO of www.iflyflat.com.au — experts in optimising frequent flyer points to fly.

Monday, September 12, 2016

List of paedophile judges in NSW

Here are the contents of an email obtained:

( Illustration Chief Justice Tom Bathurst - New South Wales Supreme Court)


Dear Chief Justice Bathurst, Justice Hoeben, Justice Price, Justice Simpson other
judges

I am writing to you all regarding the list of paedophile judges that I intended on
making a formal complaint about to the AFP, Australian Crime Commission, NSW
Crime Commission and Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse. The list is
below. 

Known paedophiles

Chief Justice Tom Bathurst - NSW Supreme Court
Justice Clifton Hoeben – NSW Supreme Court
Justice Derek Price - NSW Supreme Court (He is also Chief Judge of the NSW
District Court)
Justice Carolyn Simpson - NSW Supreme Court

Judge Richard Cogswell – NSW District Court
Judge Garry Neilson – NSW District Court
Magistrate Doug Dick – NSW Magistrates Court

Suspected paedophiles 

Justice Ian Harrison - NSW Supreme Court
Justice Lucy McCallum - NSW Supreme Court
Justice Peter Hall - NSW Supreme Court
Justice Michael Adams - NSW Supreme Court
Acting Justice Henric Nicholas - NSW Supreme Court (now retired)
Acting Justice Robert Hulme - NSW Supreme Court
Justice David Davies - NSW Supreme Court
Justice  Peter Garling - NSW Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Campbell - NSW Supreme Court
Registrar Rebel Kenna - NSW Supreme Court
Registrar Christopher Bradford - NSW Supreme Court

Source Supplied