Human right to adequate housing - Housing is a right, not a comodity.

The United Nations Human Rights Office of the Commissioner has put out a report on the right to adequate housing.

The Australian Government has installed a 'housing crisis' on the good people of Australia, where there is not enough housing for Australian citizens as a result of the government's policy to over import immigrants into the colony.

The Australian government is in breach of the human right to adequate housing.

So what are Australia's so called top legal minds/law firms, doing about it?

Why nothing of course, as they are protecting their brethren in government and of course 'the economy'.

Australia is a 'member state' of the United Nations since the 1st of November 1945.

The Office Of The High Commissioner states the following on the human right to adequate housing:

Housing is the basis of stability and security for an individual or family. The centre of our social, emotional and sometimes economic lives, a home should be a sanctuary—a place to live in peace, security and dignity.

Housing is a right, not a commodity

Manhattan - New York

Increasingly viewed as a commodity, housing is most importantly a human right. Under international law, to be adequately housed means having secure tenure—not having to worry about being evicted or having your home or lands taken away. It means living somewhere that is in keeping with your culture, and having access to appropriate services, schools, and employment.

Too often violations of the right to housing occur with impunity. In part, this is because, at the domestic level, housing is rarely treated as a human right. The key to ensuring adequate housing is the implementation of this human right through appropriate government policy and programmes, including national housing strategies.

Evictions and displacement

Climate change, natural disasters and armed conflict pose a threat to the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing and displace every year millions. Infrastructure development, hydro-power dams, and mega-events, such as Olympic Games or football World Cups, should contribute to the realization of the right to adequate housing and not undermine it.

Housing and real estate markets worldwide have been transformed by global capital markets and financial excess. Known as the financialization of housing, the phenomenon occurs when housing is treated as a commodity – a vehicle for wealth and investment rather than a social good.

Equality and non-discrimination

While revenues from real estate have accumulated, our cities have become increasingly unaffordable. In many countries women, religious and ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, migrants and refugees face discrimination in relation to housing or live in the most appalling conditions. Spatial segregation excludes many residents from equal access to public services, education, transportation and other opportunities. Local Governments are often at the forefront of the struggle for housing and can play a key role in protecting and realizing the right to adequate housing.

Homelessness and informal settlements

More than 1.8 billion people live in informal settlements or inadequate housing with limited access to essential services such as water and sanitation, electricity and are often under threat of forced eviction. And one of the most severe violations of the right to adequate housing—homelessness—has been on a steep increase in many economically advanced countries.

Building back better

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need for everyone to have a safe home to shelter. The economic crisis that followed will see many people unable to pay their rent or mortgage. National, regional and local governments need to prevent a new disastrous wave of evictions and urgently address discriminatory patterns of social exclusion in the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing. Only together we can ensure that nobody will be left behind.

The right to adequate housing in human rights law

Adequate housing was recognized as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 11.1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Other international human rights treaties have since recognized or referred to the right to adequate housing or some elements of it, such as the protection of one’s home and privacy.  

The right to adequate housing is relevant to all States, as they have all ratified at least one international treaty referring to adequate housing and committed themselves to protecting the right to adequate housing through international declarations, plans of action or conference outcome documents. Various international treaties and declarations referring to the right to adequate housing are available at the following link. 

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has underlined that the right to adequate housing should not be interpreted narrowly. Rather, it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. The characteristics of the right to adequate housing are clarified mainly in the Committee’s general comments No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing and No. 7 (1997) on forced evictions.  

The right to adequate housing contains freedoms.

These freedoms include:

• Protection against forced evictions and the arbitrary destruction and demolition of one’s home;
• The right to be free from arbitrary interference with one’s home, privacy and family; and
• The right to choose one’s residence, to determine where to live and to freedom of movement.

The right to adequate housing contains entitlements.

These entitlements include:

• Security of tenure;
• Housing, land and property restitution;
• Equal and non-discriminatory access to adequate housing; and
• Participation in housing-related decision-making at the national and community levels.

Key elements of the right to adequate housing

Adequate housing must provide more than four walls and a roof. A number of conditions must be met before particular forms of shelter can be considered to constitute “adequate housing.” These elements are just as fundamental as the basic supply and availability of housing. For housing to be adequate, it must, at a minimum, meet the following criteria:

• Security of tenure: Housing is not adequate if its occupants do not have a degree of tenure security which guarantees legal protection against forced evictions, harassment and other threats.
• Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure: Housing is not adequate if its occupants do not have safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, energy for cooking, heating, lighting, food storage or refuse disposal.
• Affordability: Housing is not adequate if its cost threatens or compromises the occupants’ enjoyment of other human rights.
• Habitability: Housing is not adequate if it does not guarantee physical safety or provide adequate space, as well as protection against the cold, damp, heat, rain, wind, other threats to health and structural hazards.
• Accessibility: Housing is not adequate if the specific needs of disadvantaged and marginalized groups are not taken into account.
• Location: Housing is not adequate if it is cut off from employment opportunities, health-care services, schools, childcare centres and other social facilities, or if located in polluted or dangerous areas.
• Cultural adequacy: Housing is not adequate if it does not respect and take into account the expression of cultural identity.

See the OCCHR Fact Sheet on the right to adequate housing:

Australia’s Kangaroo Courts and corrupt Tribunals.

A place of corruption: South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Australia is the Wild Wild West, with reference to the lack of following the law, but this time not by the general population but rather those in positions of some authority.

Corruption is at an all time high, where also it's a free for all on the public purse by those in government.

Falsified tenders that are setup by shell corporations by those who have friends or family in government, are just a small part of the corruption in Australia.

Another huge aspect of corruption is that of those in the Judicial arm of government, where they cause harm to persons involved in the court system, where judicial misconduct and abuse of power are the main modus operandi at the end of the business day.

The colony’s businesses called Tribunals or rather persons within these tribunals are abusing their power and causing harm to unsuspecting victims.

In the instance the focus is on SACAT (South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), on the ‘Mari’ family.

Mrs. ‘Mari an 80-year-old non-English-speaking, Italian mother and her daughter ‘Rosie’ have been persecuted by the OAW (Office of Aging Well) with the forced removal of Mrs Mari’s two severely disabled daughters in their late 50s, “Tessa” and “Lotus” - Rosie’s sisters - into state care by use of deception and extra-judicial powers carried out in complete secrecy.

Human rights advocates say public servants are ignoring legislation and overriding the checks and balances put in place by Parliament to protect South Australians from systemic and administrative abuses of power and authority designed to uphold the human rights of those most vulnerable individuals.  Director of KSM Disability Consultancy, Ms. Ksenija Kristo, said “There is a dangerous clique of public servants which operate within the shadows, away from any public scrutiny.

These public officials work for the Attorney General but they don’t have to answer to anyone at all – not even the Attorney General or Parliament.  However, they can approach Parliament for more coercive and oppressive powers and protections for themselves, which is rarely questioned or denied.”

Despite the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) Act 2013 making clear hearings before it are intended - by law - to be “open and transparent” public servants, like Member Joanna Richardson, have managed to bypass these legislative protections with impunity, disadvantaging and persecuting thousands of innocent people.

Human rights advocate Ms. Ksenija Kristo stated, “The disabled women had a $2 million bounty on their heads and the State of South Australia wanted it all.  The OAW is controlled by ideological Statists who routinely disregard the rights of families to care for their own. Mrs. Mari’s daughters were essentially kidnapped by the Attorney General through a secret hearing, without any formal SACAT Orders and with no rights of appeal to a legitimate authority; denying Mrs. Mari and her family every procedural fairness and violating all natural justice principles.

First, the SACAT denied Mrs. Mari and Rosie the right to defend themselves as ‘interested parties’.  Then, SACAT prohibited Mrs. Mari from having her strongest professional advocates (KSM Disability Consultancy) attend the hearing, make submissions and support her appeal to have her daughters returned home. To make matters worse, Member Richardson removed off the file almost 200 pages of compelling defence showing clear evidence of gross misconduct by the OAW and shocking malpractice by the various NDIS Allied Health professionals involved in the “care” of the disabled women.  

Member Richardson had a clear conflict of interest with Mrs. Mari’s advocate and critic of SACAT, Dr. Matilda Bawden, and - by law - should have recused herself but instead she decided to punish Mrs. Mari by denying her the right to advocacy and to have her say; even going so far as to coerce Mrs. Mari to choose another, less competent advocate offered to her by the OPA – the very authority involved in the corruption behind the wrongful removal of her daughters in the first place.”

SACAT had a coverup job to do when the Adult Safeguarding Unit (ASU) knocked on Mrs. Mari’s door to kidnap her daughters on the pretence of a social outing, from which they would never return.  

While the ASU and OPA websites broadcast the purported right of families to access advocacy services and make complaints, in reality, the OAW, ASU, OPA, and SACAT strip vulnerable individuals of these very rights at every opportunity and they will refuse to investigate complaints.

When, on legal advice, Dr Bawden sought to apply as Intervener in the case, first she was informed that Member Richardson had “banned” her from making any applications to SACAT and that the ban was allegedly “unappealable”.  After Dr Bawden applied to become an Intervener on Mrs. Mari’s behalf anyway, during a hearing on 5th March 2025, Member Richardson engaged in a theatrical monologue, pretending firstly that Dr Bawden had to meet some obscure academic threshold of qualifications to serve as the family’s best advocate.  

Then Member Richardson pretended to seek the input of Mrs. Mari’s persecutors as to whether Dr Bawden should be permitted to advocate for Mrs. Mari despite Mrs. Mari being unrepresented against TWO officers from the OPA, TWO officers from ASU, Legal Services Commission and the Public Trustee.  The primary objection by the OPA and ASU given to Dr Bawden being Mrs. Mari’s advocate was her alleged “combative” and “unprofessional” communication, however, no specifics were given to substantiate such absurd proposition and Dr Bawden was given no opportunity to probe this nonsense.

“Imagine that!”, Dr Bawden said, “These criminals object to an advocate being so effective as to be blocked and banned for allegedly being “combative” when highlighting the corruption so clearly apparent in the Mari Family’s case.  Ironically, the same public officials colluding to kidnap the two disabled women from the care of their beautiful and loving family is not considered by them as either provoked or “combative”. The OAW’s ASU blatantly and knowingly lying to SACAT, claiming there were no family members who could act as Guardians of Last Resort, when in fact Mrs. Mari has over nine responsible adults and their partners willing and capable of stepping in to care for her family is also not considered “combative”.  Nor is secretly kidnapping Mrs. Mari’s daughters without proper Orders considered “combative”.  The lack of introspection and self-reflection is astounding!”.

Then Member Richardson postulated that Dr Bawden had committed a criminal offence by writing to members of Parliament alerting authorities to the grave injustices being played out within the SACAT, before finally demanding that Dr Bawden give her a verbal undertaking never to speak or write about the case publicly – despite no anonymization, suppression or non-publication orders having been issued. 

When Dr Bawden protested that it was the right of Mrs. Mari to be represented and that she would comply with any formal SACAT Orders handed down by Member Richardson, but would not voluntarily forfeit Mrs. Mari’s human and legal rights by consenting to such obscene and unlawful demands, Member Richardson ordered Dr Bawden out of the room and forbid her to further advocate for Mrs. Mari.

“The corruption didn’t stop there!” Dr Bawden said.  “When Mrs. Mari applied to have access to audio recordings of the very proceedings in which her rights were violated so brazenly (on request of a lawyer seeking to assist Mrs. Mari with advice), that request was also denied and Mrs. Mari was advised that this too was allegedly unappealable.  Of course, we know that this legal advice by SACAT is false also, however, Mrs. Mari doesn’t have $150,000 to take the State to court and that’s why corrupt public officials become emboldened to continue such illegal conduct, as they know that not even Parliament or a higher court will stop them! 

Member Richardson knows that without my willing compliance with her illegal demands, she could not continue to hold Mrs. Mari and her daughters hostage without damning public scrutiny.  Now watch the audio recordings and transcripts mysteriously go missing so the crimes committed by Member Richardson on the 5th February, 17th February, 27th February and 5th March 2025 will never see the light of day”.

 

Ms. Ksenija Kristo is available for comment at

ksmdisabilityconsultancy@gmail.com or by phone at 0403 871 364.

Source supplied.

VCAT also abuses their power every single day within their hearings, where most people are not aware that they are victims of judicial misconduct.

WARNING: NEVER rely on court (or tribunal) recordings, where it is in your best interest to bring your own independent ‘witness’.

Serbia a 'Digital Prison', Australia well on its way there too

Too many people in the colony are ignorant of the fact that the Australian people are steered towards a digital prison.

The 'enticing' of cashless society, for convenience.

The 'enticing' of people to use apps for government services, is so that the plebs are more easily (and cost effectively) administered.

The use of phone call in or video conferencing for court cases is all about the more cost effective administration of the serfs.

The removal of physical 'bricks and mortar' bank branches are forcing people to use less cash, meaning more profits for the banks and less privacy for the people.

The genral population is pushed towards a cashless society in order to better monitor and then control their movements.

The people in control of this colony in key positions are descendents of the Anglo-Masonic colonialists, where the policies of today to not have any room for the serfs to live a democracy that favours 'free speech' as shown by the current laws put into circulation.

Are the new laws in circulation 'lawfully'? The short answer is no. 

See article:

This is all part of the order of the new world for the next level nanny state.

'District 9' coming to a colony near you?

Keeping in mind that your silence is acquiescence.

Dodgy real estate agents and landlord’s hiking up the rent

Slick Agent

AS everyone should be a ware, the ‘housing crisis’ was installed on the good people of Australia by the federal government, where this information is available in other articles on this site.

As a result of this so called ‘housing crisis’ real estate agents together with landlords or rather rental providers are exploiting the vulnerable and profiteering from this government created crisis with little reaction from the regulating authorities.

We have obtained information from an anonymous source that exposes this blatant profiteering.

A Melbourne suburbs rental property that was rented via a real estate agency was rented for a weekly amount of $380, which was fair for the condition of the premises also given the low quality area it was situated in.

Soon after when the next time the property came up for rent again, the price was raised to $500 per week, an action that should be under the allegedly watchful eye and intervention of by Consumer Affairs Victoria.

An increase of $120 or 31.5% per week falls outside of the acceptable limit.

- Will the authorities step in and ‘regulate’ this?

- Will real estate companies (in conjunction with rental providers) keep ripping off people without any consequences?

At the end of the day it’s BAU (Business AS Usual) at the expense of the serfs/plebs.

After all back in the good ol’ days if one was a renter or woman, one had no (electoral) voice, just as the Commonwealth intended, despite the fact that Sir William Blackstone already put pen to paper on the Absolute Rights of Individuals in 1753, a precursor to what we know as ‘Human Rights’ today.

Australia the human rights breaching fascist state, disguised as a democracy.

Next level surveillance: Everything you say to your Echo will be sent to Amazon starting on March 28

Amazon is killing a privacy feature to bolster Alexa+, the new subscription assistant.

Since Amazon announced plans for a generative AI version of Alexa, we were concerned about user privacy. With Alexa+ rolling out to Amazon Echo devices in the coming weeks, we’re getting a clearer view of the privacy concessions people will have to make to maximize usage of the AI voice assistant and avoid bricking functionality of already-purchased devices.

In an email sent to customers today, Amazon said that Echo users will no longer be able to set their devices to process Alexa requests locally and, therefore, avoid sending voice recordings to Amazon’s cloud. Amazon apparently sent the email to users with “Do Not Send Voice Recordings," which is supported by the Echo (4th Gen), Echo Show 15, and Echo Show 10, enabled. Starting on March 28, recordings of every command spoken to the Alexa living in Echo speakers and smart displays will automatically be sent to Amazon and processed in the cloud.

Attempting to rationalize the change, Amazon’s email said:

As we continue to expand Alexa’s capabilities with generative AI features that rely on the processing power of Amazon’s secure cloud, we have decided to no longer support this feature.

One of the most marketed features of Alexa+ is its more advanced ability to recognize who is speaking to it, a feature known as Alexa Voice ID. To accommodate this feature, Amazon is eliminating a privacy-focused capability for all Echo users, even those who aren’t interested in the subscription-based version of Alexa or want to use Alexa+ but not its ability to recognize different voices.

 However, there are plenty of reasons people wouldn't want Amazon to receive recordings of what they say to their personal device. For one, the idea of a conglomerate being able to listen to personal requests made in your home is, simply, unnerving.

Further, Amazon has previously mismanaged Alexa voice recordings. In 2023, Amazon agreed to pay $25 million in civil penalties over the revelation that it stored recordings of children’s interactions with Alexa forever. Adults also didn’t feel properly informed of Amazon’s inclination to keep Alexa recordings unless prompted not to until 2019—five years after the first Echo came out.

If that's not enough to deter you from sharing voice recordings with Amazon, note that the company allowed employees to listen to Alexa voice recordings. In 2019, Bloomberg reported that Amazon employees listened to as many as 1,000 audio samples during their nine-hour shifts. Amazon says it allows employees to listen to Alexa voice recordings to train its speech recognition and natural language understanding systems.

Other reasons people may be hesitant to trust Amazon with personal voice samples include the previous usage of Alexa voice recordings in criminal trials and Amazon paying a settlement in 2023 in relation to allegations that it allowed "thousands of employees and contractors to watch video recordings of customers' private spaces" taken from Ring cameras, per the Federal Trade Commission.

Save recordings or lose functionality

Likely looking to get ahead of these concerns, Amazon said in its email today that by default, it will delete recordings of users’ Alexa requests after processing. However, anyone with their Echo device set to “Don’t save recordings” will see their already-purchased devices’ Voice ID feature bricked. Voice ID enables Alexa to do things like share user-specified calendar events, reminders, music, and more. Previously, Amazon has said that "if you choose not to save any voice recordings, Voice ID may not work." As of March 28, broken Voice ID is a guarantee for people who don't let Amazon store their voice recordings.

Amazon's email says:

Alexa voice requests are always encrypted in transit to Amazon’s secure cloud, which was designed with layers of security protections to keep customer information safe. Customers can continue to choose from a robust set of controls by visiting the Alexa Privacy dashboard online or navigating to More > Alexa Privacy in the Alexa app.

Amazon is forcing Echo users to make a couple of tough decisions: Grant Amazon access to recordings of everything you say to Alexa or stop using an Echo; let Amazon save voice recordings and have employees listen to them or lose a feature set to become more advanced and central to the next generation of Alexa.

However, Amazon is betting big that Alexa+ can dig the voice assistant out of a financial pit. Amazon has publicly committed to keeping the free version of Alexa around, but Alexa+ is viewed as Amazon's last hope for keeping Alexa alive and making it profitable. Anything Amazon can do to get people to pay for Alexa takes precedence over other Alexa user demands, including, it seems, privacy.

This article was updated to list the Echo devices that support local processing of Alexa requests. 

arstechnica

ALL part of the global 'Nanny State' agenda.

Cash bribes, ‘racism’ rife in Melbourne’s rental market

MANY people in the rental market will be familiar with the amount of personal data they MUST provide to rental agencies, where this fact alone opens up their data to privacy breaches and fraud in their name, but that is another can of worms deliberately omitted by the authorities, a separate article for another day.

First and foremost, the Australian governments, both federal and state, have installed austerity on the tax slaves of the colony.

The ‘housing crisis’ was deliberately installed on the good people of Australia, where their basic right to adequate housing was taken away by the federal government, which is an abuse of human rights.

The corporatisation of the 'Commonwealth' as of 1971.

There was a time where those in governance of the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ were more honourable people than the ones in charge of this corporatised government today, where they provided enough or adequate housing for all of Australia’s citizens or more accurately ‘subjects’ of Queen Elizabeth the Second.

Australians as 'subjects' of Queen Elizabeth the 'Second' (as opposed to II)

The government deliberately overpopulated cities like Melbourne by importing more corporate fodder than the infrastructures (public transport, roads, utilities and most importantly - housing) could handle, deliberately creating dis-ease for the community.

Australia the bankrupt.

Australia, as in the Australian Government, is bankrupt morally and financially, where in order to alleviate the financial bankrupcy, they need to import more debt slaves or 'resources' which will allow them to print more fiat currency.

In this deliberate over immigration policy, the government also imported a lot of criminals and people with criminal intent, people who have zero intentions to live a ‘normal’ law abiding life from places like Africa, the Middle East, Lebanon, India and Pakistan.

These low quality humans or people with criminal intent have diversified (as it’s all about ‘diversity’ in Australia) into the building and real estate industries, as well as the bottomless cash cows called city councils and other positions in government, where in reality Australia is truly a crime scene.

Are many or all of these criminals going to be deported back to where they came from?

Of course not, as they are released back into the community to terrorise the citizens, and keep the courts and legal businesses alive.

People of different nationalities from the geographical locations mentioned above that have occupied key roles in the real estate industry, first and foremost help their own ‘kind’, where if this was done by ‘white’ people they’d be accused of ‘racism’ even though technically this is not a factual term, as people of all ‘colour’ form the human ‘race’* (see document below).

Immigrants with a shady past, and dubious earnings are ‘given’ rentals. by their ‘brothers’ in the real estate industry, while many ‘Australians’ that have earned an ‘honourable’ living are deliberately left without a place to live in.

People with normally unacceptable paperwork that will not give them a lease, also supplement their so called application with a standard $1,000 cash to the agent, where the paperwork will be bypassed in order to get the rental property. Sure the 'rental provider' may have the last say, but that person can be persuaded by the realtor.

Information obtained from an industry professional only under the condition of anonimity stated that many people involved in criminal activity pay much more to secure a lease in order to carry out their criminal activity in the rented premises.

The government deliberately turns a blind eye to this type of activity, as it feeds the government purse more than ever before, meaning the government benefits from the proceeds of criminal activity.

* Race & Genetics versus 'race' in genettics:

Source:supplied

Samsung’s lies on battery capacity

Corporations, or rather people in multinational corporations lie to their ‘consumers’, public or general population every single day, and they’re allowed to get away with it.

From automotive manufacturers on fuel economy to smartphone manufacturers they put out ‘optimistic’ or rather ‘deliberately inaccurate figures in relation to the performance of their devices, and the regulatory ‘industry’ is silent on this, as it’s all about consumerism.

So in this example, Samsung’s new Galaxy S25 Edge has a battery rated capacity of 3,786mAh, which apparently ‘translates’ into a marketed value of 3,900mAh.

Why not a ‘marketed’ value of 3,800mAh?

Because 3,900 sounds closer to 4,000 than 3,800?

Many may say that it’s trivial, but that is not the point, as the ‘marketing’ is quite simply put false information, irrespective of the production percentage error from battery to battery.

VicPol ‘just doin’ my job’ – NO YOU’RE NOT, re: lawful summonses

MANY police will claim ignorance or “that’s what it says here” with regards to some paperwork they possess, or even show you a spreadsheet claiming it’s a warrant, as many have done so to their unsuspecting victims.

The Victoria Police Act of 2013, is a law regarding how officers must act.

There is no if/but/I didn’t know, excuse.

Part 4 of the above mentioned Act, pertains to Police duties, powers, entitlements, protection and liability

Paying attention to:

Section 56 Execution of process and warrants

(1) A police officer has a duty to execute—

        (b) all lawful summonses, warrants, orders and directions directed to him or         her by a court or tribunal.

The key word here is “lawful”.

From the 2020’s onwards the state’s police forces have been acting unlawfully, causing bodily harm, trespass to the person, unlawful incarceration, installing horrific violence on ‘persons’ with total impunity.

NO officer has been charged with a criminal offence or had to pay out of his/her own pocket from criminal actions, and there is no 'remedy' for the victims of violence by default, where persuing a remedy is a deliberately time and energy consuming process not to mention its cost.

Australia's legal system/business is deliberately stacked against the victims of government's criminal actions.

A judge from the County Court of Victoria ruled that Victoria Police have acted in an unlawful way, against the good people of Melbourne that have gathered in order to have their say about a particular health matter in play.

Victoria Police also acted under dictation and had zero regards to their ‘unlawful’ actions, further cementing the fact that Victorians live in police state.

Now here comes another aspect that many in government want to keep a secret, and perpetuate the legal lie that tribunals, like VCAT, have some sort of judical powers when issuing orders that require the actions of Victoria Police.

To make this very clear, when VCAT issues an order that requires the actions of Victoria Police, VCAT has no judicial power to do so, meaning the actions of Victoria Police on a person are then unlawful.

See post:

VCAT acts beyond its power – unenforceable judicial decisions!

VCAT acts beyond its power – unenforceable judicial decisions!

MANY Australian authorities act beyond the scope of what they are lawfully allowed.

What is worse is they also gaslight you during this process.

Recently, approximately one year ago, Queensland’s Supreme Court ruled that the so called COVID-19 vaccine mandate for frontline workers was unlawful.

See article:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-28/covid19-vaccine-frontline-worker-mandate-supreme-court-ruling/103517798

SO during this mandate, the authorities did not check whether they had the lawfully enacted instrument for the ‘mandate’ to occur, they just forced the trial drug on frontline workers because that's what they wanted to do.

If you did not comply, your employment would be terminated.

Therefore those that did not comply were unlawfully terminated, where the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal business did not offer a remedy for the victims of government abuse.

VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) as its name suggests is a tribunal.

 VCAT is enacting one the largest legal cons on the unsuspecting Victorian public.

The current, as of 23 June 2023, president of VCAT judge Edward (Ted) Winslow Woodward, pictured left, together with every single member issuing orders are complicit in this fraud causing harm to many respondents.

Will this ever come out like in the above mentioned Supreme Court case from Queensland?

Well, it’s already out since 2018, and it’s a one up better as it’s from the High Court of Australia.

Will the media pick up on this? Did they inform the general population of this from 2018?

Let’s do a quick recap on the unlawful actions of VCAT with regards to MANY orders issued by them.

First and foremost:

• The High Court's decision Burns v Corbett significantly narrowed the jurisdiction of commissions and tribunals.

• The High Court held that the Australian Constitution precludes a State tribunal from exercising federal and state jurisdiction, as tribunals are not Courts and cannot exercise judicial powers and jurisdiction.

A tribunal or Commission not being a 'court of a State' cannot adjudicate disputes involving any of the matters set out in ss 75 and 76 of the Australian Constitution, (see the sections below) even when the dispute involves the application of State legislation. The decision affects all areas of law including:

- anti-discrimination disputes,

- residential tenancy disputes,

- building and construction disputes.

A State law cannot impair or detract from the operation of a Commonwealth law by impairing the Commonwealth law’s ‘conditional and universal’ application, except to the extent that it has a ‘legal operation or practical effect within the universe of the conditional legal operation of the Commonwealth law’. Impairing or detracting from s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act is to say that the Parliament has made a complete, exhaustive and exclusive statement on federal jurisdiction: ‘It is necessarily to say that the Commonwealth Parliament has not only provided positively for the conditional investiture of federal jurisdiction in State courts but has also stipulated negatively for the non-investiture of any jurisdiction with respect to any of those matters other than in State courts.’ Gageler J noted the difficulty of finding any such ‘negative penumbra’ in the text of s 39(2), and stated that the more fundamental problem lies in finding a source of Commonwealth legislative power: namely that s 77(iii) does not allow Parliament to confer judicial power on a tribunal that is not a State court.

The Industrial Relations Tribunals and tribunals of the State such as VCAT and the Fair Work Commission all fall into the same category, 

- they fail to be courts and cannot provide you with an enforceable judicial decision.

Let's see the case file:

THEREFORE, ANY Order that is enforced by law enforcement, e.g. Victoria Police is done so unlawfully.

Tortfeasor is a term worth exploring.

Have you been harmed by VCAT?

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75

Original jurisdiction of High Court.

    In all matters--

  (i.)   Arising under any treaty:

  (ii.)   Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries:

  (iii.)   In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

  (iv.)   Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State:

  (v.)   In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. 

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 76

Additional original jurisdiction.

    The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High court in any matter--

  (i.)   Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation:

  (ii.)   Arising under any laws made by the Parliament:

  (iii.)   Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:

  (iv.)   Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States. 

Merri-bek corrupt city council governed by looney left. Discounts for First Nations: Wokest Oz Council.

Australians are deliberately over-administered by so called ‘authorities’ where in many instances these authorities act beyond their limited powers.

Today’s city councils are not the lawfully enacted departments of the state as ‘municipal offices’ of the past, as required the Commonwealth Constitution.

In Victoria city councils will tell you that they have their ‘authority’ from the Local Government Act 1979.

But is this so called authority lawfully enacted?

The short answer is no.

City Councils in general are a cesspit of ‘money for mates’ jobs where many unqualified persons are in place, rorting the rate payers.

Is there a so called ‘Royal Commission’ into this?

Of course not, as this should also expose the illegitimacy of those in office in the councils, which would then be detrimental to the Victorian government as this would expose the monumental fraud perpetuated by the government on the good people of Victoria.

Corruption in City Councils is rife, where in one instance only, the whole ‘City Council’ of Brimbank was sacked.

The same action should also occur at the City Council of ‘Merri-bek’ formerly known as the City of Moreland, whose name change was not necessary not warranted, but rather imposed on the people, to keep the positions of those in office justified, as if they care about the Indigenous people.

See the pathetic lunacy by those within Merri-Bek in this short 7 minute video: