Police Speed Equipment Manuals

Here are some of the colony's police force's manuals for the equipment used to measure a driver's velocity.

If a device has been used to ascertain your vehicle's speed, where you are contesting this, then in the full brief*, the manual to the device must be included.

See:

Gatsometer MRS Type 24 Slant Radar: 

Gatsometer Radar 24-GS11 (Sep 2013) v3.0:

NSW Silver Eagle Radar:

Pro Laser 3:

Stalker DSR 2X :

TruCam (By Laser Technology, Inc):

Victronic PoliScan:

* full brief:-

In Victoria, a Full Brief is described at law, from the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 Section 41:

 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009 - SECT 41

Contents of full brief

    (1)     Unless earlier disclosed to the accused, whether in a preliminary brief, at a summary case conference or otherwise, a full brief must contain—

        (a)     a notice in the form prescribed by the rules of court—

              (i)     explaining this section and section 83; and

              (ii)     explaining the importance of the accused obtaining legal representation; and

              (iii)     advising that the accused has the right, if eligible, to legal aid under the Legal Aid Act 1978 ; and

              (iv)     providing details of how to contact Victoria Legal Aid; and

        (b)         a copy of the charge-sheet relating to the alleged offence; and

S. 41(1)(c) amended by No. 81/2011 s. 5.

        (c)     a copy of the criminal record of the accused or a statement that the accused has no previous convictions or infringement convictions; and

        (d)     any information, document or thing on which the prosecution intends to rely at the hearing of the charge including—

              (i)     a copy of any statement relevant to the charge signed by the accused, or a record of interview of the accused, that is in the possession of the informant; and

              (ii)     a copy, or a transcript, of any audio‑recording or audiovisual recording required to be made under Subdivision (30A) of Division 1 of Part III of the Crimes Act 1958 ; and

S. 41(1)(d)(iii) amended by No. 68/2009 s. 49(a).

              (iii)     a copy or statement of any other evidentiary material that is in the possession of the informant relating to a confession or admission made by the accused relevant to the charge; and

              (iv)     a list of the persons the prosecution intends to call as witnesses at the hearing, together with a copy of each of the statements made by those persons; and

Note

See section 47 for requirements for statements.

              (v)     a legible copy of any document which the prosecution intends to produce as evidence; and

              (vi)     a list of any things the prosecution intends to tender as exhibits; and

              (vii)     a clear photograph, or a clear copy of such a photograph, of any proposed exhibit that cannot be described in detail in the list; and

              (viii)                 a description of any forensic procedure, examination or test that has not yet been completed and on which the prosecution intends to rely as tending to establish the guilt of the accused; and

              (ix)     any evidentiary certificate issued under any Act that is likely to be relevant to the alleged offence; and

        (e)     any other information, document or thing in the possession of the prosecution that is relevant to the alleged offence including—

              (i)     a list of the persons (including experts) who have made statements or given information relevant to the alleged offence but who the prosecution does not intend to call as witnesses at the hearing; and

              (ii)     a copy of every statement referred to in subparagraph (i) made by each of those persons or, if the person has not made a statement, a written summary of the substance of any evidence likely to be given by that person or a list of those statements or written summaries; and

              (iii)     a copy of every document relevant to the alleged offence that the prosecution does not intend to tender as an exhibit at the hearing or a list of those documents; and

              (iv)     a list containing descriptions of any things relevant to the alleged offence that the prosecution does not intend to tender as exhibits at the hearing; and

              (v)     a clear photograph, or a clear copy of such a photograph, of any thing relevant to the alleged offence that cannot be described in detail in the list; and

              (vi)     a copy of—

    (A)     records of any medical examination of the accused; and

    (B)     reports of any forensic procedure or forensic examination conducted on the accused; and

    (C)     the results of any tests—

carried out on behalf of the prosecution and relevant to the alleged offence but on which the prosecution does not intend to rely; and

              (vii)     a copy of any other information, document or thing required by the rules of court to be included in a full brief; and

S. 41(1)(e)(viii) inserted by No. 1/2022 s. 10.

              (viii)     subject to section 32C of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 , a copy of any information, document or thing that is relevant to the credibility of a witness for the prosecution; and

Example

The witness' criminal history (including pending charges), or the giving of a letter of assistance to the witness, the reduction of criminal charges against the witness, other favourable treatment in a criminal proceeding, or any payment or reward provided, as a result of the witness' cooperation with police.

        (f)     if the informant refuses to disclose any information, document or thing that is required to be included in the full brief, a written notice that the informant refuses disclosure under section 45, identifying the ground for refusing disclosure.

    (2)     Section 48 applies to information and other material supplied in a full brief.

Notes to s.   41 amended by No. 68/2009 s. 51(n).

Notes

1     See section 416 as to the prosecution's general obligation of disclosure.

2     Section 39(4) enables an informant and an accused to agree to the provision of less material in the full brief than is required by section 41.

3     If the Magistrates' Court hears and determines a charge in the absence of the accused, section 83 provides that certain documents in a full brief served on the accused are admissible in evidence.

4     See section 86 as to proof of criminal record in the absence of the accused.

S.   41A inserted by No. 1/2022 s. 5.

See reference:

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cpa2009188/s41.html

NOTE:

There is a problem with point c:

"(c)     a copy of the criminal record of the accused or a statement that the accused has no previous convictions or infringement convictions; "

as this can ONLY occur with your CONSENT, something they DON'T want you to know.

See post:

Police criminality hidden in all court cases, right to a 'fair hearing' impossible!

The court or 'administration of justice' will deceive you the moment you attend to front desk or clerk with regards to your matter.

When you've decided to contest the Infringement Notice, a preliminary brief will be sent to you with regards to the alleged criminal offence.

It is with this preliminary brief that you see the court clerk.

The clerk will then ask you how you wish to plea, guilty or not guilty, deliberately misinforming or rather no mentioning that you have a third option, that being a "No plea".

"The 3 pleas"

One should not make a plea until one has legal advice, and one should not obtain legal advice based on a preliminary brief but rather a full brief as described at law.

Police deliberately omit crucial documentation in the preliminary brief that is vital to the defence of the accused.

Please note that the above point (4) can be replaced with the words: 

full disclosure.

The police prosecutor will also try to extrude what line of defence you will take in the court in order to prepare his brethren in their case against you, which can also include falsifying evidence, where you should say that you’re uncertain until you get the full brief.

The corrupt Australian Defence Force tampering with evidence

People in government departments commit criminal actions every single day where most if not all go unnoticed.

The ADF is on organisation that commits criminal activities, not only within the colony but also abroad.

There is no ousting of this criminal activity nor any real court time for the age old excuse of ‘national security’, which can almost be alleged to anything.

‘Persons’ within the ADF have committed the crime of tampering with evidence with regards to Ben Roberts Smith’s killing of civilians overseas in Afghantistan.

They have altered photos to suit a false agenda.

 The photo on the left is the original untouched displaying the Crusader's cross, while the one on the right is the official one the ADF released.

The problem now is will there be any criminal charges against the persons involved?

Will the victims of Ben Robert-Smith's actions get any real remedy?

Police criminality hidden in all court cases, right to a 'fair hearing' impossible!

“The system is broken”, no it’s not, it’s functioning perfectly the way it was designed.

The legal system is stacked against you (the serf) even before you enter the premises of a court, let alone a court room.

The colony’s police forces are organisations that commit criminal activities every single day, but the general population is blissfully oblivious to this fact, and with the help of the media, their crimes are kept from the public eye. 

If police are committing criminal offences, then it’s up to the people to catch them out, just like motorists are criminals and it’s up to the police to allege this before a court, but you (the motorist/serf) will never get a “fair hearing”, in this case being Victoria.

Keeping in mind that Victorian premier Dan Andrews' vehicle struck a cyclist where no criminal offence has been recorded by police. 

Police acting under dictation?

According to the law motorists commit criminal offences and not civil ones.

In criminal law, the burden of proof is on the accuser, where first and foremost there is a presumption of innocence.

Not so ‘lucky’, when you’re a motorist, as you're guilty until proven otherwise under strict or absolute liability, at law which is unlawfully enacted.

Absolute liability is that you’re guilty and a penalty will be enforced,

Strict liability is that you’re guilty and you must prove otherwise.

Another unlawfully enacted piece is something called owner onus, where the scope of this is outside of this post.

Many aspects of law come under an action called a question of law, but that is generally kept from the 'client' by the legal profession if you're represented, i.e. a mute in the eyes of the court. 

When you’re an ‘alleged’ criminal for example a murderer, paedophile or rapist, and you appear before a jury ("of your peers", that being other alleged criminals?) your criminal past is hidden in order for you to get a “fair hearing” with respect to that allegation.

Not so ‘lucky’ when you’re a criminal in a motor vehicle, or more specifically on Victorian roads.

In your preliminary brief, the court is presented with your entire driving history, but there is a problem there.

This is done illegally.

Section 91 of the Evidence Act 2008 states the following:

Exclusion of evidence of judgments and convictions 

    (1)     Evidence of the decision, or of a finding of fact, in an Australian or overseas proceeding is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that was in issue in that proceeding. 

    (2)     Evidence that, under this Part, is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact may not be used to prove that fact even if it is relevant for another purpose. 

Note 

Section 178 (Convictions, acquittals and other judicial proceedings) provides for certificate evidence of decisions. 

There is also another problem, the fact being that in order for your driving history to be entered into evidence, the Court needs your permission, as stated by the law, that being Part 4 of Section 90 of the Road Safety Act 1986.

    (4)     Any such document may not be tendered in evidence without the consent of the accused if the accused is present at the hearing of the information. 

So the problem is that before you even get to court, the police send you the preliminary brief containing your driving history which will be presented before a magistrate, without prior consent where the presumption of guilt takes precedence where that information is used against you for sentencing purposes, which most people are not aware of and their legal counsels do not tell them.

To the contrary the ‘lucky’ ones are the alleged rapists, paedophiles or murderers, as that person’s  criminal history is not disclosed for sentencing purposes.

BRILLIANT!

When you’re dealing with a police officer, that person’s criminal history may influence that person’s actions against you but there is (deliberately at law) zero transparency.

A person's criminal past is protected, an action against the interest of the public.

If a police officer is to be presented with this form he/she may ‘voluntarily’ give this information, or not!

See original source: https://www.police.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/Voluntary%20Disclosure%20Form_9.pdf

Which police officer will divulge to you, the serf, that he has a criminal past that may include domestic violence or tasering a 95 year old frail woman?

It should be mandatory for an officer's past to also be submitted into evidence, Corinna Horvath matter, anyone, but that's not how the law is set up in this (penal) colony.

Just like they put out the serf's information out by default.

The are many officers that are still employed even after committing criminal activity.

Victoria Police also commit illegal actions, and are not effected by them, even if the matter is brought before a court.

See article: 

Police illegal speeding fines withdrawn before court action, a cause for concern!

It gets even worse, for the serfs.

At one point in time in Australia’s (legal) history a person had a right to a fair hearing, but this is no longer the case in Victoria.

The alleged right to a fair haring may still exist, but the reality is that in any jurisdiction be it a court or tribunal,  in Victoria a person will not have one.

The administration of justice is handled by Court Services Victoria, where stakeholder’s are involved, that being but not limited to Goldman Sachs.

In 2021 the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, in a public document stated the following with regards to what a prospective employee must adhere to:

• As a highly influential and respected professional on MCV’s Executive Leadership Group, provide expert, complex advice to the CEO, Executive Group, judiciary and key external stakeholders on the direction and performance of the MCV workforce.

• Lead the strategic direction of the People and Culture Division consistent with the organisational strategic objectives and develop and implement supporting business plans to deliver quality people outcomes.

• Represent the Courts best interests and change agenda, acting as a professional expert in committee meetings, working parties, program development project teams and performance monitoring and review processes.

• Develop, maintain, and enhance key relationships with internal and external stakeholders to influence decision making processes and outcomes critical to the success of MCV, including court staff and judiciary, Court Services Victoria, and other Victorian government departments.

See reference to the document in the article of the headline:

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

Should one be more interested in the topic of criminal traffic law, the following case law may help:

Barton v Walker [1979] 2 NSWLR 740; Bainton v Rajski (1992) 29 NSWLR 539

Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 26 NSWLR 411 at 436; and Wentworth v Graham [2003] NSWCA 240

Barton v Walker and Barakat v Goritsas [2012] NSWCA 8 at [10]

Crabbe v Queensland Police Service [2013] QDC 122 (13 May 2013) at [28]

As you should know Australia's police force started with criminals and not honourable people.

Centrelink’s service degrading over the years and they don’t care

A ‘trend’ in many industries, be it medical or welfare and to a lesser extent retail, is that customer service is going downhill, period.

Customers/clients/recipients are now forbidden to complain, about the poor service they must endure, as a result of signage when one walks into a premises that states that no ‘aggressive’ behaviour will be tolerated.

The operative word there is obviously aggressive, where this can be interpreted as the customer not being happy that he/she cannot get through as a result of a poorly installed phone system or as a result of the staff not being bothered to answer the call.

The federal government’s welfare system under not one name but many guises from a true government department, that being the DSS (Department of Social Security) to businesses under the label Centrelink to now ‘Services Australia’  has been deliberately failing vulnerable Australians over the decades.

One of the more recently publicised so called ‘failures’ (which was deliberate by design) was that of ‘Robodebt’, where many vulnerable recipients committed suicide as a result of government extortion and unlawful demands, remembering the ‘Towards Zero’ road campaign in Victoria, where the so called modus operandi is that if it just saves one life it’s worth it.

At the end of the day, the government hates [financially] poor people, as they are a liability and not an asset that brings in the tax dollars for the coffers of those in government and keeping their precious 'economy' going.

Also the government wants/needs an unemployment pool where control over the population is wielded where full employment is not on any government agenda.

An interview with a person who works within what is now called ‘Services Australia’ has unearthed some abhorrent practices and attitudes towards welfare recipients.

“We just don’t care about the people calling us” stated the source, further mentioning that staff regularly hang up on the person on the other side, because the staff knows that they must call back later and hopefully the same call centre person will not be ‘bothered’ by the caller.

It’s like some sort of sick abuse of power.

What many callers are oblivious to is what the source stated next, that being the source bragging saying that “You should see what we do”, mentioning that during a call, a staff member will put the caller on hold giving the impression that the matter is being looked into, but the staff member is going for a toilet or a ‘smoke’ break, or even for a full lunch break, further emphasising the ‘care’ factor, that being not caring if the caller hangs up, hoping that another staff member will take the call as allocated by the computer system.

MANY people are pushed to the edge, when it comes to dealing with the welfare business, where the more vulnerable ones, e.g. recipients of Veteran Affairs, truly do not have any remedy in sight, where some may make a rash life altering decision as retaliation to a (deliberate) toxic system.

When the source was asked to put this information ‘on the record’, a laughing response was given, which was followed by a sarcastic remark of how the government treats whistle blowers.

The best way to deal with this is anonymous document dumps, laughed the source.

Poor behaviour and performance is now being normalised or excused with signage that warns customers/consumers/recipients that can be interpreted that ANY form of complain can/will be seen as abusive where police will be called and the (alleged) assailant charged with a criminal offence.

Victim blaming at its best, what to expect from a fascist government.

That’s life in a new age colony.

Feel free to type in Centrelink in the search bar to find more articles that have been mentioned in the public news media. 

Imagine how much more information is deliberately hidden, which is technically in the public interest, as it is the 'public' that funds these organisations in effect being stakeholders.

The Australian Twitter Files - Senator Alex Antic

Why did the Department of Home Affairs make 4,213 requests to social media companies to censor COVID-related matters?

Who decides what is “mis information” or “dis information” in the bureaucracy/social media censorship industrial complex in Australia today?

Watch as I question the Department during Senate estimate about this incredible development confirming what many Australians already suspected.

See video:

Masons and the ‘secret plan of Canberra’

The Lodge St Andrew Queanbeyan No. 56’s newly invested Worshipful Master and his officers/team for 1977.

POWER struggles, clandestine activities and conspiracy theories… just another day in the nation’s

Not exactly, but in this tale there’s no shortage of intrigue, political and otherwise, as well as things known and unknown: just one of the latter, that both Queanbeyan and Canberra have a long-standing association with the most obscure and arcane of organisations, Freemasonry. 

It may even surprise many to learn that the man dubbed the “father of Canberra” for helping ensure the new Federal Territory was sited alongside his hometown of Queanbeyan, John Gale, was a founding member of the brotherhood in this region.

The ancient craft, said to be linked to the Knights Templar – themselves decimated on Friday the 13th, 1307 when King Philip IV of France condemned them rather than repay a debt owed – and identified with fancy outfits, prestigious titles and an exclusively male membership, arrived on these shores with the First Fleet. In 1845, Sydney Lodge No.1 was instigated.

Thirty-two years later, Lodge St Andrew Queanbeyan No. 56 was brought into being with Gale one of the leading lights (and later leader), while the newly installed principal of the equally new Queanbeyan Public School, Richard Van Heythuysen, was its first Right Worshipful Master.
In the early days, the local Masons were a peripatetic lot with meetings moving from the Protestant Hall to the Loyal Happy Home Lodge of the Independent Order of Oddfellows of the Manchester Unity (I kid you not).

By 1924, enough resources were at hand for the Freemasons to construct their own imposing Temple, directly opposite the current Council Chambers – and, yes, replete with every conceivable emblem and symbol associated with the organisation from the tools of its original stonemason membership such as the square and compass, to allusions to mortality, which often includes skeletons (literally in the closet).

So popular was Freemasonry in Australia, particularly with veterans returning from World War II when it was estimated one in six men were part of the fraternity, that between 1924 and 1967 up to four Lodges or Chapters existed in Queanbeyan alone.

Canberra followed suit only a decade after it was declared the Seat of the Commonwealth: in 1923, Lodge Canberra No. 465 was established and within four years the city would boast a second.

John Gale decked out as Worshipful Master.

Always endeavouring not to be outdone by its neighbour, today the capital claims seven operating Lodges, the first of the modern batch, Lodge Ethos, appearing in 1964. It’s no coincidence it sports the same moniker as the statue which stands in Civic Square: Ethos translates to “spirit of the community”, to which Freemasons claim their ultimate duty is oriented, while the sculpture holds aloft another most significant Masonic symbol, the sun, signifying enlightenment.

Similar to the theory that Washington DC is Masonic in design, in 1994 author Peter Proudfoot suggested there was a “secret plan of Canberra” bearing all the hallmarks of the architecture and influence of Freemasonry. Perhaps providing some support to these assertions, Masonry symbology can easily be found in prominent places, amongst them, the War Memorial.

And notable Canberrans to have worn the apron? Many a Prime Minister, from an originator of the Australian Labor Party, Sir Joseph Cook (1860-1947), to the Conservative Sir Robert Menzies (1894-1978), as well as Governor-General Lord Gowrie (1872-1955) for whom another ACT Lodge was named.

Et tu, Queanbeyan? Well, it would go on to boast one of the most well-known Freemasons in the country; Brother William Thompson, a member of the NSW Legislative Assembly, appointed Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of NSW in 1914 and lauded for significantly increasing membership, Temple numbers and the creation of the Masonic school at Baulkham Hills, which still bears his name.

For all the alleged secrecy though, it’s surprising how regularly the local papers reported most of the goings-on and even the membership lists – perhaps everything except who brought the goat (another fallacy it seems: it’s actually an acronym for “God of all things” – despite the fact the organisation unequivocally states they’re non-religious).

And female I may be, but I’m on the level with you when I tell you I know these things first-hand. So mote it be.

Nichole Overall is a Queanbeyan-based historian, author and journalist.

2 Responses to Overall / Masons and the ‘secret plan of Canberra’

Karen Kidd says: May 26, 2016 at 3:18 pm

As an Freemason based in the U.S., I gotta wonder, how does one “instigate” a Lodge?

This article has more than a few chronology issues, not the least of which is that there has never been a Sydney Lodge No 1

And, hey, I’m female, too. It’s not unheard of, certainly not to anyone who knows things first hand. You know there’s a woman Freemason on your 50 dollar bill, right?

Reply

Mistress of Mystery says: May 30, 2016 at 1:17 pm

Thanks for the feedback – chronologically and factually it was checked out prior to publication by our local Masons and none suggested info was erroneous. It’s also my understanding that ‘female Masons’ are not part of the Order to which I refer but a separate organisation, in Australia at least, the Order of the Eastern Star – although I believe Lodge numbers are relatively few.
The word ‘instigate’ was used in the sense of being initiated or brought about, as per definition.
Will definitely look into info about our $50 note though.

Source:citynews.com.au

YouTube Premium - Do not pay for it!

As usual, Google is defrauding its customers and ripping off content creators.

See explanation in the following video:

Australia, the 'free speech' colony - Canberra silenced posts on COVID

According to some US Human Rights report, Australia is a constitutional democracy.

Well, what they don't tell you in this report is that Australia, according to the constitution is a colony, albeit a self governing one.

One would expect 'free speech' to be part of this thing called democracy, no?

No, not in the colony called Australia.

Free speech may be illegal soon, the way things are going, and people's right to gather en masse for the purpose of solidarity in relation to a particular government action has already being put into the illegal pile, well without prior government approval, anyway.

Actions of this calibre are all part of the Nanny State, Penal Colony Policies agenda.

Australia, Alcatraz v2.0, the 'free range' prison isle.

Microsoft Is Decrypting Your Files in The Cloud

See video: 

Microsoft is a corporation that works closely with supplying data to the Five Eyes  TVEY global surveillance network.

It is therefore doubtful if there will be any legal repercussions with regards to this action.

Warning: Microsoft products are not recommended for use if you value your privacy and security.

Reforming the People's Court, Victorian Magistrates' Reactions to Change

See report:

Source: https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/13-90.pdf