A list of corrupt judges / magistrates

CJ Lionel Murphy

This post is a listing of the names of corrupt judges and magistrates operating under the various corporate entities commonly referred to as 'law courts' from Australia.


 This list is updated periodically.


From New South Wales

Chief Justice BATHURST, Tom


From South Australia

Chief Justice KOURAKIS, Chris

Justice BAMPTON, Anne



From Victoria


Judge DUGGAN, Jim
Judge HAYNE, Kenneth Madison
Judge LEWITAN
Judge NEESHAM, Thomas
Judge NORRISH, Stephen

Magistrate ADAMS, Hugh Francis
Magistrate COOPER, Simon




See ABN list of companies at: 

ABN - Australian Business Numbers  

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/abn-australian-business-numbers.html 

The courts do not base their function on Constitutional / Common law, but on Contractual / Commercial law, as they are registered businesses and therefore places of trading and NOT law.


This is a well known fact within the legal system of Australia.


You are tried on contractual obligation where you have no rights, as indicated by your signature.

See:

How to sign your name without assuming liability.

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/how-to-sign-your-name-without-assuming.html

Future Australian passports may incorporate voice recognition and eye-scanning technology

These days, passports are much more than just stamps on pages. Source: ThinkStock

 

AUSTRALIAN passports may incorporate voice-recognition and eye-scanning technology as the government looks to expand biometric identification. 

Australian passports have included facial recognition technology since 2005, but the government is now investigating "other biometric technologies'', according to a request for tender made public today.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is searching for companies to fill a new biometrics advisory panel, which will replace the current panel when its tenure expires in March.

The scope of the new panel will be "expanded to include additional biometrics such as voice", according to the tender document.

Tenderers must have expertise in facial, fingerprint, iris or voice biometrics, or in signature-reading technology, the document says.

They must also be able to provide equipment such as fingerprint scanners, iris scanners, and voice acquisition devices.

The previous panel was accessed by many Commonwealth and State government agencies in addition to those responsible for travel documents, according to the tender document.

The existing facial recognition system was introduced in a bid to reduce identity fraud and contains images dating as far back as 1999.

DFAT digitises the photo supplied with a passport application, storing one copy in a computer chip in the passport and another in a massive Australian passport database.

Biometric technology can then digitally compare the images to ensure they are of the same person, and ensure people do not apply for travel documents using another person's name.

news.com.au  25 Nov 2013

This is the way of the order of the new world.

RAYMOND HOSER JAILED!!!! – WHISTLEBLOWER FORCIBLY GAGGED!!

RAYMOND T. HOSER
41 VILLAGE AVENUE,
DONCASTER,
VICTORIA, 3108,
AUSTRALIA.
PHONE: +61 3 XXXX
FAX: +61 3 XXXXX
(2009 NUMBER - 0412-777-211) E-MAIL: adder@smuggled.com
AUGUST 21 1997

DEAR FRIEND, COLLEAGUE, INTERESTED PARTY,

I have just spent the past four months in a Victorian prison.

The penalty was as a result of my blowing the whistle on Police and other corruption in this state. Because being a whistleblower is not a jailable offence under Victorian statutes, other charges had to be falsified in order to obtain my illegal and improper incarceration.

I was charged with forging a fax by Vicroads (transport) officials and Police. Those same officials have themselves been found guilty two years ago (March 1995) with doing the same thing. In the case finalised then they had forged a court document and then accused me of doing so (as they did in this case), by charging me with several jailable offences.

During the course of that trial, the perjury by the Police and Vicroads officials was obvious and proven and the charges against me were dismissed. As an indictment of the Victorian judiciary, the presiding Judge in that case (Duggan), admitted that the Police, Vicroads (and court) officials lied on oath, but refused to take the matter further. (See the book, The Hoser Files - The Fight Against Entrenched Official Corruption, for further details about that case).

This latest case was heard in front of a known corrupt Judge Thomas Neesham. Neesham is on the public record as having made false statements and himself lying in court cases. Neesham had form for corruption prior to this case including in an earlier case involving myself.

The case should never have made it to Court and it is significant that before it got that far, the DPP itself made statements to the effect that there was never any case against me. The case was only pursued against me in order to attempt to financially destroy me and discredit me so that my documenting of corruption would not be taken seriously.

The tactics used against me in this regard are not unique and have been engaged in this state and elsewhere for many years. For example as far back as 1970, John Winneke, (now head judge at the Supreme Court of Appeal), made statements in a hearing against Dr. Bertram Wainer. Presiding Judge, Kaye found against Wainer in favour of corrupt Police, going on to say that Wainer was fantasising. That Wainer had been correct and that as a result Winneke and Kaye were actively protecting Police corruption, was proven some years later by Barry Beach QC and others in later corruption inquiries.
During my recent trial, not only was my innocence proven, but also the guilt of the Vicroads and Police officials, in an identical manner to the case of two years ago.

The Police/Vicroads officials repeatedly committed perjury and this was again easily proven by cross checking prior statements by the key Police and Vicroads witnesses.

It was also the above Judge Winneke who refused to allow an appeal to the above conviction. His father, Henry Christian Winneke was also the person who unsuccessfully sued Frank Hardy for criminal defamation over his corruption exposing book, "Power Without Glory" in the 1950's. Henry Winneke was appointed by the corrupt Bolte/Rylah government as Chief Justice in 1964-74 and aided and abetted massive Police corruption in that period. (Rylah was allowed bycorrupt Police to apparantly get away with murdering his wife, in return for covering up other corruption in the Police force).

Returning to the trial involving myself, there are too many serious faults in the trial to document here in this brief explanatory letter. Suffice to say that the whole trial was a farce. For example during the trial, Police attacked and bashed innocent members of the public who had done nothing more than come to court to observe the case. Those people had no direct interest in the matter, other than that they too were police corruption whistleblowers. Police unlawfully dragged people from the court room and carted them off to cells where they were bashed, and to make things worse, this was done as a result of the direction of the Judge (Neesham). This is the same Judge Neesham who let Janine Vasiliadis of West Footscray walk free from Court after she pled guilty to attempting to rob an 83 year old grandmother at knife-point at her own home in order to support her heroin habit. Neesham's decision to allow Vasiliadis to walk free from court without even paying a cent in fines, typifies his active aiding and abetting of crime and corruption in Victoria.

In my case, Neesham made a number of dishonest and misleading statements to the jury and in violation of established court procedures refused to give them access to exhibits, transcript and other materials. At the end of the case, Neesham directed the jury to ignore the proven perjury by key Police and Vicroads witnesses and then handed each member of the jury a sheet of paper effectively directing them to convict me.

I was convicted of the allegation of tendering a document I knew to be forged in an earlier case involving a malfunctioning traffic signal that Police and Vicroads had both acknowledged was not working. The standard penalty for such an alleged offence is at most a fine of no more than a few hundred dollars, but by the time this case was concluded, a number of important politicians had become involved including Jeff Kennett (State Premier) and Victor Perton. Both men have a substantial record for corrupt, illegal and dishonest behaviour which is on the public record. However as I may be sued for stating Kennett (or Perton) is corrupt, I may be better off stating that all their well-documented illegal activities result from stupidity and bad judgement instead. Recall Kennett got an estimated $400,000 defamation payout for a story in the Packer media that no one seems to be able to remember anyway!

The head of the DPP Geoff Flatman who is a Kennett government appointee was also intimately involved in this case and it is on the public record that he directed Neesham to have me jailed, which he did. Although the matter is still under appeal, I was forced to spend the four months in jail. That of course is yet another travesty of justice. That sentence has now been completed.

I can assure you that spending 4 months in a hell hole with rapists, murderers, drug pushers, thieves, and other hardened criminals is not my idea of a holiday!

There are several avenues of appeal still open to me and it may take up to ten years for me to overturn this improper conviction. However due to the overwhelming and indisputable proof of my innocence (and the guilt of the other side) that is already in the public domain (including the transcript of this most recent hearing), it is effectively certain that the conviction will be overturned eventually. I remind readers that on 22 December 1988 I was similarly convicted on three charges and sentenced to jail. That conviction was overturned some years later.

AFTER the Police informant Ross Allen Bingley admitted that he had gained the conviction solely by bribing Magistrate Hugh Francis Adams.

Like in the present case, proof of my innocence was overwhelming, but useless against the corruption I was up against. Also many readers of this letter will be aware of the fact that Adams resigned as a magistrate suddenly and within a month of public disclosure that he'd been illegally bribed by Bingley (June 1995).

("No ordinary Australian or group of Australians could have withstood this incredible juggernaught of Vindictiveness" - Jeffrey Gibb Kennett, Premier of Victoria).

In relation to this most recent case, the conduct of the Police side in nobbling the jury is perhaps most disturbing. On no fewer than five occasions jurors have (without any form of encouragement) voluntarily come foreword to state that they had been illegally directed to return a guilty verdict.

Since the case was completed two jurors have openly complained that they were FORCED to return a guilty verdict against me, even though they knew I was innocent. During the trial, Neesham stated he was aware of the illegal nobbling of the jury, but as this suited his aims against me, he did nothing about it.

The names and details of the relevant jurors are not printed here due to legal restrictions against my publication of them. To publish a juror's name in Victoria can lead to imprisonment, and I do not fancy a return trip! However I am investigating loopholes in laws, such as via parliamentary privilege in order to make these facts known so that 1/ The conviction can be overturned, 2/ The guilty Police and Vicroads officials as well as Thomas Neesham themselves get incarcerated for their multiple crimes, 3/ I am compensated financially for the substantial losses in income and reputation.

Due to my unplanned incarceration my finances and personal life are presently in a bit of a mess. I was forced to cancel 1997 lecture tours to the UK, USA, Canada, Queensland and NSW (all were to talk on reptiles or wildlife trafficking). It will probably take a full 12 months for things to return to 'normal', although I should be able to keep to engagements and so on almost immediately. For those who may deal with me on any matter, I ask for patience over the coming months while my life gets back to something resembling normality. At the time of release (13th August 1997) I returned home to find several thousand unanswered items of mail, all of which have now been answered, except for 2,000 unread internet e-mails, which should be cleared by Sunday August 25th 1997.

In relation to the case that led to my recent incarceration, a summary will be posted on the internet within 6 months. Likewise for the case transcript so that I can circumvent any potential criticisms by the enemy for quoting out of context, etc.

The case will also be incorporated into a forthcoming book called Hoser Files 3 which will also have details of other cases and corruption. That book is already 1/2 written and is expected to be published some time in 1998, although as with almost all publishing projects, that date cannot be certain.
Other publishing projects planned for the period 1997-2000 include the following titles:-

Hoser Files 2 (Different to Hoser Files 1 and 3) Smuggled-3
Taxi
2 reptile books, one on snakes, one on Death Adders.

This letter has been printed as a brief explanation for recent events and in order to counter any false, defamatory and misleading statements that may have emanated from the dishonest officials and their allies on the other side including several people with fertile imaginations who have been posting false and defamatory rubbish about myself and this case on the internet via their websites and list-servers.

The enemy side has long run on the theory that if enough mud is thrown, some will stick. However in this case, it shouldn't be too long before it is totally wiped off and than their own side will probably look decidedly smelly. I draw readers attention to the fact that over the last 20 years I've been charged with many serious criminal offences, all of which have been provably fabricated and at a cost to taxpayers of many millions of dollars.

A dishonest member of parliament Victor Perton, was in 1996 in contempt of Court in relation to a case his side lost against me in NSW. He was also subject of a defamation claim by myself and a separate claim for $447,000 prior to this most recent incarceration event. Notable is how prior to my incarceration Perton had foreshadowed it at a Liberal party gathering citing it as the 'final nail' in my coffin.

Perton's interest in the matter is strong as he is actively trying to avoid having to be responsible for paying the $447,000 he'd committed as a damages settlement to me in 1992. Perton, himself a lawyer, was also instrumental in making sure I was not legally represented during the five week trial. His activities in this regard were in contempt of Victorian and federal courts. Perton routinely accuses myself of defaming him, conviniently ignoring the fact that TRUTH IS NOT DEFAMATORY in terms of suing for it. In other words it is Perton who is guilty of defamation, not myself.


He has taken this a step further by unlawfully making sure that I am not given legal aid funding for a defamtion case against him, while at the same time relying on government funding to finance his proposed defence.

Since my release from prison he has again attempted to have my websites wiped from the internet forcing them to be moved to a USA server out of the reach of his corrupt and grubby influences and censorship methods.

Note: The transcript of the case that had me sent to jail has been put on the www so interested persons can download it in full. Hard copies can be supplied FREE OF CHARGE (IN FULL) by the Victorian Government Reporting Service, 167 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3001, Phone: Australia (03) 9603-2403. If they fail to supply a requested transcript, which they are LEGALLY OBLIGED TO DO, then it is suggested you contact the Hon Jeff Kennett, Premier or The Hon. Jan Wade, Attorney General, both C/O Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia.
Yours Sincerely - Raymond Hoser.

http://www.smuggled.com/jail1.htm 

Another example of Australia's corrupt legal system at work.

There are many more case such as this one

Australia's police are companies, set up in the respective states, and function as such for revenue raising, as the opinion of the general public.

In the case of Victoria Police the details are:


Entity Name: POLICE DEPARTMENT (VIC)
ABN: 63 446 481 493
Main Business Location: VIC 3008
Trading Name: VICTORIA POLICE

Police apology after detective used Jill Meagher grave photo during speech

• CHARLIE BEZZINA: No apology needed for top cop
• IMPACT STATEMENTS: Family's grief spelled out in court
• SECRET REVIEW: Killer Adrian Bayley regarded 'low risk'
• APPEAL REJECTED: Judges uphold 35-year minimum
• OPINION: Ron Iddles tells it like it is

THE homicide detective who showed a photo of the semi-naked body of Jill Meagher during a charity talk has come close to tears, but maintained he had done "nothing wrong". 

The photo - of Ms Meagher's body lying in a shallow grave - was shown to an audience of hundreds of men at the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia fundraiser.

Victoria Police offered the force's sincerest apologies for the "unfortunate error", which distressed members of the 400-strong audience.

Premier Denis Napthine said he was "sickened" and "shocked" by the news and apologised to Ms Meagher's family on behalf of the government.

"Immediately my heart went out to the Meagher family,'' Dr Napthine said.

"This sort of thing is just totally and utterly unacceptable."

But Detective Senior Sergeant Ron Iddles this morning defended his decision to show the photo of the 29-year-old's body in her grave, but said he was unlikely to use it again.

"I don't believe I did anything wrong - will I use it again? In hindsight maybe not," he said at a press conference in Brisbane.

He said he had shown the photo in presentations "five or six" times, to an estimated 2500 people.

"It was never ever intended to demean the victim, it was never meant to be in any other way," Det Sen-Sgt Iddles said.

"I delivered it in a professional and compassionate manner."

He said he had spoken to Jill Meagher's family twice, at length last night and again this morning, and he had their full support.

"Jillian's father has rung me again this morning half an hour ago and offered his total support and cannot understand the media hype."

He said Tom Meagher was in Ireland, but also conveyed his support through Ms Meagher's father with the family not asking for an apology.

"He (George McKeon) said 'Ron, you are doing a fantastic job and I do not object to the fact that up you used my daughter's photo'."

Det Sen-Sgt Iddles said the photo was shown for about one second out of an hour and 15 minute speech in Bendigo on Friday.

Reflecting over his 25 years in the police force and the public speeches he had given - all in his own time and for free - the well-known homicide detective came close to tears from the backlash.

"It's taken it's toll," he said.

"I've devoted my career and 25 years of my life to the victims - the people who cannot speak."

Despite the furore he said he would continue to give public speeches to "make a point" about the need for community support in homicide investigations and the devastating violence still experienced against women.

He said the photo was shown during his discussion of the recent murder for the public to understand how investigations worked.

"Last night I thought no, why would I do it ... But then I thought the community needs someone like myself to explain."

He said he understood the Victoria Police could apologise on his behalf and respected that people could have their own opinions over his decision to show the photo.

He said those who had criticised his decision, including the Victorian Premier, needed to understand he did not make the speech to demean Ms Meagher.

"Sadly I think the people who make judgement about me weren't there," he said.

"Those who were present know exactly what I said and the manner in which I said it.

"Sadly the one person who had a problem with it did not contact me or the ethical standards, they contacted the media."

Acting Deputy Commissioner Steve Fontana last night banned all public presentations on operational matters by officers until new rules were put in place.

"This was a deeply unfortunate error of judgment and my sincere apologies are extended to Jill's family, friends, the community, and in particular to her husband, Tom," Mr Fontana said.

Today he repeated his concerns about the presentation and the apology: "From our point of view it was inappropriate for that type of material to be shown in a public forum."

But he also acknowledged, Det Sen-Sgt Iddles had shown the image in an "informative" and lengthy presentation, that had been done "with good intent".

Fontana also praised Det Sen-Sgt Iddles as an experienced professional "man of integrity" who was "probably one of the best we have in this organisation".

That followed comments yesterday that Det Sen-Sgt Iddles has been one of Victoria Police's most dedicated and hardworking detectives for more than 30 years.

Jill Meagher.

 

"Few wearing the uniform have been more committed and loyal in their service of the community," he said.

"I am saddened that a speech he delivered in good faith, at a charity fundraiser, will have caused further emotional anguish for the family."

Earlier today, the head of Victoria's police union defended Det Sen-Sgt Iddles' actions.

Police Association Secretary Greg Davies said this morning that Det Sen-Sgt Iddles had called Ms Meagher's family to express his regret, but they said an apology was unnecessary.

"Once it was put in context to them and once they had spoken to Ron they were quite satisfied with what he'd done and encouraged him in his efforts to make a difference," Mr Davies said on 3AW.

"I don't think it's offensive to the memory of Jill Meagher - I think it champions the memory."

Mr Davies said it was "ridiculous" that Victoria Police chose to issue an apology without first speaking to Sen-Sgt Iddles.

"If you're trying to get the message across about violence against women in the community ... you can sit around and talk about historic things or you can talk about recent things fresh in people's minds."

Detective Senior Sergeant Ron Iddles.

 

A Victoria Police spokesman said any suggestion Det Sen-Sgt Iddles had not been spoken to prior to the statement being issued was wrong.

"Sen-Sgt Iddles was spoken to several times throughout the afternoon by his manager at the Homicide Squad as well as the police media department," the spokesman said.

Mr Davies criticised the Herald Sun, telling 3AW that the newspaper had made no attempt to contact Det Sen-Sgt Iddles.

Herald Sun editor Damon Johnston said Mr Davies' version of events was wrong.

"We followed police protocols, and contacted the Victoria Police media unit around 3pm yesterday, submitting a series of questions relating to the story," Johnston said.

The police response - the apology signed off by Mr Fontana - was received by the Herald Sun shortly after 6pm.

Johnston said after receiving the official response, the Herald Sun then rang Det Sen-Sgt Iddles directly on his mobile phone and left a voice message.

"He did not return the call," Johnston said.

Members of the audience have said they were upset by the graphic photograph.

"I was shocked, and where I was sitting a few people looked at each other and there were raised eyebrows," one said.

Another said the picture had appeared abruptly on the screen. "I looked but I had to look away," he said.

"It was a photo in a shallow grave; obviously, they had just opened it."

The Herald Sun has been told some audience members were shocked that Det Sen-Sgt Iddles discussed personal details of the Meagher family.

"There were 400 people in that room and there was no warning. Someone could have known her. It could've been quite disturbing for them," an audience member said.

But local National Party MP Damien Drum said the talk had been "outstanding" and the audience had been warned about the content.

"I was there supporting prostate cancer and I found the presentation appropriate given the context of a homicide detective talking about the work that homicide detectives do day in day out," he said.

Labor MP Jill Hennessy criticised Mr Drum for downplaying the impact of the presentation.

"I think it's disappointing that a member of the government was at this event and couldn't see the impact and apparently doesn't find it inappropriate," Ms Hennessy said.

"Regardless of the context I think that most would be shocked and distressed to learn that images of Ms Meagher were shown."

The use of the image in the talk has also been defended by the Prostate Council of Australia which promotes the Biggest Ever Blokes lunches.

Spokesman Ishtar Schneider said the PCFA did not manage or control the events.

"In any case, we have also spoken to people in attendance who have explained that the presentation was not offensive and the context was a story about the process of police investigation, and that sensitive material was clearly prefaced with a warning," she said.

Event organiser Keith Sutherland said the charity lunch went "exceptionally well".

"We were just trying to get the message out to 400 local men about prostate cancer," he said. "We raised $70,000."

He said he had previously heard the detective speak, and thought he had been well-received by the audience.

It is understood that Det Sen-Sgt Iddles has raised more than a million dollars for charities through his voluntary speaking engagements over the years.

 heraldsun.com.au 28 Nov 2013

Victoria Police are literally corporate thugs, and glorified debt collectors.

Victoria Police laughed at a dying man where realisically the (police) people involved should be charged with manslaughter.

Australia's farsical legal system literally supports corrupt police to the detriment of the general populous at large.

Watch how the legal farce unfolds with regards to the death of Gong Ling Tang outside the outer Melbourne suburb of Dandenong's police station.

Shocking video shows Gong Ling Tang left to die outside police station

Courts release shocking footage of the final moments of police prisoner Gong Ling Tang, who died hours after this video was shot. Warning: some viewers may find this footage disturbing

• DOCUMENT: OPI's report into police actions (*.pdf)

* WARNING: This footage contains disturbing images.
 

SHOCKING video has been released showing police smirking as a man in their custody writhes in pain, and is then abandoned outside a police station to die.

CCTV footage from inside Dandenong police station shows Gong Ling Tang, 53, crawling from a cell.
An interpreter told a coroner he had pleaded with police to be taken to hospital.

AWFUL END: Hopes for new life end in tragedy

The May 2010 footage shows a clearly disoriented Mr Tang writhing in pain in his cell, and shows him later outside, barely able to stand, and then collapsing in a puddle.

The Herald Sun successfully applied to the coroner for the public release of the disturbing footage.
The police involved, none of whom has faced any penalty, opposed the release.

Their lawyers argued the video would be used to sensationalise the matter, and there was a risk it could inflame relationships between the public and police.

 

Gong Ling Tang crawled from his cell after begging to be taken to the hospital. He later died from a gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Source: Supplied

 

But despite the distressing nature of the footage, Mr Tang's family wanted it shown.

The footage shows Mr Tang, who appears unbalanced and unable to walk properly, refusing to leave the police station after being allowed to do so.

Shortly later two officers are seen escorting Mr Tang outside the station and leaving him alone outside with a bag of his personal property.

Moments later Mr Tang appeared to collapse in a puddle.

He died in hospital the following morning.

Deputy State Coroner Iain West ruled that the 51 minutes of footage be released, noting there was a public interest in "inquests concerning the actions of the police".

"I also do not accept that publication will inflame; rather (it will) inform," Mr West said.

"I accept that some of the footage might be regarded as confronting or distressing."

Mr Tang's family said the CCTV footage showed the actions of the police who did not give evidence at the inquest.

"The family are grateful that the tragic final hours of their husband and father have been revealed," they said.

Gong Ling Tang Source: HeraldSun

 

Genna Angelowitsch, from Adviceline Injury Lawyers, said the family were grateful for an apology from police.

"But unfortunately, Mrs Truong and her daughter are still suffering now," she said.

No officer has been charged or faced any disciplinary action in the more than three years since Mr Tang's death.

A force spokesman said a professional standards investigation continued, and police awaited the inquest findings.

In January the Office of Police Integrity said there were "a number of procedural and duty failings" without which the result may have differed.

My Tang died hours after being removed from Dandenong police station and left outside, where he collapsed in a puddle. Source: Supplied

 

The court heard Mr Tang was "half pushed out" of a police holding area by an officer.

Mandarin interpreter Yu Shu Lipski told the inquest police laughed at Mr Tang, who'd soiled himself, ridiculed him, yelled at him, and showed him little respect.

The court heard that as Mr Tang was interviewed an officer "was laughing so much she had tears coming out of her eyes."

Ms Lipski said Mr Tang said: "I want to go home ... I want to go to hospital, I can't take it any more.
"I'm going to die."

An unsteady Mr Tang being removed from the police station. Source: Supplied

 

She said despite seeing Mr Tang, who was also bleeding, rolling around on the floor in pain officers were told to "get rid go him".

"I was very concerned about his health," she said.

"I could see lots of blood in the cell near the bed," she said.

No officers have been charged or faced any disciplinary action, Victoria Police has confirmed.

The court has heard there is conflicting evidence about what arrangements had been made for Mr Tang upon his release.

When paramedics arrived at the police station Mr Tang was seen lying barefoot in a puddle of water.

He was admitted to intensive care with hypothermia and liver failure.

He died from a gastrointestinal haemorrhage the next morning.

theage.com.au 22 Nov 2013

More corruption in the business unit known as Victoria Police.

Victoria Police is a corporation (ABN: 63 446 481 493) and  functions as such.

It's employees are immune from civil prosecution as they are corporate entities, a fact that is NOT being released by the corporate media.

Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) laws have been violated resulting in a death.

Watch now how the corrupt legal system deals with this matter.

Death in custody is a concealed 'statistic'.

LG Australia investigates smart TV spy claims

The LG smart TV landing screen Photo: Jason Huntley

• Smart TVs not too smart when it comes to security, privacy
• LG smartphone magically heals itself

LG Australia says it is investigating claims that some models of LG smart TVs are logging viewing information and preferences and sending the data back to the company's servers.

British IT consultant Jason Huntley, 45, from Hull, wrote in a blog post this week that he had discovered his LG smart TV was sending the names of files on plugged-in USB devices back to an LG web server. The names of channels he watched were also being collected by the company without his knowledge.

LG TV's system settings listing a "collection of watching info" option which is switched "on" by default. Photo: Jason Huntley
 
Mr Huntley discovered his TV was accessing this information after it began displaying advertising on its home screen. He then noticed a "creepy LG corporate video" describing a LG Smart Ad feature.
This analyses a user's favourite programs, online behaviour, search keywords and other information in order to offer relevant advertising, the ad claimed.

"LG Smart Ad can feature sharp suits to men, or alluring cosmetics and fragrances to women. Furthermore, LG Smart Ad offers useful and various advertising performance reports - that live broadcasting ads cannot - to accurately identify actual advertising effectiveness," it said.

In the process of investigating the matter, Mr Huntley said he found an option in his TV's settings called "collection of watching info" which is switched "on" by default.

(A hacker in your living room: researchers have shown how internet-connected TVs can be remotely manipulated.)

However, following traffic analysis on his home network, Mr Huntley said viewing information appeared to be sent to LG regardless of whether the option was set to "on" or "off".

Speaking with Fairfax Media via email on Thursday, Mr Huntley said he had received similar reports from multiple users after posting about it on his blog.

However, some users in Germany, for example, could not find evidence of the back-to-base traffic.

"It may be that LG are rolling this tech out slowly or that they are still testing in certain countries," Mr Huntley told Fairfax.. "One user reported on my blog that they had received a firmware update yesterday and was presented with a new Privacy Policy to agree to."

He said he couldn't say what the situation was in Australia.

But Phillip Anderson, head of public relations at LG Australia, told Fairfax in a statement on Wednesday: "LG Australia acknowledges the issues that have been identified in the UK. We take the claims very seriously and are currently investigating the situation at a local level."

Before publishing his blog, Mr Huntley said he spoke to LG's UK office several times in an email conversation regarding the matter and drew their attention to the UK Data Protection Act.

The BBC has reported that the UK Information Commissioner's Office is looking into the matter.
"They said they had escalated it to their UK head office but then replied saying that I had agreed to the terms. I think this was a missed opportunity for them to resolve it before it became widely known and it's a shame they didn't react in a more meaningful way," Mr Huntley said.

"I would have been perfectly happy if they committed to providing the means to properly opt-out of this. (However I would probably not have discovered the file name leak had that been the case.)"
Mr Huntley said he didn't see that consumer electronics companies had the right to sell people's viewing preferences for additional profit.

"Advertising is ever present but I was angered that I after paying over £500 for a TV and additionally for a broadband connection that LG thought that they could commandeer these to deliver advertising. What service am I getting in return?" he said.

"Unfortunately there are many companies working on achieving these ends and, although this may be a setback for LG's Smart Ad division - I'm worried that other companies may choose to focus on hiding their marketing efforts rather than delivering products that users actually want."

As a result, Mr Huntley promised to continue researching and analysing any technology products that he owned and said he would continue to promote public discussion on their features.

The IT consultant's research follows recent reports which suggested that smart TVs are dumb when it comes to privacy and security.

Security researchers Aaron Grattafiori and Josh Yavor recently demonstrated how they could remotely abuse Samsung's 2012 line of smart TVs to take complete control of the machine.

Using flaws the pair had discovered in the TV's web browser – which Samsung has since patched – the security engineers at US-based iSec Partners gained a foothold on the machine by pointing its browser to a web page that was loaded with attack code.

Mr Huntley said smart TVs were not very secure.

"Consumer tech is a very competitive market and there is intense pressure to deliver products in shorter and shorter time scales," he said. "This works against the need for robust security, so it's not surprising that exploits exist and are discovered frequently. As with computer software, it's important to be able to react quickly and fix problems before they are exploited in the wild."

theage.com.au 22 Nov 2013

All part of the Nanny State agenda.

Yahoo sued for allegedly intercepting email

Yahoo has been sued for allegedly intercepting its users' emails. Photo: AFP
 
Yahoo has been accused in a lawsuit of intercepting emails sent to users of its mail service and using personal information to profit from related advertisements.

The plaintiff seeks damages of $US5000 for each person whose privacy was allegedly invaded, according to a complaint filed November 15 in federal court in San Jose, California. Information gleaned by scanning communications between users and non-users is used for tailoring advertisements to them, increasing Yahoo's revenue, according to the filing, which cites the company's published policies for its new e-mail service.

"Yahoo's automated systems scan and analyse all incoming and outgoing communications content sent and received from your account," says the policy, according to the complaint. The purpose is to "match and serve targeted advertising and for spam and malware detection".

Lawsuits against internet companies and social networks are rising as use of the web balloons and users become more aware of how much personal information they are revealing, often without their knowledge. Google and LinkedIn also are facing accusations of intercepting communications for their own profit at the expense of users or non-users.

"As a matter of policy, Yahoo does not comment on ongoing litigation," Sarah Meron, a company spokeswoman, said in an email.

Class sought

Brian Pincus, the plaintiff, seeks to represent non-Yahoo customers whose email was intercepted in a class-action, or group lawsuit.

Yahoo previously asked in a court filing that earlier lawsuits over scanning of email for targeted advertising be treated as related cases.

Ads bring in three-quarters of Yahoo's revenue, according to the complaint. With more than 275 million customers globally, Yahoo mail is one of the largest web-based e-mail services, the plaintiff said.

 theage.com.au 22 Nov 2013

Driver's license NOT necessary to drive on Australian roads

In the wake of a totalitarian police state being put in force on the Australian public,
with the following article put in the corporate media:

Cops to use licence to disqualify anyone guilty of anything
OR
http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/cops-to-use-licence-to-disqualify.html

corpau has been passed on information that is literally exposing the fraud of the so called 'government' (business) in relation to driving on Australia's roads with a 'driver's license'.

In summary: You can drive on public roads WITHOUT a driver's license.

What the authorities do not want you to know is that scores of people are doing this, and corpau has received instructions on how to do this.

These instructions will be published here in a future article.

Optus CEO admits to ripping off customers

Optus' chief executive has admitted to a packed Christmas party that the telco had for years been ripping off and overcharging customers but now dismissed the industry's practices as "just crap".

In a surprisingly honest mea culpa at the company party in Sydney last night, Optus CEO Kevin Russell said his company had taken serious steps to help its customers avoid "bill shock" which occurs when customers exceed their monthly data and call allowances or using roaming when travelling overseas.

"Let's be crystal clear. As an industry, we know how people use their phones, we know that young people will get their first smartphone and go bananas on it," the CEO admitted during a casual interview that was quoted by Fairfax Media.

"We know people are going to get hit with a $500 or $600 bill, and we know that if they don't complain we'll get an extra whopping bit of revenue. It's just crap," he said.

"I just think a lot of Australians are paying a lot more than they should be and running through their allowances and it's hammering people," Mr Russell told journalist and Optus staff, highlighting that he expected bill shock to become a "a big issue" in the next 12 months.
 
He also drew attention to issues with international roaming for Australian consumers.

"The idea that you're on holiday and you get a $5000 bill is a shocker," Mr Russell said.

"Data breakage and voice breakage is a shocker. The idea that your kids can do something and you end up with a $500 bill is crap. I think it's a bit immoral."
 
A spokesperson confirmed that Optus had introduced a range of new plans that should alleviate the risks of bill shock.

Russell, who has been in the job since March 2012, touted the plans as being part of the company's approach to doing "good" things to address "some of the things that piss people off".

ninemsn.com.au 22 Nov 2013

 'Ripping off' customers may have a few meanings.

- theft of monies from the customer,
- goods not provided to the customer,
- advertised product not provided to customer,
- poor service to customer
and possibly a few more.

What ever the reasons, customers HAVE been ripped off by the telecommunications industry as a whole, and some sort of action policing should take place.

Since government and law are created FOR the corporations, at the expense of the general public, no inquiry or even 'compensation' will ever be given.

Another 'fraud' supported by Australia's corrupt legal system.

Cops to use licence to disqualify anyone guilty of anything

Police are vowing to disqualify licences of anyone convicted of an offence. Source: HeraldSun

 

EXCLUSIVE: TENS of thousands more Victorians each year stand to lose their drivers' licences under a new law police are vowing to exercise in court. 

Sweeping legal changes which came into effect on September 30 allow courts to suspend or cancel the licence of any person convicted or found guilty of any offence - regardless of whether that offence has anything to do with driving.

Victoria Police has exclusively revealed to the Herald Sun that it will seek to use the new powers in up to 50,000 court cases each year.

It has already briefed its prosecutors on the law.

"If you're convicted or found guilty of any offence, a court may suspend or cancel and disqualify your licence," said Acting Senior Sergeant Richard Bowers, of the Victoria Police Prosecution Division.

"The legislation does not govern or put a limiting factor on which cases it applies to. It's any offence, and it's completely open to the magistrate as to whether or not they impose it.

"Unless a superior court gets hold of one of these cases and says 'Well, this is an inappropriate exercise of discretion,' it will remain open for use for a magistrate to use in any way they see fit."
But the move has angered civil libertarians.

"We are very disturbed at the lack of consultation, given this is such a sweeping and draconian measure," Jane Dixon, SC, the president of Liberty Victoria, said last night.

"To deprive someone of their driving licence can often also deprive them of their livelihood.

"We believe, for well-being, there should be a strong foundation between driving and the offending."

Victoria Police said it would advice its prosecutors to use the legislation in any case where the offending can be linked to using a vehicle, which it estimates at around 50,000 cases a year.

"We will raise the legislation in circumstances where driving had been part and parcel of the offending," Sen-Sgt Bowers said.

"It may be an offence where the accused used a car to commit the offences; for example, residential burglaries, using the car to get around."

In another change to the law, anyone disqualified from driving may be forced to fit an alcohol interlock device in their vehicle when the licence is reinstated, if the original crime can be linked in any way to alcohol or drugs.

First-time offenders, and those guilty of even the most minor offences, will not be exempt from the new law.

There are no set suspension or disqualification limits, giving magistrates free rein to cancel a licence for as long as they see fit.

Sen-Sgt Bowers also highlighted drug trafficking and family violence cases as likely ones for the exercise of the law.

"You have to look at each case on its merits and determine where is the best use of this legislation. We have left prosecutors with a fair bit of discretion," he said.

"It's a deterrent and a preventive measure. From our perspective, anything that has the potential to prevent further offending is a good thing," he said.

heraldsun.com.au 26 Nov 2013

Victoria is truly the POLICE STATE.

The facts are as follows:

• VicPol is a corporation (ABN: 63 446 481 493), and for every arrest there is a fininacial reimbursement from the government.

• The rush is on to arrest and put on file as many people as possible, which is a direct order from the top.

• With an arrest and criminal conviction (e.g. for not paying an invoice) you may be refused a passport, in effect incarcerating you in the new age prison isle of Australia.

How To Sign Your Name Without Assuming Liability

What does a signature mean? I will tell you right now that when you sign something (no matter what “they” say), it means that you accept liability. And if you don’t read and agree to EVERYTHING you sign, you are making a big mistake.

I am constantly being asked… “How do I sign my name? … AND maintain my rights?”

We all know that before they let us go, they ALWAYS want us to sign something to keep us coming back. There are other points in the “legal” system where a “signature” is expected or required before the court can proceed as well.

I have heard that adding “Under Duress”, or “All Rights Reserved” to a signature when signing a document will maintain our inherent human rights; and while this could work as well, the proper and Latin way to sign under duress is to add a “V.C.” before your name.

Vi Coactus, abbreviated to V.C., is a latin term. The website wikipedia cites the definition of vi coactus as:

“constrained by force”. Used when forced to sign (“or else …”)

Perhaps the most famous use of vi coactus when signing a document was that of Cornelius de Witt. Alexandre Dumas captured the event as follows:

The Grand Pensionary bowed before the will of his fellow citizens; Cornelius de Witt, however, was more obstinate, and notwithstanding all the threats of death from the Orangist rabble, who besieged him in his house at Dort, he stoutly refused to sign the act by which the office of Stadtholder was restored. Moved by the tears and entreaties of his wife, he at last complied, only adding to his signature the two letters V. C. (Vi Coactus), notifying thereby that he only yielded to force.

There is scant authoritative information regarding this term on the web. However, on the One Heaven Society of United Free States of Spirits website the following information is provided:

The Bar want you to sign as surety.

At key points in a Court case, the Bar members want you to sign certain documents. Why? Because your signature is like your vocalized consent – it can be legally interpreted as your agreement to be surety for an obligation and to perform as well as to waive other rights.  

Do you have to sign? No you don’t. But in many cases, the Bar has designed a system so that if you don’t it is interpreted as dishonor so that they can invoke their power of attorney powers to declare you delinquent, incompetent and send you to prison anyway.  

This is why you may have heard of people who refused to sign the papers when entering prison and yet were treated worse than most serious criminals, with complete apparent ignorance of their rights- why? because the system is designed at certain points where you MUST sign. So how do you overcome an unjust and unfair system that forces a man or woman to sign under duress, against their will and yet interprets such signatures as valid under Canon Law? The answer is making sure your signature follows a clear mark of duress.

Vi Coactus

Before you sign anything under duress, in order not to be unfairly determined as in dishonor and incompetent, you may lawfully initial in large letters the letters V.C. where you will sign, then sign your name after- always after.

What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally “under constraint”. This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.

Now, at the earliest opportunity before the court or official, you can make it known that upon review of your signature it can be proven to have been forced under threat and coercion and so cannot be used as legally binding agreement.

In some locations and in some prisons as this knowledge grows, it is possible that law enforcement officials may start to reject such signatures, adding more threat and force on a person to sign without using V.C. It is your choice remembering that if you allow such criminal intimidation and torture to prevail and do sign without protest then the system can simply lie and state you made such a sign of your “own free will”.

 

So if they tear up the paperwork and demand you do it again, stating that such a signature is unlawful then such claims are against the laws of the Roman Cult Canon Law- the actual law that underpins their own statutes and regulations. However, if after several attempts they still refuse, there is a second method equally valid- the use of ellipse.

The use of ellipses

When the threat of intimidation or outright rejection of lawful protest is too great, then a second and equally valid method of signing under protest is permitted, namely the use of three full stops placed first, followed by the signature so that the three dots are not obscured by the signature.

This is called an ellipsis eg “…” and indicates that legally there was a form of words you wanted to state but were unable due to some event, in this case because of threat and coercion.

Thus, at the earliest opportunity the ellipsis can be revealed and it can be stated that you intended to write V.C. but were prevented therefore nullifying any agreement.

It would be of interest to the author if there have been any more recent cases where V.C. has been used to sign a document. There appears to have been a case in Indonesia where Dutch interests signed V.C., however, the author does not have full access to the journal in question:

The Measures Taken by the Indonesian Government against …by I Login – 1958 – Related articles

Authority” or “o.p.” (under protest) or “v.c.” (vi coactus). And that, of course, was preciously what it was: compelled by force. …

Source: journals.cambridge.org/article_S0165070X00029879

Further definitions and their sources:

Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edition)

The ninth edition does not provide a definition for vi coactus.

Cassell’s Latin Dictionary (27th edition, 1955, pp.103)

Coactus - a compulsion, compelling; coactu atque efflagitatu meo, cic.

The Oxford Latin Dictionary ABS-LIB (1968, pp. 339)

coactus1

1. Compressed, condensed; (of milk) curdled. b (neut. pl. as sb.) felt cloak.

2. Unnatural, artificial, forced, contrived.

3. (of instruments, actions, etc.) Unwilling, forced. b. required by law, compulsory.

coactus2

Compulsion, constraint.

Interestingly, Cassell’s Latin Dictionary and the Oxford Latin Dictionary provide the additional definitions:

Cassell’s Latin Dictionary:

coacto – To compel.

coactor – 1. a collector of rents, money at auctions, etc. 2. One who compels.

References

   List of Lation abbreviations (wikipedia.org)
   Dumas, Alexandre – Black Tulip, The (literature.org)
   Signing in protest and under duress (one-heaven.org)
   Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, pp.103 (exfacie.com)
   Oxford Latin Dictionary, pp.339 (exfacie.com)

Note: Correction to the reference from one-heaven.org was applied (removing the term ellipse for ellipsis). Thanks to Gerald for identifying this correction.

Article courtesy of Freedom From Government (http://freedomfromgovernment.org/)

New Biker Laws another False Flag?

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT & POLICE SERVICES ATTACK THE RIGHTS OF ALL AUSTRALIANS, IT IS THEY WHO OUGHT TO BE DRAGGED BEFORE THE COURTS

Latest attempts to tackle crime in Australia, are in themselves being exposed as a crime against justice.

Laws of association, laws that dictate where a person can work, what they can own, what they can wear, where they can go, and how a judge must act, are unacceptable in any supposed democratic nation.

Not only are the new laws abhorrent, they were rushed through with out adequate scrutiny, so far the list of changes needed are a disgrace, the wording alone has been a failure with the government now rushing through amendments to make the laws work.

The list of prescribed places that people/bikers can not visit has already entrapped the innocent, with a man who purchased his workshop in 2006, finding it on the list of prescribed places, simply because prior to the purchase it was a gearbox repair shop, owned by an ex member of a bike club.

Innocent motorcyclists are also being hit hard by the legislation, with riders already lodging complaints as a result or police intimidation, even those riding sports bikes, so is wearing black leather now an offence?

Then there is the "What you can wear" section that resulted in arrests because of a belt buckle, or the young man questioned for wearing a "Sons of Anarchy" shirt, which is from a television show.

Some of the answers offered up to those who chose 2 wheels as their mode of transport, is that if they are to ride together in groups of 3 or more, they should liaise with police first?

So people know, I ride a motorcycle more so now days for recreation, so if I go for a ride with a friend, and meet up with another, should I have to phone and ask permission of the police, should I have to accept police intervention and questioning, or wear dodgy fines and defects if I dare question the polices motives? Because that is already happening.

It appears now the QLD police are pulling over innocent bikers because they fear the outlaws as they are being labelled, may have taken of their colours, making every innocent biker the target of intimidation.

So the tough new laws are not working, because if they do, all that will happen is the criminal component of motorcycle clubs will simply go underground, making policing harder than ever. An interesting statistic to add here is that the governments own facts show the criminal component of the banned clubs account for only 0.3% of crime.

It is interesting to also note that while the clubs in questions all rode wearing colours and gathered at designated club rooms, the police were unable to convict them of the crimes the police tell us they commit, so what chance will they have when the criminal element go underground.

The administration of criminal justice is “not a political plaything or a suitable area for political grandstanding”.

Queensland police asked to ignore the law and community safety by their own commissioner

When the QLD police union warned that police were being ordered to employ questionable tactics including the execution of “dodgy” warrants on people’s homes, clubs and businesses, their senior executive have stepped well over the mark and beyond their mandate.

Any legislation that allows police to arrest a person for entering their own premises, is not supported by any form of justice, and having senior police executive demanding police to ignore the law, is unacceptable.

Bikers are also banned from their own businesses and or visiting tattoo parlours, even if it is their lively hood, with police staff told to check on these businesses up to 20 times a day, any failure by the police to do as they are told, will face disciplinary action or face being sacked.

Even the police themselves in QLD are objecting to being taken off normal duties and being told to sit outside biker premises to make sure the owners or members do not go inside, this also applies to their own legal businesses.

If Bikers cannot go home, go to their businesses or their own club houses, or can no longer seek the support of their close friends, what do the police expect they will do? Pushing supposed criminals underground, and pushing innocent parties over the line will only result in more issues for QLD police, on top of undermining justice at its grass roots.

The actions of Campbell Newman’s government have the ability to make criminals out of honest people in the very same way the failed South Australian laws did.

If a biker is on the straight and narrow regardless of past mistakes, they can now have their business destroyed, their property taken and their support network taken from them. If this happened to any innocent man, the only option left to survive is the very one these draconian laws are meant to address.

In Australia we have laws to address crime. Increasing penalties in line with community expectations is one thing, writing draconian laws that offend natural justice or that take away the presumption of innocence are indeed abhorrent, but demanding that police excuse our present protections is totally unacceptable.

The past 5 years have been interesting times in direct relation with these serious issues, with most crime related articles including even distant relationships to bikers, as if these proposed legislative amendments are reliant on the public’s perceptions of bikers in general.

So is the issue really about bikers, or is it as it appears, a massive grab for power?

Whether it is the result of this spin, or genuine public outrage over the actions of outlaw bikers, the proposed legislation to deal with the problem creates an issue for every Australian in regards to the erosion of their civil and human rights, because the legislation is not biker specific.

Many Australians are already showing their support for laws that attack their own fundamental rights, but taking away the rights of over 21 million people, over the abhorrent actions of a few hundred, or even a thousand, is very short sighted indeed.

Bike riders in QLD that have even joined in on charity rides are now finding their names on the list of associates, so at every level, the actions of the government and the police are worthy of criminal charges.

“From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbours’ interests without striking a dangerous blow at your own.” Carl Schurtz

The high court has already dismissed as invalid previous attempts by state governments to introduce similar legislation, but his case goes further, because in essence the police themselves are being asked to partake in criminal actions.

It is interesting to note, that the QLD police minister stated “I don’t care if they give up their colours” so even if these clubs disband, they will still be targeted, even those with no recent criminal activity “should be in jail” 25 years jail for attending their own property is bad law, who will be next is the question every Australian should ask, but will they?

Imagine you are invited to a family barbecue in the park.

Your advernturous Aunt Chrissy, has recently started a new relationship with Mick, a member of the Finks Motorcycle Club. You have met Mick and a couple of his mates, also members of the Finks Motorcycle Club, on one occasion before, and had a laugh over a few beers.

You head out to the park with all the other members of the family. As you are enjoying your steak and beverage Mick’s friends arrive on their motorcycles and join in the fun. You have a chat with them about the football game last weekend.

Under the new so called “Anti-Bikie” laws you and possibly other members of your family have committed an offence for which you could all be gaoled for a minimum of six months.

On top of that, you could be potentially liable to being hauled before the CMC to answer questions about Mick and his two mates.

This is what happens when governments pass laws that make people liable not for what they have done but for who they associate with, and you risk innocent people getting hurt.

These laws make no mention whatsoever of Bikers. They apply to any association of 3 or more people.

If say you are a member of the local bowls or golf club. You get involved in a scuffle trying to throw a misbehaving member out of the club. You are convicted of wounding, which simply requires that the true skin of the other person is broken. Under these laws, you get an extra 15 years added to your gaol sentence.

Bad law will never replace lazy policing, we have laws in this country to address criminal actions, and we don’t need laws that entrap the innocent. If the police cannot prove guilt by way of a person’s actions, then that person is innocent until proven otherwise.

The QLD government are well aware that biker related crime makes up for less that 1% of all crime (0.37%) yet are diverting all their resources in the scrutiny of Outlaw motorcycle clubs, so one must ask, who is watching the other criminals doing the other 99.63% of crime in QLD?

On that note their own facts and figures also show that less than 50% of Outlaw motorcycle club members have recorded offences, so are the 51% that have done nothing wrong along with other innocent motorcycle riders being entrapped by these laws considered acceptable collateral damage?

Any minister or government that would promote laws attacking the rights and liberties of their own people, or any minister that dare demand our police services break the law, are the ones that we should be charging with criminal offences.

Mark Aldridge

  "Community advocate" & Independent Federal candidate for Wakefield SA