12 September 2015

Psychopathic traits found in preschool children by University of NSW researchers

CorpAu comment: Yeah, and most of these children find employment in parliament, the judicature and the police force.

PSO's (Protective Service Officers) on the other hand are just plain too stupid to become police officers, so that's the best they can do .

Psychopathic child Damien in the 2006 remake of <i>The Omen</i>.
Psychopathic child Damien in the 2006 remake of The Omen. Photo: AP
Psychopathic traits can be identified in children as young as three, according to Australian-led research that measured how youngsters reacted to different facial expressions and neutral or distressing images.

The international team led by the University of NSW developed the diagnostic tool in world-first research that shows very young children can display callous and unemotional traits linked to psychopathy.

More than 200 children aged between three and six took part in the study, which found that 10 per cent showed callous and unemotional traits such as lacking remorse or empathy for the feelings of other people.

Lead author of the study and senior lecturer at UNSW, Eva Kimonis, said the diagnostic tool would allow children at risk of psychopathy to get earlier treatment.

"Until now we didn't really have a way to identify those traits in very young children," she said. "This is really the first study which uses tools adapted for very young children and the sooner those children are identified, the earlier they can be helped."

The children were assessed using a combination of tests adapted for their age and interviews with their parents and teachers.

The tests measured their ability to recognise changing and static facial expressions as well as their reactions to distressing and neutral images, such as a crying child or a book.

"Even very young children with these traits show that difficulty in recognising emotions in others and they are also not engaged by other people's emotions," Dr Kimonis said.

"When they see people in distress it's not capturing their attention in the same way as it would for the healthy population."

The tools were specifically designed to capture callous traits, which would distinguish children at risk of psychopathy from children with developmental disorders such as autism.

Dr Kimonis said the study, which has been published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, would have important implications in the treatment of children at risk of criminal behaviour in later life.

The Parent-Child Research Clinic at UNSW runs free programs for eligible families, developing the children's emotional skills and supporting their parents rather than prescribing medication.

"There's been a real shift toward trying to prescribe medication to these very young children, which is concerning because we don't know how safe that is," Dr Kimonis said.

"We're targeting the problem from a different angle and focusing on adapting parent management training programs that are known to be effective for other antisocial children.

"The key things are trying to develop the child's emotional skills. We coach the parents how to be very warm, involved and loving with them to see if that reduces those callous traits over time."

smh.com.au 10 Sep 2015

Charlie Rozencwajg another corrupt magistrate?

Many people have had magistrates ‘err in law’ either known or unbeknown to them with a feeling of hopelessness.

Many families have been affected as victims of crime where they say that there is no justice.

But there is, as justice is a business.

You see judges/magistrates/etc can be bought out.

If you’re part of the ‘brotherhood’ and the opposing party is not, you may have the ‘judgement’ go your way, irrespective of the ‘law’.

White collar criminals get away with robbing millions (in the process paying of judges from their pool, it’s part of the business plan), not being incarcerated only to start up another scam.

Let’s take for example a current article from the corporate media, where ex-Bandido Toby Mitchell a known criminal, offender, and danger to the public, was released into the community by magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg DESPITE calls from police to deny bail, after committing another crime.

So why did Rozencwajg release ex Bandido Toby Mitchell, a known offender, known to re-offend?

Is it because he is frightened that Mitchell (or his associates) might come after him?

Did the magistrate get an envelope (new method – credit /debit card with $X,XXX.xx) ?

Or is it that Rozencwajg is looking out for the best interest of the business called the court system.

You see, if Mitchell re-offends, he creates a victim, the victim then may hire a lawyer who then takes the matter to court. Rozencwajg or his colleague may preside over the matter, creating more revenue for themselves. 

If these were little or no ‘customers’ the ‘system’ could be in slow decline, and that’s ‘bad’ for business.
How is letting Mitchell out to the benefit or safety of the community?

It pays (better) to be a white collar criminal in Australia, than the common garden variety bottom feeder - street thug.

The Australian judicature has strong ties to the days of the colonial penal system, where the general populace is treated past, present or potential criminals.

What is not taught in Australian schools, is that once Captain Cook invaded this continent from 1788 the land mass was under Martial Law for 40 years.

See article from The Age publication on 11 Sep 2015 of the headline:

Former Bandidos sergeant-at-arms Toby Mitchell accused of punching cyclist in random road rage attack

Former Bandidos bikie enforcer Toby Mitchell. Former Bandidos bikie enforcer Toby Mitchell. Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones 
Former bikie enforcer Toby Mitchell has been bailed over an alleged random road rage attack where he is accused of punching a cyclist in the face.

Echo taskforce Detective Senior Constable Andrew Sward told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday that Mr Mitchell pulled up alongside a cyclist on the Harbour Esplanade at the intersection of Collins Street in the Docklands at 10pm on Monday, asking him: "Why aren't you using the bike lane".

The cyclist, a 31-year-old not known to the former Bandidos sergeant-at-arms, replied: "You're in a car, you can use the freeway", Senior Constable Sward said.

Former Bandidos bikie sergeant-at-arms Toby Mitchell.
Former Bandidos bikie sergeant-at-arms Toby Mitchell. Photo: Wayne Taylor
He said Mr Mitchell, driving a white Mercedes, drove at the cyclist forcing him to take evasive action.

He said Mr Mitchell, 40, then got out of his car and punched the cyclist in the face before taking off.
Two people in another car witnessed the alleged incident, the court heard, and the cyclist reported the matter to police that night.

Mr Mitchell has been charged with recklessly cause conduct, drive in a manner dangerous, intentionally and recklessly cause injury and unlawful assault.

His lawyer Theo Magazis told the court his client attended a police station voluntarily on Friday morning after making an appointment with police on Thursday night.

Mr Magazis said his client made no admissions to police and there were matters that were "in dispute".
He said Mr Mitchell would comply with bail conditions, saying in the three years he was on bail for a previous affray offence, he never breached the court's orders.

Police opposed bail, saying Mr Mitchell had a "propensity for violence" and was likely to interfere with witnesses.

In granting bail on Friday afternoon, Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg described the six-and-a-half months Mr Mitchell recently served over charges that were later dropped as "brownie points or credits".

Mr Rozencwajg said the "dead time" Mr Mitchell served for charges over allegations of assault and extortion served as credit in the fresh allegations as per the Karpinski principle.

"It can be called upon in relation to a subsequent charge," he said.

Mr Mitchell was fined $1000 last month after pleading guilty to recklessly cause injury. Sixteen other charges laid by the Echo taskforce were dropped.

Mr Magazis said Mr Mitchell's tattoo shop - City of Ink in South Melbourne- "suffered significantly" as a result of his incarceration.

Bail conditions included not contacting witness and attending an assessment for a program to address anger management.

Mr Mitchell made no comment to media outside court as he walked down Lonsdale Street with his arm around his lawyer.

11 September 2015

List of corrupt judges, magistrates in Victoria?

Many people have been 'done' by law, unknown to them.

There may be a remedy in the form of a judicial review, which must be handled within the prescribed time frame.

Many people have had a matter heard by a 'judicial registrar' where the law clearly states that a 'magistrate' is to hear the matter, another 'erring in law'.

While the list is not quite a list of corrupt judges, magistrates or judicial clerks it is however a list of the current magistracy of Victoria.

Some people may refer to them as 'Your Honour', but if they were actually in honour, they would step down.

The list available for download at:


and also from magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Please note that the corporate media reported that the magistracy in Tasmania was not sworn in correctly for the past 30 years.

See article: http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/tasmanian-magistrates-not-sworn-in.html

08 September 2015

'Government' Logic 101 - Port Arthur Massacre.

So... the story goes like this...

In a sleepy town south-east of Hobart, in TASMANIA an apparent lone gunman who was a bit NQR (Not Quite Right) shot firearms like a sniper killing 35 people and wounding 23.

Sam Jones's photo. A probable solution for that to NEVER happen again would be for the 'government' (read corporation conglomerate) to put measures in place so that retarded people cannot obtain high powered weapons including the ones from VicPol (oops sorry the corporate media did not mention this).

But in reality what the government does is that it takes away the weapons from 'law abiding' subjects of the Queen, in VICTORIA to hand them in to the 'authorities'.

NOW that makes sense... (NOT!!! !!! !!!)

So do you STILL trust the A$$HOLES in 'government'?

Were the 'real' criminals still remain armed.

Microsoft gives operating system encryption key to agencies and so do the other two?

Well apparently it's official that Microsoft has given the encryption key for its Operating System Windows 8.1 to 'government' agencies, but have the other two tech giants Apple and Google done the same with respect to their operating systems?

Well apparently allegedly officially, no....

But, here's what we know.

Any encryption technology that is developed in the U.S. where it is used in overseas markets, the 'keys' must be given to the 'authorities'.

Apart from back-doors built in into each of the three tech giants operating systems, user data is also compromised by the keys held by various government 'businesses'.

This also holds true for Australian users.

We are aware of agencies that use back doors in Apple's iPhone operating system to gain access to what the user is saying by switching on (unknown to the user) the microphone and camera.

Here is the article from howtogeek.com published on 22 Oct 2014 of the title:

Here’s Why Windows 8.1’s Encryption Doesn’t Seem to Scare the FBI


The FBI isn’t happy about the latest versions of iOS and Android using encryption by default. FBI director James Comey has been blasting both Apple and Google. Microsoft is never mentioned — but Windows 8.1 uses encryption by default, too.

The FBI doesn’t seem worried about Windows 8.1’s default “device encryption” feature. Microsoft’s encryption works a bit differently — Microsoft holds the keys and could hand them over to the FBI.

Why the FBI is Blasting Apple and Google

FBI directory James Comey has said Apple and Google are creating “a black hole for law enforcement.” Encryption “threatens to lead us all to a very dark place,” according to the FBI.

The latest versions of Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android automatically encrypt a smartphone or tablet’s storage by default. Previously, this was just an option most users wouldn’t enable. Because of the way encryption works, only a person who knows the key can decrypt it and access the unencrypted files. If Apple or Google received a warrant — or some sort of secret “national security letter” — they wouldn’t be able to decrypt the files even if they wanted to. They don’t have the encryption key. (A national security letter is a secret order that may contain a “nondisclosure” requirement, preventing the person who received the national security letter from ever talking about it for the rest of their life under threat of criminal prosecution.)

This is the main issue for the FBI — encryption that prevents thieves from accessing your data after they steal your device is fine. However, the FBI wants to have a way to force Apple or Google to provide access to the encrypted data. In other words, they want Apple and Google to have a key they can use to gain access to the encrypted data.


Windows 8.1’s Device Encryption Gives Microsoft a Key


Windows 8.1 Will Start Encrypting Hard Drives By Default: Everything You Need to Know
Windows 8.1 will automatically encrypt the storage on modern Windows PCs. This will help protect your files in case someone... [Read Article]

New Windows 8.1 devices ship with something called “device encryption” enabled by default. This is different from the BitLocker encryption feature, which is only available in more expensive Professional editions of Windows and not enabled by default.

If you have a supported device, the device’s storage comes pre-encrypted — but it uses an empty encryption key. When you sign in with a Microsoft account, the encryption is activated and a recovery key is uploaded to Microsoft’s servers. (If you sign in on a domain, the recovery key is uploaded to Active Directory Domain Services, so your business or school has it instead of Microsoft.) If you use a local account, there’s no way to enable the device encryption.

In other words, device encryption can only be used if you upload a recovery key to Microsoft’s servers (or to your organization’s domain server). If a thief stole your device, they wouldn’t be able to gain access. However, if law enforcement were to send a warrant (or a secret national security letter) to Microsoft, Microsoft would be forced to give the government your recovery key.

This is exactly what the FBI wants from Apple and Google — they want them to hold a recovery key they can disclose. Apple and Google are digging in, but Microsoft already gave the FBI what they wanted.


Microsoft May Have Other Reasons, But…


How to Set Up BitLocker Encryption on Windows
Windows can encrypt entire operating system drives and removable devices with its built-in BitLocker encryption. When TrueCrypt controversially closed up... [Read Article]

Now, this isn’t all about providing a backdoor for the FBI. Average Windows users who forget their password will be able to get a recovery key from their Microsoft account by going through a password reset process. They’d just have to visit http://windows.microsoft.com/recoverykey and sign in with the same Microsoft account — using an account recovery procedure if they can’t remember the password. Typically, encryption can’t be bypassed — if a user forgot their password, they’d lose access to all the files on their computer. Microsoft seems to consider this unacceptable.

But this is all a bit weird. There’s no way to enable device encryption without uploading a recovery key somewhere — not even a hidden power user option. This is very unusual for encryption — Android and iOS certainly don’t do it this way. BitLocker offers to back up your recovery key to your Microsoft account, but this part isn’t mandatory. It’s one of many different ways to create a backup of your recovery key — unlike with the default device encryption.

Even ignoring law enforcement access, this makes the encryption weaker. Someone could go through the password reset process in your Microsoft account to gain access to your encrypted files. We’ve previously seen people abuse password reset procedures with social-engineering tricks to gain access to other people’s accounts. It’s just less secure.


Law Enforcement Can Get Everything, Anyway

If the FBI wants to get access to text messages and phone calls, they can get it from the cellular carriers. If the FBI wants to get access to emails, social media posts, and files stored in cloud storage, they can get it by contacting the associated web services — yes, even Google and Apple would have to respond and hand over users’ data.

The US and other countries even have massive secret databases containing logs of who’s called who. They’re even trying to monitor all the traffic on the web and shove it into a database so it can be queried later.

Whatever sensitive data is protected via encryption is probably available elsewhere. Even with iOS and Android, devices are set to upload data to Apple’s iCloud and Google various services. That uploaded data could be gotten from their servers with a warrant or national security letter.

Pass a Law If It’s So Important

There’s a way for the FBI to actually get these backdoors — the government would just have to pass a low mandating backdoors for law enforcement. Currently, implementing encryption with no backdoors for law enforcement is completely legal in the US. The FBI actually gave up on pushing for such a law:
“The F.B.I. has abandoned a component of its original proposal that would have required companies that facilitate the encryption of users’ messages to always have a key to unscramble them if presented with a court order. Critics had charged that such a law would create back doors for hackers. The current proposal would allow services that fully encrypt messages between users to keep operating, officials said.”
If it’s so dangerous to allow encryption without a backdoor, why did the FBI give up on it? Probably because they know they’d lose. But, if the FBI’s current rhetoric is anything to go by, we could see such a law start to take form again.


Overall, device encryption is still a useful feature in Windows. Encrypting files but allowing the FBI to gain access is still an improvement over not encrypting those files. The encryption at least prevents thieves from gaining access. Let’s not mince words: Device encryption is good. It’s better than the complete lack of default encryption Windows used to offer, even with this concern.

However, Microsoft’s means of allowing law enforcement to access encrypted files is something that’s flown under the radar. It’s particularly relevant when we see Apple and Google digging in and refusing to enable this covert access. Apple and Google can’t provide law enforcement with access to your encrypted data, but Microsoft can.

Who Really Owns the Big Four Banks?

Who owns the Big 4 banks?

In response to concerns over how our financial institutions operate, we recently launched a piece of research on the issue of bank ownership in Australia. Often consumers who choose to bank with smaller, more independent banks may, in fact, be banking with one of the ‘Big Four’. The following examination of who owns the big four (ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, NAB and Westpac) is the logical follow-on from that initial investigation.

Australia’s big four are not merely big, they’re massive. Humongous. Their combined assets in 2013 stood at $2.86 trillion—or roughly twice the size of Australia’s national income.

They are four of the five largest Australian companies by market capitalisation, together representing more than a quarter of the market. According to a 2012 report by the International Monetary Fund [PDF], the big four controlled 88% of residential mortgages and 80% of deposits. By contrast, the biggest six American banks held 30% of total deposits in 2013.

It’s not just banking: the big four own 53% of life insurance premiums, and account for 57.3% of retail investment funds through bank-owned platforms. It begs the question: if they own so much of Australia’s economy, who owns the big four?


According to a 2012 report by the International Monetary fund, ‘major banks are highly interconnected, as they are among each other’s largest counterparties.’ But that connection is far from direct. Part of it has to do with banks borrowing from each other, rather than owning large parts of each other.

A study of the Australian bank network by the Reserve Bank of Australia found that more than half of outstanding authorised deposit-taking institutions ‘exposure’ in this sense is to the big four. Because they have so much of the money of the entire system already, when they need to temporarily borrow, there’s few other banks they can go to, so they have to go to each other. That’s a very cozy relationship.


It is in fact the same four names as the top four shareholders in each of the four banks—but it’s not each other. According to the big four’s annual reports for 2013, here’s who owns ordinary shares:

HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited: 16.91% of Westpac; 16.83% of NAB; 18.48% of ANZ; 14.80% of CBA

JP Morgan Nominees Australia Ltd: 12.75% of Westpac; 12.03% of NAB; 14.40% of ANZ; 11.57% of CBA

National Nominees Limited: 9.93% of Westpac, 10.14% of NAB; 11.76% of ANZ; 8.5% of CBA

Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited: 4.94% of Westpac; 4% of NAB; 4.15% of ANZ; 4.47% of CBA
“HSBC, JP Morgan, National Nominees and Citicorp all frequently show up together among the top 5 or top 10 shareholders in many Australian publicly-traded companies.”
‘Custodians’, by definition, hold customers’ securities for safekeeping, in addition to offering other services such as account administration and collection of dividends and interest payments, for a fee. They are not active participants in decision-making. It would be wrong to imply that by having a 17% stake in Westpac, for example, HSBC also has 17% of the vote: as a custodian, HSBC only processes the proxy votes of the customers for whom it holds the shares—and these customers could be large sovereign wealth funds, or a board member of Westpac, or a family-owned business in Sydney. Discrepancies in proxy voting do occur, and many uneducated investors aren’t even aware they can cast votes. But in principle, HSBC, in a custodian role, acts only as the messenger, not the decision-maker.

As a wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Bank Australia Limited, the custody nominees business held more than $700 billion in assets. It is not only in the big four. The sheer size of its investment capital means that it frequently shows up among the top 5 shareholders for a large number of Australian companies. In fact, HSBC, JP Morgan, National Nominees and Citicorp all frequently show up together among the top 5 or top 10 shareholders. They simply represent a very large pile of money, all of which has to be parked somewhere.


On a different note, however, that 17% stake HSBC’s custodian arm has in Westpac could, in theory, represent just one person—or four big investors—buying through a variety of mutual funds, each of which has HSBC as their custodian. It’s a stretch, and it would have to be a very rich group of individuals, but it is possible. Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to track down the identities of those underlying shareholders through the various financial structures that hold shares for each other and on behalf of each other.

But can these hidden shareholders control what Westpac does?

The company points out that as of October 3, 2013, there were no shareholders who had a ‘substantial holding’, i.e., in which “they or their associates” have control 5% of more of the vote. NAB states the same. Westpac explains that shareholders such as HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited (16.91% of total shares) ‘may hold shares for the benefit of third parties’—the definition of their role as custodians. Furthermore, Westpac states it is ‘not directly or indirectly owned or controlled by any other corporation(s) or by any foreign government.’

But the top 20 registered shareholders held 52.42% of Westpac’s ordinary shares—and that’s a controlling stake. The word ‘nominee’ or ‘custodian’ pops up in 11 of them. There’s an independent wealth management group, a closed-end fund, an investment management firm, and so on. Who is behind the actual shares would be, again, practically impossible to determine.

But the same names show up among the top 20 for each of the big four banks, with some variation.
“The top 20 registered shareholders hold 52.42% of Westpac’s ordinary shares—and that’s a controlling stake.”
The interconnection between the four banks may be even more pervasive, if even less direct. ANZ’s CEO since 2007 has been Mr. M R P Smith—who has been with HSBC for most of his 30-year career prior to joining ANZ. Since 1978, Mr Smith has held ‘a wide variety of roles in Commercial, Institutional and Investment Banking, Planning and Strategy, Operations and General Management’, according to ANZ’s annual report, including as director of HSBC Australia Limited from 2004-2007, immediately before he became CEO of ANZ. In 2008 ANZ also hired its group managing director of human resources and chief risk officer from HSBC, and in 2011 plucked its new global natural resources head from HSBC.

Too Big to Fail?

Whoever it is that owns the big four banks, one thing is clear: if the same four custodian companies own similar chunks of each of the big four, there’s indication that the shareholders behind them do not want one bank to succeed at the expense of another. The optimal scenario is if all of them win together. And maintain their dominant position, of course.

credicardcompare.com.au 19 May 2014

06 September 2015

Happy Father's Day


Especially to those who cannot be with their child/children due to a venomous ‘ex’ who will not allow to be with the father with the full support of a corrupt legal system which works to destroy the family unit.

Parental alienation = child abuse.

Family Law Court – where a man must beg a corporation to see his own flesh and blood.