Sydney siege botched by government now they need your help (we smell a rat).

So let's get this straight.

• The corporation conglomerate commonly referred to as the 'government' employs learned people.

• When communication with the government, you are 'wrong' they are right, and how dare you question our authority.

• With regards to law, the government does everything correctly and by the 'book' (whichever one that is).

We have obtained numerous letters where the response from the government is condescending with regards question of law.

So here's the deal.

The government is responsible for the murder of two innocent victims during the Martin Place, Sydney siege due to incompetence.

The Australian government has blood on it's hands with regards to the murders of Tori Johnson, 34 and Katrina Dawson 38 at the Lindt Chocolate Cafe in Martin Place, Sydney from the 15th of December 2014.

So here's what they want you to believe.

They want 'you' (the general populous, the 'serfs' - read slaves) to tell the almighty government where they went wrong.

Therefore they (indirectly) admitted they 'stuffed up', i.e. now liable for a law suit on behalf of the victim's families.

Here's what really happens to people who expose corruption and inadequacies of the government.

Have you ever heard of Sergeant Rick Flori from Brisbane?

He exposed criminal actions of the Australian government in the hands of the police, and how they bashed a handcuffed man.

Now he, Sgt. Rick Flori, is a criminal and has to defend himself.

Make now mistake with regards to the legal status of this country.

Australia still is a penal colony of the British empire, and therefore penal colony rules still apply.

It's is NOT a 'democracy' as falsely stated by various sources.

The government does not really need your help.

It wants to know what you know to shut you up in case yo make the details of their botched handling of the Martin Place siege public.

Read the article from 13 May 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

Sydney siege inquest: Information sought on whether defence force could have handled it better

A hostage escapes the Lindt cafe during the Sydney siege. Picture: Chris McKeen

ARMY experts who have spoken to media about the police handling of the Lindt Cafe siege have been urged to “come forward” to help end the speculation and “simmering debate” that has hung over the police response.

The extraordinary request was made on Friday morning at the Sydney siege inquest by counsel assisting the coroner Jeremy Gormly SC.

He said questions over the ability of the Australian Defence Force to better handle the Lindt Cafe siege was an “ongoing and simmering debate”.

The inquest is looking at the way police responded to the siege in December 2014, when gunman Man Haron Monis took 18 people hostage at the Martin Pl cafe.

He killed cafe manager Tori Johnson which caused police to storm the cafe and end the siege. Katrina Dawson was struck by fragments of police bullets and died soon after.

Mr Gormly raised reports in The Australian, and other media, where unnamed sources told of a supposedly widely held view within the ADF of serious doubts about the police capability to cope with an event like the Lindt Cafe siege.

He said the reports were at odds with information given to the inquest by NSW Police and ADF — but offered the sources or anyone else who had proof of the claims to come forward and assist the inquest.

“If there are witnesses in support [of these views] that can provide value to investigation ... I invite them to come forward,” he said.

The Australian articles raised a series of issues the ADF allegedly had with the police handling of the siege, including the weapons and ammunition police used and a refusal from NSW Police to co-operate with their federal colleagues on the day of the siege.

The inquest has previously heard police rejected an offer from the army to use a mock up of the cafe that had built to trial tactics.

Police prepare to enter the Lindt cafe shortly before the siege comes to an end.Source:Supplied

In particular, was a claim the bullets used by police were more likely to “shatter” if they struck marble surfaces like the ones found throughout the cafe.

Mr Gormly said there was “no evidence” of that in statements already tendered — but if the claims were true then they would be “useful and relevant” to the inquest.

The source of the claims was obviously someone, or several people, who had experience at the highest levels of the ADF, he said.

However, Ian Freckelton QC, representing NSW Police, said the views of “shadowy figures” who have given unnamed quotes to media did not necessarily give them “value in a courtroom”.

He said the persons involved had already had plenty of time to contribute to the inquest.

“They have chosen not to do so.”

There was no proof at all the sources had any “expert knowledge” at all, he said.

But Mr Gormly said the subject wasn’t one that could be dismissed because the details came from “an anonymous source”.

The barrister acting for the family of Mr Johnson, Gabrielle Bashir SC, said any army evidence was highly relevant and was interested in the possible “covert entry to the cafe”.

Philip Boulton SC, acting for the family of hostage Katrina Dawson who was also killed, said it was a concern that no army witnesses were expected to be called to the inquest.

Defence force officers were present at police headquarters on the night of siege. Counsel for the Commonwealth, James Renwick, SC, told the inquest: “We could only act if we were asked. We weren’t asked, and for good reason.”

Under Australian law, the only way the defence force could have become involved was if NSW Police had declared it beyond their capability.

The siege inquest has heard at no stage did that occur.

The inquest continues.