You cannot 'get away' with a parking ticket which is listed as a criminal offence in court, as 'owner onus' illegally applies, where innocent until proven guilty was taken away from you.
The herd populace is told that every phone conversation is logged in order to stamp out crime.
The sheeple are told that their viewing of every internet site is logged, so that criminal activity can be eradicated including child abuse, which includes child porn.
Here's the best part about it, if/when you do get caught you can get away with it.
Maybe not just anyone.
Maybe you have to be part of the 'brotherhood', but that would be a 'conspiracy theory', right?
It also helps if you get a 'sympathetic' judge to your cause.
See article from 24 Oct 1026 from 9news.com.au of the headline:
Ex-Deloitte director avoids jail over child porn
Stephan Sparrius avoids jail for possessing hundreds of child pornography images. (Source: AAP)
A former director at Deloitte Australia
has avoided a jail term for possessing more than 300 child pornography
images and videos.
Stephan Sparrius, 41, was interstate for his $240,000-a-year job at the finance firm when police searched his Surry Hills home in March this year.
Images depicting underage boys naked and in sexual acts were found on numerous devices and in a book with a foreign title, police alleged in facts tendered to the court.
In handing down her sentence on Monday, Magistrate Susan McIntyre said the children in the images had likely suffered "irretrievably" as a result of their exploitation.
But she said most of the images and videos fell into the lowest category of seriousness and that a dissemination charge related to Sparrius receiving a video on a website rather than spreading it for money.
Sparrius was contacted by police during the search of his home and gave them passwords to computers and iPad, the documents reveal.
He made admissions on returning to NSW and later pleaded guilty to numerous possession and one dissemination charge.
The prosecution had asked that Sparrius, who no longer works for Deloitte, serve a jail term.
But Ms McIntyre told the Downing Centre Local Court he was a low risk of reoffending due to his "intelligence" and insight into his offending.
She gave him a 15-month intensive correction order on the condition he be subject to searches and monitoring deemed suitable by a supervisor.
As a director, Sparrius was a senior employee rather than an executive or partner of Deloitte Australia.
Stephan Sparrius, 41, was interstate for his $240,000-a-year job at the finance firm when police searched his Surry Hills home in March this year.
Images depicting underage boys naked and in sexual acts were found on numerous devices and in a book with a foreign title, police alleged in facts tendered to the court.
In handing down her sentence on Monday, Magistrate Susan McIntyre said the children in the images had likely suffered "irretrievably" as a result of their exploitation.
But she said most of the images and videos fell into the lowest category of seriousness and that a dissemination charge related to Sparrius receiving a video on a website rather than spreading it for money.
Sparrius was contacted by police during the search of his home and gave them passwords to computers and iPad, the documents reveal.
He made admissions on returning to NSW and later pleaded guilty to numerous possession and one dissemination charge.
The prosecution had asked that Sparrius, who no longer works for Deloitte, serve a jail term.
But Ms McIntyre told the Downing Centre Local Court he was a low risk of reoffending due to his "intelligence" and insight into his offending.
She gave him a 15-month intensive correction order on the condition he be subject to searches and monitoring deemed suitable by a supervisor.
As a director, Sparrius was a senior employee rather than an executive or partner of Deloitte Australia.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt’s because ‘the Queen’ in ‘our’ Westminster constitution is defined in the Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp.) and hasn’t existed since 1922 when the Anglo-Irish Peace Treaty was signed and legislated. The Queens of both Australia and the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aren’t in ‘our’ constitution. Elizabeth II has as much authority under ‘our’ constitution as the Princess of Burundi or the local scout master. The Chinese have been using this for years to get what they want from the Foreign Investment Review Board – because I gave them that information!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteUncle Al you may need to prove that argument.
ReplyDeleteConsider the Monarch is a seat of succession, exactly like a bishop of a church. The individual is separated from the executive entity, a corporation sole.
Also note the clause-preface of The Constitution isn't a preamble. John Howard attempted to get a preamble to bring clarity to The Constitution and the clause-preface, with a failed referendum in 1999.
Clause-preface:
An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of
Australia
[9th July 1900]
WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God,
have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth _under_the_Crown_ of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and _under_the_Constitution_ hereby established:
And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the
Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies _and_possessions_of_the_Queen_:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with
the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in
this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Clause 2. Act to extend to the Queen’s successors
The provisions of this Act referring to _the_Queen_ shall extend to
Her Majesty’s _heirs_ and _successors_ in the _sovereignty_ of the United
Kingdom.
In future for anyone who does not want their comment published, please provide a "FYI" or "do not publish" or something to that effect.
ReplyDeleteApologies to those concerned.