How to choose a VPN provider

In recent years the general public has been made aware how governments (read corporation conglomerates) have been acquiring [your?] data.

From web surfing history, online purchases, emails, phone records, texts including their content, literally your entire digital footprint is collected and stored.

Instead of enacting privacy laws that protect the masses governments have ramped up more laws that invade the so called privacy the people may have thought they had once upon a time.

The VPN (Virtual Private Network) is not a new invention, where it could be older than may of the users of social media sites, where in its early days it was associated with a workplace creating a secure tunnel over the internet for workers to communicate securely to their other offices.

In the early days of network hardware encryption companies like Cisco had the market sewn up, but as always, as time goes on, other companies have sprouted up and started to offer those services to the masses.

So how does one choose a company to provide a VPN service to a member of the masses?

Nowadays the above question has a few aspects: a technical one and a political and a legal one.

To make this post as brief as possible we're going to cut straight to the chase, and provide a few basic tips.

The companies to stay away from are the one's who operate in five, nine or fourteen eyes countries which are as follows:

Five: UK, US, CA, NZ, AU
Nine: Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway
Fourteen: Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Spain.

It does not matter what they write in their spiel, about how private they are, it's best to stay away from them.

As an example of government / company lies, a group of companies called the  'Australian Government' has stated that there are three levels of government, that being federal, state/territory and local, see attached photo:

There are only two lawful levels of government: federal and state /territory but alas, this is a digression.

It's good to chose a company that does not store cookies, or use external trackers or have external analytical services.

Third party email is also a weak point, as it can be compromised.

Stay away from companies :

- that keep logs,
- offer only PPTP,
- give out info from "court orders" in "other jurisdictions" (we should know how dodgy they can be).

Run some testing software to see if there are any leaks, or for how long your true IP address masked.

Refer to user forums for technicalities, rather than advertising material alone.


At the end of the day it also comes to trust, in that you trust the company that you are dealing with that they are telling you the truth e.g. that they do not store any logs of your activity.

There is no doubt that there could have been many more words written in this post on this topic.

If you have a shopping list of VPN providers, that can be crossed of from some of the basic info provided here, then you could be on your way into narrowing your choices where you might want to delve deeper into the technical details to make sure that the company is right for you.

Australians losing privacy rights but snaring a Xmas bargain more important

With almost literally every new law being put into 'force' by the corporation conglomerate called the 'Australian Government' the serfs are being more and more exposed, losing their privacy right's where the rule of Roman law (which is contrary to a founding document called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900);  "Guilty until proven innocent" is coming out of the legal labyrinth into the public eye.

'Dodgy' laws can be put in place when the herd is asleep, for example at 2:30am, or when the footy grand finals are on, or even times of religious / festive season celebrations.

So how do the masses feel about that?

They're not fussed at all, they could not give a stuff.

They just want to survive at the lowest level of existence, (i.e. beer, footy, sex and roof over head) according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

No one's telling their government they do not want those laws invading their 'Human Rights' are they?

No one's being vocal to march on parliament to tell the law makers they 'suck' (colloquial term for where something bad might come from).

What the herd want is a real shopping bargain after Christmas on a day called Boxing day.

Just another distraction created by the corporation conglomerate to keep the herd populous occupied.

Just another 'Police State' law coming into action, on this colony of the British empire.

The 'government' states that it enacts the will of the people (not the 'minority' but rather the herd populace), and since the herd love their 'shopping' the corporation conglomerate gives them plenty of 'bargains', staying 'honourable' (cough cough) to their words...

Note: 

You may want to research if Australia's current Attorney-General George Brandis is in office 'lawfully'.

P.S. Also note the word from the headline being 'could'..

See article from 22 December 2016 by the Fairfax publication of the headline:

Australians' phone and email records could be used in civil lawsuits

Australians could have their private phone and email records used against them in civil litigation cases, with the federal government considering relaxing data retention laws.

Critics say it would pave the way for phone and email records to be mined for material to be used in legal action following marriage breakdowns and business disputes.

Many experts have warned that personal phone data could be mined for civil lawsuits. Photo: SeongJoon Cho
 
The Communications and Attorney-General's departments quietly announced they were conducting a review of national data retention laws five days before Christmas.

As part of the review, the departments are seeking feedback on whether there are particular kinds of civil proceedings, or other circumstances, in which prohibitions on metadata being released could be relaxed.

Attorney-General George Brandis said the mandatory metadata retention regime ''applies only to the most serious crime''.  Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
 
The review has alarmed technology experts, many of whom warned that personal data could be used for civil lawsuits when data retention laws were first introduced.

"The plan to use the data in civil cases is an outrageous overreach and goes against the safeguards initially introduced," technology and law expert Angela Daly, of the Queensland University of Technology, said. "Data retention should be rolled back, not extended."

Internet law expert John Selby, of Maquarie University, said the review raised the possibility that data retention laws, initially justified on national security grounds, could grow to include measures well beyond their original intent.

"Such provisions may have seen even stronger public resistance to the law if they had been included at the time," Dr Selby said.

Since October last year, Australian telcos such as Telstra and Optus have been required to store metadata logs of people's email, internet, mobile and landline use for up to two years. The contents are not recorded.

The Coalition used the threat of terrorism to justify introducing the laws in 2014, vowing that people had nothing to fear from their introduction.

"The mandatory metadata retention regime applies only to the most serious crime – to terrorism, to international and transnational organised crime, to paedophilia," Attorney-General George Brandis told the ABC in 2014.

But the Communications Alliance, which represents Australian telecommunications companies, the Law Council of Australia and others warned that stored data could become a target for civil litigants and those with malicious aims.

Communications Alliance chief executive John Stanton told a parliamentary committee last year: "Our concern is that ...[it] may generate a tsunami of action in commercial disputes, in marital disputes and in many other cases where the data is being mined."

A spokeswoman from the Attorney-General's office said that as part of the data retention laws, there would be a prohibition on courts releasing telcommunications data to be used in civil legal proceedings, which would take effect in April next year.

However, she said, the review would consider whether there should be exemptions to this, and pointed out a parliamentary committee last year said there were some circumstances, including international abductions or family violence cases, where having access to metadata could be valuable.

The committee recommended the government review the "exclusions" from access to metadata by April 13, 2017.

While there were already provisions in the Telecommunications Act that allowed telcos to be compelled to produce data relating to court proceedings, this only applied in criminal cases, Deakin University criminology lecturer Adam Molnar said.

"One has to be concerned about the recent call for submissions over the holiday period - it's hardly fulsome conditions for informed debate," he said. "And extending this into civil litigation is potentially opening up a whole new can of worms."

Submissions can be made to the review by January 13.

Arson versus Speeding @ Victoria Police

We're not huge fans of memes but this one is a 'fact':

So how does the 'Code of Conduct' work in this case???

No action to "Prevent offences" ???

Of course, it's the 'silly season', PLENTY of motorists 'speeding'*


* speeding equals HUGE revenue for the corporation conglomerate commonly referred to as the 'Australian Government'.

Australian police to use sonic weapons to maim the people as they are the enemy of the state.

So apparently in Australia, the people are told that they live in a 'democracy'.

The people allegedly are supposed to have a 'freedom of speech'.

The people are also allegedly allowed to protest, where the focus could be on government or corporate misbehaviour (read fraud).


Also the herd populace for now, have some sort protection with the help of entrenched U.K laws under a system of rule from the monarchy, which does not sit well with certain people, hence the push for a republic, but that alas is another dozen or two posts.

What the majority of people do not realise is that Australia is still a British colony, where this is reflected in certain instances of law, other than the private, commercial, administrative, maritime or mercantile laws that also operate in this country.

So in a penal colony the mass populous is the enemy of the administration.

Any form of protest is to be extinguished.

"But that's a conspiracy theory you tin foil hat nutter",
bleats a member of the 'beer and footy' herd mob.

Naahhh not really -

Under the banner of 'innovation' which should read 'slavery' you can

read article from 22 Dec 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

Long range acoustic devices terrorising protesters

A Los Angeles County Sheriffs deputy stands ready to use a sound cannon, or Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), against protesters near a Donald Trump campaign rally on May 25, 2016 in Anaheim, California Picture: David McNew/Getty Images/AFP

A SONIC weapon that can permanently damage people’s hearing is being rolled out across world and Aussie police now have them in their anti-protest kits.

Long range acoustic devices (LRADs) are often referred to as sound cannons and have been used against protesters in the US with damaging impacts, with some saying they should be considered weapons.

Although many people in Australia may have never heard of them, police in many states count the devices as part of their arsenals.

Protesters were warned about the use of LRADs ahead of the G20 in Brisbane in 2014, which some community groups described as an “exercise in intimidation”.

Initially designed for military use, the LRADs were used to keep pirates away from ships and have been used in warzones in Iraq and Afghanistan to lure people out of buildings into the range of snipers.

The device, which looks like a satellite dish and is often mounted on an armed vehicle, can emit an extremely loud, piercing sound that is very disturbing to humans. This makes them very good at dispersing crowds.

“It’s a very high frequency ... it really hurts your ears”, University of Missouri professor Karen Piper told ABC’s Law Report earlier this year.

Ms Piper was blasted with the LRAD while taking footage of a G20 protest in the US town of Pittsburgh, where the device was used in 2009. Authorities played the piercing noise at the highest setting for three minutes, instead of for 30 seconds at the lowest setting.

“The initial thing I felt was pain, I thought my eardrum had ruptured,” she said. “Then I felt dizzy and nauseous and disoriented.”

Prof Piper said she had bad ringing in her ears for a year that drove her crazy but more seriously, she discovered she also had permanent hearing loss.

“It’s actually nerve damage ... and those nerves will never recover,” she said.

The English professor was the first person to sue over the use of a LRAD and eventually reached a settlement with the City of Pittsburgh for $US72,000 ($AU99,255).

“I was really mad that this had happened to me when I was just down there, this innocent bystander,” she said.

Prof Piper said she didn’t think the devices should be allowed.

“I have to live with this for the rest of my life ... why is it okay to say we can use this against our own citizens?”

Her experience highlights one of the main problems with the device, as it will blast anyone in its vicinity, regardless of whether they are the target.

An LRAD being used on G20 protesters in Pittsburgh in 2009Source:Supplied

“The LRAD is indiscriminate, whoever happens to be in the way of the soundwave is equally likely to be affected,” Dr James Parker of Melbourne University told ABC.

“At least a baton in principle should be aimed at somebody, while the LRAD is aimed at everybody.”
The LRAD is marketed as a communication device, not a weapon, which is key to its saleability. This has enabled the US sell the devices to China, as well as the UK and South America.

A number of police departments in Australia confirmed to news.com.au they have LRADs and all said the devices were used for their loudspeaker ability. No one mentioned whether the high-pitched “alert” function had been used.

Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia as well as the Australian Federal Police, all confirmed they have an LRAD.

Northern Territory would not comment to ensure it did not “compromise policing methodologies or tactics”.

Western Australia Police said it could not make a comment on “specialist equipment”.

Tasmania said it did not have an LRAD.

NSW Police did not respond to inquiries.

Of those authorities that did respond, they described the use of the LRAD as performing the function of a really powerful, expensive loudspeaker.

Queensland Police said it currently had 15 LRADs in operation, and have had the device since 2009.
A spokesman said they were purchased for their use in negotiation during high risk environments as a form of communication.

“LRAD’s have been used on numerous occassions at high risk incidents to communicate with persons in crisis,” he said.

However, he did not say whether the siren had been used, only that it was used “in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions when conditions allow this to occur”.

“These instructions ensure no damage to hearing to anyone involved,” he said.

South Australia Police said it has had two devices since 2011.

“One has an amplification range of approximately 200 metres and the other a range up to 3km,” a spokeswoman said.

“The devices can be used in a range of situations to communicate and amplify messages and tones over some distance during incidents including primarily search and rescue, protest activity, high risk negotiation and mass casualty.”

Victoria Police said its critical incident response team had LRADs to enable negotiations with suspects when it was too dangerous for a negotiator to be in a closer position.

“CIRT have used the devices on a number of occasions. There are strict guidelines in place and they are only used by trained negotiators,” a spokeswoman said.

The Australian Federal Police said its officers had never used the device to disrupt or disperse crowds.

“This is useful in situations where it is deemed an unacceptable risk, or there is no ability for the AFP to engage in face-to-face negotiation,” a spokesman said.

“These devices are only used by specialist members who are appropriately trained,”
“On every occasion these specialist members use these devices, they are required to submit a report to ensure appropriate use.”

The police can rape the children of the cannon fodder and not get charged

It seems like the police have sent out a loud and clear message to their brethren that they can rape the children of the herd population and not get charged.

Fancy that?

Aren't the police supposed to

• Preserve the peace,

• Protect life and property,

• Prevent offences?

It may apply to the executive that the police work for, but does it also apply to the inhabitants of this colony?

Don't forget that Victoria Police hand out millions of dollars worth of fines unlawfully every year.


Can you really trust Victoria Police?

Are they your 'friend'?

Are they really 'public servants' working for you (the tax payer)?



See text of article from 17 June 2016 by theage.com.au of the headline:

Victoria Police did not charge 'monster' cop who raped children, court told

Victoria Police failed to act on complaints about a policeman who sexually brutalised nine children during his 12 years in the force, the County Court was told on Friday.

Instead, the organisation forced the officer to resign in 1979, the court heard. He then went on to sexually assault and rape children for at least another four years.

The former officer, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, on Friday formally pleaded guilty to 18 offences against nine victims, who were as young as five when he stole their innocence.

The man, now 66, worked as a police officer between 1967 and 1979, during which time he preyed on boys and girls, often in his police uniform.

Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers told the court that one boy who the man assaulted in 1979 later told his mother what had happened, and she reported the abuse to the officer's colleagues.

While the woman decided not to press charges, Dr Rogers told the court that police went to the woman's house the next day and told her "that the offender wouldn't be in the police force any more and would be moved away".

He was forced to resign but was not arrested over the allegations, to which he finally pleaded guilty on Friday.

Dr Rogers described how the officer had asked one boy, who was between six and 10 when he was raped, whether he wanted to see the police station. He took the boy to a room in the station where there was a bed, and raped him.

Another girl went to the police station for help after losing her mother at a nearby festival. After telling the child, "I'll look after you", Dr Rogers said, the officer took her into the back of a police divisional van and forced her to perform oral sex on him.

Three of the other victims were his step-children. Others were friends of the children, friends of the family, or neighbours.

In harrowing testimony, one of the former officer's step-daughters, now 45, told the man she hoped he rotted in hell for what he had done to her, including holding a police-issue revolver to her head as he raped her.

She wept as she described how she had hoped he would pull the trigger and put her out of her misery. Instead, he forced her to suffer through years of "hell and his sick games".

The woman said she went to her grandmother when she was nine and would not stop bleeding. Her grandmother initially thought the girl was having her first period. Instead, a doctor informed her she was having a miscarriage.

"He is a monster," she raged at the man, who would not meet her eyes. "He needs to never see the light of day again ... once a monster always a monster – he will never change."

While she and her siblings were terrorised at home, she said, primary school was no refuge.

"He would show up in police uniform, in the police car, police revolver ... all the other kids thought it was cool."

Instead, she said, he would take her home while everyone else in the house was away and rape her, before driving her back to school in the police car.

Children were brought up to believe that the role of police was to serve and protect, she said bitterly. "What a load of bullshit that is."

She said that when she was 15, her grandfather helped her go to police and report the abuse, but she was told the man "would probably get off because he was an ex-cop".

She dropped the matter, and told the court she still felt guilty about what he had done to other children after that.

Police began investigating the former policeman in 2011, Dr Rogers said, and he was finally arrested in 2012.

Defence counsel Amelia Beech told Judge John Carmody that: "There is some evidence of remorse on [his] behalf. I don't say that it's strong evidence of remorse ... [but] if I can say this, Your Honour, he is making the right noises."

She said the former officer had no family support, and no visitors in prison.

Since 2012, he has been in jail, serving a 17-year sentence for separate offences which, the court was told, were of a "similar" nature.

Ms Beech said that after leaving Victoria Police the man moved into the private sector.

Ms Beech asked the judge to show compassion in sentencing, and to take into account the man's age and his severe osteoarthritis.

Judge Carmody said he was concerned about a report finding that the man, "even at 66", was in the high-risk category for re-offending.

He will sentence the man on Tuesday.

Crime pays in Australia especially when you're a cop committing it

Spoiler Alert: Conspiracy theory ahead but not 'fake news'.

The Australian judicature is sending out a loud and clear message to its police personnel that if you commit criminal activities that amount to vast load of ($100) notes and by chance you get caught, you get to keep your ill gotten loot.

Fancy that?

You can enroll into the police force, like the new ~2800 police officers are doing in Victoria, and not bother with 'keeping the peace', or 'protecting life and property', where it would be far more financially viable to commit criminal offences and get away with the big bucks you stole.

Not a bad 'law' coming from the judicature of a penal colony, hey?

Note to self: 

Must round up the motley crue who beat Corinna Horvath senseless to teach some other plebs a lesson...

as if they're going to see 'justice' in the next 20 years bwwaaaahhhhaaaahhhhaaa!!!

Mainstream media fake news inciting racial violence?

There's a new enemy in town.

Once upon a time it was the communists, apparently the Russians too were going to invade the 'west', maybe even the shores of the U S of A, apparently there was this war on that was cold, was it in Siberia? At the time of this writing it's -32 ºC there so it still could be on.

Is the reality that there never was any danger from the 'Russians' as it's all about keeping the masses in fear, subservient to corporate rule?

Apparently the Rothschilds sent out their 'fake news' messenger which triggered the great depression.

So what's / who's this new enemy?

Why the people of course, silly, they always have been, but this time with their 'fake news'.

You see, the people of Australia are the enemy of the police, as they carry the guns as opposed to the police of New Zealand, but that could be another dozen posts or so or even relegated to 'fake news' / conspiracy theory.

You see, ever since the handing over of the 'internet' to the masses, the people have a 'publication' medium where their raw voice can be heard, unedited and to some degree 'true' without an agenda, of course putting aside, staged videos, stories and falsified pictures.

Before the days of the interwebs if one got bashed (literally for no reason) by a police person on a 'random' traffic stop, and reported this to a duopolised Australian media, then that story may not have come out depending on the agenda of the chiefs in charge.

Today, a member of the herd populace can obtain a digital video recorder cheaply (thanks to slave labour in China and soon Australia), a hidden voice recorder or a mobile phone and stream what's happening live to their favourite social media channel.

The people are conditioned that the corporate media are the purveyors of truth, justice and whatever, where the reality can be the direct opposite of what is being 'advertised'.

A 'recent' example is that of a viral (what, no flu shot or vaccine??? You anti video vaxxers you) video of a passenger on Melbourne's public transport abusing a French woman.

The Rupert Murdoch media empire provided (deliberate false and misleading?) information that the woman was a victim who was racially abused / traumatised where in reality this was far from the truth.

The woman stated :

“The media positioned me as a victim, but I didn’t feel like that on the bus. I was surrounded by friends, I felt secure. It was only verbal.

“I felt a little confused but I was OK. I wasn’t traumatised at all.”


The irony being in this case that the Rupert Murdoch media slipped the truth out this time?

Read article from 15 December by news.com.au of the headline:

Creator of first ‘racist rant’ video meets the man he filmed on the bus

Mike Nayna sat down to talk to the ‘racist’ he publicly shamed on YouTube. Picture: Charles Lowthian

THE Melbourne bus passenger who filmed the first viral video of a racist rant on public transport has faced the man he shamed, four years after the footage gained 4.7 million views almost overnight.

In the confronting video Mike Nayna uploaded to YouTube, Hayden Stewart is heard screaming at a young Frenchwoman: “F***ing stop there ay, you bitch. C***. I’ll f***ing box cut you right now, dog”.

“Yeah come on c*** get off, f***ing ding, look at ya.”

Hayden, 24, was backing up a man named Graham, who told the woman to “speak English or die” and threatened to cut off her breasts with a filleting knife.

Graham called her group of friends, who were singing in French at the back of the bus, “f***ing black c***s” and told them “300 years of history should have told them that they’re f***ing slaves”.

As Hayden walked away with his then-girlfriend, pushing their six-month-old daughter in a pram, he smashed in the bus window.

Mike, right, says he doesn’t think Hayden Stewart is a racist. Picture: Charles LowthianSource:Supplied

‘I’LL PUT A BULLET IN THEIR HEADS, RACIST SCUM’ 

The shocking video made news across the world, with Mike discussing what he’d witnessed on national TV in the UK, France, the Netherlands and the US.

Viewers took to social media to express their disgust at Hayden’s behaviour, with many threatening to kill him and his child. “I’ll put a bullet in their heads racist scum,” read one threat.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

“Remember these faces and if you see them stomp their teeth into their ugly mullets,” ordered another social media user.

Both Hayden and Graham did jail time over the incident in 2014, with Graham losing his job in construction and sleeping on the streets after he was evicted from his home.

Mike grew disturbed at the vigilante mob he’d created.

“It was horrible,” he told news.com.au. “I started feeling really guilty. You’ve got people having mental breakdowns caught on camera then scrutinised. I was wondering what was happening to these people.”

The aspiring filmmaker, now 32, had created viral videos before. Uploading the footage to YouTube, he had hoped it would stop the men he had filmed “turning themselves into the heroes of the story” and embarrass them.

“My main motivation was personal,” he admits. “I felt humiliated. I guess it was revenge, I didn’t think that at the time but I came to that conclusion after speaking about it for a few hours on TV.”

The video of Hayden, then 24, abusing a Frenchwoman on a bus clocked up 4.7 million views around the world.Source:Supplied

Graham, who racially abused Fanny Desaintjores and her friends, lost his job, served time in jail and ended up evicted and sleeping on the streets after the video went viral.Source:Supplied

‘HE LOOKED LIKE HE EXPECTED ME TO HIT HIM’

Four years on, Mike saw Hayden on the street in Melbourne, and screwed up the courage to approach him.

“He looked like he expected me to hit him,” Mike says. “I apologised, he apologised. It was a really strange conversation. ‘I’m the guy who made your life hell’.”

Mike learnt that Hayden was on his way to rehab — he had turned to drugs and suffered with mental health issues. He had developed anxiety over walking around the streest, he reveals in an interview Mike filmed for a documentary on his experience.

“People picked me out, ‘there’s that bloke, teach him a lesson’,” Hayden says.

He was “embarrassed, ashamed, guilty, everything,” he told Mike.

“I’ve got me half-year-old daughter with me in a pram screaming abuse at a lady at the back of the bus, it didn't look good. I’d only been out three weeks so I was still kind of in that mindframe of jail mode, you’ve got to threaten them before they get you first, you’ve got to make sure they’re not going to come after you, you’re angrier and scarier.

“I wasn’t in control ... I reacted the wrong way.”

Fanny, then 22, said she never felt in danger during the verbal attack and wasn’t traumatised afterwards.Source:Supplied

‘IT WENT WAY TOO FAR’

Mike, who is still in contact with Hayden, feels guilty for what happened to him afterwards.
“It got pretty bad for him,” says Mike. “He wouldn’t blame the video, but look at the timeline.

“It went way too far. I don’t think anything positive happened as a result of that video. If anything, it solidified his feeling of being on the outside.

“This person’s already cast aside and doesn’t feel part of culture, to push him further out and have him feel people are looking down at him, I do feel responsible.

“But he’s an adult now. We don’t completely absolve him.”

Mike doesn’t believe Hayden is racist, “not at all” and thinks Graham was “playing to the crowd” when he shouted at the young French woman and her rowdy friends on the rail replacement bus at the end of a long, hot summer’s day.

“It was just excitement,” says Mike. “The racial element was a small part of it. Obviously there’s some kind of racism in these guys, but it’s the same with everyone I think.

“We’ve expanded the definition of racism so far it encompasses people going about their daily lives.”
Mike couldn’t track down the older man for the documentary. He has “gone off the grid”.

At his sentencing, the 36-year-old told the magistrate: “Anything you can do is nothing compared to what I’ve been through the past 12 months.”

As for French woman Fanny Desaintjores, then 22, she did not press charges and tells Mike in the documentary she never felt in danger that day.

“The media positioned me as a victim, but I didn’t feel like that on the bus. I was surrounded by friends, I felt secure. It was only verbal.

“I felt a little confused but I was OK. I wasn’t traumatised at all.”

Did the tax office steal your super? Charge them, sue them

So, apparently this is how the story goes:

Theft / stealing (of whatever) is a criminal offence in Australia, no doubt according to common law, putting aside the 'cause no harm' motto (see example in photo below).

Let's take a simple scenario, where a member of the herd populace walks into a stationary franchise called Officejerks (name may have been changed to protect the innocent) and eyes a beautiful pack of 100 paper clips with the retail value of fifty cents and decides to pilfer it.

If that person walks out of the store undetected, then they have gotten away with that criminal offence.

If, by chance, that person gets caught stealing those paperclips worth fifty cents, briefly describing; a due process of law occurs where the necessary paperwork is completed where a charge is alleged, and later a criminal conviction is recorded against that person, upon successful prosecution.

So lets look at another scenario;

You have cash in an account which the government calls superannuation, and it's left there for a reason, because you cannot touch it, as mandated by a corporation conglomerate called 'government'.

After a period of time this corporation conglomerate calls YOUR cash 'unclaimed' and then STEALS it.

How does it do that? By the okay of a person called Malcolm Turnbull.

He states that it is okay to steal YOUR cash, after a period of time.

Since when can a politician override a 'common law' crime?

Obviously in a penal colony he can.

If you had your superannuation stolen by an (unlawful) organisation called the Australian Tax Office (ATO), file a criminal charge of theft against the head of the thieving organisation, currently Chris Jordan. Sue him (his 'person'). Sue the company. Sue the government.

If YOU take no action, 'they' get away with THEFT.

If you wish to find who's who in the ATO zoo you can click on this link:

https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/About-us/Who-we-are/Organisational-chart/

where you will allegedly find a pdf of the "ATO organisational structure", but currently as of this post, this information is not available...

ATO organisational structure (PDF, 72kb)This link will download a file

WARNING. 'conspiracy theory' in the following sentences:

An IBM #censusfail glitch or a HP server malfunction or maybe they just don't want the slaves to know who is in office.

The 'authorities' showing / telling the tax slaves they have little to no rights.

Still not hurting enough?

Too much footy and beer in the fridge to do something about it?

Victorian cops using and trafficking drugs according to anti-corruption investigations

Victorian police have been caught using, possessing and trafficking illicit drugs amid systemic deficiencies within the force, an anti-corruption report says. Picture: File, 7 News

Cops partying on ice, cocaine, LSD and ecstasy would meet up with known traffickers, peddle drugs themselves and return positive tests, three Victorian anti-corruption investigations have uncovered.

Victoria’s anti-corruption commission on Tuesday tabled a special report concerning serious misconduct including illicit drug use by Victoria Police officers.

The report exposed evidence of illicit drug and identified serious deficiencies in the handling of drug issues by the force, according to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC).
The Commission conducted three operations into the possession, trafficking and use of illicit drugs by police officers since 2014, as part of investigations Operation Apsley, Hotham and Yarrowitch.

The IBAC report exposed illicit drug and identified serious deficiencies in the handling of drug issues by the force. Picture: IBAC

"Police officers cannot be selective in choosing which criminal laws they will obey," IBAC Commissioner Stephen O'Bryan QC said in a statement.

"Our investigations found that while most of the police officers investigated were aware they were engaging in illegal conduct, they rationalised their off-duty criminality as being separate to their obligations as police officers.”

The commissioner called illicit drug use by police officers “unacceptable” and said it adversely impacted public safety and undermined the community’s level of trust and respect for police and the law.

“Illicit drug use, possession and trafficking are criminal offences which contravene the oath or affirmation sworn by all police officers, as well as contravening the professional and ethical standards and values Victoria Police are required to uphold," he said.

IBAC said illicit drug use by police officers was “unacceptable” and adversely impacted public safety. Picture: File, 7 News.


Victoria Police's alcohol and drugs policy stated illicit drugs use was not tolerated but there was some "ambiguity" around the consequences of illegal drug use, IBAC said.

In saying illicit drug use by police was a “serious problem with significant ramifications”, the anti-corruption commission added that the activity exposed officers to compromise and corruption, which left them vulnerable to blackmail or coercion.

“Victoria Police’s authority to uphold the law, and maintain the community’s respect for the law, are eroded by police using illicit drugs. An individual officer using illicit drugs lessens their authority to enforce the law, and diminishes the collective authority of Victoria Police in the community,” the report stated.

The special report on illicit drugs is the fourth this year relating to IBAC's oversight of Victoria Police.

Police have accepted the recommendations and committed to reviewing policies and practices, with a progress report due on June 30 next year, IBAC said.

Victoria Police must provide IBAC with a final report by June 30, 2018.

au.news.yahoo.com 13 Dec 2016

Owning cash in Australia to be a criminal offence soon?

Australia is one hell of a unique continent / country.

The people in government are not in office lawfully in line with a document called the Australian Constitution.

A bit like, you know, some stereotypical dodgy military organisation of a South American country taken over office, using a private militia, ruling with force, intimidation, extortion violence including  threats of incarceration.

The 'authorities' advertise this country as a democracy / monarchy whereas in reality it is a fascist state / corporatocracy / police state, depending one's point of view and which reality one is looking at that being political or legal.

Australia as a 'monarchy' has two queens, one of the U.K. a true flesh and blood woman, and another an unlawful paper entity called the Queen of Australia.

Danger, Rhetorical questions ahead:

• So, as a 'monarchy' who are the Australian people subjects of the U.K. Monarch or the Queen of Australia?

• So, who does our judicature answer to the U.K. monarch or a piece of paper in the annals of some government department?

Do you know the difference between the invading British Empire's settlement of Australia and New Zealand?

In short when they came to 'New Zealand' they were met with fierce opposition and British monarchy made a treaty with the native peoples, called the Waitangi Treaty.

Queen Victoria even stated that there is a special relationship with the indigenous people.

On the Australian side, any opposition was quickly extinguished with gunfire and the land of the indigenous people was taken from them under arms by the 'Crown'.

Is the 'Crown' what you really think it is?

So many more questions for the Aussie bogan not to ponder over.

Australia's currency is even a huge scam.

Many a law 'researcher' has commented or documented on the validity of the current currency we have.

Why cannot one say that:

in short, Australia's 'cash' is a corporate promissory note by a hostile company in power over the people of Australia in breach of the Australian Constitution?

Is the push for cashless society is to monitor then control the movements of the slave population of this continent?

The apparent new law(?) / policy(?) to remove the current plastic $100 was to allegedly stamp out crime.

Apparently now it's to recoup billions in unpaid tax.

From who?

From the masses,

or the corporations that do not pay hundreds of millions each in tax per year, all year, every year?

With every law passed the people are being put further into slavery and subservience to corporate rule.

The criminal elite telling the slaves that they are the criminals.

Looks like the people have had the wool pulled over their eyes yet again by the 'authorities'.

See article from 14 December 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

Government floats $100 note removal

SAY goodbye to the $100 note.

Australia looks set to follow in the footsteps of Venezuela and India by abolishing the country’s highest-denomination banknote in a bid to crack down on the “black economy”.

Speaking to ABC radio on Wednesday, Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer flagged a review of the $100 note and cash payments over certain limits as the government looks to recoup billions in unpaid tax.

Monday’s midyear budget update will include the appointment of former KPMG global chairman Michael Andrew to oversee a black economy taskforce. The black economy accounts for 1.5 per cent of GDP, given many cash payments are untaxed.

Ms O’Dwyer told the ABC not only is the lost revenue owed to the Australian people for schools and hospitals, but it’s also critical for those who do the right thing and pay tax.

“The whole point of this crackdown on the black economy is to make sure we close down any potential loopholes,” she said. Despite the broad use of electronic forms of payment, Ms O’Dwyer warned there are three times as many $100 notes in circulation than $5 notes.

“It does beg the question, ‘Why?’” she said.

There are currently 300 million $100 notes in circulation, and 92 per cent of all currency by value is in $50 and $100 notes.

The minister would not rule out the removal of the $100 note, saying it was up to the expert panel to provide recommendations. “There’s nothing wrong with cash per se, the issue is when people don’t declare it and when they don’t pay tax on it,” she said.

David Leyonhjelm. Picture: Mick Tsikas/AAPSource:AAP

Kelly O'Dwyer. Picture: Lukas Coch/AAPSource:AAP

The taskforce will draw on the experience of countries like France, where the government banned cash payments of more than 1000 euros. “I’m not going to put a limit on what the taskforce will look at,” Ms O’Dwyer said.

Liberal Democratic Senator David Leyonhjelm hit out at the proposal, saying “the only people who are distressed by the cash economy are the government and the public servants who want to spend taxes”.

“The incentives for a cash economy would be a lot reduced if taxes were a lot lower,” he told news.com.au. “It’s a reaction to the level of taxes we pay.”

Mr Leyonhjelm said Australia was joining a global push to make it harder to engage in the cash economy. “Whether it will succeed or not is a moot point. Carrying two $50 notes instead of a $100 note doesn’t seem to be much of a disincentive,” he said.

“But with my libertarian hat on, I think the solution is to lower taxes so the incentives to avoid paying taxes are lower.”

It comes after a report by UBS recommended Australia scrap the $100 note. According to UBS, benefits may include “reduced crime (difficult to monetise), increased tax revenue (fewer cash transactions) and reduced welfare fraud (claiming welfare while earning or hoarding cash)”.

“From the banks’ perspective there would likely be a spike in deposits — if all the $100 notes were deposited into banks (ignoring hoarded $50 notes), household deposits would rise around four per cent,” the report said.

“This would likely fill the banks’ Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) gap and reduce reliance on offshore funding.”

India last month demonetised the country’s two highest-denomination banknotes in a bid to crack down on “black money”, sparking chaotic scenes.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi sent shockwaves through the country by announcing on November 8 all 500 rupee ($10) and 1000 rupee ($20) notes — some 85 per cent of all bills in circulation — would cease to be legal tender within hours.

In a scathing editorial in The Hindu newspaper, former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the decision had “shattered the faith and confidence that hundreds of millions of Indians” had placed in their government.

“The vast majority of Indians earn in cash, transact in cash and save in cash, all legitimately,” he wrote. “Their daily subsistence depends on their cash being accepted as a medium of valid currency.

“They save their money in cash which, as it grows, is stored in denominations of 500 rupee and 1000 rupee notes. To tarnish these as ‘black money’ and throw the lives of these hundreds of millions of poor people in disarray is a mammoth tragedy.

“It is the fundamental duty of a democratically elected government in any sovereign nation to protect the rights and livelihood of its citizens. The recent decision by the Prime Minister is a travesty of this fundamental duty.”

This week, Venezuela joined suit, with Venezuelans rushing to trade in their 100-bolivar bills after President Nicolas Maduro said he was eliminating the nation’s highest currency denomination in an attempt to fight speculation and currency hoarding.

VicRoads driver licence deliberate false information?

Can you really trust the corporation conglomerate in Australia called the  'authorities'?

Can you really trust what they put in writing to you, as 'lawful'?

Let's take a closer look at what a legal (but unlawful) licensing business called VicRoads writes to its customers.

This is an excerpt of what they write to their clients:

Carry your driver licence and/or learner permit while driving

You should carry your driver licence and/or learner permit while driving and produce it upon request to a police officer or a VicRoads Transport Safety Services Officer, see scan below:

If you are above 26 years of age you are under no legal obligation to produce your 'driver licence' to a police officer.

A 'VicRoads' Transport Safety Officer has no lawful power to instruct you to produce your 'driver licence'.

Road Safety Act 1986 Section 19 states:

(8)     A person under the age of 26 years who holds a driver licence must have the licence in his or her possession at all times while driving or in charge of a motor vehicle.
Penalty applying to this subsection: 5 penalty units.

Ref:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rsa1986125/s19.html


Putting aside the validity of the Road Safety Act 1986.


Another bit of false / business enticing information produced by "VICTORIA State Government"?

Doctor and wife sue police for $1 million after unlawful arrest and tasering

It can take 20 years to see 'justice' against police personnel who commit criminal activities, as in the example of Corinna Horvath where she was beaten senseless to a point where she did not even remember her name.

This is the extent of thuggery, extortion and violence Australia's police 'force' commit against the general populous.

It's as if the masses where the enemy of police and not where the police where 'public servants', you know where the tax paying public being technically their employers.

Many people are not aware that the police within Australia do no act lawfully, but as always in any criminal matter, the crime must be alleged then followed up with accordance to the 'law'.

This is just one example of many that rarely get reported on by the mainstream media of abuse by Australia's police.

Twenty years to obtain justice against police, where a member of the slave population can be imprisoned for a parking fine.

They are the laws of a penal colony, and not a 'free' society / democracy.

Note: We recommend that any and all interaction with police be recorded either discreetly or openly.

See article from 10 Dec 2016 by yahoo.com of the headline:

Doctor and his wife win $1m after being tasered

A law professor and his wife who were yesterday awarded more than $1 million in damages after an unlawful arrest have told how they risked going bankrupt to expose how they were treated by police officers.

Robert Cunningham and Catherine Atoms wept in the District Court yesterday as their eight-year battle resulted in a judge announcing the massive payout.

Judge Felicity Davis found they were assaulted, tasered, unlawfully detained and maliciously prosecuted by police after stopping to help a stranger on a night out in Fremantle in 2008.

But it was a hollow victory, with Ms Atoms’ career as a community engagement consultant in tatters.

She was put into “performance management” in her relatively new job after being charged by police and by the time a magistrate threw the case out 18 months later, she was on her way “out the door”.

The bulk of damages — $1.024 million — were awarded to Ms Atoms for loss of earnings and the distress and back injury she suffered, with $110,000 awarded to Dr Cunningham.

Judge Davis told the court that she calculated percentages of liability for individual officers and the State and made an order for “aggravated damages” against one officer, Simon Traynor.

The police were represented by government lawyers and supported by the Police Union, which declined to comment yesterday. It is considering an appeal.

Outside court, the couple toldThe Weekend West that they would have been financially devastated by legal costs of the other parties if they had lost the case.

“We would have had to file for bankruptcy, that’s what was on the line for us,” Dr Cunningham said.

“We had to sue both the State and the individual who had separate legal counsel, so we would have been subject to two sets of legal costs of an 18-day trial.”

Dr Cunningham and Ms Atoms took the action after all of their efforts to hold the officers to account failed — a police internal investigation cleared them of wrongdoing and the Corruption and Crime Commission agreed with the outcome, refusing to instigate its own inquiry despite criticism by its then parliamentary inspector.

“I have a great sadness that the legal system pushes you into dollars and cents when that’s not always what it’s about,” Dr Cunningham said.

“This was our last resort, so it’s not as though we signed up for a civil action on day one.

“We were concerned about the systemic issues and how less privileged people in society may be subject to this type of behaviour by the police on a regular basis and all of the consequences that flow from that.

“People lose faith in the justice system. They lose faith in the good police officers serving our State and that has social consequences.”

Ms Atoms said she would take no satisfaction from the decision unless it sparked change. “I think it’s important to recognise that a lot of people experience far worse,” she said.

“If justice is so out of reach for us, how far out of reach is justice for the broader public?”

Dr Cunningham called for the CCC to finally hold its own investigation of the case.

“From our personal experience, we’ve learnt that unfortunately the CCC does not appear to be fulfilling its mandate of successfully overseeing the activities of the WA Police service,” he said.

“Until we have some confidence that this kind of thing is less likely to happen as a result of this, through some sort of systemic review, then we haven’t been fully successful in this action.”

“The society has spent all of this money on an 18-day court trial. Imagine what the CCC could have done in relation to this issue in 2009 and 2010.”

Australia the new Paedophile's Paradise?

It seems that the Australian 'justice' system is in support of paedophilia.

Is it letting out criminals, so that they can re-offend, create more victims from the slave populous, and keep the 'justice' business afloat?

From Queensland, Gary Brabham raped a 6 year old girl and only gets 6 months jail...

From Victoria a CONVICTED pervert gets 'unlimited' (?) access to fresh meat, i.e. children of the slave population.

Would the sentences be different if children of the judiciary were raped?

Just showing the peasant victim's their true standing at law, i.e. that of a slave.

Note:

IF you do not pay unlawful fines from a toll company you can and will end up in prison for over a year, depending on the amount, i.e. more than for raping a 6 year old girl.

Still not caring about taking 'action' ??? !!! ???

Too much footy and beer in the house ???

Centrelink involved in unlawful extortion racket

It's bad enough that Centrelink is scamming it's clients millions of dollars annually by falsely declaring that the recipients have 'breached' Centrelink guidelines, as a result their payments being stopped, but now we have obtained information that Centrelink is unlawfully using debt collectors over falsified debts (a criminal act).

Is there no boundaries that the corporation conglomerate will stop at to extort cash from the 'weak'?

On a side note the true colour of Australian law is that of "Guilty until proven innocent", where absolute and strict liability is (unlawfully) applied. This falls under Roman Law.

See article from 6 December 2016 of the headline:

Guilty until proven innocent – Centrelink gone rogue

The Independent Member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, urged the Federal Government to call to heel Centrelink which is generating numerous incorrect debt notices and frightening the community with heavy-handed tactics and debt collectors.

Centrelink has begun using a new automated system that matches government payments to tax records to identify fraud or overpayments worth up to $4 billion.

However based on complaints to his office, Mr Wilkie said the new IT system was spitting out numerous incorrect debt notices among the $4.5 million compliance notices produced daily.

“I have no problem with the Government retrieving genuine overpayments or cracking down on fraud,” Mr Wilkie said. “But I do have grave concerns with Centrelink acting like loan sharks and treating people as guilty until proven innocent and sending in the debt collectors.”

Mr Wilkie said his office has heard from distraught and terrified people wrongly receiving debt notices of up to $6500 that date back as far as 2010. They are given three weeks to provide documentation to Centrelink to prove they were not overpaid. If they have changed address, they may not even receive the debt notice.

“These people can explain why they were not overpaid, but are struggling to lay their hands on the documents to prove it as the so-called debt dates back years and in some cases their employers have gone out of business,’’ Mr Wilkie said. “How many of us could lay our hands on a pay slip from six years ago?”

Mr Wilkie said if people could not prove the debt was incorrect, they have to pay up or risk a visit from the debt collector.

“Clearly this new IT system is badly designed and must be sorted out,” Mr Wilkie said. “The Human Services Minister, Alan Tudge, should drop his Grinch act and suspend the program until Centrelink is confident of its system integrity. We don’t treat people as guilty until proven innocent in Australia, unless you’re Centrelink it seems.

“If Minister Tudge does not act, the program will be exposed as another cruel and ideological attack from the Liberal Government on the nation’s vulnerable and disadvantaged.”

Queensland's dodgy government passes law at 2:30am when the sheep are sleeping

This bad enough that literally every single law in Queensland is invalid from the moment the upper house was removed from the law making process, but passing laws at 2:30am seriously??? !!! ???

Just another dodgy 'money for mates' law passed while the slave population are sleeping.

See article from 1 Dec 2016 by brisbanetimes.com.au of the headline:

Public servant super laws passed overnight

The LNP opposition has accused the government of rushing through laws to get its hands on public servants' superannuation.

About 2.30am on Thursday, the government passed its Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill.

 
The Queensland government has passed laws that will change how some public servants' superannuation is calculated.

Shadow Treasurer Scott Emerson said the changes could leave a public servant with more than 30 years' service $210,000 worse off.

"These changes will leave core public servants like teachers, police and nurses tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket," Mr Emerson said.
"In some cases this will cost public servants hundreds of thousands of dollars."

He accused the government of rushing through the laws late at night.

"(Treasurer Curtis Pitt) was caught trying to sneak through a change that could leave some public servants hundreds of thousands of dollars worse off," Mr Emerson said during the debate.

"We are seeing this Treasurer raiding public servants' superannuation."

The largely procedural bill includes a change to the State Public Sector (Superannuation) Act, which gives a government superannuation officer the power to change the multiple that dictates how much money an eligible worker receives from the fund when they go to cash out upon retirement.

The bill previously would have given the treasurer of the day the powers - but Mr Pitt introduced an amendment to that aspect overnight.

Currently, the formula is roughly the final salary of the worker multiplied by the multiple, which increases depending on the number of years of service - an increase in salary has an "immediate" increase in the accrued benefit for scheme members.

Workers eligible for the scheme could negotiate to use allowances to increase their overall salary; for example, a public servant with a base wage of $90,000 could negotiate to include $30,000 in allowances in their take home pay, bumping their salary to $120,000.

Under the changes, workers can no longer have their negotiated allowance payments count towards their overall pay, which lowers the multiple used.

Mr Pitt said the bill formalised the "existing administrative process to manage unfunded windfall benefit gains resulting from artificial salary increases".

"This amendment applies only to employees with defined benefit accounts," Mr Pitt said.

"There is no effect on the benefits accrued before the artificial increase in salary and there is no change to the treatment of normal salary growth, promotions or existing allowances."

Mr Pitt said if an employee believed a decision to adjust their multiple was an inappropriate application of the law, they could appeal under the Judicial Review Act.

He said the bill was no secret and accused the LNP of scaremongering.

"Sometimes an employee's permanent salary is increased artificially - for instance, because irregularly paid amounts such as loading are included," Mr Pitt said.

"This creates an immediate increase in the employee's defined benefits entitlement.

"While there is an immediate increase for those employees with a defined benefit account, those other employees with an accumulation account receive no such increase.

"That is not fair ... It is about making sure that co-workers who sit next to each other are treated in the same and equitable way."

The LNP did not oppose the bill, but opposed clause 68, which addressed the ability to change multiples.

The bill also allows state government and council workers to choose their own superannuation fund.

Justice for the serfs for superannuation theft may take 20 years

So let's have a look at a practical example of how law works in a colony of the United Kingdom called Australia.

So, you've gained access to a computer in the institution you lay your head at night to sleep in and you've gone on a legal crusade to find 'justice'. In your crusade you have been convinced that you're a 'free man' and that only one (universal?) law applies, that being "cause no harm".

Now armed with this knowledge you comprehend that 'theft' is also part of this universal law called 'cause no harm'.

Lucky for you that Australia's judicature has also caught on to this, as it's also defined in 'Common Law', where theft is considered a 'criminal' offence.

So, let's take for example a member of the masses / general populous / serfs / tax slaves / 'mums and dads investors' walks into a mobile phone retail giant and steals a 'dummy' mobile phone, who has the unfortunate luck of being caught by Australia's finest policy enforcers, will end up with a criminal record / conviction for 'theft', you know from the 'cause no harm' law.

If the same member of the above mentioned pleb populous would venture into a office stationary franchise to steal a box of 100 pack of 28mm paper clips of the retail value of  $0.94, and were to be unfortunately caught, one should be charged for the theft of the 'profit' on that item. None the less it is still theft irrespective of amount ($0.23?).

So let's do a flip to the situation where the victim is a member of the tax slave populous, you know the beer and footy bogan crowd.

Let's put aside the fact that that ATO (Australian Taxation Office) is not a lawful (it is a 'legal'?) entity.

Let's put aside that superannuation is a fraud on the unsuspecting masses.

We'll stop here as if we keep mentioning of what we should put to the 'side' we may not finish this post.

An article in the mainstream media stated that there are 2.4 million workers ( read tax slaves / serfs / bogans, etc etc - geez the mainstream media gloss things over) defrauded of their superannuation to the value of $3.6 billion for the financial year of 2013-2014.

Now this is the BEST part (NOT!):

IF you want 'justice' for your person with regards to your stolen superannuation it may take up to 20 years, see attached illustration:

How law works against criminals within the 'system' 101:

• If policy enforcers / employees of a law enforcing monopoly, break into your house (unlawfully) and beat you senseless (until you cannot remember your name), as in the example of Corinna Horvath, you have to seek remedy outside of Australia, namely the UN (Human Right Commission), and it takes 20 years for an employee of  Victoria Police to get charged.

• As an example in Victoria when you obtain an unlawful 'fine' originating from Victoria Police, where it comes from a person (NOT a police officer) sitting in a car parked illegally on a nature strip taking photos (with equipment not certified by the NMI - National Measurements Institute) of a vehicle traveling above the speed limit and do not pay it, the registered person of that vehicle is automatically classified as guilty (in breach of the law), the unlawful fine progresses to a warrant from an unlawful sheriff, where if you do not pay, they clamp the vehicle or STEAL that person's possessions.

Their 'remedy' can be reached in as little as one year, the slave populous 20 years...

STILL not hurting enough and want to keep watching the telly?

Australia's 'laws' made by corporations for corporations.

Corporate Criminals: 1, Slave population:0

The 'Australian Government' forcing law on people

Warning to:
sensitive people, people who get hurt by words, facebook wannabe lawyers who are just online legal studies students, 'free man' theory promoters, lawful rebellion protagonists, and many others who we do not care about...

'Conspiracy theory' content contained within
(i.e. NO case law for facebook legal studies patrons to hijack as their own)

So, we (the people) are apparently told that we live in a democracy, which according to Black's law dictionary 2nd edition (1910) conflicts with living in a monarchy (as we have a Queen), but that's another post or dozen which could be entertained at a later point.

Damn you Sue v Hill damn you!

Anyway, we are also told that we have laws (yes silly, more than one - 'cause no harm') that MUST be in accordance to the supreme document called the 'Australian Constitution', so much so that a court, aptly named the High Court of Australia, has been set up to make sure that ALL laws abide by this Constitution.

The herd populace can even challenge the law that is used against them, from e.g. an unlawful parking fine, in this place called the High Court of Australia.

BUT the plot thickens....

ALL Australian courts must be enacted lawfully, meaning their empowering document, their respective 'Act' must have the correct process to be in circulation.

An example of an alleged 'court' in Victoria, where the slaves get fined unlawfully from, is one that's called the 'Infringements Court'. This is not a legal nor lawful court, as it does not have an empowering document creating its existence, namely the "Infringements Court Act (of whatever year it comes into existence)".

Conversely the High Court of Australia, has its empowering document called the High Court of Australia Act 1979.

Remember that all 'laws' (read Acts) must be in line with this document called the Australian Constitution.

Chapter III of the Australian Constitution  also defines how the judicature is to function, including the High Court.

Now, as an example we move along to this law (Act) defining the existence of the current High Court called the High Court of Australia Act of 1979.

We will also note that laws (once again Acts) are to be passed once they obtain royal assent, that being by the current UK monarch, in this case Her most excellent majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

We are also told, via a piece of legislation, that laws submitted can be given royal assent by the Governor-General.

The Australian Government tells the people that Sir Zelman Cowen was put in office as Governor-General from 1977 - 1982, i.e. the time when the High Court of Australia Act 1979 was put into 'force', see illustration below:

Why was this Act put into 'force'?

Why was it not in 'circulation', or 'enacted' or  to a much lesser extent in 'operation'?

This Act was put in by the 'Australian Government', not the de jure (based on law) government as described in the document called the Australian Constitution.

Is this why this 'Act' is in 'force'. Has it been forced upon the people?

Do YOU know where the High Court of Australia Act of 1979 fails to be enacted 'lawfully'?