17 December 2016

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


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.

“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


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


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.”

16 December 2016

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:


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?

15 December 2016

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

14 December 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"?

12 December 2016

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.”