21 January 2017
Laws are being put into force at 2:30am while the slaves are sleeping.
Laws regarding pay rises are being put in place 'secretly'.
The government telling the herd population that 'bylaws' (created by a city council) are actual laws (as only 'laws' can be created by the parliament of whichever state you reside in).
This is only the focus of the last few days, let alone a whole year.
So let's have a look at what the people in government are doing to Australia's founding document, the 'Constitution'.
Australia's 'Constitution' has the proper name of the 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act' or 'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia'.
The above scan is taken from an Australian Government website called the Museum of Australian Democracy, at the link http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-82.html where the rest of the scans to the Constitution can be found.
An accurate pdf of the scans can be found at:
So how is the government changing the Constitution?
The above pdf is shown in a screen capture in the attachment below:
Note the lawful seal at the of enactment and the short (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act) and the long name (An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th July 1900]) of that Act.
Now, the Constitution that was downloaded from the Parliamentary Education Office peo.gov.au has the first page shown in the illustration below:
where the 7th page is in the illustration below:
where finally on the 14th page, there is some sort of resemblance to the original one as shown in illustration below:
In any event, note the seal which is different to the original one, also the names given; AUSTRALIA'S CONSTITUTION and THE CONSTITUTION.
Last but definitely not least is the 2003 version of the Constitution downloaded from Austlii (Australasian Legal Information Institute) the official reference resource for Australian law as shown in illustration below:
Note again the corporate seal and the reference to the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act" as "The Constitution".
On the 7th page is mentioned "An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th of July 1900]", but contains a separation line with the title Clause 1, see illustration below. That's not how it appears as per original 'Constitution'.
Please note that the only lawful method of changing any letters or words within the document called the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act" or "An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th July 1900]" is described in Section 128 of that Act which is as follows:
128. This Constitution shall not be altered except in the
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by
an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not
less than two nor more than six months after its passage
through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in
each State to the electors qualified to vote for the election of
members of the House of Representatives.
But if either House passes any such proposed law by an
absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it,
or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned
House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the
first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again
passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or
without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by
the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it
or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned
House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the
proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House,
and either with or without any amendments subsequently
agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State qualified
to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.
When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall
be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until
the qualification of electors of members of the House of
Representatives becomes uniform throughout the
Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and
against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which
adult suffrage prevails.
And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors
voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the
electors voting also
approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-
General for the Queen’s assent.
No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of
any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum
number of representatives of a State in the House of
Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise
altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the
provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become
law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State
approve the proposed law.
But they're only technicalities or minor differences, someone might say.
While John Fischer and John Fisher called over the courtroom speaker 'sound' the same, are they the same 'person'?
On Friday the 20th day of January 2017, Melbourne's Herald Sun publication stated that it can reveal (why was it banned from reporting on a 'law' that effects the community?) that a business called MELBOURNE CITY COUNCIL ( CITY OF MELBOURNE), ABN (Australian Business Number) 55 370 219 278, will pass a new "bylaw" outlawing sleeping on the streets.
So, to make it as easy as possible for the simple folk to comprehend;
a law in Victoria can ONLY be made by the Parliament of Victoria, where prior to becoming a 'law' (the correct name for this beast is called an 'Act') they are 'Bills' waiting for 'Royal Assent'.
Now whether that (newly passed) law is actually 'lawful' as opposed to 'legal' is another topic altogether.
You can see for yourself if there are any 'Bills' that expel the homeless from Melbourne's streets waiting to pass at the Parliament of Victoria's web address of:
A 'bylaw' made by a business is like McDonald's telling you (a member of the 'public') to only eat their carcinogenic food, as an example, is not worth the burger wrapper it could be printed on.
Don't rely on the mainstream media to tell you if an alleged law in actually 'lawful', hey??? !!! ???
PITY the homeless may not know about this.
20 January 2017
19 January 2017
While it's not talked about often, industrial espionage is rampant in the mobile technology business. Competing fairly and sensibly can only get one so far in a field this challenging, saturated and fast-paced. So if one is to go about sneaking into their rival's backyeard, they best not forget the number one rule of espionage – which is "don't get caught!"
Sadly, it seems six product designers at Huawei forgot this most important rule while leaking confidential data to fellow Chinese firm LeEco. The latter has been making headlines with its efforts of selling its affordable smartphones in the U.S. at competitive prices while working on stuff like smart bycicles and electric cars, among many other things.
Huawei has already pressed charges against the alleged snitches. Meanwhile, LeEco denies receiving information from them and bounces the topic back to another pressing matter. Huawei insists that LeEco stole 2 technological patents for an antenna design and a children's smartwatch from them. The alleged informants' recent arrest is another drop of bad blood between the two.
phonearena.com 18 Jan 2017
Comment: PMSL !!! !!! !!!
18 January 2017
There is literally no doubt that Australia is run by a highly deceitful executive.
One part of this deceitful executive is the parliamentarians, where they are committing fraud and theft of the public purse and only a small portion of the fraud makes it out into the mainstream media.
Another part of the deceitful executive is the judicature which does not document court cases accurately, apparently experiences 'technical difficulties' in matters that expose a corrupt legal system, seals court documents that expose an unlawful state of governance over the people of Australia and many other actions which people will no doubt delegate to a 'conspiracy theory'.
The judicature apparently tells us that Australia is an 'independent' nation, but this has never been clarified by any court as to which exact date (not occurrence of an event) this allegedly occurred.
Australians should know that America's Independence Day is on the 4th of July. Most Australian Hellenic people would know that Greece's Independence day is on the 25th of March. So where is Australia's 'Independence Day' marked on our calendar again?
Another branch of the executive is the police 'force'. Many people have mistaken the police for being public servants as a result alleging that the police work for the people. The police are a business branch of the executive, and work for the corporation conglomerate referred to as the government.
They never have and never will work 'for the people'. The Australian police force is a highly corrupt organisation where they destroy evidence that implicates them, provide false information to the courts under oath without any repercussion, and in many cases falsify documents tendered as evidence. Let's also never forget that they issues fines unlawfully. The real state of corruption of Australia's police force is (deliberately) not being reported by the mainstream media.
So what's all the above got to do with Australia Day? Well plenty, silly.
The colonialists (people in the 'Australian Government') tell their slave population that it's a great day to celebrate.
What is there to celebrate the day the people of this country lost their 'freedom' on the 26th of January?
What the people in government do not tell their serf population is that when Captain Cook brought the First Fleet on the 26th Day of January 1788, he installed Martial Law on the people of this continent.
Don't let that worry you, let a person in government who defrauds millions of your tax dollars annually tell you otherwise.
Will you celebrate government lies or will you acknowledge the truth?
17 January 2017
Australia's judicature has a flawless motto that goes along the line of that no one is above the law, but this is all great in theory, where there is another reality.
Let's put this into perspective where the simple folk can understand.
If a person from the masses is on welfare, meaning payments in order to live obtained from the taxpayers, and cheats the 'system', there are penalties and a real scenario of imprisonment for fraud / theft and whatever other offences the prosecution can add on.
So what happens when a 'leader', politician, law maker, your local MP obtains payments in order to live from the taxpayers and commits fraud / theft against the people?
Well from current mainstream media reports, not much.
So, they get 'stood down'. Big deal. They still get to keep their fat parliamentary pension. They may even be given another portfolio by their buddies.
The reality is that the executive treats the people of this colony as its slaves, as seen by the executive's actions where in all cases (bar a few) they are above the law when it comes to criminal offences of theft or fraud or other Commonwealth offences, where their 'brethren' in the judicature keep them out of prison.
When the slaves "cook the books" e.g. against the ATO (Australian Tax Office), there is an encroachment into the bank account and monies (alleged debt) are withdrawn, unlawfully where the victim never sees the garnishee notice.
No such 'luck' with the criminals in the offices of the executive.
The social security company Centrelink delegated to providing welfare for its recipients fraudulently wrote tens of thousands of letters per week for false debts the recipients never had in the first place, and placed the "guilty until proven innocent" law into action that prevails in Australia, then passing on the alleged debt to a debt collector again unlawfully, without the recipient ever seeing the garnishee notice.
Centrelink then made it difficult for people to contact them by removing phone numbers from contact lists.
Are these the actions of an honest business?
Again a case of fraudulent actions by the executive without consequence or liability.
The $64,000 question could be:
Would a lawmaker really want to make new laws that exposes themselves and their defrauding brethren in office?
Australians are truly governed by criminal scum in office.
Let's see how the colonialists "cook the books"
in an article from 10 Jan 2017 by smh.com.au of the headline:
Federal MPs failing to certify their expensesPoliticians including Bob Katter, Trade Minister Steve Ciobo and Labor senator Sam Dastyari have failed multiple times to confirm they spent taxpayer money within the rules, according to Department of Finance lists.
But Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten have stopped short of demanding their party members catch up on all outstanding expenses.
Since 2011 federal MPs have been asked each six months to sign a form promising their use of travel, accommodation and office entitlements was "in accordance with the parliamentary work expenses framework".
Health Minister Sussan Ley, who has stood down pending an investigation into her Gold Coast travel expenses, certified all her expenses as legitimate.
But many politicians have missed batches and some are repeat offenders.
Queensland MP Bob Katter has never signed a certification form.
"It is not possible and would be very improper for him to sign a statement which sets out every single expenditure across his two offices when he is rarely in the offices," a spokeswoman for Mr Katter said when challenged in 2015.
While certification is voluntary, the man who advocated for the system, former Labor senator John Faulkner, thought public naming of those who failed to comply would be incentive enough.
Bob Katter has never certified his work entitlements. Photo: Darrian Traynor
"I certainly would not want to be a parliamentarian so named," Mr Faulkner told a Senate estimates committee in 2009.
The former senator appeared as missing in two certifications - once in 2014 and once in 2015. But the Department of Finance has now apologised to Mr Faulkner, who never received the forms to sign because they were sent to an incorrect email address.
Sussan Ley, under fire for her use of travel allowances, has certified all her entitlements as being within the rules. Photo: Mark Jesser
Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Steve Ciobo - who missed periods in 2011, 2014 and 2016 - said he would need to check with a staff member why that was.
But he blasted certification as "incredibly bureaucratic" and "ridiculous" for asking politicians to verify purchases down to the level of office printer cartridges.
Mr Ciobo said when he did sign certifications it was always with the amendment: "to the best of my knowledge".
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said: "There are many legitimate reasons why a MP or Senator may not have certified their travel by the time the travel records are published."
"Most often it is because a MP or Senator is clarifying or querying the expenditure report."
Liberal MP Andrew Laming has missed four periods, as has Liberal senator Sean Edwards, according to the Department of Finance website. Labor MP Michael Danby and Senator Dastyari have each missed three, while Labor MP Julie Owens, listed as missing one, said she had already responded and blamed a clerical error for her appearance on the list.
A spokesman for Senator Dastyari, who resigned as a shadow minister over a donations scandal, said his office believed certification forms had already been supplied to the department but they had now been resubmitted.
Catherine King, the Labor health spokeswoman leading the political attacks on Ms Ley, was listed as missing two certifications in 2011 and 2013.
"We were of the genuine belief these had been certified," a spokeswoman for Ms King said. "We have checked with the Department of Finance and it appears to have been an oversight. This will be rectified today."
A Labor spokesperson said the government should "stop dragging their feet" and legislate to force all MPs to certify, as proposed by an independent review last March.
But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten would not say whether he would demand his MPs to verify all outstanding expenses.
Senator Nick Xenophon, who had not certified the last period, said he was "really annoyed" with himself, took full responsibility for the omission and would fix it as soon as he returned from Indonesia.
He said the expense list first submitted to him by the Department of Finance wrongly listed a business class flight.
As for parliamentarians who take an unreasonably long time to certify, Senator Xenophon said "there ought to be penalties".
Other former politicians listed as not having certified expenses include Joe Hockey, Phillip Ruddock, Andrew Robb, Bob Carr, Bob Brown, Craig Thomson and Clive Palmer.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story has been amended to correctly report the number of times Julie Owens appeared as not certified, which was originally incorrectly put at three.
This story has been updated to include the apology by the Department of Finance to John Faulkner