18 December 2021

Google antitrust filing - unredacted


Civil Action No: 1:21-md03010-PKC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE: GOOGLE DIGITAL ADVERTISING ANTITRUST LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

STATE OF TEXAS 

By Attorney General Ken Paxton 

STATE OF ALASKA

By Attorney General Treg R. Taylor 

STATE OF ARKANSAS

By Attorney General Leslie Rutledge

STATE OF FLORIDA

By Attorney General Ashley Moody 

STATE OF IDAHO

By Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden

STATE OF INDIANA

By Attorney General Todd Rokita 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

By Attorney General Daniel Cameron

STATE OF LOUISIANA

By Attorney General Jeff Landry 

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

By Attorney General Lynn Fitch

STATE OF MISSOURI

By Attorney General Eric Schmitt

STATE OF MONTANA

By Attorney General Austin Knudsen 

STATE OF NEVADA

By Attorney General Aaron D. Ford 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

By Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

By Attorney General Domingo Emanuelli-Hernández 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

By Attorney General Alan Wilson 

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

By Attorney General Jason R. Ravnsborg

and

STATE OF UTAH 

By Attorney General Sean D. Reyes 

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

See document:


within the link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a62mDfvD0BRT1IsVdk18HwWXiJ3g_scS/view?usp=sharing


16 December 2021

The farce of no medical certificate required for not wearing a face mask


If one was to say that the mainstream media was in the business of 'selling' lies/fake news/propaganda or information inciting fear then that would be an understatement.

If people from outside of Australia read the mainstream media drivel then they have a false understanding of what's really going on in Australia.

For one, the place is a colony, where colonial rule applies.

Since the advent of the current global situation, the above reigns true today more than ever.

Victoria's current premier Daniel Michael Andrews has thrown 'human rights' under a bus where he was very verbose about this.

Will these 'crimes' go unpunished in a rigged court system with the colony?

Of course.

Now headlines are made via the major outlets that all these new rules are in force that ease the so called restrictions, but once again this is false information.

One such example is that of wearing face masks.

With reference to some alleged legal framework, there was no lawful requirement for paperwork for an exemption for not wearing a face mask, as a 'lawful' excuse was spelled out within the so called framework.

This did not really change throughout its implementation.

MANY people have genuine reasons for not being able to wear face masks, where this has been reflected in these 'rules' (not law, i.e. an Act)

As of this post, the 16th of December 2021, the government of Victoria has put out the following information:





Where this has been put into text format below:

On this page

Where face masks are recommended

Masks reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.

We recommend wearing a mask if you can’t physically distance, are indoors in public areas, have any symptoms, or if you are with people who may be vulnerable to COVID-19. Some workplaces and other settings may recommend masks. Carry a mask when leaving home.

Face masks are mandatory in a number of key, high-risk settings. See below for more information.

Where face masks are required

A person must carry a mask at all times, except in limited circumstances.

Wearing a mask is required in certain settings across Victoria:

  • Indoors only at primary schools for staff, visitors aged 12 years and above, and for students in Grades 3 to 6.

  • Workers serving the public at hospitality venues.

  • Workers and customers at indoor retail except at hairdressing and beauty salons.

  • Workers in high-risk settings such as in prisons and other detention facilities.

  • Workers in an abattoir, meat, seafood and poultry processing sites.

  • All persons in indoor areas of a court which are open to the public or used by jurors.

  • Workers in resident-facing roles and visitors, while indoors at care facilities.

  • Visitors at a hospital.

  • Workers and visitors in indoor healthcare settings including community health centres (including mental health, child and maternity, and drug and alcohol counselling services centres), general practices, COVID-19 related healthcare sites (including testing, vaccination and hotel quarantine facilities), health clinics (including medical specialist and allied health clinics), diagnostic and medical imaging centres, mobile health services or blood donation centres.

  • International aircrew services workers in direct transit to their place of self-quarantine in Victoria and who leave their vehicle.

  • International aircrew services workers who are in self-quarantine and leave to undertake permitted essential services.

  • International passenger arrivals in direct transit to their place of self-quarantine in Victoria and who leave their vehicle.

  • International passenger arrivals who are in self-quarantine and leave to undertake permitted essential services.

  • On public transport, in taxis/rideshare services, in tourism vehicles and on commercial flights.

  • At an airport.

  • After being tested for COVID-19 and awaiting results, other than as part of surveillance testing.

  • If the person is a diagnosed person or close contact and is leaving the premises in accordance with quarantine, isolation or testing requirements.

Exceptions for not wearing a face mask

A face mask is not mandatory in the following groups or situations:

  • Infants and children under 12, except students in Grades 3 to 6 indoors at a primary school (who are required to wear a mask).

  • Students in primary school in Grade 2 or below and students in secondary school (note: masks remain strongly recommended in secondary schools)

  • Persons who have a physical or mental health condition, or disability, which makes wearing a face covering unsuitable, including persons with obstructed breathing, a serious skin condition of the face, an intellectual disability, a mental health condition or persons who have experienced trauma.

  • Persons communicating with those who are deaf or hard of hearing and visibility of the mouth is essential for communication.

  • Persons for whom the nature of their work or education means that wearing a face mask creates a risk to health and safety.

  • Persons for whom the nature of their work or education means that clear enunciation or visibility of their mouth is essential. This includes teaching, lecturing or broadcasting.

  • The person is working by themselves in an enclosed indoor space such as in an empty classroom unless another person enters that space.

  • When asked to remove the face mask to ascertain identity. For instance, where asked by police, security, bank or post office staff to remove a face mask to ascertain identity.

  • The person is undergoing dental or medical care or treatment to the extent that such care or treatment requires no face mask be worn.

  • The person is a prisoner in a prison, subject to any policies of that prison.

  • The person is detained in a remand centre, youth residential centre or youth justice centre, subject to any policies of that centre.

  • The person is escaping harm or the risk of harm, including harm relating to family violence or violence of another person.

  • For emergency purposes.

  • Where not doing so is not safe in all the circumstances.

You do not need a medical certificate stating that you have a lawful reason for not wearing a face mask. If you have a lawful reason for not wearing a face mask, you do not need to apply for an exemption or permit.

If you are stopped by police in a setting where face masks are mandatory, they will ask you to confirm the lawful reason you are not wearing a face mask.

Reviewed 16 December 2021

____________________________________________________________

from within the link:

https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/face-masks-when-wear-face-mask

It must be emphasised that whatever minute changes have occurred over the past few amendments there is no legal requirement to present a medical certificate for not wearing a face mask.

As a result doctors previously have stated that they will not be providing those exemptions.

The REALITY is that now doctors (e.g. GPs, specialists, etc) will not allow you to obtain healthcare if you are not wearing a mask or even vaccinated (well, technically succumbed to a global medical trial), unless you have an exemption, an exemption they declined to provide you one with before if you asked for it.

You will therefore be denied life saving treatment.

Therefore this 'thing' called Duty of Care has been thrown under a bus in Victoria.

So, why isn't the mainstream media informing you of this?

The medical profession has been corrupted and is not acting independently, but rather under dictation, literally from a written script from a few sources, but more on that in a future post.


National Partnership on COVID-19 Response (Document within post)


Can the 'Parliament of Australia' lawfully withhold a public document claiming it is under copyright?

Unless stated otherwise, all documents created by those in government are funded by the tax paying public.

Therefore, the taxpayers are the stakeholders of any such documents, where unless national security is in play, then the stakeholders have to right to view those documents.

This is especially true of documents pertaining to public health on a national scale, given the fact that that public's purse is used to distribute health care.

Documents /action hidden from scrutiny can be used with regards to the abuse of power.

The Australian Government claims transparency is of utmost importance in its actions.

See the document National Partnership on COVID-19 Response 



at:




14 December 2021

How Australian police will use DNA sequencing to predict what suspects look like

Technology a ‘gamechanger’ for forensic science but raises privacy and racial profiling issues

Based on DNA left at a crime scene, massively parallel sequencing can predict a person’s externally visible characteristics. Photograph: nobeastsofierce Science/Alamy

Australian federal police have announced they are using next-generation DNA sequencing technology to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects.

Based on DNA left at a crime scene, the technology – also known as massively parallel sequencing – can predict externally visible characteristics of a person even in the absence of matching profiles in police databases.

MPS can “predict gender, biogeographical ancestry, eye colour and, in coming months, hair colour”, according to the AFP.

Experts say the technology is a “gamechanger” for forensic science but also raises issues around racial profiling, heightened surveillance and genetic privacy.

How does DNA profiling work?

DNA – deoxyribonucleic acid – is formed of two interlocked chains that form the basis of our genetic code. Each strand of DNA consists of four units known as nucleotide bases – A, C, G, and T – that repeat in patterns. The human genome comprises about 3bn pairs of these bases, contained within 23 chromosomes.

Human DNA is 99.9% identical, and forensic analysis is interested in the 0.1% of the genome that makes each of us genetically unique.

Traditional DNA profiling focuses on 24 sites on the genome where chains of nucleotide bases differ in length between people. The site sequences do not encode for specific genes that determine physical characteristics such as eye or hair colour. The method can determine biological sex because one of the 24 target sites is on the X chromosome and another is on the Y chromosome.

“If I told you my DNA profile for these different regions, it wouldn’t mean anything to you,” said Prof Adrian Linacre, chair in forensic DNA technology at Flinders University. “You couldn’t look at that and think: this guy’s from northern Europe, he’s got blue eyes.”

In combination, the different sequence lengths at each of these 24 sites is enough to give a person a unique genetic fingerprint. DNA collected from crime scenes can be matched to DNA profiles on criminal databases. “If your person is not on the database, it’s not very useful,” Linacre said, adding that links could be made to relatives.

What is massive parallel sequencing?

MPS has been used commercially for more than a decade and has been used overseas in forensic cases.

Linacre describes it as a “massive gamechanger”. The technology is capable of sequencing “tens of millions of bits of DNA in one go”, he said. “This new methodology is telling you things about the person … externally visible characteristics.”

Rather than looking at the length of strings of sequences, MPS can look at single nucleotides – whether, at a specific location, a base is an A, C, G or T.

There are several single base changes that are major determinants of eye colour, for example. “They’re dotted around your DNA … you put them all together, and you’ve got a real high probability of saying: this guy’s got bluey-green eyes,” Linacre said.

MPS differs from genetic genealogy tests used to identify people’s ethnic origin or relatives on genealogy databases, as was used by California police to catch Joseph James DeAngelo, the Golden State Killer.

How will next-gen DNA sequencing be used in Australia?

The new sequencing technology will allow investigators to gain information about the physical characteristics of a potential suspect even when there is no matching DNA profile on a law enforcement database.

According to the AFP, the technique could be used in “missing persons and unidentified human remains cases”.

“Most things we find at crime scenes are mixtures of two or three people’s DNA,” Linacre said. While traditional DNA profiling techniques tend to work well even on degraded DNA, using MPS for a mixture of fragmented DNA could lead to inconclusive results, he said. “We’re still yet to develop really good software programmes to deconvolute massive parallel sequencing data.”

Are there ethical concerns?

In a statement, Dr Paul Roffey, the lead MPS scientist at AFP forensics, said the agency planned “to widen prediction capabilities to include traits such as age, body mass index and height”.

“We will also be seeking opportunities to provide fine detail predictions for facial metrics such as distance between the eyes, eye, nose and ear shape, lip fullness, and cheek structure”.

Age can accurately be determined by genetic analysis; body composition and height – which have genetic components – are also influenced by environmental factors.

The ability to predict the phenotype of a suspect raises ethical issues, particularly around racial profiling, said Dr Loene Howes, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Tasmania.

Being able to determine a suspect’s ancestry could place “a whole population group under suspicion – they become subject to greater surveillance than the rest of the community,” she said. “It’s not necessarily that informative anyway, because there might be lots of people who fit the [description].”

Genetic privacy is also a concern. “If you start to look at other parts of DNA which encode things which are very personal to you, there’s a line I think which needs to be drawn,” Linacre said.

Howes added: “The problem with the introduction of any of these things is that it often happens without … the community being fully aware of what could be involved. There’s often function creep, where a scientific technique is introduced for one reason, and gradually starts being used for other purposes that weren’t agreed to initially.

“There should be some very clear thresholds in place [for] when this can be used.”

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/08/how-australian-police-will-use-dna-sequencing-to-predict-what-suspects-look-like?fbclid=IwAR3g54cKluEZxgvl-_4B46fTyjpbCLPf9E0EgXydgsjMKQTqiZSNx06Lv6o