What the police did during the Melbourne Protests – Man In The Middle attack

We have obtained information from within, with regards to what Victoria Police did during the protests in Melbourne in 2021.

When people were gearing up against government restrictions, Victoria Police went down the path of racial profiling as to who the 'trouble makers' were.

Their initial 'intelligence' pointed them to Melbourne's north and western regions identifying a particular 'race' (a term erroneously used, but let's just run with it anyway) or people of a particular religious following.

When the people congregated into the city, Victoria Police deployed a 'stingray' type of surveillance device.

Briefly, this device severs communications of your mobile (smart or 'feature') phone with the telco's cell tower and forces your mobile phone to communicate with it, where then information can be obtained from your smartphone, hence its MITM (Man In The Middle) acronym.

One of the ways to circumvent this device is to remove the SIM card and the phone's battery, but since most of today's smartphones cannot realistically have the battery removed, then removal of the SIM card together with a turned off phone is the next best alternative apart from leaving it a home or putting it in a Faraday cage en-route.

So all those who protested and had their mobile phones with them, the police 'pinged' the phones and obtained the details of the registered owners of those numbers.

NOW, the question is, did Victoria Police do this action lawfully?

Was there a (lawfully, different from 'legally' issued) warrant obtained for the purpose of blanket scanning?

Or are Victoria Police above the law, under the excuse of a 'terrorist' (perceived) threat?

When the police found out that there was no single 'demographic' or area from Melbourne that the people were coming from, in the words of the informant,  “they shit themselves”.

This action was not just done once, it's done at ALL protests said the source, including in Canberra in February 2022.

So those of you that go to the protests, you're on government databases, not as constituents requiring action of the people that are supposed to serve you, but as 'trouble makers'/inciters/domestic terrorists(?)/Sovereign Citizens (lol, an oxymoron).

Note: Since the Melbourne protests, Victoria Police no longer 'advertise' (e.g. via FlightRadar, etc) their helicopters that are in the air, where also the navigation lights are turned off during certain flights, therefore endangering other aircraft.

TRY taking Victoria Police over this AND being able to win, dare ya!

Australia, the new age penal colony.

See also:

https://corpau.blogspot.com/2021/09/helicopters-no-longer-visible-in-police.html

Government turns off mobile data, uses sonic weapon in Canberra

During the second week of February the population of Canberra rose by approximately 200,000-250,000 'mums and dads' travellers.

When there is a congregation or gathering of people, for example at a concert or sporting event the authorities deploy portable towers or 'cell on wheels' for mobile phone users.

No such luck for the new arrivals!

Instead they were greeted with an exclamation mark within the data strength signal icon on their smartphones.

Surely the mainstream media will report this occurrence as an overload of the mobile towers.

Keeping in mind that Canberra also has 5G towers:

Where the following map only shows Telstra sites:

It's not like Canberrans were blindsided or ambushed by an angry or violent mob declaring war on the authorities at Capitol hill.

It was a well coordinated event, known to Canberrans well in advance where constituents, mums and dads brought their children to a gathering to show unity in a peaceful and respectful manner regarding a political/legal topic.

During such gatherings there are of course people with ill intent and government plants or rather inciters, where some have been exposed during the gathering, but obviously live streaming it was not possible.

So that the constituents could not live stream the event to show that it is factually peaceful and truly a family atmosphere, the authorities have switched off data from the mobile phone towers, meaning people could still call each other, which they did.

The authorities even used hidden cameras in unsuspecting places, where in this instance some eagle eyed sleuths spotted the equipment and resulted to measures ensuring their privacy, as shown in photo below.

People have also spotted a LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) being used in Canberra during that weekend.

Many have reported feeling sick or disorientated, where even some say they felt a burning sensation.

Australian police have been using LRAD for at least 7 years.

Australia is not the only nation to have turned off data on its people.

In 2011, once the authorities learned that the students were organising an event, they simply 'flicked the switch' on the internet and turned it off.

There has been much deliberate misinformation by the mainstream media on this topic, as shown in screen captures of headlines of their articles:

The 'protest' was NOT about the vaccine but rather the unlawful mandates:

'Hundreds' did not drive, it was more in the magnitude of many thousands:

The more accurate estimate is in the couple of hundred thousand:

More lies propagated by Rupert Murdoch's 'news':

See also articles on LRAD:

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/australian-police-buy-up-on-sound-weapons/7419408

https://worldnationnews.com/australian-police-confirm-use-of-lrad-sonic-weapon-at-protest-against-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/

Remember many years ago in the 'Commonwealth of Australia' the MPs would 'meet and greet' their constituents, talk to them, where now they hide from them behind unscalable fences, why?  

Andrews disregard for the law with total impunity!

Victorian premier Daniel Michael Andrews has just thrown the law under a bus.

In one foul action, he defecated on the law, the law making process, a part of the Victorian Parliament called the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.

He did all this with no outcry or legal action from within the legal community.

A total disgrace!

What's worse is that he does not want you (the serf) to know about the law.

On the 27^th of July 2020, The Canberra Times reported that Andrews stated:

"Seriously, one more comment about human rights ... it's about human life. Their views have no basis in science, fact or law."

So, according Andrews there is no basis for human rights to exist at law.

Therefore, those institutions are no longer valid or operational?

Maybe there's some magical law that has been enacted that tramples human rights?

No Andrews, it's ALL about human rights!

So it's been over one and a half years since his statement has been made public and has there been any court action?

Can anyone put in the comments a reference to a Supreme Court of Victoria case that a person or persons have came out victorious against Andrews or the government of Victoria with regards to the current situation?

Or has the legal profession denied persons justice?

Did you obtain advice from an [official] 'legal practitioner' where that person mentioned that ALL Victorian law must be in compliance with human rights as defined by the Parliament of Victoria by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee?

Have Andrews' Bills been certified to comply with human rights?

Is your lawyer (or rather 'officer of the court') or even the court denying you natural justice?

Keeping in mind that there is no 'separation of powers' where the Anglo-masonic legal system is corrupt to its core, where it even harbours sex offenders that 'judge' (a person sitting in the High Court of Australia by the name of Dyson Heydon) you.

How do you know that the person judging your matter is not a sex offender or paedophile, yet to be caught?

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6851881/seriously-one-more-comment-about-human-rights/

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/

Scott Morrison (and state premiers) broke the law, so sue 'em!

The colony's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison broke the law, where he must be sued.

What happens when you (the serf) break the law?

If someone from the serf pool breaks the law and that action is made 'public' for example social media, or in the news, then the appropriate police force (federal/state) moves in to charge that person.

Well, the 'lovable' #ScottyFromMarketing broke the law and the police, the AFP (Australian Federal Police) in this case stood by idly.

It seems that they're enabling his criminal actions.

So what are they?

Civil conscription, AGAINST the Constitution, or more specifically Section 51 (xxxiiiA).

Note:

• an injection or inoculation is a 'medical service',

• civil conscription is telling the population what to do,

• Doctor – patient relationship CANNOT be interfered with, period even by government,

• IF consent is forced or withdrawn then it's assault (that being a criminal offence).

The general practitioner's case states that the government cannot provide ANY legal or practical compulsion (i.e. law (Act), directive, 'rule') for you to accept a medical procedure.

This means the Commonwealth CANNOT write any law to impose immunisation/vaccination upon the people of Australia.

What about the states?

Well, Western Australia states that it can do the opposite, i.e. make a law that states that people MUST succumb to a particular medical procedure.

According to the Constitution, Section 109 is in force.

Therefore ANY law that the state produces which is inconsistent with federal law is INVALID, and must be ignored.

Take note of Clause 5 of the Constitution:

Please note that the implementation of the Commonwealth tracing app and the various state named tracing apps, where a person is compelled to use them is an unlawful directive.

Breach of the Privacy Act, Section 94H, as well as other protections in Australia's consumer law come to mind.

Another part of Victorian law that must be adhered to is human rights, under the SARC (Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee), where all the checks and balances must take place.

"The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 provides that the Committee must consider any Bill introduced into Parliament and must report to the Parliament whether the Bill is incompatible with Human Rights."

See:

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/

See video:

See:

Melbourne University Law Review (approximately 30 pages):

Mendelson, Danuta --- "Devaluation of a Constitutional Guarantee: The History of Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Commonwealth Constitution" [1999] MelbULawRw 14; (1999) 23(2) Melbourne University Law Review 308 

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1999/14.html

See also: 

Medical law reporter:

Constitutional limits on Federal Legislation Practically Compelling Medical Employment: 

Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee.

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/21679/2/01_Faunce_Constitutional_limits_on_2009.pdf

Implementing Treaties in Domestic Law: Translation, Enforcement & Administrative Law

See document: