Warrantless seizures accepted by Australian courts

The colony's legal system is corrupt to its foundations.

The ABC 'exposed' that the judiciary, or more specifically magistrates have not been sworn in correctly for 30 years in Tasmania.

Therefore ANY order made, quiet simply put is not valid.

Since people have been 'notified', have legal firms advertised for a class action to occur?

Did any person in Tasmania seek or obtain a remedy from an unlawfully issued court order?

(you can respond in the comments section if you have, including the results)

The mainstream media also noted that since Victoria Police personnel have not been sworn in correctly, their fines in relation to a certain health situation have no legal legs to stand on.

The fact that the police acted under dictation has also been deliberately omitted.

In a court matter when you (the serf) are required to be sworn in or take an oath it MUST be done according to the procedure/rules/regulations, otherwise your information will not be accepted by the court.

To make matters worse, the legal system is covering up the fact that there is no lawfully appointed sheriff and therefore deputies in Victoria.

There must be a lawfully enacted 'instrument' in place, in order to seize property from a 'person', period.

A person's property is seized by a sheriff, and this is where the problems begin, where they are not limited to the following two points:

1. Currently (and previously), there is no lawfully appointed Sheriff of Victoria,

2. The warrant, in its original form does not exist.

There is no current lawful appointment for a sheriff, an officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria, by the name of Mr. Warwick Knight.

There was no lawful appointment for the previous so called sheriff Mr. Brendan Facey.

If any person states otherwise, we challenge that person to produce the lawfully enacted paperwork within the comments section of this post.

First and foremost, to act on seizure of property a so called warrant in Victoria must be filled in and presented upon request to the person whose property is being seized.

As an example, if an 'Infringement Notice' arising from alleged road traffic offence is not paid, the fine expiates to what can be referred to as 'sheriff stage' where an alleged 'Infringement Warrant' (Against a Natural Person) is issued.

This warrant appears in the Infringements (Reporting and Prescribed Details and Forms) Regulations 2006, Schedule Forms, Form 1.

See: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_reg/iapdafr2006n75o2006714/sch1.html

Victoria's corrupt judicature has been obtaining cash from persons even though no warrants can be produced by the Sheriff's Office of Victoria.

This action is across more than one legal jurisdiction.

The courts have left many unsuspecting victims in their wake.

The real problem being though, is that those who have been astute enough to pick up on the fraud are being deceived stifled from obtaining a remedy by the court, where to be more specific it would be more beneficial to name those persons preventing you from obtaining justice be it a judicial registrar or judge, and initiating a judicial review.

One very public matter of a corrupt legal system denying justice to a victim of Victoria Police is that of Ms Corinna Horvath, where ultimately there was no 'real' remedy for her within Australia's legal system, where she had to take it externally culminating in 2014 in the case called 'Horvath v Australia' some 18 years after an assault by eight 'men' employed by Victoria Police.

Did these 'men' lose their jobs or were they 'rewarded' for their efforts?

The pinnacle of a corrupt legal system, where the 'brotherhood' looks after its own.

There are many more victims of the legal system similar in calibre to that of Ms. Horvath where the legal system is abusing them, by denying justice in deliberately not providing a remedy.

Does the legal system take 18 years to obtain cash from an 'Infringement Notice'?

Scam watch: India a nation of scammers?

Do we hear of Chinese calling people and scamming them out of their hard earned cash?

Do we hear of Russians calling up unsuspecting 'mums and dads' for an anti-virus refund scam?

Do we hear that South Koreans are calling our phones in order to con us?

What we (the people) DO hear is that we are flooded with scams originating from India.

The 'best' part about it is that it's all 'supported' by governments worldwide, under the globalisation banner, because if these actions were not supported then they'd be stopped.

Governments are quick to act, to stop you from obtaining information from websites (e.g. 'working' for Hollywood) with the use of firewalls but allow obvious spam messages through, therefore putting you in financial harms way where in reality this is a deliberate failure of government.

Why?

Because you (the serf) are affected, corporations don't suffer nor do people in government.

If people in government were targeted in the same manner this action would be neutralised.

These people are commuting fraud, they are the scum of the Earth, there are no excuses.

In any event Australia needs to import more of those people for 'human right' reasons, because Scammer Lives Matter too, and for the sake of 'diversity', Australia (the colony) needs to be more diverse, where if we go back to the good ol' days it was “once roamed by rascals and outlaws”

Bring back the good ol' days!

See just one example of too many:

A better alternative for your privacy to Google's Play Store.

Google NEEDS you to use its services in order to build a sellable database, after all it is the world's largest advertising corporation.

In order to entice you to use its programs, Google says it's introducing features with regards to your privacy, something that is contrary to its business model.

Some of the privacy features outlined by phonearena.com are as follows:

"Google's new privacy section shows:

• Whether and for what reason the developer is gathering data.
• Whether the app creator is sharing your personal information with other parties.
• The app's security policies, like whether data is well encrypted if intercepted and whether users can request that their information be deleted completely.
• Whether or not an app follows Google Play's Families Policy in order to protect children in the Play store.
• Whether or not the developer's security practices are in line with a global security standard."

We do NOT recommend using Play Store to download apps to your Android phone.

In fact we recommend using as little Google 'services' as possible.

a 'de-Googled' phone would a good start, but that is another topic altogether.

If you must download Android apps from Google's Play Store, then a better alternative would be the Aurora Store.

The Aurora Store obtains the apps from Google's Play Store, where in Anonymous mode, Google does not know that you are obtaining those apps, therefore a better 'privacy feature' for you.

If you must know the new features Google is implementing, then you can still browse the apps via a web browser, rather than the app.

What's better for your privacy is to use as little 'commercial' non-open source apps as possible.

A source for those apps is called f-droid.org.

We also encourage people to support the developers if the app you use is useful to you.

Google is part of the five-eyes 'Nanny State' agenda.

AEC censored a political party's social media post

AUSTRALIA, we (the people) have a problem!

The Australian Electoral Commission has removed a post made by a candidate of a political party, One Nation.

Democracy is truly dead in this (dictatorial) colony called Australia!

So, let's be clear about this:

Someone or rather a 'person' within the AEC, a 'commission' removed another person's social media post.

The AEC does not have the lawful nor legal authority to take such action.

If any person disputes this fact, then we welcome that person to provide the lawfully enacted instrument that allows such an action to occur, within the comments section of this post.

The person who removed that post, has (allegedly) committed a Commonwealth criminal offence, where this action must be investigated by the authorities.

Now, the real question is, will the general population hear from the mainstream media that an investigation will occur is another story.

To make matters ever more 'precarious' for the AEC, commissions are not courts.

See article from constitutionwatch.com.au of the headline:

Tribunals and Commissions are not Courts.

The High Court's decision Burns v Corbett significantly narrowed the jurisdiction of commissions and tribunals. The High Court held that the Australian Constitution precludes a State tribunal from exercising federal and state jurisdiction, tribunals are not Courts and cannot exercise judicial powers and jurisdiction.  A tribunal or Commission not being a 'court of a State' cannot adjudicate disputes involving any of the matters set out in ss 75 and 76 of the Australian Constitution, even when the dispute involves the application of State legislation. The decision affects all areas of law including anti-discrimination disputes, residential tenancy disputes, and building and construction disputes.

A State law cannot impair or detract from the operation of a Commonwealth law by impairing the Commonwealth law’s ‘conditional and universal’ application, except to the extent that it has a ‘legal operation or practical effect within the universe of the conditional legal operation of the Commonwealth law’. Impairing or detracting from     s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act is to say that the Parliament has made a complete, exhaustive and exclusive statement on federal jurisdiction: ‘It is necessarily to say that the Commonwealth Parliament has not only provided positively for the conditional investiture of federal jurisdiction in State courts but has also stipulated negatively for the non-investiture of any jurisdiction with respect to any of those matters other than in State courts.’  Gageler J noted the difficulty of finding any such ‘negative penumbra’ in the text of s 39(2), and stated that the more fundamental problem lies in finding a source of Commonwealth legislative power: namely that s 77(iii) does not allow Parliament to confer judicial power on a tribunal that is not a State court.

The Industrial Relations Tribunals and tribunals of the State such as VCAT and the Fair Work Commission all fall into the same category, they fail to be courts and cannot provide you with an enforceable judicial decision.

See Burns v Corbett - Perakath:

See Burns v Corbett - AIAL Forum No. 95:

Tracked by AirTag? Android users can also know

How to know if you're being tracked with Apple's AirTag, even if you haven't got an iPhone.

People have been using Apple's AirTag, (designed as a 'key' finder) for the illegal activity of stalking.

It can be attached in a clandestine manner to the victims belongings, eg. inside a purse, raincoat or to a vehicle in order to track that person.

Since this useage for nefarious purposes Apple has rolled out a software patch for their iPhone devices that will warn users of an attached AirTag.

Since victims may not have an iPhone, those people have been left out, until someone decided to make an app for Android users.

The app is called AirGuard, by Niklas Bittner and is available on the open source Android app store called F-droid within the following link:

https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.seemoo.at_tracking_detection/

When this invention hit the 'consumer' market Apple stated its was safe and checked all the boxes with regards to privacy.

The problem there is Apple LIED!

This device can also be used to track you in other ways.

See further information with the video:

Action like this by corporations, further promoted the global 'Nanny State' agenda.

Samsung ceases updates but AOSP doesn't

What good are you to a corporation if you only purchase their product once every four, five or eight years?

They need you purchase their wares every year or two, so that they can rake in the profits, as it's ALL about the profits.

Samsung dictates if your phone is 'eligible'.

Shouldn't it be eligible for the entirely of it's life?

In any event,

if you have a Samsung Galaxy S9 series phone with its original bloat/spyware operating system and you still want to feel 'up to date' with security updates, you can load Android in it's purest form called AOSP, from e Foundation, where the focus of that bare OS is that it's 'de-Googled'.

This may have some limitations for users, but in most cases it's fine.

See the company's website for other smart phones that accept the de-Googled version of Android:

https://doc.e.foundation/devices