The colony's courts today are first and foremost corrupt to the core.
The so called judicial registrars/magistrates/judges are not in office lawfully.
On thing that they do is abuse their power, where most people are OBLIVIOUS to this.
They literally act with impunity.
See the above document within the link:
In the immortal words of Tom Cruise in the film Jerry Maguire “Show me the Money” a similarly appropriate phrase would be quite simply, “Show me the FOI!”.
So called journalism has died a while ago, where some will say since 60 Minutes realised that it could capitalise on 'news' by selling it before the Internet age.
Since then, information platforms touting themselves as 'news' services have become click-bait providers for the sole purpose of generating income, from you (the product) in process 'hoovering' metadata from their apps they so desperately need you to use for their so called 'service'.
The biggest 'journalism' farce begins with “we can now reveal” or something similar to that effect, where the Joe (below) Average is led to believe that he/she is reading exclusive/confidential or whatever news story.
The mainstream media's so called FOI (Freedom Of Information) requests do not really cut it when it comes to an alleged exposé of the authority's questionable actions.
They don't even have the decency to publish the question or even the response you know the actual FOI, how pathetic.
And you're paying for this information?
In the motherland, there is a running joke that the colony called Australia is a 'legal basket case' from the mid 1980's, or about the time of the enactment of the Australia Acts.
That's right, plural as in two.
The legal 'geniuses' had no idea which one would stick, so they enacted to, one a 'local' version and another the UK version.
The real legal basket case scenarios started way before 1986, but that's another topic.
That's the (real) state of 'law' in Australia, i.e. NFI.
One of the most important legal farces in this colony is this fictitious/unlawful entity called the 'Queen of Australia'.
Will you ever see the mainstream media write “documents obtained under freedom of information” in relation to this?
Well, you will from one person within constitutionwatch.com.au.
The questions posed:
' I request the document, instrument, or law of the Commonwealth that exempts the courts judges and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth from the Treason and Felony Act 1848.
I request the instrument that allows the Parliament of Australia under the Queen of Australia to have any lawful effect.
I request the instrument or information that demonstrates the Parliament of Australia as a legal entity.
I require any information in edition to the finding being referenced.'
See response within the document:
Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (Samsung Australia) has been ordered by the Federal Court to pay $14 million in penalties after it admitted misleading consumers about the suitability of various Samsung Galaxy phones to be submerged in pool or sea water, in proceedings brought by the ACCC.
The false or misleading claims were made about the water resistance of the S7, S7 Edge, A5 (2017), A7 (2017), S8, S8 Plus and Note 8 Samsung Galaxy phones (Galaxy phones). There were more than 3.1 million of these Galaxy phones sold in Australia.
Between March 2016 and October 2018, Samsung Australia conducted a marketing campaign that included nine ads(link is external), published across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, on its website, and in-store, which represented that these Galaxy phones were suitable to be used in pool and sea water.
Samsung Australia has acknowledged that if the Galaxy phones were submerged in pool or sea water there was a material prospect the charging port would become corroded and stop working if the phone was charged while still wet.
“Samsung Australia’s water resistance claims promoted an important selling point for these Galaxy phones. Many consumers who purchased a Galaxy phone may have been exposed to the misleading ads before they made their decision to purchase a new phone,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
“We reviewed hundreds of complaints from consumers who reported they experienced issues with their Galaxy phones after it was exposed to water and, in many cases, they reported their Galaxy phone stopped working entirely,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
Prior to the launch of the Galaxy phones, Samsung Australia’s parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), was already seeking to mitigate the effects of this charging port corrosion caused by charging following exposure to water. Despite this, Samsung Australia’s marketing campaign promoted Galaxy phones being used in pools and sea water while there remained a material prospect the Galaxy phones would be damaged due to corrosion.
“Samsung Australia’s ads promoting its Galaxy phones featured people using their phones in pools and sea water, despite the fact that this could ultimately result in significant damage to the phone,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
“This penalty is a strong reminder to businesses that all product claims must be substantiated. The ACCC will continue to take enforcement action against businesses that mislead consumers with claims about the nature or benefits of their products,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
The vast majority of Samsung Australia’s contravening conduct occurred prior to the increase of maximum penalties for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law. Similar conduct under the new penalty regime could give rise to greater penalties.
Samsung Australia admitted that it had contravened Australian Consumer Law and made joint submissions with the ACCC in respect of penalties and orders.
Consumers who purchased one of the relevant Galaxy phones and experienced damage to the charging port after submerging the phone in pool or sea water and then attempting to charge the phone while water remained in the port are encouraged to contact Samsung Australia.
Source:accc.gov.au