Victoria Police admits to using unlawful retrospective law in 'lock up' fines

Cowardly attack by Victoria Police on female pensioner.

The Victorian Government, police and the courts are involved in an intricate web of deceit against persons who have been fined under the Chief Health Officer's 'directions'.

In an embarrassing situation for police, in a 'court of public record' Victoria Police admitted that the organisation is using unlawfully passed legislation that 'fixed' the problem, where the Victorian Parliament enacted retrospective legislation where Victoria Police officers had no lawful authority to issue health related fines based on directions given by the CHO.

Whether it's a 'stay at home' order akin to Martial Law, an order against a public gathering or travelling outside of a Nazi like fictitious boundary, they're all unlawful orders with regards to the 'general population'.

Briefly,

First and foremost police acting under the 'direction' of the CHO, is an action acting under dictation which is forbidden at law.

Victorian legislation must be compatible with Human Rights, where it also must abide by the rules set out according to the SARC (Scrutiny of Act and Regulations Committee).

See article: https://corpau.blogspot.com/2015/08/sarc-scruitny-of-acts-and-regulations.html

The Chief Health Officer at the time Brett Sutton, is part of the Executive branch of government, the lowest part of the legal system, where his so called directions are 'public policy' meaning the directions are only binding on the public service, that being not binding on the police nor the judiciary.

Victoria Police have been caught out fabricating false charges, for example against Marty Focker.

See hidden video: 

The businesses known as Courts are part of this conspiracy, where your human rights are abused by the judiciary, but you have to catch them out, call it and take further action.

What's more concerning is that the Courts are not acting independently, free from bias, as they are acting in the best interest for the stakeholders in order to achieve successful outcomes critical to the “success” of MCV (Magistrates' Court of Victoria ) and other Victorian government departments.

See document:

Who are these 'stakeholders'?

Financial institutions like the Challenger Group.

See also document “Legal Remedies for All Australians”:

Humans - Polluting Earth and Space. How many satellite orbiting Earth?

n the past decade, the number of satellites in orbit has skyrocketed thanks to tiny electronics and cheap launches. The crowded night sky is posing problems for astronomers and astronauts.

By Supriya Chakrabarti, The Conversation  |  Published: Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Thousands of the satellites orbiting Earth are small – like this cubical satellite seen here being released from the International Space Station.

It seems like every week, another rocket is launched into space carrying rovers to Mars, tourists or, most commonly, satellites. The idea that “space is getting crowded” has been around for a few years now, but just how crowded is it? And how crowded is it going to get?

I am a professor of physics and director of the Center for Space Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Many satellites that were put into orbit have gone dead and burned up in the atmosphere, but thousands remain. Groups that track satellite launches don’t always report the same exact numbers, but the overall trend is clear – and astounding.

Since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik – the first human-made satellite – in 1957, humanity has steadily been putting more and more objects into orbit every year. Over the the second half of the 20th century, there was a slow but steady growth, with roughly 60 to 100 satellites launched yearly until the early 2010s.

But since then, the pace has been increasing dramatically.

By 2020, 114 launches carried around 1,300 satellites to space, surpassing the 1,000 new satellites per year mark for the first time. But no year in the past compares to 2021. As of Sept. 16, roughly 1,400 new satellites have already begun circling the Earth, and that will only increase as the year goes on. Just this week, SpaceX deployed another 51 Starlink satellites into orbit.

The ever-shrinking size of technology has led to tiny satellites like the one students are working on here.

Small satellites, easy access to orbit

There are two main reasons for this exponential growth. First, it has never been easier to get a satellite into space. For example, on Aug. 29, 2021, a SpaceX rocket carried several satellites – including one built by my students – to the International Space Station. On Oct. 11, 2021, these satellites will deploy into orbit, and the number of satellites will increase again.

The second reason is that rockets can carry more satellites more easily – and cheaply – than ever before. This increase isn’t due to rockets getting more powerful. Rather, satellites have gotten smaller thanks to the electronics revolution. The vast majority – 94% – of all spacecraft launched in 2020 were smallsats – satellites that weigh less than around 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms).

The majority of these satellites are used for observing Earth or for communications and internet. With a goal of bringing the internet to underserved areas of the globe, two private companies, Starlink by SpaceX and OneWeb together launched almost 1,000 smallsats in 2020 alone. They are each planning to launch more than 40,000 satellites in the coming years to create what are called “mega-constellations” in low-Earth orbit.

Several other companies are eyeing this US$1 trillion market, most notably Amazon with its Project Kuiper .

Large satellite constellations – like SpaceX’s Starlink, seen in the video above – are set to dramatically increase the number of objects orbiting Earth and are already causing problems.

A crowded sky

With the huge growth in satellites, fears of a crowded sky are starting to come true. A day after SpaceX launched its first 60 Starlink satellites, astronomers began to see them blocking out the stars. While the impact on visible astronomy is easy to understand, radio astronomers fear they may lose 70% sensitivity in certain frequencies due to interference from satellite megaconstellations like Starlink.

Experts have been studying and discussing the potential problems posed by these constellations and ways the satellite companies could address them . These include reducing the number and brightness of satellites, sharing their location and supporting better image-processing software.

As low-Earth orbit gets crowded, concern about space debris increases, as does a real possibility of collisions.

Future trends

Less than 10 years ago, the democratization of space was a goal yet to be realized. Now, with student projects on the Space Station and more than 105 countries having at least one satellite in space, one could argue that that goal is within reach.

Every disruptive technological advancement requires updates to the rules – or the creation of new ones. SpaceX has tested ways to lower the impact of Starlink constellations, and Amazon has disclosed plans to de-orbit their satellites within 355 days after mission completion. These and other actions by different stakeholders make me hopeful that commerce, science and human endeavors will find sustainable solutions to this potential crisis.

Source: astronomy.com

Retrospective law - against ICCPR etc

In Australia governments (federal and state) LOVE to make criminals out of people by enacting legislation to 'fix' the past.

Quite simply put this is against the Rule of Law, also against your right to a 'fair hearing', against 'human rights' and also against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

See further reading:

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-129/13-retrospective-laws/a-common-law-principle-12/

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/prohibition-retrospective-criminal-laws

https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/prohibition-retrospective-criminal-laws

https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5484/what-are-retrospective-criminal-laws-and-why-dont-.aspx

Ch. III (Chapter three) Court - Australia

What is a Chapter III court?

Does it exist?

Apparently the people of Australia are told that the 'Commonwealth of Australia's' founding legal document is the 'Constitution' where all other law and actions by those in government are bound to it and abide by it.

Some will say that those in government do not abide by it.

Some can even prove that Prime Ministers (and other 'persons of interest') have not sworn the correct oath as described in the Schedule.

Some will even say that the Constitution has been thrown under a bus, where we are under private/corporate law, where a current example is that Victoria's current premier Daniel Andrews has given corporations the power to discriminate against employees medical choices enacting their own health policies (law?).

Under what lawfully enacted instrument is this?

A Ch.III court is defined in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act in Chapter III on page 15 and 16 of the original document, as seen following scans.

See link to document as tabled in the UK Parliament:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12/enacted

The two other laws that are to be used in conjunction with the 'Constitution' are:

Acts Interpretation Act Act 1901

Please note that there is no mention of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 under the Commonwealth heading within founding.docs.gov.au, therefore a scan of the original document cannot be provided.

For an alternative source of the legislation, 

See: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1901A00002/e5a7d8d8-06ac-41d9-a8ba-8ac57ecd1a40

Judiciary Act 1903:

See: https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-92.html

So now a 'question of law' that is embarrassing to the 'administration' of justice in Australia;

Does a Ch. III court really exist?

Short answer: No.

Corrupt Yarra City Council must be terminated!

Australia's 'city councils' are corrupt to the core.

You 'just' have to catch them out!