19 May 2024

Court documents reveal corrupt police falsify statements

 A huge burden on society, including taxpayers is a corrupt arm of government called the Judicature, that being the judiciary, staff connected with the administration of justice including the police.


Court documents obtained from a source that wishes the details not to be published in order to remain unidentified, show that Victoria Police falsify statements to suit their alleged ‘facts’ in order to gain successful outcomes for police.

Remembering that a ‘person’ has the ‘right to a fair hearing’ is not a saying or anecdote, but rather a law, and at a state level, it’s enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act, 2006 Section 24.

Cited court documents have shown on many occasions that the prosecution ‘supports’ the false statements of corrupt police, where ultimately the judiciary especially in the lower courts also turn a blind eye to police corruption.

BUT does the accused ever get a ‘fair hearing’ in Victoria?

For one, it’s not a level ‘paying field’ as it’s two versus one, where the prosecution in the office and the court room (two different ‘persons’) are against you, the accused.

When you (first and foremost) their 'customer' first enter the business called the court, you're greeted with a lie, by the clerk behind the desk.

You are asked how do you wish to plea, where you are told that there are two choices that being guilty or not guilty.

You are being 'sold' a lie, first off the bat the court is being dishonest with you!

You have another choice that they do not want you to know about, as it is not 'beneficial' for the court, that being a plea of "no plea"

See document within the link: How to plea in court

The prosecution also falsely claims that the "Preliminary Brief" that you are supplied with is factually the full brief, contrary to the titled document.

What will they think of next?

Claim that an 'Excel' spreadsheet is an actual warrant? Which has actually been done in court many times before. 

SO, with regards to this ‘alleged’ fair hearing one is to obtain in Victorian courts according to the law, it is stated in Section 24 (1)

“A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. “

The focus in the above paragraph are the words  “independent and impartial”.

Also the Court is to function solely in Crown (the King or Queen) in right of the State of Victoria.

You will see in law or Acts the words “Act to bind Crown” followed by “This Act binds the Crown, not only in right of the State of Victoria..”

A document in the public domain authored by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria states otherwise.

See link to original document: 

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

The document states the following, at the end of the first page:

"Develop, maintain, and enhance key relationships with internal and external stakeholders to influence decision making processes and outcomes critical to the success of MCV, including court staff and judiciary, Court Services Victoria,  and other Victorian government departments."

---

Therefore the Victorian judiciary or rather more accurately the judicature does not function independently nor impartially, where they are influenced for the (financial?) benefit of the businesses for the stakeholders.

Who are these ‘stakeholders’?

The truth is that they are banking and financial services institutions, like Vanguard and BlackRock.

Therefore, will any person obtain a “fair hearing” in Victoria?

Keep in mind that the mainstream media deliberately under reports corruption within the Judicature, where it's through truly brave people labelled as whistleblowers that maybe the authorities can be held accountable, although past events show otherwise.

Should you have some documentation you wish published, then comment on any post with a link to that document where it may be published here without revealing your response i.e. the source link.

No comments: