Security Alert: Bendigo Bank useless against cybercriminals/scammers!

Quite simply put the message is very clear: 

- IF you want to keep your money that’s their bank, take it OUT of Bendigo Bank!

This article is not going to have pages of attached PDFs explaining situations or how cybercriminals or scammers work.

While other banks work around the clock to protect ‘their’ cash that you gave them to be part of billion dollar profits for them, Bendigo Bank doesn’t have any (automated) systems that detect fraudulent activity, until their business day starts, that being at 9am.

So, how can you trust them with your hard earned cash, e.g. superannuation, pension etc.

The answer is - You can’t!

To make matters worse it was not even the Bendigo Bank that detected fraud, but rather the ANZ, which occurred at 3am, so they did NOTHING until it was too late!

Maybe they even outsourced their I.T. infrastructure to the scammer capital of the world, that being India?

From what is understood there are many victims of fraud from the Bendigo Bank, where realistically a class action lawsuit should occur against the bank, where Australia’s corrupt judicial system should not only make orders for compensation, but also the legal fees being fully remunerated .

Let’s see how this gross negligence by the Bendigo Bank fans out.

Bendigo Bank FAILED their customers, and the only way they can’t fail you is if you withdraw all YOUR cash from their premises.

Australia’s governments LOVE criminals (and most importantly - repeat offenders)

The colonialists are (still) in charge of this dumpster fire called Australia.

Some people may be of the opinion that the authorities want to stamp out crime, but that’s not actually correct, as actions speak louder than words.

The federal government’s immigration policy is that it imports criminals into the colony, where they continue to commit criminal activity on this land, where it’s all about the ‘economy’.

Keeping in mind that what's good for the economy, may not be good for the people.

The more criminals, the better for the judicature, i.e. the administration of so called ‘justice’, but that may be not so good for the victims of those criminal activities.

IF or when you go to court, you are a ‘customer’, period.

And that is true even if you do not hire a lawyer.

Let’s just say that if you’ve got a shoe shop, where you’re open 7 days a week, and you have 5 customers per day you may not be making enough profit to stay open from 35 customers per week.

If conditions changed, where you’re guaranteed 70,000 customers for a whole year, then you’d be ‘raking’ it in.

The same goes for the courts and their ‘officers of the court’, that being the lawyer that you hired to represent you.

It is unclear of what the intention of the article was whether is was supposed to make the reader feel sorry for the system or whether it was a brag.

In any event it is not good for the community to have that many (alleged) criminalsin one state, unless they’re all speeding 3km/h over some arbitrary speed limit which changes depending on what some ignorant bureaucrat sees fit the speed limit to be.

The low quality people in Australia’s governments do what serves them the best and not the community at large.

IF the colony’s governments where truly serious about having a low crime rate, then there are a fair few nations on this planet that have perfectly functioning society with very low crime rates, which the colonialists could have modelled this nations laws on, where this action would have been done generations ago.

The judiciary wants/needs repeat ‘customers’ where their court orders reflect this.

Australia has become a low quality low value society, as a result of federal and state government's actions.

Australia, the shithouse colony, "run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise."

Migration Tracker - A City Larger Than Hobart EVERY YEAR

In the United States of America a study was done into a city the (population) side of what Melbourne was a couple of decades ago where it was found that an importation of people more than 700 per week was unsustainable, from an infrastructure/resources point of view.

In Australia, at that time the authorities were allowing immigration from abroad to the tune of approx. 2,500 corporate fodder into Melbourne, alone.

 See: https://www.reviveaus.com/tracker

The authorities have caused austerity on the good people of Australia, by over populating the colony with low quality humans that are of little benefit to Australian society in general, where as a result crime has exponentially risen due to the low quality imports.

 Source:supplied

Dave Hughes UNLOADS on former Premier Dan Andrews

It's been established a long time ago what Australia is, and it's only gotten worse since it was first inked.

In the 1960's, author Donald Horne put pen to paper in his book "The Lucky Country" published in 1964, referring to Australia as the "lucky country".

There are a few problems with this.

First and foremost, the book  "The Lucky Country" was never meant to be a complement about Australia, but rather a dig at the low lives running the place.

His sentence describing Australia, was deliberately misquoted and popularised into pop culture, as an alleged complement about this sun burnt land. 

The full quote is as follows:

“Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people’s ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.”

It's also quite clear that Mr. Horne did not have a quick peruse at the Constitution, which brings up the next point.

Another 'small' technicality, yet quite a significant legal one is that on the second page of the 'original' Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), it is stated that:

"... the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purpose of that Act"

This was the case in 1964 and still is so today, meaning the Imperial Act has not been repealed.

Now that the technicalities are out of the way... or maybe not there is still one more important aspect the general population may not be aware, that being that 'faceless men' run this nation.

The so called 'elected' leaders, meaning "We the people" did not elect, e.g. Mr. Daniel Michael Andrews as a premier of Victoria, nor the current puppet Mr. Benjamin Alan Carroll, but rather the 'faceless men' put the clowns in a 'Punch & Judy' clown show on display.

So here's what Dave Hughes had to say about the hit and run driver which Victoria Police support:

SO, Google censors our posts on YouTube and Google Reviews on corporations.

Let us know in the comments if you cannot see this response:

Census fine about as ‘lawful’ as a Covid fine?

Australia’s authorities are corrupt to the core.

During a normal business day they practice deception, coercion, intimidation, fear of incarceration, but most importantly pressure you, the serfs into submission, or rather ‘consent’.

Australia’s governments, federal state/territorial are also human rights abusers, where they truly do not care unless it becomes public knowledge headed for the courts, but that topic is for another day.

So, during ‘Covid’, across Australia the authorities had no lawfully (as opposed to ‘legally') enacted ‘instrument’ to issue a covid related fine, but they still did anyway, preying on the ignorance of the general population.

Heavily monitoring social media during this time, once the authorities figured out that people were aware how to successfully challenge the lawfulness (under Section 78B, of the Judiciary Act 1903), they started to drop or withdraw the person’s fine.

SO, now as similarly with the Covid situation, the mainstream media is reporting that failure to comply with the Census will result in a 'huge'* fine.

First and foremost, as with ANY 'fine' or rather allegation of wrongdoing/criminal activity, the burden of proof is on the accuser, period.

You, the plebs/serfs/general population are told that if you lie or skip the census, you ‘could’ face a fine of up to $3640 AND $364 per day it goes incomplete.

(Show us the 'lawfully' enacted instrument for the fine, as opposed to a legal statute).

Therefore such a ‘*cruel and unusual punishment’ MUST be challenged in the appropriate court under a ‘question of law’, that being a Section 78B, where the burden of proof is on this business called the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

An important aspect is also to consider, is that did your ‘person’ get lawfully notified?

Merely stating the the ABS is enacted under the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975 is zero proof of its lawfulness.

Subpoena the head of power for that Act, or even write an FOI to the government for this, and put your response on social media.

If it is stated that your ‘person’ is lying, how is this information obtained?

It must be proven that you 'lied', where just merely one ‘cannot remember’ like (Victorian premier Daniel) Andrews stated on the public record, is sufficient as in the Andrews example.

There are a few other intricacies that need to be dealt with, where is it advisable to obtain the ‘correct’ legal information prior to the matter being brought before the courts.

From the information that has been obtained, the federal government is not acting ‘lawfully’ for not only carrying out the census, but also implementing fines on those who do not participate.

What is certain also, that this is another con job by the government.

Keep in mid that they SOLD 'your' data in a previous census.

Can a department 'lawfully' sell your data for profit, and if so, where is this stated in a 'lawfully' enacted instrument?

In their 'spam' letter, to you, the ABS or rather Jenny Telford states that "The Census is compulsory*", where the asterisk points to a privacy website link, which the nothing to do with proving that it is "compulsory".

A typical gaslighting tactic by the governments of Australia.

Warning! Revolut wins Australian banking licence. Don't use it as it's not safe nor secure!

Just because a corporation is allowed to trade in Australia does not mean that it's good for the people.

It may be good for 'business' but not necessarily for the 'consumer' or corporate fodder.

Revolut is apparently Europe's largest private financial technology company started by Nik Storonsky and Vladimir Yatsenko.

Nik Storonsky is the chief executive of Revolut

From industry sources, it runs on Android 9 with no security patches since 2018, where this no way any sane person should do banking with their app.

Prior to conducting any banking on a mobile platform the system must be up to date with security patches in order to mitigate any threats or exploits.

For a few years, GrapheneOS has been the most secure Android mobile phone operating system, period.

So much so that the Israeli based Cellebrite phone hacking tool cannot penetrate an up to date GrapheneOS based phone in the BFU (Before First Unlock) state.

Revolut previously did run on GrapheneOS but has recently stopped its app from being run, citing security reasons, yet they allow it to run on a mobile phone operating system, where security updates stopped in 2018, or 8 years ago.

It's quite clear that this corporation does not have the best security practices in play, where they should not be trusted with you data or cash, irrespective of their previous financial performance.

Revolut is based in Lithuania, so when/if things go awry, then good luck getting your money out from within their app.

Buyer beware!

Edit:

See complaint from a user:

Good morning,

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding Revolut's apparent ongoing rollout of changes to its Android application which prevent, or will prevent, the app from operating on devices running GrapheneOS.

My understanding is that this change is currently being rolled out to only a proportion of users. It has not affected my account yet, but reports from other users indicate that Revolut is testing or progressively deploying this restriction. I am therefore raising this complaint now, before I am potentially locked out of access to my bank account.

I object to this decision in the strongest possible terms for several reasons.

1. GrapheneOS is not an insecure or compromised operating system

The restriction does not appear simply to be identifying genuinely insecure devices. GrapheneOS has specifically reported Revolut detecting and rejecting GrapheneOS devices.

This distinction matters.

GrapheneOS is a security- and privacy-focused Android operating system designed specifically for supported Google Pixel devices. It retains verified boot and supports a locked bootloader, while adding substantial security hardening beyond standard Android.

Blocking such a device merely because it does not run Google's stock operating system is not a meaningful assessment of whether that device is secure.

To use a simple analogy, it is rather like an insurance company refusing to insure a house because the customer's front-door lock is too secure.

If Revolut genuinely requires device integrity verification, GrapheneOS provides mechanisms by which applications can perform hardware-backed attestation and verify legitimate GrapheneOS installations. A blanket refusal to support the operating system is therefore neither the only nor, in my view, the most sensible security option available.

2. The policy produces an absurd security contradiction

Revolut currently supports Android versions going back many years.

This means that the Revolut application may operate on an old Android phone which is no longer receiving current operating-system security patches, while refusing to operate on a modern Google Pixel running an actively maintained, security-hardened version of Android.

It is very difficult to reconcile those two positions with an assertion that this restriction is necessary for customer security.

A modern Pixel running an up-to-date GrapheneOS installation with verified boot and a locked bootloader is clearly not inherently less secure simply because the operating system is not Google's stock Pixel firmware.

Security decisions should be based upon the actual security properties and integrity of a device, rather than an arbitrary list of approved operating-system vendors.

3. Revolut has apparently provided no viable alternative means of accessing my money

I have already contacted Revolut customer support regarding this issue.

I was advised that, should my device become unsupported, I could either use Revolut's web application or use another mobile phone.

Neither suggestion provides a reasonable solution.

Firstly, the web application itself requires authentication using the Revolut mobile application. If Revolut deliberately prevents that application from running on my device, telling me to use a website which requires approval from the application I can no longer use is circular and plainly does not solve the problem.

Secondly, I was effectively advised that I could obtain or borrow another person's phone, install Revolut on it, and log into my bank account there.

I find it extraordinary that this can seriously be proposed as the more secure alternative.

Revolut would apparently prefer me to enter my banking credentials and establish access to my account on a friend's device — a device over which I have no long-term control and whose security I cannot independently establish — rather than allow me to use my own modern Pixel with a locked bootloader and a security-focused operating system.

That appears directly contrary to the stated security objective of this change.

4. This risks depriving an existing customer of practical access to their bank account

This is not merely a question of whether Revolut chooses to support an optional feature on a particular platform.

I am an existing customer. I receive my salary into Revolut, use it as a significant part of my everyday banking arrangements, and pay for a Metal subscription.

Revolut has encouraged customers to treat its service as their bank. It is therefore entirely reasonable for customers to expect that Revolut will not deliberately remove their primary means of accessing their accounts without providing a genuinely functional alternative.

If Revolut introduces a technical restriction which it knows will prevent an existing customer from using the application, while its alternative web interface itself depends upon that application for authentication, that raises a much more serious question of effective access to the customer's financial services.

I should not be forced to purchase and carry a second mobile telephone solely because Revolut has chosen to reject a secure operating system which my existing hardware is perfectly capable of running.

Resolution requested

I would therefore like Revolut to:

confirm whether it intends to block, directly or indirectly, correctly installed GrapheneOS devices from accessing the Revolut application;

reconsider this policy and implement an appropriate method of supporting GrapheneOS, including hardware-backed device attestation where Revolut considers integrity verification necessary;

confirm that existing customers will not be deprived of access to their accounts solely because they use GrapheneOS on an otherwise supported device with a locked bootloader; and

if Revolut nevertheless intends to impose this restriction, provide a fully functional method of accessing and administering a Revolut account which does not itself require authorisation from the mobile application that Revolut has chosen to block.

I would also appreciate an explanation of the security rationale for permitting the application to operate on older Android devices which may no longer receive security updates while rejecting a current, supported Pixel running a hardened Android operating system.

Please treat this correspondence as a formal complaint, rather than general product feedback, and provide me with Revolut's formal written response.

If Revolut proceeds with this restriction without providing a reasonable means for affected customers to continue accessing their accounts, or if I do not receive a satisfactory response to this complaint, I intend to refer the matter to the Bank of Lithuania, as the competent out-of-court dispute resolution authority identified in Revolut Bank UAB's terms for Maltese customers. I will also consider seeking assistance through the Maltese Office of the Arbiter for Financial Services and the FIN-NET cross-border consumer complaints framework where appropriate.

I sincerely hope escalation will not be necessary. I have been a loyal Revolut customer for years and have been sufficiently satisfied with the service to entrust Revolut with my salary payments and pay for a Metal subscription. That makes it particularly disappointing to face the prospect of being arbitrarily excluded from my own banking application despite using a modern and demonstrably security-focused device.

I would much prefer Revolut to address the underlying technical issue properly rather than force otherwise satisfied customers to choose between replacing their operating system, purchasing an unnecessary second phone, or moving their banking elsewhere.

I look forward to your formal response.

Kind regards,

See response from Revolut:

     Source:supplied

Australia's corrupt legal system, deliberately against you from the get go:- Unchecked and untouchable: the judicial watchdog answering to no one

The colony's Anglo-Masonic set up legal system, is (deliberately) against the 'serfs' or plebs or general population, but it helps those within the brotherhood.

Corruption is rife within all the states and territories of this nation, where upon the setup of this colony, the original so called police force was not made up of of 'honourable' persons, but rather criminals.

Over the generations it has become a well oiled machine of corruption, that is difficult to the Joe (Below) Average to comprehend, just the way the authorities want it to be.

One of the most important aspects of today's society is that the mainstream media is allowed to report what the so called authorities allow them to put into print. 

What The Australian is allowed to inform the masses is the following:

This is a story about how a group of lawyers, most of them judges, who sit on the Judicial Commission of NSW hold other judges to account.

It’s done mostly in secret, using highly subjective and uncertain criteria, and the end result is shrouded in darkness. Even after a finding is made against a judge, the law says the commission will not make that finding public. It is a criminal offence for anyone at the Judicial Commission to utter a word about these findings. This is a very bad law.

It’s only when a finding against a judge is referred to what is called the conduct division of the commission that a sliver of sunlight shines on the commission’s work.

This means that there is a category of findings against sitting judges by the commission that we will never know about. This secrecy means we can’t know about a judge’s alleged misbehaviour on the bench, as decided by the commission. It also means we can’t judge the judges for their findings against other judges – findings that are set in stone, leaving a secret but permanent black mark against a sitting judge.

When a finding is made against a judge, even if it is not referred up to the conduct division, there are often consequences for the sitting judge. Anywhere from a grovelling apology to the head of their court to a stint in re-education camp. Or both, and more. We kid you not. And all of this happens far away from the public eye.

This secrecy invites serious questions, starting with: What does the NSW Judicial Commission have to hide? Could it be that this body is using its position as apex judicial predator to impose some form of ideological purity on judges? We are also entitled to ask about those who make the complaint that kicks off these findings. The relevant legislation allows any person to make a complaint. It doesn’t have to be a party to the court matter but can be any officious bystander – even someone who has a grudge against a judge or is acting as an ideological vigilante. Many complaints are tossed out, but not all of them.

On that note, this is also a story about how apprehended violence orders are not always used for their intended purpose.

Protecting women (and men) from the evil scourge of domestic violence should be one of society’s highest priorities. It’s why there is a system in place for police and the courts, depending on the state or territory, to issue AVOs. It’s why we have new laws against coercive control that police and the courts take very seriously.

NSW chief prosecutor Sally Dowling. Picture: John Feder/The Australian

Two things can be true at once. Despite the important purpose of AVOs and other similar orders, Inquirer has been told about rising concerns that AVOs are being used not as a form of protection but as something entirely different – and improper. Lawyers who work in family law have told Inquirer that it is not uncommon for women to use applications for AVOs as strategic tools to gain legal advantage in messy family law disputes.

This means there is a category of victims that get very little attention. Anecdotal evidence suggests they are mostly men whose liberties and rights are restricted when a bogus allegation of apprehended violence leads to an AVO.

Most concerning, these victims are prevented from seeing their children because of the lie. This sets off other lasting consequences for families. Once a father has been successfully prevented from seeing their children for a period, family law will often favour the status quo when deciding parenting orders, meaning the mother benefits permanently even if the basis for the AVO was false. There is also a provision in the Family Law Act that means AVOs and similar orders are taken into account in property settlements.

The use of AVOs for legal advantage is not uncommon because there are no penalties, in reality, for women who lie about being in fear of violence. Worse, there are concerns that some lawyers are advising their female clients to apply for an AVO with no evidence of apprehended violence simply to gain legal advantage.

These two stories are troubling in their own right. When they collided last year, the result was even more disturbing.

 

District Court judge Peter Whitford, who have accused NSW chief prosecutor Sally Dowling of running meritless rape cases over the past 18 months.

In a NSW local court last year, a couple whose relationship ended several months earlier were fighting over an interim AVO against the husband, the father of the couple’s two small children. Before the court case, the couple had agreed to a shared parenting arrangement. That ended soon after the woman applied for an AVO. Police issued an interim AVO to protect the woman and the children.

When the matter came to court last year, local court judge Roger Clisdell had a formal application in front of him that said the woman “attended … police station to report a history of coercive control and other behaviours by the defendant with an escalation in behaviour since their separation … The matter remains with police and is pending investigation.”

The identity of both parties are on the court record but Inquirer has chosen not to name them. This story is about a system open to abuse.

There were suggestions in court that the mother had agreed to consent to the children being removed from the AVO so the father could see the children according to the couple’s shared custody arrangement. But she changed her mind, opposing any variation to the AVO to stop the father seeing his children. The question for Judge Clisdell was this: What evidence was there to warrant a variation to the AVO so that the father could see his two young kids?

According to the transcript, the policeman in court appearing on behalf of the mother, acknowledged that the AVO application provided “quite scant detail”.

Running to just 8½ lines, the application claiming “a history of coercive control” said the father “has begun to contact her employer to negatively impact her mental and financial wellbeing”.

“She is extremely fearful of retribution and a further escalation in behaviour for reporting the incident to police.”

Before deciding the matter, Judge Clisdell said: “I can think why (the children) are on the order (for an interim AVO), it’s called a tactical approach in family law matters … It’s not uncommon, and I’ve been saying it for most of the time I’ve been on the bench, which is coming up for 18 years now, that tactical AVOs were very common when I practised in family law back in the 1980s, 90s and early 2000s, and this has all the hallmarks on what’s alleged. They’ve separated, they’ve got (shared) custody and suddenly, she starts saying, ‘Oh, there’s coercive control and l want the children not to go near him’.”

According to the transcript, the judge also said the court would give the mother “the opportunity of saying what the urgency is in relation to the children”.

The transcript does not show what else the judge apparently said. Inquirer has been told by a person who was in the local court that day that Judge Clisdell added caveats about the specific case he was hearing in addition to his general observation about the misuse of AVOs.

The person recalls the judge saying “I might be wrong” and “there may be something I don’t know about and we’ll find out”.

The woman gave evidence later that day. She offered little detail about her fears of psychological harm. Importantly, when asked, she said: “I have no fears of physical harm.”

The judge decided there was not enough evidence to stop the father seeing the children. “These are always difficult situations,” Judge Clisdell said. Referring to the shared custody, he said: “I have got to somehow restore that at this stage because there is no physical threat to the children and though there is some concern about psychological harm, these (interim) orders are primarily designed to provide protection from violence.”

NSW Chief Justice Andrew Bell. Picture: John Feder/The Australian

A person in court that day – not one of the parties – complained to the NSW Judicial Commission about Judge Clisdell’s comments about tactical AVOs. Inquirer understands that in April this year the commission upheld that complaint, although it did not think the matter warranted a referral to the conduct division.

Still, Inquirer has been told it is common for the commission to demand something akin to re-education camp for judges they reprimand, overseen by the relevant head of jurisdiction.

Was this Judge Clisdell’s fate? Neither he nor the Chief Judge of the Local Court of NSW, Michael Allen, or the NSW Judicial Commission will say. In fact, each of them declined to answer any of Inquirer’s questions. So much for open justice when it comes to the secretive work of the NSW Judicial Commission.

Interestingly, when the dispute about the AVO returned to the local court this year, police withdrew the AVO. It is not unreasonable to wonder whether that was done for lack of evidence once the investigation had been completed.

Nor is it unreasonable to ask the follow-up question: Was Judge Clisdell correct to point out that AVOs are sometimes used for tactical reasons?

It’s a pity the NSW Judicial Commission, a body headed by NSW Supreme Court Chief Justice Andrew Bell, was so keen to shoot the messenger that it didn’t bother to wait for the final outcome of the AVO.

Canberra-based Anthony Williamson SC regularly appears in complex AVO matters in NSW. Picture: Keegan Carroll / The Canberra Times

Canberra-based Anthony Williamson SC regularly appears in complex AVO matters in NSW and in similar matters involving their equivalent, called family violence orders, in the ACT. He says AVOs and FVOs are important tools in preventing harm and violence against vulnerable people.

“However, the critical question is not whether AVOs/FVOs should be available; rather, the question is whether the current system has struck the correct balance, and whether it currently causes too much collateral damage to innocent parties in the pursuit of protecting those who genuinely need protection.”

The respected barrister says most legal practitioners who work in this area will readily acknowledge that “tactical AVOs/FVOs are commonly sought to advance a litigant’s case in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia”.

“Abuse of the system is widespread,” Williamson tells Inquirer. He says most lawyers “muse over how AVOs/FVOs are dished out by the courts like confetti”.

According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 67,319 apprehended domestic violence orders were made from July 2023 to June 2024, a 40 per cent increase from the 48,241 orders made from July 2019 to June 2020.

These orders are critical tools to protect those who fear domestic violence, but Williamson says an interim AVO or FVO can be obtained on the most slender evidentiary basis.

“The rules of evidence are often not applied to such proceedings, meaning all manner of untested hearsay and opinion evidence can be admitted against a respondent … resulting in parents having their children taken from them, or people being kicked out of the home they own with nowhere else to go, without having an opportunity to first be heard in court.”

Williamson has seen how the “status quo” principle in the family law system means that the courts are slow to disrupt existing child custody arrangements, which are already in place when a case first comes before it. “By obtaining an interim AVO/FVO which prohibits one parent from having contact with their children, the other parent automatically has a head start in the (family law) litigation.”

‘Even when police officers privately believe the complainant may be untruthful or embellishing, they are often too scared to call out this behaviour … They then proceed with an AVO application or lay criminal charges anyway’

The top silk says there is an “unfortunate misunderstanding” among police, local court judges and magistrates about what coercive control is and is not.

“There is substantial guidance from superior courts that the mere fact of there being arguments or disagreements, even spirited ones, is not coercive control.”

Yet Williamson says AVOs and FVOs are frequently made on this misconceived basis alone.

“Even when police officers privately believe the complainant may be untruthful or embellishing, they are often too scared to call out this behaviour, afraid of being criticised as having antiquated attitudes to domestic violence. They then proceed with an AVO application or lay criminal charges anyway.

“I have been involved in both AVO/FVO and criminal cases where the complainant has positively been proved to have made false allegations, lied to the police or court, and perverted the course of justice, only for police to refuse to take any action.”

Williamson says authorities don’t act because they argue “it sends the wrong message” to real victims and might have a chilling effect on them coming forward. Williamson disagrees.

“Genuine victims who are telling the truth have nothing to fear in coming forward,” he says.

“One can be committed to protecting people from domestic violence while at the same time insist on sufficiently cogent evidence in any given case before profoundly life-changing orders are made.”

Williamson says the problems are exacerbated by the fact even the most obviously innocent respondent to an AVO/FVO will usually have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to defend the matter in court and is unlikely to recover their real costs.

Williamson, who has appeared before Judge Clisdell, says the local court judge, who has been on the bench for more than 18 years, is well regarded by legal practitioners.

“He is well known for his direct and no-nonsense approach. He has an ability to see through all the fluff and white noise in a matter and quickly identify what the real issues are.”

The NSW Judicial Commission took a different view when Judge Clisdell exposed to the public what lawyers and other judges know: that AVOs are commonly used for tactical advantage in family law matters.

The commission’s secret censure of Judge Clisdell continues a disturbing practice where this body uses its wide and vague statutory powers, along with its secrecy provisions, to try to enforce a form of ideological uniformity on judges.

Though the numbers of these secret censures are not high, the message to other judges in the tight legal industry is unmistakeable, and the pattern equally clear.

District Court judge Robert Newlinds was castigated by the commission after he called for “lazy and perhaps politically ­exped­ient” referrals of baseless rape accusations to the court to stop. Judge Newlinds was taken off criminal cases, with the commission holding that he should return only after a stint of counselling and when chief judge of the District Court Sarah Huggett “considers it appropriate to do so”.

Newlinds was one of five judges, including District Court judge Peter Whitford, who have accused NSW chief prosecutor Sally Dowling of running meritless rape cases over the past 18 months. After Dowling complained, Judge Whitford incurred the wrath of the Judicial Commission too.

Last month, Federal Court judge Ian Jackman publicly expressed concerns about this pattern. “It saddens me that the Judicial Commission appears to have been used as a way of enforcing uniformity of opinions when the opinion, which was being expressed by the judge … seemed to me an entirely justifiable opinion to hold,” Justice Jackman told the Rule of Law Institute annual dinner. The judge was talking about what happened to Judge Newlinds and Judge Whitford. We can now add Judge Clisdell to the targets of a doctrinaire Judicial Commission.

While its procedural principles recall historical forerunners such as the Star Chamber, a closer precedent for the Judicial Commission may be the Spanish Inquisition.

The commission looks for all the world like a modern Tomas de Torquemada forcing ideological orthodoxy on judges who are simply trying to warn the public about legal injustices.

These Police TRICKS Work on Everyone in Australia Unless You SAY THIS (One Sentence)

The colony's police forces are corrupt, which is a matter of fact and not speculation.

Quite simply put MANY motorists get deceived by police either on the road or in the courtroom.

In the courtroom police also have the support of magistrates and/or even judges.

See explanation by Benny Brown in his approx 20min video:

You can cross reference what Benny says in this clip for the state you live in.

EDIT:

Wed 26 August 2026.

It has been noticed today, that the video was removed from YouTube.

In fact ALL of 'Benny Brown''s content has been removed:

Australian Census 2026 - Another Government Farce?

Right now the federal (or feral, as we like to call it) government is advertising for the people to participate in an action in business/commerce/trade called the Census.

The excuse is that it needs to know certain things about you, but in reality, this is false and/or misleading information as they already have all this information through something called ‘surveillance capitalism’, from your electronic devices where they 'just' need you to confirm it.

If the government is advertising for you (the general population) to do something, you should realise it’s dodgy.

The most important aspect about this action is that a fundamental question needs to be asked:

• Is the ABS request for your information ‘lawful’?

The short answer is no, but that should come as no surprise or shock, as many actions by state or federal governments in this colony are not lawful, where they may be ‘legal’ but not necessarily lawful.

Remember a previous time when they sold your data and YOU (the stakeholder) received zero financial compensation?

Well they’re going to do it again.

At the end of the business day, the Census is another farce the authoritarian state wants you to participate in.

See other articles on this topic:

Australia's Census fail - You did not have to fill it in?

Census a failure admits the Australian government.

I don't trust ABS with my personal data: ex-ABS staffer

Australian Bureau of Statistics sells YOUR data for $41 million

Letter from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for census not a lawful request

What is Australia 101: Still a (penal) colony?

MANY people get it wrong what this land mass called Australia is factually at law.

If your so called 'legal representative' has got it wrong, maybe you need another one?

It may be seen as an island or even a continent, but that’s really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Some may call it a republic of the CCP (Chinese ‘Commie’ Party) according to the actions of a state so called ‘leader’ (or rather premier puppet, who runs over under aged persons AND gets away with it, with the help of corrupt police, oopsie, that’s another topic for another article) by the name of Daniel Michael Andrews.

It can be seen as a fascist state that would make Mussolini (and his mate, Adolf) proud.

It’s part of the top tier of global surveillance that being the Five Eyes (FVEY) ‘Anglosphere’  network, where the Five Eyes ‘Anglosphere’ does not answer to the known laws of its own countries, as exposed by Edward Snowden.

Over decades, Australian law makers have put in law, say for example at 2am or during major sporting events that that turned the nation into a totalitarian state, where realistically democracy has been thrown under a bus, or more politely put; into a museum in Canberra (MOAD), where things of the past, that are no longer current reside, like dinosaur bones and fossils, etc.

So let’s get into the ‘meat and potatoes’ of this story, where at law Australia is a colony, albeit a self-governing one, as seen in paragraph 8 of the second page of the Constitution.

See excerpt below:

And with the colonialists in charge, 'Penal Colony Policies' apply. 

Moira Deeming a LIAR, should be removed from office! #Headlockgate

Australia is FULL, of low quality ‘persons’ in politics, period.

Ms. Deeming came to the top of the cesspool, as she made false accusations against another politician Mr. Matthew Guy, accusing him of a headlock.

After police reviewed the camera footage of the ALLEGED ‘assault’ they saw no criminal action or even an action according to her so called description, hence no charges were ever laid.

In order to gaslight the population, Ms. Deeming then lied that she misunderstood the term headlock.

illustration of a headlock at ground level

ANY person who grew up or went to primary or secondary school in Australia, which Ms Deeming did, would be aware of the ‘real’ action associated with the term headlock, therefore the public accusation against Mr. Guy is deliberately false.

Australia’s parliaments have too many low quality person siphoning from the public purse, where taxpayers pay dearly for this 'joke'.

At the end of the business day, there should be an action analogous to the US’s ‘drain the swamp’, but as we know there will never be such action in this (penal) colony. 

Also at the end of the day, she should be charged for making false accusations, where too many women get away with this type of action against men, but that is another topic outside the scope of this article.

Opinion:supplied.

Lawyers Will Be FORCED to Report You Starting Tomorrow

From 1 July 2026, Australia’s AML/CTF regime expands and the people you trust with some of your most private affairs may now have new reporting obligations.

Lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, conveyancers and other professionals may be required to report suspicious matters to AUSTRAC. And because of the tipping off rules, they may not be allowed to tell you if they have done so.

This video explains what is changing, why it matters, and why this is not just a boring compliance update. It goes to something much deeper: trust, legal privilege, professional obligations, and the way power expands quietly through paperwork.

The key issue is not whether the stated purpose is serious. Money laundering, organised crime and terrorism financing are real problems. The issue is what happens when the system designed to catch serious criminals is built into ordinary professional relationships.

Because a dragnet does not only catch the people it was aimed at.

This is general legal information and commentary only. It is not personal legal advice. If you are concerned about your own situation, speak to a lawyer or qualified professional before the changes come into effect.

See explanation by JamesGlissanOfficial within his short video of the title:

Lawyers Will Be FORCED to Report You Starting Tomorrow:

Australia is still a [penal] colony, ruled by the colonialists.

It's basically Alcatraz v2, where you still can leave today if you desire so.

How corporations get away with paedophilia and omit age verification

Governments are giving corporations a free pass to host material that can put the children (of the cannon fodder) in danger, contrary to their actions against the general population.

‘Age verification’ has been setup by shell corporations of Meta, in order to disassociate the onus from the ‘social media’ giants, where governments are following along with this.

The global policy to enact age verification started in the (penal) colony called Australia, under the false premise to ‘protect the children’.

In reality the action is used to hoover as much information as possible on a person that is connected to the internet, to be later used against that person.

People have too many ‘freedoms’ (e.g. of speech) on the internet and this must be kerbed by governments and corporations 

An operating system (either mobile or personal computer) that may not even be connected to the internet, must now be subject to age verification and even content scanning, to allegedly keep the children ‘safe’.

Source: https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/which-platforms-are-age-restricted

Even though Facebook and Instagram are Meta’s ‘assets’ that are age-restricted social media platforms, at face value, other Meta assets Messenger and WhatApp are given free reign.

WhatApps is considered a ‘social media’ platform, yet it’s immune from ‘age-restriction’ law in Australia.

Roblox, facing over 150 child abuse cases,  needs them moved out of the courtroom, as it does not want the instances on ‘public record’.

What’s worse is that once you enter into an agreement to use Roblox, you forfeit any ability to pursue lawsuits in an open court.

How is that even allowed by the lawmakers?

Discord is also dodgy.

Keep in mind that's it's not about the safety of the children [of the serfs], but rather stifling people's alleged right to 'free speech' on the internet.

No one taking action on the Epstein Files?

No one going to prison for paedophilia?

No one releasing the FULL data cache?

In any event, the Epstein Files are a farce, as the statue of limitations has expired for many victims to obtain a so called 'remedy'.

Microsoft removes article about Australia’s migrant intake

(https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/targets-and-tests-firm-up-for-migrants-under-budget/ar-AA2325gN)

Australia’s government, in relation to this topic, that being the federal (or as we put it ‘feral’)  government, really hates the ‘good’ people of Australia as it’s evident in their actions.

Immigration into Australia is a hot topic over the past couple of generations where it wouldn’t be IF the government did right by the Australian people.

The government created the 'housing crisis' by over-importing immigrants, period.

And that's just one of the issues that is hurting the 'good' people of Australia in all states and territories.

Over the decades the government has decided to import the world’s trash into the colony, basically low value, low quality humans, including criminals and terrorists.

Importing criminals is bad for the population at large, but good for the corrupt courts and judiciary, keeping the Anglo-masonic wheels of injustice turning. 

So the federal government deliberately created a problem for society, and the people are supposed to believe that the government will remedy this?

Yeah, Nah!

Maybe that's why the article was deleted, because it's all BS?

Melbourne is not ‘the most liveable city’ as according to corporate lies, but rather most unsafe capital city in Australia, no thanks to our illustrious governments (both state and ‘feral’).

If you’re a criminal in Victoria or even Australia whose actions are supported, then you’ve got it made, but if you allegedly drive 3km/h over the allowed limit the police will hunt you for years to come.

In any event this is text from the article that ‘Micoslop’ removed from their ‘news’ site:

A push for fewer, more skilled migrants and a more robust migration system has been outlined in the 2026/27 federal budget.

SKILLED migrants already onshore are set to benefit from changes to how Australia processes arrivals from overseas, the federal budget reveals.

Of the 185,000 places allocated for permanent migrants, more than 70 per cent of those will be skilled workers.

Migrants already in Australia will also make up more than two-thirds of those allowed to stay, with the offshore applicants having to jostle for the remaining 55,000 visas dedicated to high-skilled individuals.

The measure will place downward pressure on net overseas migration, according to 2026/27 budget documents released on Tuesday night.

Most permanent skilled migrants are examined by a points test to determine their likely contribution to Australian society. 

That test will be optimised to “select better educated, highly skilled and younger migrants overall,” according to budget papers.

About $85.2 million will also be allocated over the next four years to help speed up the assessment and licensing of foreigners with overseas qualifications – such as electricians and plumbers – to work in Australia.

The budget also set aside $74.2 million for court systems to combat misuse of the protection visa system, and about $20 million to better scrutinising applicants for student visas.

These form part of a four-year, $167 million package to strengthen the migration system’s integrity.

The application fee for graduates seeking temporary visas doubled in March, a move expected to attract an additional $1.2 billion into federal coffers.

Labor has faced mounting pressure from One Nation and the coalition to put a lid on migration to reduce housing demand and ease burdens on services.

Support for One Nation swelled to new heights in the months after the Bondi massacre, with Pauline Hanson tying overseas arrivals to fraying social cohesion.

In April, federal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor also proposed imposing values tests and scouring the social media accounts of foreigners wishing to move to Australia.

'Telstra' scam email - Governments and corporations failing to keep us ‘safe’.

MANY people, especially those that are victims of a corrupt legal/judicial system, will say that “the system is broken”, but that is far from the truth.

The system is deliberately ‘broken’, unless of course you owe an alleged debt to state authorities or the taxation department.

Make no mistake that the system is not broken, but rather it’s functioning quite perfectly, the way they have intended it to.

A global deception that is going around at the moment in the ‘online’ world is something called ‘age-verification’ where the authorities allege that it’s in place so that the children (of the cannon fodder) are protected.

The uncomfortable reality is that governments do not care about the children of the slaves, but rather about controlling and monitoring society with this latest farce.

With regards to internet traffic, Australia has all sorts of DNS filters, firewalls, etc which moderate what content people can see or comes into Australia.

You may not be able to 'consume' content under DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, US law), but corporations are allowed to 'steal' your (copyrighted) content.

Phishing emails like the one shown below can also be stopped with a simple ban of the domain name within the email.

So why isn't it done?

Because realistically, the people in government do not give a stuff about the serf's trials and tribulations.

As long as the people in government are looked after, is all that matters at the end of the business day.

Livin' the life in a (penal) colony.  

King’s Birthday - No Crown, Not a King - Another legal farce in Australia!

Australia is a legal clown show and the motherland sees it as a complete basket case.

It [the colony’s governments] cannot even agree on a single national unified date for a monarch’s celebratory birthday, so what does that tell you about the clown colony?

In most states it’s the 8th of June, but then in other states it’s September or even October.

So, there is another farce that is introduced to the colony’s population, that being a title called the “King of Australia”.

It maybe a legal title, just like the preceding Monarch’s ‘Queen of Australia’, but it certainly is NOT a lawful one, just like the preceding Monarch’s.

BUT, the amusing aspect of all this is that they’re actually telling people that there is no ‘King’ quite simply in the minted coin.

No crown on Charlie? Isn't he supposed to be a 'King'? Why is he facing the other way?

MOST IMPORTANTLY, this is also supported within a legal document from the Australian Government’s, Attorney-General’s Department dated 20 October 2022

See document from 2022 within the post:

King’s Birthday, but is there a ‘King’ of Australia?

See also FOI documents within the post:

King of Australia. No legal instrument to create one. Questions deliberately unanswered!

ALSO, see in a Freedom of Information response the author attempted to reveal the identity of the Queen who New South Wales Police officers swear their oath to. Section 5 of the NSW Constitution Act 1902 provides law making parameters for the legislator of New South Wales. Part 2 of the State Constitution provides for the Powers of the Legislator within the Constitution Watch site under the article title:

Will the real King please stand up?

Documents source:Constitution Watch

VicPol Files: Evidence tampered with that incriminates police - GONE!

The businesses known as Courts collude with the state’s and territory’s police forces in order to cover up criminal or dishonest activities of either entity.

At the end of the business day, it’s more common than people think, where magistrates (judicial registrars, judges et al) generally turn a blind eye to the ‘dishonest’ and even illegal behaviour of their ‘brethren’ in the force.

Sometimes the judiciary behaves and allows a defendant a so called ‘win’, but at what cost, as generally that does not come easy.

Real journalism is dead in Australia, it died a while ago, where there are no longer real ‘investigative’ journalists but rather (social media) flogs that skew articles towards a particular agenda, as dictated by editors and others of positions in power.

GONE are the days where there would be real ‘court’ reporters, drawing the attention of the public to matters that would be in the ‘public interest’.

Sure ‘news’ media or rather entertainment corporations may tell readers that they have a ‘court reporter’ but that is just an honorary title, irrespective of the person’s previous work.

A matter in the public interest, has been brought before a Victorian court, where in reality Victoria Police is a vexatious litigant and most importantly does not come to court with clean hands.

What's worse is that Victoria Police was caught out, falsifying evidence and even being caught out 'on the record'.

BUT, when it came to cross-examining this evidence, it mysteriously went missing.

Even if VicPol get caught out and the public get wind of it, they generally go on a taxpayer funded holiday.

This is not a failure of the system, but rather the system is deliberately designed to function the way it does.

Unfortunately more details for example whether the matter is afoot or has already been dealt with cannot be revealed as the source would be exposed, and as we should know their life would be made very 'uncomfortable', to say the least.

This is just one example of the Australia's legal business is one huge con job on the 'accused' or realistically anyone participating in purchasing an order from the courts.

Long live the (Stasi) police state of Victoria!

   

Never ever trust police and always have in 'independent' witness at your disposal.