Victoria Police search powers unlawful! Corrupt police & government MUST be prosecuted!

Briefly,

In their respective states and territories, Australians no longer live in a democracy but rather a corrupt police state that is unlawfully enabled by parliament.

The colony called Australia is a Human Rights abuser both abroad and domestically, where this was more evident from 2020 onwards, BUT this is rarely called out by the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal system.

This instance, the Melbourne CBD ‘random’ search powers is not an isolated case of terrorism against the general population but rather deliberate systemic abuse of the general population.

The corrupt judicature deliberately hides too many cases of abuse by police, by either concealing the case files, ‘enticing’ persons to sign NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements), otherwise compensation will not be given or just plain and simply the registrars or the ‘gatekeepers’  not allowing matters to be brought before the courts against police.

Over the past decade successful claims have doubled against Victoria Police, by those who have chosen to sue VicPol, and did not decide to delegate their abuse into the ‘too hard basket’, meaning that corruption by VicPol is rife and they cannot be trusted.

Victoria Police have been given just as many powers as the Gestapo in 1930s Germany and how well did that go for the people?

People’s rights are being diminished and destroyed by a corrupt government and it’s only going to get worse, for the plebs.

The authorities deliberately create an environment that allegedly requires “reasonably necessary” action that is analogous to Nazi occupied Germany.

Within the Federal Court of Australia, in the matter of Browne v Assistant Commissioner of Police, North West Region [2026] FCA15, on the date of judgement of 23rd of January 2026, the Court struck down the six month police search powers.

In the judgment, the Court made it clear that the powers were unlawful and incompatible with fundamental rights, including the rights to privacy, freedom of movement, and peaceful assembly.

These are NOT just minor oversights, they are core protections that underpin a functioning democracy.

The lawmakers that enabled this including the Premier of Victoria, must be brought before the courts for charges against human rights, and realistically removed from their positions.

Keep in mind that you are not lawfully bound to answer any questions in initial interactions with  police.

In whichever predicament you many find yourself in, many questions from an officer may seem to be benign, BUT their main objective is for you to incriminate yourself, therefore as mentioned by Ray Shoesmith in ‘Mr. Inbeteen’, “I do not answer questions”.

Machete ban a LIE? See Governor in Council Exemption Order

A Governor in Council Exemption Order exists where the Governor of Victoria, in consultation with relevant ministers, determines to permit a class of persons to engage in activities otherwise prohibited by the Weapons Act.

This may include:

• manufacture, sale or purchase of prohibited weapons or body armour
• possession, use, carriage or transportation of prohibited weapons or body armour
• display or advertisement for sale of prohibited weapons.

A Governor in Council Exemption Order may also exempt a class of weapons from classification as a prohibited weapon. The Governor in Council does not grant exemption orders to individuals.

The Governor in Council may attach conditions and limitations to an exemption order and certain individuals may be unable to claim one even if they are a member of a class of people awarded one.

Victoria Police are not responsible for the granting of exemption orders.

See document:

Source: https://www.police.vic.gov.au/governor-council-exemption-order

ABC, SMH and The Age ‘Ignoring’ Critically Important Legal Case - 'Giggle vs Tickle'

A VERY important case, DELIBERATELY not reported by the mainstream media.

One of the most serious legal cases in our nation’s history - amusingly called ‘Giggle vs Tickle’ - was before the courts last week but many major media outlets ignored the story. Why?

[Ad]  Support our show and yourself! Go to https://piavpn.com/OTHERSIDE to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free! 

Help us build a whole new world of Aussie media! Support us by joining THE EXCLUSIVE SIDE at https://www.othersidetv.com.au/

This is a segment clip from Ep 422 of The Other Side for the week commencing Aug 15, 2025. To watch the full show, click here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qDU4AAfzrw&t=755s

Australia, the Ass Clown capital of the world!

A pathetic legal shite show.

Basic biology, basic facts do not come into play in Australia's corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal business.

Creating and using a digital ID is voluntary - Digital ID Act 2024 Section 74

Keep in mind that while 'persons' may be 'mandated' (sound familiar?) to create a digital identification, the reality according to Commomwealth law, is that action is voluntary.

DIGITAL ID ACT 2024 (NO. 25, 2024) - SECT 74 Creating and using a digital ID is voluntary

DIGITAL ID ACT 2024 (NO. 25, 2024) - SECT 74

Creating and using a digital ID is voluntary

Creating and using a digital ID is voluntary

 (1)  A participating relying party must not, as a condition of providing a service or access to a service, require an individual to create or use a digital ID.

Note:  The effect of this subsection is that a participating relying party that provides a service, or access to a service, must provide another means of accessing that service that does not involve the creation or use of a digital ID through the Australian Government Digital ID System.

 (1A)  A participating relying party is taken to contravene subsection   (1) if:

 (a)  the participating relying party provides the service, or access to the service, by means other than the creation or use of a digital ID through the Australian Government Digital ID System; and

 (b)  either of the following apply:

 (i)  the other means is not reasonably accessible;

 (ii)  using the other means results in the service being provided on substantially less favourable terms.

Source: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_act/dia202487/s74.html

On the topic of the new 'child safety' so called law or actions by government, the uploading of your 'private and confidential' documentation to corporate servers presents a huge security risk which may/will be subject to a data breach at some point in time.

Corrupt governnment Peter Dutton swearing in, not the real Oath but just a clown show.

They call themselves 'honourable', but they are far from it.

'Persons' in this corporation aggregrate called the government (either state or federal) are not serving the people, but rather themselves and corporations.

To put it quite bluntly, they're nothing more than corporate whores.

Their corruption goes beyond the comprehension of Joe Average.

When or if you expose them, they dobule down on gaslighting you.

If you ask for documents (under FOI) that reveal the true scale of their corruption, you are met with an unpenetrable wall of secrecy and denied the documents that you are legally entitled to.

The Oath of Office by Peter Craig Dutton is covered in this post.

For a person to 'assume' office under the 'Commonwealth of Australia', the following oath must be recited:

"I, (e.g. Peter Craig Dutton) do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law, SO HELP ME GOD!"

as mandated by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act or as commonly referred to as the 'Constitution', as seen in the SCHEDULE from a copy of the original document below:

Source: https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/scan-sid-109.html

Just another government clown show:

In the above video it can be seen and heard that Mr. Peter Craig Dutton is sworn in by Governor General of Australia Sir Peter John Cosgrove on the 27th day of August 2018.

The following conversation occurs:

Cosgrove:

"Mister Dutton, I now invite you to take and subscribe the oath of office as Minister for Home Affairs."

Dutton:

"I Peter Craig Dutton do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia, in the office of Minister for Home Affairs and that I will be faithful and bear truly allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second the 'Queen of Australia'* so help me God."

According to the website (gg.gov.au), the Governor-General's office is under the jurisdiction of the 'Commonwealth of Australia' as seen in the screen capture below:

THEREFORE the Oath MUST be taken from the Constitution and not the one recited to then G-G Cosgrove.

Therefore Dutton is not in office lawfully, period.

The corruption of those in government is then taken to the next level.

On 20 April 2020, an FOI request was submitted to the Department of Home Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The applicant sought access to documentation showing that Minister Peter Dutton made and subscribed to the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance as required by Section 42 of the Australian Constitution.

The specific request was for:

• A copy of the signed oath or affirmation by Peter Dutton, as per the Schedule in the Constitution.

• If that document could not be found, any undertaking made by Mr Dutton before assuming his position in Parliament.

• If neither of the above could be provided, an explanation as to why the oath or affirmation was not made in accordance with the Constitution.

2. Response and Department’s Actions

• The Department of Home Affairs initially tried to respond informally, providing:

  • An overview of the swearing-in process for Members of Parliament.

  • A link to the Hansard record from 2 July 2019 confirming Mr Dutton and other members swore the oath or affirmation on that date.

  • A link to further info on the Parliament’s website about the procedure: Swearing-in process.

• The applicant was not satisfied with the informal response and requested the matter proceed through formal FOI procedures.

3. Department’s Formal Decision

• The Department refused the request under Section 24A of the FOI Act, which allows refusal when a document does not exist or cannot be found after a reasonable search.

• The key points of their decision:

  • The requested document is not an “official document of a Minister” as defined under the FOI Act.

  • The Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance made under Section 42 of the Constitution is a parliamentary function, not related to the Department of Home Affairs' operations.

  • Such documents would fall under the Department of the House of Representatives, which is exempt from the FOI Act under section 68A of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999.

  • Thus, the Department has no access or authority over such records and cannot transfer the request to a relevant body that is subject to FOI.

4. Outcome

• The Department concluded that the requested document:

  • Does not exist within the Department’s records.

  • Is not a document held by or related to the affairs of the Department of Home Affairs.

• The request was formally refused on those grounds.

See response to the FOI:

Source: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/where-is-peter-duttons-oath-of-allegiance/

* - There is no lawfully enacted entity called the 'Queen of Australia'!

See documents within these posts:

- Information Request to establish the Lawful Effect of the Parliament of Australia under the Queen of Australia.

- If the Queens role in the Constitution is entrenched who is the Queen of Australia?

- Has there been legal transfer of the Prerogative power of Assent to the Queen of Australia? FOI-15-094

- Separation of Powers, Australia Act, Validity of the Queen of Australia ~ FOI-15-129

- Is there power to create the Queen of Australia as a Corporation Sole?

- Is the Queen of Australia Sovereign for the purposes of the Commonwealth Constitution?

Victorian courts are fully aware of this fact, and the County Court of Victoria contains the evidence, since 2018, that there is no lawfully enacted 'Queen of Australia'.

Australia is truly a corrupt colony!

Law passed in excess of power is no law at all

The people in the colony's federal and state parliaments are corrupt.

In MANY instances they act beyond the power that is given to them.

They put in law that they are not allowed to put into circulation lawfully, but they still do.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, sets the boundaries how the people in govenrment must act.

The official guide to the Constitution is a book written by Sirs John Quick and Robert Randolph Garran called The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, which is referred to in legal circles as the 'Quick and Garran', which is approx 1050 pages.

See scanned book:

Unfortunately many self professed 'constitutional experts' mistakenly call this book Australia's 'proper constitution'.

One such person that does this very vocally is Wayne Kenneth Glew as seen in the first 43 seconds of this video:

Mr. Glew holds up the book referred to as the 'Qucik and Garran' for short referring to it as the "proper constitution", which is a plain and simple lie.

In this book, there is a section on the Judicature and its interpretation on page 791, as seen in the above excerpt. 

Paying attention to the last paragraph, the following is stated:

The Fedral Parliament and the State Parliaments are not soverign bodies; they are legislatures with limited powers, and any law which they attempt to pass in excess of those powers is no law at all it is simply a nullity, entitled to no obedience.

The so called law passed during COVID-19 is just one example.

Queensland's demolition of the Upper House is another.

Are the current 'hate speech' laws put into circulation in excess of power of the parliament?

VicPol ‘just doin’ my job’ – NO YOU’RE NOT, re: lawful summonses

MANY police will claim ignorance or “that’s what it says here” with regards to some paperwork they possess, or even show you a spreadsheet claiming it’s a warrant, as many have done so to their unsuspecting victims.

The Victoria Police Act of 2013, is a law regarding how officers must act.

There is no if/but/I didn’t know, excuse.

Part 4 of the above mentioned Act, pertains to Police duties, powers, entitlements, protection and liability

Paying attention to:

Section 56 Execution of process and warrants

(1) A police officer has a duty to execute—

        (b) all lawful summonses, warrants, orders and directions directed to him or         her by a court or tribunal.

The key word here is “lawful”.

From the 2020’s onwards the state’s police forces have been acting unlawfully, causing bodily harm, trespass to the person, unlawful incarceration, installing horrific violence on ‘persons’ with total impunity.

NO officer has been charged with a criminal offence or had to pay out of his/her own pocket from criminal actions, and there is no 'remedy' for the victims of violence by default, where persuing a remedy is a deliberately time and energy consuming process not to mention its cost.

Australia's legal system/business is deliberately stacked against the victims of government's criminal actions.

A judge from the County Court of Victoria ruled that Victoria Police have acted in an unlawful way, against the good people of Melbourne that have gathered in order to have their say about a particular health matter in play.

Victoria Police also acted under dictation and had zero regards to their ‘unlawful’ actions, further cementing the fact that Victorians live in police state.

Now here comes another aspect that many in government want to keep a secret, and perpetuate the legal lie that tribunals, like VCAT, have some sort of judical powers when issuing orders that require the actions of Victoria Police.

To make this very clear, when VCAT issues an order that requires the actions of Victoria Police, VCAT has no judicial power to do so, meaning the actions of Victoria Police on a person are then unlawful.

See post:

VCAT acts beyond its power – unenforceable judicial decisions!

VCAT acts beyond its power – unenforceable judicial decisions!

MANY Australian authorities act beyond the scope of what they are lawfully allowed.

What is worse is they also gaslight you during this process.

Recently, approximately one year ago, Queensland’s Supreme Court ruled that the so called COVID-19 vaccine mandate for frontline workers was unlawful.

See article:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-28/covid19-vaccine-frontline-worker-mandate-supreme-court-ruling/103517798

SO during this mandate, the authorities did not check whether they had the lawfully enacted instrument for the ‘mandate’ to occur, they just forced the trial drug on frontline workers because that's what they wanted to do.

If you did not comply, your employment would be terminated.

Therefore those that did not comply were unlawfully terminated, where the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal business did not offer a remedy for the victims of government abuse.

VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) as its name suggests is a tribunal.

 VCAT is enacting one the largest legal cons on the unsuspecting Victorian public.

The current, as of 23 June 2023, president of VCAT judge Edward (Ted) Winslow Woodward, pictured left, together with every single member issuing orders are complicit in this fraud causing harm to many respondents.

Will this ever come out like in the above mentioned Supreme Court case from Queensland?

Well, it’s already out since 2018, and it’s a one up better as it’s from the High Court of Australia.

Will the media pick up on this? Did they inform the general population of this from 2018?

Let’s do a quick recap on the unlawful actions of VCAT with regards to MANY orders issued by them.

First and foremost:

• 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, as 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, (see the sections below) even when the dispute involves the application of State legislation. The decision affects all areas of law including:

- anti-discrimination disputes,

- residential tenancy disputes,

- 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.

Let's see the case file:

THEREFORE, ANY Order that is enforced by law enforcement, e.g. Victoria Police is done so unlawfully.

Tortfeasor is a term worth exploring.

Have you been harmed by VCAT?

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75

Original jurisdiction of High Court.

    In all matters--

  (i.)   Arising under any treaty:

  (ii.)   Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries:

  (iii.)   In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

  (iv.)   Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State:

  (v.)   In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. 

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 76

Additional original jurisdiction.

    The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High court in any matter--

  (i.)   Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation:

  (ii.)   Arising under any laws made by the Parliament:

  (iii.)   Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:

  (iv.)   Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States. 

Corrupt Victoria Police and government cover up atrocities

VICTORIA - human rights abusers.

The corporation aggregate known as the ‘State Government of Victoria’ together with Victoria Police should be in the courts and brought to the attention of the international courts for human rights abuse, just like in the case of Corinna Horvath, but this time there should be a class action lawsuit.

It is very doubtful that a class action within the colony’s corrupt legal system would actually result in a remedy, as history will attest to this.

The Victorian Government and its police force has acted in the style of 1930’s Germany, where even the police have the same colours now, as the ‘guard’ of the day did back then.

Abuser's mentality: - fear police.

The colony's police forces have the abuser's mentality that you the plebs/serfs etc should fear police as New South Wales police commisisoner Mick Fuller stated

Fuller should have been picked up on this and removed from office, but as we know that did not happen as the sociopathis in control support this kind of behaviour from their publicly sponsored 'private militia'.

Victoria Police a 1930s Germany style of action against the general population where their belief is that people should fear the police and beaten into subservience, where this attitude is reflected in actions by police from 2020 onwards.

Black the 'in' colour for 1930's Germany and now Victoria Police, coincidence?

Police Commissioner Shane Patton should have been removed from office, as theis wsa a breach of public trust, and not allowed to decide to leave his role.

So what do the 'brethen' in the corrupt government do?

They put all these people, e.g. Dan Andrews et al, in other cushy jobs.

This is how parthetic the leaders of the Victorian Govenrment are, protectionism at its finest.

The general population is now aware that Victoria police has criminals committing paeophilia, family violence and rape, where the ‘survey’ pool is very narrow and limited to a very short time span.

IF the real figures were to be revealed, then Victoria Police should not be in charge of ‘public safety’ as they are factually a danger to the community.

That is just one of the problems the police face, where the other one is of human rights abuse from 2020 onwards, not only in Victoria but throughout the other states and territories of this colony.

The State Government of Victoria and Victoria Police, ‘Human Rights’ abusers.

With the ‘blessing’ of the Police Commissioner Shane Patton, police thugs were told to arrest the vulnerable, like pregnant mothers, the elderly, meaning that these thugs acted under dictation, an action that is illegal.

Pregnan Ballarat woman Zoe Buhler unlawfully arrested 1930s Germany style. 

They committed “illegal violence” against the general population.

They also committed unlawful arrests.

WHERE can a remedy be found?

In 1996 Corinna Horvath's 'privacy' was breached by an unlawful raid, unlawfully arrested and violently beaten by Victoria Police, where no real remedy was offered to her by the corrupt Anglo-Masonic justice business, where after all it's 'just' business.

As a result of no remedy domestically, she then had to go to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, under the case file Horvath v Australia (HRC, 2014).

THEREFORE from 2014, Victoria Police are aware that they MUST follow human rights law, where if not a remedy can be found there.

For those who have been subjected to an injection against their will or without 'free consent', where "if you do not take this, you will lose your job" the following applies:

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

PART III

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

The document below is in response to the unlawul action of government and police from 2020 onwards during the so called 'unprecedented' global health crisis, but may be used on other circumstances such as:

Under Section 75 of The Constitution, “In all matters: (i) arising under any treaty”.

If the state is not co-operating in abusing your rights under the treaty's protections take your matter to

the High Court of Australia, with the view to a Human Rights Commission inquiry.

See document 'Legal Remedies for all Australians':

In any event, that's life in a (penal) colony!

Can you record in court?

Happy Australia Day, but not for everyone.

The 26th of January is marked as Australia Day, you know, when the British 'pirates' arrived in an 'invasion' format (no prior treaty formed, like with New Zealand?), with ships full of criminals, where first and foremost Martial Law was installed on all 'persons' on the land, which lasted for 40 years until the enactment of the Australian Courts Act (UK) 1828.

That date, Friday the 25th of July 1828, is when the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal system took a stranglehold on the inhabitants of this land.

When one enters a 'Kangaroo court of Australia', one may/will obtain (deliberately) false information by persons within the court either by spoken word or in writing.

In many Victorian courts, one may be greeted by a sign referring to the Court Security Act 1980 in particular Section 4A, with reference that recording is not allowed.

See reference:

https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/csa1980205/s4a.html

Well, this is a deliberate lie from the Anglo-Masonic legal system.

Putting aside a Section 78B (of the Judiciary Act (1903)), as to whether or not the Act is lawfully in circulation, which it’s not, but that is beyond the scope of this article, what the legal system is deliberately keeping from you is another Victorian law, that being the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, specifically Section 15, paying special attention to (2)(e):

(2)     Every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and whether—

(e)     in another medium chosen by him or her.

This is where a digital or analogue recording falls into this category, "another medium".

See reference:

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/s15.html

In any event, the matter has been settled within then Supreme Court of Victoria, where at law ‘you’ ( or in legal terms: a ‘person’) can record all personal affairs in the place of business called a Victorian court.

Another exposé of corruption and deception.

Privacy law, does it truly protect you?

Since 1788 Australia has become an ‘open range’ prison camp, where surveillance of the inhabitants was always high on the agenda.

As technology progressed so did the surveillance on the population, until the pinnacle of surveillance occurred via tower triangulation of mobile phone users and the advent of the Five Eyes (Anglosphere) global surveillance network.

As time goes on more surveillance occurs on the general population together with data collection.

The general population is deliberately conned/put into a false sense of security, with the term ‘anonymised’ data collection, alluding that data collected about that person from that person’s device does not identify that person.

Australia’s privacy law was never designed to truly protect anyone from the serf pool, where even if it does look good on paper, any court action may seem futile.

Officially, in Victoria, a person has privacy rights under the Privacy and Data Protection Act from 2014, even though we have been connected to the WWW  (World Wide Web) for over 20 years prior.

That's how deliberatly lacking the governmernt is in allegedly protecting the people.

Does the government take 20 years to implement revenue (as opposed to safety) devices such as speed cameras after their inception?

The above mentioned Act does not apply to that person’s health information, or how 'Commonwealth' agencies use the data, meaning the can (and do) misuse it, it's just that 'we' (the people) cannot prove this as the government will not allow us to have access to how they use our data.

Most worrisome, it also does not apply to ‘private organisations’ (i.e. companies and charities), meaning any person that holds an ACN (Austalian Company Number) or registered charity which in fact could serve as a data collection front, even thought these entities are allegedly covered by other privacy law.

Personal information can include:

    your name;

    email address;

    postal address;

    phone number;

    signature;

    fingerprint;

    photographs or surveillance footage of you;

    comments written about you; or

    your financial details.

To be considered personal information, the information or opinion must be recorded. It will be considered personal information regardless of whether it is true or not.

Some personal information is considered particularly sensitive, and these types of information are subject to higher protections under the PDP Act.

This includes information about your:

    race or ethnicity;

    political opinions;

    membership to a political association;

    religion;

    philosophical beliefs;

    membership to a professional or trade association;

    membership to a trade union;

    sexual preferences or practices; or

    criminal record.

Australia is a 'Nanny State' or secretive police state, and any illusion of privacy is exactly just that, an illusion.

Constitutional expert Anne Twomey false information on the 'King of Australia'?

Anne Twomey is considered an expert on the colony’s Constitution, where her work is seen on her YouTube channel Constitutional Clarion.

So what happens to this professor if someone calls out her ‘inaccurate’/false/(deliberately?) misleading information?

First and foremost there is no such lawfully enacted entity as the ‘Queen of Australia’, period.

It may appear in legal documentation, but this is not proof that it is there ‘lawfully’.

The below Freedom of Information response shows a legal advice to the Prime Minister and Cabinets Office to update the Royal Style and Titles Act so as to create a new title for King Charles III to adopt in relation to Australia and its Territories. In a recent video of the Constitutional Clarion Professor Ann Twomey lays claim a title Act or amendment is not required for King Charles suggesting the King can effectively use the Queens title. The below advice clearly contradicts the video of Professor Twomey.

Source:constitutionwatch.com.au

EXPOSED! Government LIES on Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2024

The authoritarian state called Australia is in full swing into 'Commie' (Communist) mode.

For those who are not ware of what Authoritarianism is, the description below may offer an explanation.

See more at https://commonslibrary.org/authoritarianism-how-you-know-it-when-you-see-it/

Australians and the world is deceived that we live in a democracy in this colonial outpost.

The goal of this 'Misinformation and Disinformation' law is not to stop advertising corporations oops 'social media' platforms from providing false information to their users, or even the 'public', but rather to stop people/general population/serfs/plebs from exercising their 'freedom of speech' a fundamental right in a 'democracy'.

In Australia, and other nations within the the FiveEyes global surveillance network, every person has a file on them, where their entire digital history is stored forever, and this information can (and is) accessed without any warrants in place.

In any event, the government has been caught out with this Bill, where there is no business case for it nor did the people require it.

But will there be any consequences?

Of course not!

Enjoy your journey to a totalitarian state.

See:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MisandDisinfobill

and

https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/say-no-albaneses-orwellian-disapproved-information-censorship-bill

Oaths and Affirmations of Australian leaders - Are they in Office LAWFULLY?

As all Australians should know the colony's founding document/law is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act dated the 9th of July 1900, which came into effect on the 1st of January 1901.

Yes, that's right, 'colony's'. Australia is still a colony, See post: Australia the self governing colony

The Constitution is a document that sets the rules and regulations that people in government must follow.

It offers very little protections, per se for the people, where it's primary directives are for government.

ALL points/aspects of the constitution must be adhered to, period.

The focus is with reference to the last page of the Constitution, that being the Schedule of the Oath or Affirmation.

The Oath states the following:

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

SO HELP ME GOD !

The Affirmation states the following:

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

    (NOTE.—The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)

Anthony Albanese sworn in David Huxley (27th Governor-General of the colony)

The Parliamentary Education Office states the following:

Oaths and affirmations are formal vows or promises. An oath concludes with the phrase ‘So help me God’, while an affirmation does not reference religion. Ministers are required to take an oath or affirmation on 3 occasions.

Before ministers can be sworn-in by the Governor-General, they must first be sworn-in as a member of the Federal Executive Council. Section 62 of the Australian Constitution says there must be a swearing-in but doesn’t say what the words of the oath or affirmation are. This is left up to the Governor-General, who administers the swearing-in for members of the Federal Executive Council.

After an Executive Councillor is sworn-in, they then take the oath or affirmation of office as a minister. This is not required by the Constitution or a law but by tradition it is always done. The Prime Minister decides what the oath or affirmation will be for their ministry. The Governor-General administers this to all ministers, assistant ministers and the Prime Minister.

Each minister must also be sworn-in as a member of the Australian Parliament. The words of this oath or affirmation are in the Constitution and can only be changed by the Australian people in a referendum. Section 64 of the Constitution says ministers can be sworn-in up to 3 months before they become a member of parliament. As a result, sometimes being sworn-in as a member of parliament is the last of the 3 oaths or affirmations taken.

IF "The Prime Minister decides what the oath or affirmation will be for their ministry.", then show us the lawfully generated instrument that allows for this.

In reality if the person does not swear the correct Oath or Affirmation as within the Constitution, then that person is not in office lawfully, period.

If the person is not in office lawfully, then whatever actions follow are not lawfully enacted.

 For example:

If an MP for example, Katherine Gallagher, has not sworn the Oath or Affirmation as per the Constitution, then she is not in office lawfully, and must be expelled, just like those who had dual citizenships, were expelled under Section 44.

Katherine Gallagher then pushes the Digital ID Bill through, unlawfully.

At another level, if the Bill becomes law, i.e. an Act, is it in circulation lawfully?

Did all the checks and balances occur at every single stage of the law making process?

The short answer would be: No.

See the Oaths and Affirmations of those in office within this 114 page document:

"Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck." - Donald Horne 1964.

Covid fines unlawful, the documents they can’t give you!

 Off the public record.

• You live in an abusive relationship with your government.

• In this colony called Australia, people live under a totalitarian, fascist, corporatised, police state.

• Forget being people of the ‘Commonwealth’ or democracy, those days are left to a museum (i.e MOAD), but that’s another story.

See article: Democracy in Australia

The government (all three tiers, Parliament, Executive and Judiciary) is corrupt to the core.

The businesses known as the courts, are corrupt where they are ‘owned’ by banking and financial services institutions such as Goldman Sachs, The Vangaurd Group and BlackRock, being subservient to their ‘stakeholders’.

See court document within the article:

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

The courts are allegedly places of public record, but they have ways and means of hiding cases from the public, as part of the agenda of the secretive police state, naturally to the detriment of society.

In your documentation, if you expose the corruption of the police, government or courts, your matter will not make it to the ‘public record’ where it will be withdrawn or dismissed.

This may be seen as a ‘victory’ but it’s actually a loss, a loss for the people, as they are unaware of the details, and a cover-up of criminality by those in power.

In many states of Australia, ‘Covid’ fines have been withdrawn.

They have been withdrawn not when people started to challenge them, but more importantly when people started getting their paperwork right and asking the RIGHT questions.

A proper challenge to any alleged offence should be, first and foremost, on a basis of a ‘question of law’.

Government overflowing with people that gas-light their constituents.

In the police state of Victoria, under the leadership of ‘Chairman Dan’ (Andrews), premier of Victoria from 2014 – 2023, Covid fines were issued unlawfully, under whatever pretexts.

The problem there was that there was no lawfully enacted ‘infrastructure’ in place that would give rise for those fines to exist.

The government knew this, the police knew this and the courts knew this but they wanted to see if the serfs knew, so they gas-lighted the people.

Once again, when people started to obtain the correct knowledge, the fines were getting withdrawn.

The courts are corrupt.

The corruption begins at the registrar level.

They are the 'gatekeepers', the people who will not allow you to have the documents required for you to be successful in defending your matter.

So, apparently ‘advertisements’ were flung around everywhere that the good people of Victoria are under a ‘State of Emergency'.

SO, can the government prove this was a lawfully (as opposed to legally) issued declaration?

What medical advice was given that gave rise for this State of Emergency?

Allegedly there was a State of Disaster issued on 2/08/2020 @ 6pm.

Was this lawfully issued? Can ‘we’ have a copy of this?

MANY people obtained a ‘Covid’ fine, where the charge was as follows:

“Refuse or fail to comply with a direction or requirement made of a person in the exercise of a power under an authorisation given under Section 199 (INDIVIDUAL) Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.”.

In the above you may have noticed that “direction or requirement made of a person” has been underlined.

Keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the accuser, where every aspect of the accusation or charge must be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Therefore, Victoria Police accuses that you have refused or failed to comply with a direction/requirement that was made of you.

NOW, first and foremost can Victoria Police PROVE that this alleged direction/requirement was given to your ‘person’?

If so, then you require proof that it was served on your person, where an ‘advertisement’ on a freeway digital sign is not legally binding.

A lawful declaration that one must work from home?

What Act have you been charged under?

Since the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, is the alleged source, then a ‘deep dive’ can be initiated if this Act is in circulation lawfully, under something called a ‘reservation of points of law’ or a Section 72B (of the Judiciary Act 1903).

In reality there was no lawfully enacted ‘State of Emergency’ in Victoria, and the government does NOT want the serfs to know about this.

Sure there may be a piece of paper, that states it’s a ‘State of Emergency’ but was it issued lawfully?

Since Victoria Police were fining people under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, Section 167 - Power to request information, the following is stated:

(1)     An authorised officer may request a person to provide information to the authorised officer which the authorised officer believes is necessary to investigate whether there is a risk to public health or to manage or control a risk to public health. 

(3)     A person may refuse to provide the information requested under subsection (1). 

Meaning, when they stop you, there is no need to answer ANY questions.

See documents within the article: Is the 25km rule in Victoria a valid statutory provision?

The reality is that if you ask for the documents, as shown above within the Subpoena, Form 13, the ‘gatekeepers’ will not allow you to have them, where your request WILL be denied.

See also:

• Corrupt Police Issuing (COVID) Fines Only To Be Dropped Before Court

• State of Emergency & curfew acted out illegally by Daniel Andrews?

• No 'State of Emergency' for Victoria, government lies

• Six weeks lock down but Andrews signed Victorians up for four

• Do Covid Infringements issued in Victoria meet the Prescribed Details?

That’s life in a corrupt colony.