The Corruption of the Supreme Court of Victoria

Australia is inherently a corrupt to the core nation, period.

It's been corrupt from the very beginning, but more importantly after 40 years of Martial Law when some sort of legal framework was established in under the Australian Courts Act of 1828.

It was so corrupt that the Imperial authorities had to step in and enact the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.

In reality that did not stop the corruption, but rather only established some sort of 'Kangaroo Court' paperwork.

With that legal history out of the way, until today corruption is rife and quite simply put, the people that run this colony do so with impunity, where there is no end in sight.

They are literally above the law, where it is difficult for a member of the serf pool to get them physically into the court room.

The 'gatekeepers' called the registrars are also part of this corruption.

MANY refer to Australia's court system as a 'Kangaroo Court', basically meaning its actions are either hastily improvised, irregularly conducted but most importantly characterised by dishonesty or incompetence, something to keep in mind on further articles on Australia's judiciary.

The focus of this article is on the Supreme Court of Victoria.

• The corporatising of the Victorian Courts

Upon retirement 16 long years ago Justice John D. Phillips provided the following concerning words on the corporatising out the Victorian Court system, consistent with our previous posts on the subject of the concept of courts as trading corporations. There is much evidence for those to see with the eyes to see it of the spiralling level of corruption the State of Victoria now hides. When the Supreme, County and Magistrates Court are now trading corporations with the same Australian Business number as the Prostitution Committee one can only assume corruption is at play.

 

March 24, 2005 — 11.00am

In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the court's independence.

For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to bite my tongue.

I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody will listen.

As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.

One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.

Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.

That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.

This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.

Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as "Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.

This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.

And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.

Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.

Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not to be subverted.

The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be, impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government. Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is fixed independently of the executive.

You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when, in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.

There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial and so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of bias.

In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded of the appointee.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL QUESTIONS ONE CAN ASK ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA IS:

- HAS IT BEEN VALIDLY ESTABLISHED?

The Victorian Supreme Court was established in 1852 after the Colony of Victoria was officially created in 1851. Section 28 of "An Act for the better Government of Her Majesty's Australian Colonies" (the Australian' Constitutions Act)" initially provided for the establishment of the Supreme Court of Victoria:

 XXVIII. And whereas under an Act of the Governor and Council of New South Wales passed in the Fourth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty, intituled An Act to provide for the more effectual Administration of Justice in New South Wales and its Dependencies, the Number of the Judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales constituted under the said Act of the Ninth Year of King George the Fourth has been increased to Five, and One of such Judges is resident, and has such Power, Jurisdiction, and Authority within the District of Port Phillip, subject to such Appeal to the said Supreme Court as by the said Act of the Governor and Council of New South Wales is provided : Be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to erect and appoint a Court of Judicature in the said Colony of Victoria, which shall be styled “The Supreme Court of the Colony of Victoria ;” and such Court shall be holden by One or more Judge or Judges, and shall have such ministerial and other Officers as shall be necessary for the Administration of Justice in the said Court, and for the Execution of the Judgments, Decrees, Orders and Process thereof ; and all the Provisions of the said Act of the Ninth Year of the Reign of King George the Fourth, concerning the Appointment and Removal of Judges and Officers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and for the appointing Persons to act in the Place and Stead of Judges being absent, resigning, dying, or becoming incapable to act, and concerning Appeals to Her Majesty in Council from Judgments, Decrees, Orders, or Sentences of such Court, shall apply to the said Supreme Court to be erected in the said Colony of Victoria, but so that the Powers of the Governor of New South Wales in relation to the Matters aforesaid shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony of Victoria ; and from such Time as shall be mentioned in such Letters Patent all the Authorities, Powers, and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and of any Judge thereof, over or to be exercised within or in relation to the said Colony of Victoria, including all Admiralty Jurisdiction exercisable within the Limits thereof, shall cease to be had and exercised by such last-mentioned Supreme Court and Judge respectively, and shall thenceforth be vested in and exercisable by the Supreme Court erected by such Letters Patent ; provided that in the meantime the said Authorities, Powers, and Jurisdiction of the said Supreme Court of New South Wales and of the Judges thereof, within and in respect of the said Colony of Victoria shall remain as if this Act had not been passed, unless or until the same shall be varied by Act of the Governor and Council of the said Colony of Victoria.

However, no such letters patent has ever been received in Victoria... THE 1855 Constitution for Victoria was also silent on the nature and scope of Judicial Power within the newly established Colony. It was not until the 1975 Victorian Constitution the power of the Supreme Court was consolidated into statute, but under what power?

See the Act:

Sources:supplied

How a US law can reach Australia's shore: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702

FISA Section 702

A One Page Overview

In 2008, Congress enacted Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a critical intelligence collection authority that enables the Intelligence Community (IC) to collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats. Section 702 authorizes targeted intelligence collection of specific types of foreign intelligence information—such as information concerning international terrorism or the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction—identified by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Section 702 only permits the targeting of non-United States persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. United States persons and anyone in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702. Section 702 also prohibits “reverse targeting”—the IC may not target a non-U.S. person located outside the U.S. if the purpose of the collection is to collect information about a United States person or anyone located in the United States.

Section 702 is not a bulk collection program; it is a substantial and important targeted intelligence collection program. Every Section 702 targeting decision is individualized and documented, approved pursuant to a multi-step process embodied in specific targeting procedures, and reviewed by an independent oversight team.

Although all Section 702 targets must be non-United States persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, Congress has always recognized that such targets may send an email or have a phone call with a United States person. For this reason, Section 702 requires specific procedures to minimize the acquisition, retention, and sharing of any information concerning United States persons. “Minimize,” however, does not always mean “eliminate” – if, for example, a foreign terrorist indicated that a United States person was a key member of an ongoing terrorist plot, this information would be appropriately shared to allow the FBI to take further investigative steps. Congress also amended Section 702 to require specific procedures to ensure the querying of any Section 702-acquired information is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The Section 702 program is subject to extensive oversight. The Attorney General must approve the targeting, minimization, and querying procedures, each of which are annually reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for consistency with the FISA statute and the Fourth Amendment. Each of the IC elements involved in the Section 702 program has developed internal oversight processes and programs to ensure compliance with these procedures. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct extensive, regular, and independent reviews of Section 702 activities. Any identified compliance errors are remedied and reported to the FISC and Congress.

Further Reading FISA Resource Library

Download the PDF from: https://www.intel.gov/assets/documents/fisa/FISA_Section_702_FISA_Resource_Library.pdf

Australians don’t have the legal right to ‘their’ data held by corporations?

In today’s online world, it’s all about a fascist state, or as it’s colloquially known, ‘big data'.

It’s all about subservience to online corporations, where the ‘product’ has little to zero so called ‘rights’.

In order to appease the online slaves, so that there is no ‘revolt’ like in England in 1381, the corporate whores called ‘lawmakers’ in the US and EU have allegedly given the products some rights to access ‘their’ data, or rather data regarding their ‘person’.

Even when a person does obtain a file on themselves from the corporation in question, 

- what guarantee does that person have that the information obtained is in it’s entirety and not modified in any manner?

None, there is no guarantee, where it’s concerning as (people) in corporations lie to the general population every single day.

In any event, want to see what low quality food products manufacturer ‘McChuck’s’ has on your person in Australia?

“FAT’ CHANCE"! (pun intended)

See YouTube video by The Hate One of the title:

I was WARNING you about this...

IF you obtain all your tech/information technology, advice from the Australian mainstream media, you are truly doing yourself a disservice!

 

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.

Biggest data breach ever? (IDScan.net) Governments Outsourcing Liability

"Never trust the government, it is NEVER for the children!!"

"This is all on purpose to take away our privacy and give big brother control over everything."

FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

A new identity theft service launched on the dark web this week is selling digital scans of more than 153 million drivers licenses from people in the United States and Canada. Based on interviews with individuals whose licenses are available for purchase on this service, it appears to be siphoning images collected by a widely-used identity verification company based in Louisiana. KrebsOnSecurity also has learned that the New Orleans field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) today launched an official inquiry into the source of the images.

A record available at this identity theft service that includes the drivers license for U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, one of several high-ranking U.S. government officials whose drivers licenses can be found for sale.

On Monday, Aug. 31, a source alerted KrebsOnSecurity to a service advertised by a new user on the Russian cybercrime forum Exploit, offering access to digital scans of identity documents on more than 170 million people in North America. The source brought it to my attention because the proprietor of this identity theft service offered my Virginia drivers license as a free sample in their initial sales thread on Exploit.

The service, dubbed Nexus, claims to have more than 153 million drivers licenses for people in the United States and Canada, as well as more than 10 million identification cards; more than three million travel documents and/or international IDs; and at least 579,000 medical cards.

A quick look around Nexus finds they are likely not exaggerating about that 153 million number: Running a blank search in Nexus (with no search parameters entered) returns approximately 11.5 million pages of results, with roughly 15 results displayed per page. It includes documents from people in both Canada and the United States, but the bulk of these records are on Americans: searching for just Canadian drivers licenses returns approximately 1.1 million results, with the largest concentration from Ontario (473,673 records).

Curiously, the identity records include not only drivers licenses but also marijuana dispensary cards. Some of the records list their “source” as “CDL,” presumably short for “commercial drivers license.” Other records carry the source notation of “CAC,” which may refer to Common Access Cards, government issued identity cards that grant physical access to government buildings and secure rooms.

The people behind Nexus claim the license images are coming from an active breach at “a major identity verification company” whose customers include multiple Fortune 500 companies.

The record totals listed by the Nexus identity theft service. The number of drivers
license records increased by nearly 400,000 in the span of just 24 hours.

“We have been continuously exfiltrating new data for over a year into our private database,” the service enthused in its introductory post on Exploit. “Records are available to preview before purchase with pertinent information redacted. Customer photos are displayed if available.”

Indeed, over the past 24 hours, the number of drivers license records listed as available in Nexus has increased by nearly 400,000, suggesting that freshly stolen license data is being harvested and uploaded to this service on a semi-regular basis.

The record featuring my drivers license includes six image files: three pairs of photos of the license’s front and back, a basic image scan, as well as infrared and ultraviolet versions of the same images. A date and timestamp is appended to each image file, and the timestamp on my license scan corresponds to a date in June 2025 when I took a flight to the midwest United States to attend a family funeral.

Some of the 153 million+ license scans — including mine — feature six image files with date and timestamps appended to the filenames. Not all records include photos, and some that do feature photos do not display the associated filenames.

Intent on discovering the source of this data, KrebsOnSecurity asked more than a dozen friends and family members for permission to search for their licenses in this service. Each person whose license could be found (nine of them) confirmed having traveled on or very close to the dates in the timestamps attached to their images. It is unclear what timezone these timestamps are in, but from reviewing car rental records shared by several people who helped with this research, it appears the timezone is set to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

At first, I thought the source of the data might have something to do with airports. However, that theory went out the window when it became apparent there were no passports in this data set. Also, only some of those who helped with this research said they showed their drivers license at the airport on the day of their travel. One person whose license was in Nexus hadn’t flown at all recently, but was renting a car from Hertz for several months around the date of their timestamp.

Two of those who agreed to help are federal employees who said they shared other forms of government identification when passing through airport security. However, those individuals each said they shared their state-issued drivers licenses later that day when renting vehicles at their respective destinations, and that both rented their cars from Hertz.

After finding a note in my calendar for the day of my June 2025 flight reminding me to bring my passport, I remembered that I also never actually shared my drivers license when I went through security at Reagan National Airport on that day because I did not yet have a Real ID, a security-enhanced drivers license that is now required by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for all domestic travel. Instead, I showed the TSA agent my government-issued U.S. passport.

Here’s where it gets interesting: I was able to find my mother’s drivers license in this service as well, and the timestamps for her images are just a few seconds apart from mine. That’s notable because we both handed our licenses to the Hertz rental car representative at the same time.

According to my mom, the only place she gave her drivers license to that day was the rental car company, and if memory serves that is also true for me. I don’t recall if the rental car representative inserted our licenses into any kind of machine, but I remember they held onto them for several minutes behind the counter while we were signing various forms. KrebsOnSecurity sought comment from Hertz and will update this story in the event they reply.

Zach Edwards is a well-known security and privacy researcher who recently launched a service called DecryptAds to help people better understand how online advertisers are tracking them. A scan of Edwards’s drivers license is available for purchase on this identity theft service, and Edwards said the timestamp on his record corresponds to the middle of a trip last month to Las Vegas for the annual DEFCON security conference.

Edwards told KrebsOnSecurity that although he did not rent a car in Vegas, he did hand over his license at the TSA checkpoint, at a marijuana dispensary in Vegas, and at his hotel (the Aria). But he said the only one of those three that for sure scanned his ID in some kind of device was the dispensary.

To enter Planet13’s weed dispensary in Las Vegas, one must pass through a red telephone booth. Image: Zach Edwards.

Edwards said the dispensary he visited that day was Planet13, a multi-state chain with stores in California, Florida, Illinois and Nevada. In 2022, the New Orleans-based identity provider idscan.net published a press release announcing an exclusive identity verification agreement with Planet13’s dispensaries nationally. IDScan says it processes ID verification for more than 1,000 marijuana dispensaries in 19 U.S. states.

The “trust” page of idscan.net states that the company provides identity verification services for numerous big brands, including Hertz, Target, Fedex, Motorola Solutions, the financial services giant Jack Henry, and Caesars Entertainment. And as idscan.net’s own documentation states, the technology scans IDs with both infrared and ultraviolet light. Idscan.net says the company’s systems and technology perform more than 21 million verifications monthly, at more than 20,000 locations around the world.

Image: idscan.net.

Contacted by KrebsOnSecurity, idscan.net said it was investigating the matter, but the company has not yet shared an official statement or a substantive reply to specific questions sent via email.

“At this point I’m not able to share any additional information, but the updates you have provided have been welcome, and helpful to our team’s investigation,” wrote Jillian Kossman, a marketing and operations leader at idscan.net.

During the course of my research for this story, word got around to the FBI that I was poking at the apparent source of this new identity theft service’s data. Probably they were tipped off when I shared with a trusted source that Nexus also is selling the drivers license information for the assistant director of the FBI (I did not find FBI Director Kash Patel’s license in Nexus).

Earlier this afternoon, I was added to a conference call with a half-dozen FBI agents, including senior leaders from the agency’s cyber division. During that call, the FBI shared that earlier today their New Orleans field office opened an official investigation into an apparent breach involving idscan.net.

Edwards said that as more in-person and online experiences require sharing drivers licenses, vendors who collect this sensitive data need to be held to a higher standard.

“This episode should further strengthen the resolve for people who are fighting back against online ID schemes which are requiring countless providers to ask for drivers licenses in order to access services under the guise of protecting kids,” Edwards told KrebsOnSecurity. “These systems are putting sensitive data into more and more 3rd party vendors, and we don’t have nearly the oversight to ensure they are safe.”

Larry Baldwin is principal intelligence researcher at the cybersecurity firm Cybera. Baldwin said a front and back scan of his drivers license available at Nexus contains timestamps that correspond to the date of a car rental from Hertz on a recent vacation.

Baldwin said the Nexus identity theft service presents multiple serious security and privacy threats, noting that state-issued drivers licenses are commonly used as proof of one’s identity when opening new lines of credit. Baldwin said the service could also dangerously expose many people who do not wish to be found but who cannot meaningfully change their appearance (or at least not enough to fool today’s AI-based image matching tools).

This category of people, he said, includes those fleeing domestic violence, and even people who have been assigned a whole new life and identity as part of the federal government’s witness protection program, which is generally reserved for criminal defendants in racketeering and conspiracy investigations who agree to cooperate with federal authorities.

“Just when it seems like we’re making some headway in improving authentication controls through drivers license verification systems, this happens and the very thing those improvements are dependent on are compromised,” Baldwin said.

Update, Sept. 2, 6:05 p.m. ET: A spokesperson for Caesars Entertainment said Caesars has not been a client of IDScan.net and has not used VeriScan since February 2025, despite IDScan.net listing them as a client on their website. That person said Caesars had no active VeriScan accounts at the time of the incident and did not authorize IDScan.net to retain data from its accounts, and that IDScan.net said the incident should have no impact on Caesars Entertainment.

Update, 8:56 p.m. ET: Shortly after this story was published, the Nexus identity theft service website vanished from the darkweb, replacing its login page with a plain text message that reads, “This service is no longer available.”

This is a potentially fast-moving story. Any changes or updates will be noted here along with a timestamp.

Source:KrebsonSecurity.

See also short explanation by Matt Johansen on this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRbDaQQwWlY

SO, WHEN WILL THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT COMPENSATE YOU WHEN (NOT 'IF') YOUR PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION GET BREACHED?

AFTER IT'S 'THEIR' LAWS.

SORRY? THEY'RE NOT GOING TO OFFER YOU A REMEDY, AT LAW?

National Face Database - Why New South Wales is Scanning Every Driver's Face

See (11m28s) video by Tech Win Cyber of the title:

Why New South Wales Is Scanning Every Driver's Face

The next stage of the Orwellian dystopia is upon us.

Enjoy your freedom to breathe air, for now.

That's life in the FiveEyes (penal) colony.

Google Serving You Brain Rot AI Slop!

Google is literally littering the internet with garbage, AI generated garbage.

If Google wasn’t a tech company where it would be a ‘fast’ food or rather junk food corporation it’d be McDonald’s.

The ‘best' part about these corporations is that there is no regulation about how much shit they can feed you.

Google making you consume AI trash in your ‘feeds’ (how appropriate) on its media platform YouTube, is about as good for your brain as McChuck’s is good for your body, where you can refer to the ‘experiment’ by Morgan Spurlock, in Super Size Me

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSZWxjeua3g)

A mental torture tactic used on ‘persons of interest’ by military forces was to bombard the interrogated person with random, questions/facts until their brain goes to mush, a bit like you doom scrolling on social media.

Apparently the world's governments are there to ‘protect the children’, but there is no limitation/legislation on brain rot products by Google (and others).

In many feeds as much as two thirds to seventy percent of content is either AI slop or plain and simple false information contained in the ‘shorts’.

In any event Google and other corporations have invested billions of dollars in AI hardware which at the end of the day, has hurt ‘consumers’ (of hardware) where memory prices have risen six fold to purchase despite costing the same to produce as before the ‘AI crisis’.

Therefore Google (and others) have to serve you AI slop in order to obtain a decent ROI (Return On Investment) in their business endeavours.

The internet has really turned to crap as a result of a few corporations and it's very clear that governments are supporting this. 

Viva la ‘Free’ World.

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.

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:

False charges against Atlanta man Sam Tunick at US border crossing?

Governments, authorities and prosecutors cannot be trusted, period.

The ‘United Snakes of America’ is definitely a subset of the above.

The anti-privacy agenda, under the excuse of child protection is in full swing against the good citizens of the world.

‘Everyday’ people, whatever that means, are not afforded privacy, yet billionaires, CEO’s, politicians et al are shielded.

IF ‘child protection’ (meaning children of the cannon fodder), truly is so important to the authorities, then charges would arise from the Epstein Files, where the full treasure trove would be released and not deliberately suppressed, but in reality people should be aware that will never happen, as for one reason, the statute of limitation has expired, in many ‘allegations’ of criminal activity.

Over the past few days the online world has been set ablaze, with the news of an Atlanta man, Sam Tunick, ALLEGEDLY destroying 'evidence' from his Google Pixel smartphone.

With all this noise about this matter, Australia’s ‘news’ agencies are mute on this topic.

Why?

Do they not want to draw the corporate fodder’s attention that there is another operating system apart from the global duopoly from Apple and Google that prioritises privacy and security?

Do they not want the Aussie serfs (as opposed to surfs) to know that the world’s (allegedly) most elite smartphone hacking tool, by Israeli firm Cellebrite is apparently useless against up to date Pixel phones that have GrapheneOS instead of the spyware loaded factory (e.g. Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, Sony, LG, etc) flavour of Android?

So the ALLEGED criminal action is that a Mr. Sam Tunick, has wiped/destroyed ‘evidence’ from his phone, as a result of a ‘duress’ PIN being typed in by the officer, where that action alone is beyond the scope of this article.

And this is where the FALSE charges / scam by the authorities begins!

Putting aside any legalities of the US Constitution, request for lawyer being denied, and the holding area of the airport, the focus in this article is on the alleged destruction of evidence.

So, let’s make a simple analogy to obtain a clear understanding of what factually happened.

Let’s just say that the phone is equivalent to a file storage cabinet which has a key to open the drawers, where the only way to read the files in their original format /legibly is to use that unique key.

In order to gain access to the files/'data’ on that smartphone the correct PIN (Personal Identification Number) must be entered in order to read those files, otherwise they will remain ‘scrambled’, or in an  encrypted state, and unreadable, BUT most importantly they still reside ON the phone.

A ‘feature’ of GrapheneOS is that a user can set a ‘duress’ PIN, which is obviously different from the one that decrypts the data from the phone, where if a person uses that PIN, the decryption key is removed from the device and the smartphone restarts.

Because the decryption key is removed that phone is not in an operational state.

THE most factual and important part of this action is that the phone does NOT ‘wipe itself’ nor is the data on it ‘destroyed’.

The 'data' that they seek is still there.

It’s just the the key to unscramble this data is not present.

Therefore the person cannot be charged for ‘destroying evidence’ as it is still on the phone.

Could a person be charged for destroying evidence (i.e. the files within a filing cabinet), by throwing away the key?

IF the US courts find that the ‘accused’ did ‘erase evidence’, which the ‘key’ is not part of, then the courts are corrupt beyond any shadow of a doubt.

In any event if you only rely on Australia’s ’news’ outlets to inform you on what’s going on in the Information Technology & Telecommunications world, you will truly be doing yourself a disservice.

See articles:

https://www.techspot.com/news/113236-us-prosecutors-charge-atlanta-man-after-grapheneos-phone.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/28/us/duress-password-phone-wipe-charge.html

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