Dave Hughes UNLOADS on former Premier Dan Andrews

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

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

There are a few problems with this.

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

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

The full quote is as follows:

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

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

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

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

This was the case in 1964 and still is so today, meaning the Imperial Act has not been repealed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australia’s authorities are corrupt to the core.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A typical gaslighting tactic by the governments of Australia.

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

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

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

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

Nik Storonsky is the chief executive of Revolut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buyer beware!

Edit:

See complaint from a user:

Good morning,

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

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

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

1. GrapheneOS is not an insecure or compromised operating system

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

This distinction matters.

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

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

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

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

2. The policy produces an absurd security contradiction

Revolut currently supports Android versions going back many years.

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

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

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

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

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

I have already contacted Revolut customer support regarding this issue.

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

Neither suggestion provides a reasonable solution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution requested

I would therefore like Revolut to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your formal response.

Kind regards,

See response from Revolut:

     Source:supplied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The terrifying reason the internet exists - Weaponised against the masses from its inception?

Today, the 'interwebs' has fascist elements that would make our 'mate' Benito a proud man, as it's ideology was born before the tech was made to implement it.

Police and government surveillance is masquerading as so called 'advertisements'.

Deception by government and corporations is rife in the digital realm, where now, people who expose these ('alleged') criminal activities will be silenced through various new laws being put into place.

For those who are interested in a narrative format of an accurate account of what happened and what's going on, with regards to the tech, you can tune in to Cyb3rMaddy's Youtube channel, while you still can, where with regards to this topic you can see the video of the title:

The terrifying reason the internet exists:

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

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

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

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

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

illustration of a headlock at ground level

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

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

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

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

Opinion:supplied.

How corporations get away with paedophilia and omit age verification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is that even allowed by the lawmakers?

Discord is also dodgy.

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

No one taking action on the Epstein Files?

No one going to prison for paedophilia?

No one releasing the FULL data cache?

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

EMPIRES & IMPERIALISM

“England, in what is now Britain, wanted more land overseas where it could build new communities, known as colonies.

These colonies would provide England with valuable materials, like metals, sugar and tobacco, which they could also sell to other countries.”

The purpose of expanding an empire is therefore to enrich and empower the empire by extracting labour, natural resources to sell to other countries. In a fanciful, modern world, a reigning empire would not need to permanently occupy or colonise other countries to enrich itself, the empire would expand its power by;

1. Inserting the worlds most market dominate and disruptive companies within pre-existing colonies, extracting the most value from those colonies and paying the least taxes in those colonies.

2. Ensuring that a colonies most valued corporations are majority owned and controlled by the empire.

3. Buying companies and strategic assets in the colonies they want to extract value from.

4. Funding the media in the colonies they want to influence and extract value from. Once a colonies media is influenced by the empire, the media can then propagandise the public to manufacture  consent for government policies that enrich the empire.

5. Fabricating propaganda to justify bombing existing colonies and toppling democratically elected leaders of those colonies. The empire would then plant empire friendly leaders and station themselves in these colonies for as long as it took, to; build military bases, extract valuable natural resources, and sell over priced military equipment and other contracts to colluding colonies. 

For an empire to succeed under these conditions it would need to rely on the following;

1. That a colonies ruler(s), values money, public opinion and political tenure / power and therefore can be influenced by money, public opinion and positive media coverage to increase their political tenure. 

2. That media proprietors and shareholders value money and therefore can be influenced by it. If media proprietors can be influenced by money, political narratives can be influenced by money. 

3. That a society is generally predisposed to revering authorities, group-think, convenience, comfort and safety and therefore can be influenced by authorities, popular opinion, repeated narratives and political initiatives that allegedly promise more convenience, comfort and safety for the colonies inhabitants.

What a crazy and fanciful idea. Who would ever believe it?

Today, Australia is STILL a colony therefore under 'colonial' rule which is not good for the people.

Source:supplied

VicPol Files: Court Out - Police still illegally alleging drivers are speeding

The colony’s state police forces are corrupt, they’re corrupt to the core where at the end of the day one cannot trust the police in one’s matters.

The state’s police forces are not ‘honourable’ where at the least they’re dishonest and at most their actions are criminal. 

ALWAYS record interactions with police and NEVER rely on their Body Worn Cameras.

Just because Victoria Police have been illegally catching drivers allegedly speeding and you’ve caught them out in a ‘court of public record’ doesn’t mean they’ll stop.

What’s worse nowadays is that there are no ‘investigative’ journalists or court reporters that will report such illegal activity by police.

What’s also worse is that when you ‘the defendant’ exposes this illegality by police, the judicial system does nothing about it.

It’s all about you ‘feeding’ the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal system, that is deliberately designed against the people from the very start.

The so called ‘Rule of Law’, alleged innocent until proven otherwise or rather “Presumption of Innocence” only looks good on paper but in reality it’s a farce.

At law, it is illegal for Victoria Police to measure ‘speed’ or rather the vehicle’s velocity (distance / time), where the metric under question is distance, where the measured distance must be taken horizontally, i.e. on a plane that has zero degrees.

Example of camera car on an incline

This is not a new law, where it’s been in place for over 40 years.

Yet Victoria Police still point their measuring devices up or down hills, and therefore issuing fines illegally.

Kustom Signals, Inc. ProLaser 4 Operator Manual.

How can one prove the illegality of Victoria Police actions?

Use the Subpoena Form 42B, (from the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria), to obtain;

1). the meta data from the measuring device, 

(they may deceive you that they cannot retrieve it or it doesn't exist)

2). the Operator Manual for the measuring device used,

(they may deceive you that they do not have a copy of it)

keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

The judicial system provides false, misleading or deceptive information to defendants or people going 'against' the system, every single day.

Also keep in mind that the 'gatekeeper' (Registrar) may not allow your subpoena through, where that person may be obstructing the course of justice by not allowing you to obtain the necessary documents that may prove your not guilty of the alleged offence.

Obstructing the course of justice is a criminal offence.

Australia's fuel crisis - 'National Security' Failure of Government

Source: PetrolSpy

FORGET about Australia being a "lucky country" spruiked by media and government.

Pen was put to paper that Australia is run "mainly by second rate people" and that was in the mid 1960's.

Well, legally it's still a colony, but that topic is beyond the scope of this article.

Nowadays it's worse, it's run by people that are not fit to run ANY kind of business, let alone a nation, period.

'National Security' is not just about military prowess but also infrastructure and resources fall under this category.

The fact that the Australian authorities have allowed the resource called fuel to (allegedly) run dry is a 'failure of government' where realistically there should be an inquiry into this with real world consequences where people MUST lose their cushy jobs.

BUT in reality this will never happen, as the nation is run by a 'cartel' where the courts are part if this as well.

Whenever Royal Commissions or inquiries are held there is no remedy for the serfs/plebs/commoners.

They're always the ones that pay.

In this example, with the highlighted cost of 91 unleaded at $3.12 per litre, corporations are racketeering the people with zero 'remedy' in sight from the authorities.

That's life in a totalitarian (penal) colony called Australia!

Police corruption rife: I Catch Killers podcast Deborah Locke reveals death threats after exposing NSW police corruption that changed everything

Unfortunately for the 'good people' of Australia, the colony's police forces are rife with corruption.

The police literally cannot be trusted in any 'alleged' criminal matter.

In court they lie, tamper with evidence, destroy evidence and even tamper with witnesses and/or produce false witnesses with full support of the Anglo-Masonic setup legal system.

After all, the brethren look after each other.

Miscarriage of justice occurs in every single courtroom across the land, to the detriment of society as a whole, where the victims of the justice business are deliberately left without a remedy. 

Keep in mind that the old-adage "the system is broken" is a false one, as the reality is that the system is functioning perfectly, the way it was designed to.

Corruption has increased over the years, but the authorities would have you believe there is less.

Here is one story that the public news media are allowed to inform the general population of, the one that the colony's original corrupt police force could no longer hide.

I Catch Killers podcast: 
Deborah Locke reveals death threats after exposing NSW police corruption that changed everything

She saw too much. Then they found $20,000 in her car. What happened next would spark Australia’s biggest police corruption inquiry.

When former detective Deborah Locke joined the NSW police force in 1984 as part of the last class to graduate from the Redfern Academy female officers were, in her words, “lower than a police dog.”

“They used to make us wear these big, baggy culottes – [pants that were like] big long skirts,” she recalls of the bizarre uniform choices made on behalf of police women in the eighties on this week’s episode of I Catch Killers with Gary Jubelin.

“I remember once jumping a wooden fence chasing a bloke who was doing a break-and-enter, and I’ve jumped over the fence and my big baggy culottes have come over and hooked over the top of the wooden paling fence, and I’m hung up and I am just hanging on the fence, waiting for someone to come.”

 Yet little did Locke know that her outfit would end up being the least of her concerns during her time on the force.

The former officer turned whistleblower after witnessing first-hand the corruption that was rampant in the NSW police force during the eighties, a move that would leave her in fear for her life, a pariah in the force and the catalyst for the infamous Wood Royal Commission into police corruption.

‘They’re going to kill us’

The journey from ‘one of the boys’ to whistleblower unfolded over several years. After beginning her career in North Sydney, Locke eventually took a role within the Gaming Squad in the late eighties, at a time when she was heavily in the grips of alcoholism, something that made her male colleagues view her as a ‘drinking buddy’, on the many trips to bars and pubs the squad would partake in as part of its questionable methods.

Yet it was here that the extent of the corruption became apparent.

Cash bribes were commonplace between illegal gambling providers and police, and Locke regularly witnessed police tipping off providers before a raid in exchange for payment.

“Every time we did a raid they knew we were coming,” she tells Jubelin, “the cops, there were cops taking quids.”

“One time we went and [the illegal gaming crew] had a film crew and they’re videoing us. They had a big welcome sign waiting for us, they knew we were coming.”

But the point of no return came when $20,000 was discovered in the boot of Locke’s surveillance car. She’d been in Bathurst on a two-week study block, as part of a course she had enrolled in to advance her career, and when she returned she discovered the money had come from an illegal bookie who’d bribed members of her squad. Her boss, who was not involved in the corruption, had discovered the bribe, and had made the extraordinary decision to arrest the officers involved through the Highway Patrol.

“The next day, I rock into work and everyone’s just traumatised,” Locke, who was part of the small surveillance team now dubbed ‘dogs’, recalls. “Everyone’s rocking. And the next thing you know, people are drawing pictures. They’re going to kill us.”

“It was dangerous, we were all scared,” Locke continues. “And it was a horrible situation. It was just ridiculous. Even though I wasn’t even there or part of it, I was just tarred with the same brush – it was my car, and so I’m in on it.”

Locke was granted an overnight transfer to the Parramatta detectives unit, in order to be protected.

“By the time I got to Parramatta though, they already knew who I was, what had happened,” she says.

“And I was classified as a dog and a whistleblower.”

‘I’m going to go jail with these guys’

At Parramatta, Locke continued to witness corruption.

“If the gaming squad was like a circus, Parramatta was a whole different ball game,” she says, where detectives would have frequent contact with Roger Rogerson, a disgraced former cop who had already been dismissed from the force. Locke recalls Rogerson would “hold court” in Chinese restaurants, associating with major gangsters and being fawned over by police officers keen to win his favour.

It was Lenny MacPherson, one of Sydney’s most notorious gangsters in the eighties, that eventually triggered Locke’s whistleblowing. While drinking with senior officers and underworld figures at a Parramatta hotel, Locke was pulled aside and asked to perform a ‘favour’: obtain a gun license for MacPherson’s second wife.

The scheme was as bizarre as it was corrupt. Her superiors wanted her to go to Gladesville police station, present the application, and effectively pretend to be MacPherson’s wife.

 Despite being offered increasing amounts of money to comply, Locke refused the bribe.

However, in the process of handling the paperwork, she realised she was trapped. “I was hanging on to the piece of paper,” she says, “so the fingerprints are on it.”

Ultimately, it was a literal interpretation of the police code of conduct that led to Locke becoming an official whistleblower.

“It’s probably my autism,” she explains, “I’d read the policies and procedures and it said, if you saw corruption and you didn’t say anything or do anything, you would also be guilty of that offence. And the stuff I saw going down, I was worried. I took it literally. I thought: ‘I’m going to go to jail with these guys.’

Whistleblowing, death threats and a royal commission

When Locke first went to then soon-to-be commissioner Tony Lauer to report the corruption, she says she was met with “disgust”.

“He said, ‘you don’t know what a detective is, you’re a whistleblower’ and I’d never heard that term,” she says. “I got up my courage and I bravely said to him ‘what’s a whistleblower?’ He looked at me with disgust and said, ‘you know, that’s cops who are dobbing in cops’.”

 At Parramatta, the atmosphere turned lethal. Officers openly discussed her “disappearing,” and Locke lived in constant fear for her life.

“There was a copper that was going to speak out against the abortion squad in the seventies,” she says, “and he got shot sitting on the toilet. And I got told a few times that was gonna happen to me.”

The path to systemic change finally opened through independent MP John Hatton, a long-time crusader against the ‘boys’ club’. Locke became the only officer in the state with the backbone to sign statutory declarations alleging current corruption.

Her lone statutory declaration was enough for Hatton to set things in motion, and eventually the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption, which shattered the bubble of police impunity. It exposed a widespread culture of bribery, drug trafficking, and protecting criminals.

While many corrupt officers were granted amnesty to resign, the Commission’s findings fundamentally changed Australian policing by introducing rigorous accountability and oversight.

The downfall of Roger Rogerson and Glen McNamara

While Roger Rogerson had previously been acquitted of the attempted murder of whistleblower Michael Drury, he would eventually face justice in 2014, when he and Glen MacNamara – who had previously made a name for himself as a ‘clean’ cop – were convicted of the murder of Jamie Gao.

Locke – who had formerly posed with MacNamara at the launch of his own ‘anti-corruption’ book, was especially outraged by his involvement.

 “They said, look, he’s doing a book, come and support him … We’ve got a photo in the paper, you know, his arm around me,” she says.

Years later, Locke watched the downfall of the men who had once operated in the shadows. “I used to go down and watch them at court, and I’d wave, ‘hi Glen, hi Roger,’ and they’d just look at me. He had the gunpowder all over him and it was like a video in court,” Locke explains, describing how surveillance footage captured the pair drinking beers and stepping over Gao’s body.

“I just felt so good to see Roger in the dock, you know? He was glaring at me, like ‘that b***h!’”

See YouTube video:

source:news.com.au

Secret Control Room In Victoria's Parliament House

MANY of the colony’s party officials that are in office are not elected democratically by the people, but rather decided in house which one of them would be a better corporate whore.

With regards to Victoria, it is truly irrelevant which premier puppet is on display whether it’s Labor’s Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews or the Liberals’ Denis Napthine or ‘Ted’ Ballieu, the most important room in the building is the one the politicians or staff aren’t allowed to talk about that is the ‘blue room’.

This masthead was informed under the condition of anonymity, that what is in store for Victoria over a period that exceeds the tenure of a premier is decided by ‘faceless men’, the men that truly run the nation and states.

Nothing gets done unless it's passed by members of the 'blue room', said the source.

It is what they decide that happens not only within the state but what is coordinated by their brethren in similar positions in other states is what will be executed over the years that follow.

Whether it’s new law they have waiting, for a particular trigger moment to occur that will oppress the people to town planning or infrastructure projects and who will benefit from the falsified tenders to immigration arrivals, even though they are a federal task, they still are discussed at state level.

The 'housing crisis' is a deliberate political move to cause turmoil and financial harm for the good people of Australia that will have a generational effect.

The people are truly conned if they believe that they have voted for a person that will serve them.

These politicians only take actions that are of benefit to them, where one of the goals is to fleece from the public purse as much as possible, where even if whatever is classified as ‘too much’ will not incur any consequences.

Australia’s governments are some of the most corrupt in the world, where currently Victoria’s ‘Big Build’ is just one example of this government supported fraud.

Privacy and Security Warning: myki system bank card upgrade

Australia’s governments are all about creating more customers.

Creating more 'consumers' and importing more useless eaters, where that subject is beyond the scope of this article.

What could go 'wrong', right?

Well, banks and financial institutions do factually commit offences and breach various Australian law, but they’re allowed to get away with it as seen within the Royal Commission, which at the end of the day was a ‘money for mates’ farce at the expense of the Australian Taxpayers.

Another action banks do, is aggregate your information, package it up, and sell it many times over.

If you ‘tap on’ and ‘tap off’ with your bank issued credit or debit card, then the bank will know your movements, package up this data and again, sell it many times over.

If you truly value your privacy, and therefore security you will not use your card or even phone with its virtual card for myki related travel.

In any event, that will just be another database which hackers will be able to eventually access and use it for whatever purpose they see fit.

The question is not ‘if’ but rather ‘when’ will your data get hacked?

Google’s false information about 'protecting' its community.

Corporations lie to their stakeholders, users and the general population every single day.

Google has recently been lying on a global scale and there is zero repercussions.

There are a few ways into interact on the internet which can be summed up as either an active user or a passive one.

Let’s start with the passive example first.

A person can be the recipient of a TikTok/Instagram/YouTube link where it can be opened up in a web browser such as Brave/FireFox/Chromium without that person having to log in that corporation’s platform.

At that point in time that person cannot interact with the poster or community by writing a comment or even give a thumbs up to whatever was shown, where that person is also known as a ‘lurker’.

Since no interaction can be made, that person cannot allegedly be a danger to the community, as the community is not aware that the person even exists.

Now, if a person is logged in to TikTok/Facebook/YouTube then that person can post content that may not be safe for work, or even exercising one’s right to (alleged) ‘free speech’ by criticising a government’s new agenda or the passing of an unlawfully enacted law.

Those comments may then have to be moderated in order to allegedly ‘protect’ that online community.

So now Google (via Youtube) claims that when you are lurking on their platform, you could be a bot, implying that you could hurt the community, and when you log in “this helps protect our community”.

Quite simply put, no it does not! That is a blatant lie.

When will people wake up to the lies and deception by corporations.

It’s NOT about protecting their ‘community’ but rather surveillance capitalism, keeping in mind that Google is one of the world’s largest advertising data harvesting corporations, where they need to you log in to their platform so that they can sell you (the product) to others.

Who is "our community"? The people working for Google or the people using their platforms?

In the same vein as the above question, see link:

What is the first job of a government?

Royal Commission into ‘antisemitism’ another deliberately misguided farce?

Historically, royal commissions in this colony are a compromised ‘money for mates’ rort of taxpayer funds.

The corruption of the colony's Anglo-Masonic legal system goes above the comprehension of the ‘average Joe’, exactly the way the system wants it to be.

Edward I

The previous royal commission into the banking and financial services institutions was a deliberately useless farce, where approx 10,000 signatories to it never obtained a remedy.

The Wood Royal Commission on paedophilia, totally useless to the victims of paedophiles in positions of power.

Will the (alleged) ‘royal commission into antisemitism’ ask the fundamental question of why is there a perception/sentiment of antisemitism or is it really anti-Zionism?

Protests in Melbourne

The so called commission will not entertain why is Australia importing Islamic fundamentalists that later carry out heinous actions or incite hate or violence, because it's acceptable if it's against Buddhist, Hindus or Christians?

See article from 2014: 

Adelaide-based Sheikh Sharif Hussein free to preach race hate

The so called commission will not entertain the fact that the Sajid Akram was a 'Person of Interest' and should have not been given the right to reside in Australia, where others have been denied entry of exercising their ‘free speech’ right in this colony.

The so called commission will not entertain the fact that Sajid Akram should have not been given a gun licence by the 'authorities'.

Will the commission obtain evidence that in the 1200’s the Jews were plunging the English population into poverty through a practice called usury, that being making loans that are seen as unfairly enriching the lender?

Will the commission obtain evidence that condemning taking advantage of others' misfortunes, was brought in under a law in 1275 called ‘Statute of the Jewry’ by Edward I of England?

Usury is still practised today and will be well into the future.

Will the so called royal commission look into the history why the Jews were kicked out of Egypt or Spain?

Will the so called royal commission look into the actions of modern day Israel against other nations and the correlation against Zionism?

See video: of the title: Rabbi EXPOSES Israel in Bondi Beach Attacks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEiKpYX5_E

Keeping in mind that the matter of antisemitism vs anti-Zionism has already been before the Federal Court of Australia in 2025, under Wertheim v Haddad. Where the following was stated:

Will the so called commission do a deep dive into Zionism?

So, the royal commission will be into 'antisemitism' and not into the 'Bondi Beach Massacre', where the people will be blamed for (alleged) antisemitism, but an inquiry into the Bondi Beach massacre will pin the blame on the authorities at a fair few levels.

See also: 

Bondi massacre, the government to blame