A look into Corporate fraud in Australia, Stranglehold of Monopolies, Telecom's Oppression, Biased Law System, Corporate influence in politics, Industrial Relations disadvantaging workers, Outsourcing Australian Jobs, Offshore Banking, Petrochemical company domination, Invisibly Visible.
It's not what you see, it's what goes on behind the scenes. Australia, the warrantless colony.
Note: Site has more info in desktop mode or 'web version' as seen at bottom of page, when on smartphone.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (ABN: 122 104 616)
Australia's Prime Minister (CEO) Tony Abbott : "Australia is Open for Business"
Showing posts with label Money for Mates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Money for Mates. Show all posts
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:
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.
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’.
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'.
“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.
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.
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!
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!’”
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.
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?
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?
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?
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
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.
The sole purpose that corporations exist for is not to create a product or service but rather to generate profit for the owners/stakeholders from this product or service.
In a fair few instances health of the consumers is not on the cards, with food-like products from corporations like McDonald's, Wendy's, Donut King, et al.
A global 'big pharma' giant has recently put together a drug that allegedly stops people from smoking.
So what they need to do now is to spruik their 'wares' to medical practitioners, where kickbacks are given for every prescription handed out the patient 'customer'/consumer.
That's all very nice, BUT the problem is that a confidential industry insider stated that the drug doesn't work, where the company that produced it, knows that.
Sounds familiar?
A few years ago the same corporation put out a drug that was forced or maybe 'enticed' onto the people, where it did not confer immunity therefore it was falsely labelled as a 'vaccine'.
Naturally it would a good idea to seek a professional medial opinion on this drug from a medical practitioner that has no vested interest in the product.
For the past 15 years, F-Droid
has provided a safe and secure haven for Android users around the world to
find and install free and open source apps. When contrasted with the
commercial app stores — of which the Google Play store is the most prominent
— the differences are stark: they are hotbeds of spyware and scams,
blatantly promoting apps that prey on their users through attempts to
monetize their attention and mine their intimate information through any
means necessary, including trickery and dark
patterns.
F-Droid is different. It distributes apps that have been validated to work
for the user’s interests, rather than for the interests of the app’s
distributors. The way F-Droid works is simple: when a developer creates an
app and hosts the source code publicly somewhere, the F-Droid team reviews
it, inspecting it to ensure that it is completely open source and contains
no undocumented anti-features
such as advertisements or trackers. Once it passes inspection, the F-Droid
build service compiles and packages the app to make it ready for
distribution. The package is then signed either with F-Droid’s cryptographic
key, or, if the build is
reproducible, enables
distribution using the original developer’s private key. In this way, users
can trust that any app distributed through F-Droid is the one that was built
from the specified source code and has not been tampered with.
Do you want a weather app that doesn’t transmit your every
movement
to a shadowy data broker? Or a scheduling assistant that doesn’t siphon
your intimate
details
into an advertisement network? F-Droid has your back. Just as sunlight is
the best disinfectant against corruption, open source is the best defense
against software acting against the interests of the user.
Google’s move to break free app distribution
The future of this elegant and proven system was put in jeopardy last month,
when Google unilaterally
decreed
that Android developers everywhere in the world are going to be required to
register centrally with Google. In addition to demanding payment of a
registration fee and agreement to their (non-negotiable and ever-changing)
terms and conditions, Google will also require the uploading of personally
identifying
documents,
including government ID, by the authors of the software, as well as
enumerating
all the unique “application identifiers” for every app that is to be
distributed by the registered developer.
The F-Droid project cannot require that developers register their apps
through Google, but at the same time, we cannot “take over” the application
identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would
effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.
If it were to be put into effect, the developer registration decree will end
the F-Droid project and other free/open-source app distribution sources as
we know them today, and the world will be deprived of the safety and
security of the catalog of thousands of apps that can be trusted and
verified by any and all. F-Droid’s myriad users will be left adrift, with no
means to install — or even update their existing installed —
applications. (How many F-Droid users are there, exactly? We don’t know,
because we don’t track users or have any registration: “No user accounts,
by design”)
The Security Canard
While directly installing — or “sideloading” — software can be construed as
carrying some inherent risk, it is false to claim that centralized app
stores are the only safe option for software distribution. Google Play
itself has
repeatedlyhosted
malware, proving that corporate gatekeeping doesn’t guarantee user
protection. By contrast, F-Droid offers a trustworthy and transparent
alternative approach to security: every app is free and open source, the
code can be audited by anyone, the build process and logs are public, and
reproducible builds ensure that what is published matches the source code
exactly. This transparency and accountability provides a stronger basis
for trust than closed platforms, while still giving users freedom to
choose. Restricting direct app installation not only undermines that choice,
it also erodes the diversity and resilience of the open-source ecosystem by
consolidating control in the hands of a few corporate players.
Furthermore, Google’s framing that they need to mandate developer
registration in order to defend against malware is disingenuous because they
already have a remediation mechanism for malware they identify on a
device: the Play Protect
service that is
enabled on all Android Certified devices already scans and disables apps
that have been identified as malware, regardless of their provenience. Any
perceived risks associated with direct app installation can be mitigated
through user education, open-source transparency, and existing security
measures without imposing exclusionary registration requirements.
We do not believe that developer registration is motivated by security. We
believe it is about consolidating power and tightening control over a
formerly open ecosystem.
The Right to Run
If you own a computer, you should have the right to run whatever programs
you want on it. This is just as true with the apps on your Android/iPhone
mobile device as it is with the applications on your Linux/Mac/Windows
desktop or server. Forcing software creators into a centralized registration
scheme in order to publish and distribute their works is as egregious as
forcing writers and artists to register with a central authority in order to
be able to distribute their creative works. It is an offense to the core
principles of free speech and thought that are central to the workings of
democratic societies around the world.
By tying application identifiers to personal ID checks and fees, Google is
building a choke point that restricts competition and limits user
freedom. It must find a solution which preserves user rights, freedom of
choice, and a healthy, competitive ecosystem.
What do we propose?
Regulatory and competition authorities should look carefully at Google’s
proposed activities, and ensure that policies designed to improve security
are not abused to consolidate monopoly control. We urge regulators to
safeguard the ability of alternative app stores and open-source projects to
operate freely, and to protect developers who cannot or will not comply with
exclusionary registration schemes and demands for personal information.
If you are a developer or user who values digital freedom, you can
help. Write to your Member of
Parliament,
Congressperson
or other representative, sign petitions in defense of sideloading and
software freedom, and
contact the
European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) team to express why
preserving open distribution matters. By making your voice heard, you help
defend not only F-Droid, but the principle that software should remain a
commons, accessible and free from unnecessary corporate gatekeeping.
Source:f-droid.org
IF you value your privacy & security, then using as least Google products as possible would be a wise choice.
Corruption in government departments is rife, where this is only one example that has made it out into the public news media.
There is much more corruption that is (deliberately) not reported.
An investigator with the Australian Taxation Office has been found to
have lied and tampered with evidence during a lengthy legal battle
against a Queensland medical researcher who was accused of fraud.
The
researcher was interviewed by the ATO, and was advised to answer
questions and was told if she did not, she would be committing an
offence. She therefore did not have a right to silence.
The ATO’s conduct was lambasted as “oppression” by Justice Paul Smith, who ordered for her fraud case to be stayed on Friday.
Smith
handed down his judgment in the years-long case, involving the medical
researcher, referred to as Julie Clarke in documents, after she
requested a pseudonym.
Clarke
had wished to develop a therapeutic using the chemical
(R)-3-hydroxybutyric acid (also known as D-3-hydroxybutyric acid). It
was intended to treat conditions such as cancer and obesity.
The
case involved investor group The Brisbane Angels, who decided to invest
$185,000 in 2016. Clarke had approached the group for funding relating
to cancer trials. Brisbane Angels said they were not interested, but
would consider it if it was a weight-loss drug. Two promising pilot
studies were done and the $185,000 was invested.
The group later withdrew from the project after being informed it would be a “protracted and expensive process”.
There
was a civil dispute between Clarke and the group, with the former
wanting the return of the intellectual property, and the investors
wanting their money.
An application was lodged with the ATO the
following year, with Clarke claiming she had spent $11,380,900, on
product development. The ATO considered the claim to be false, and
believed she only spent $11,380.90. The ATO then proceeded to audit the
case, and Clarke was interviewed.
Smith said the
researcher was directed by the ATO to answer questions; otherwise she
would be committing an offence, and as such she did not have a right to
silence.
The court found that the substantial purpose of the
interview was to question Clarke about the alleged fraud, which is a
criminal offence.
Smith concluded that Clarke was unlawfully
subjected to a hybrid audit and criminal interview, and she had been
deprived of her forensic choices in the way in which she could defend
herself at trial.
Court documents said both the ATO and
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had improperly brought two
prosecutions against Clarke, and as such the proceedings had become
oppressive, and both included the use of an unlawful compulsory
interview.
Court documents state ATO investigator Anthony Rains
obtained documents from Brisbane Angels in 2018, and formed the view
Clarke had defrauded them of the $185,000, believing it was spent on a
personal loan and holidays.
The
court found Rains referred the state fraud matter to the Queensland
Police Service without any complaint by Brisbane Angels and failed to
provide exculpatory material to police, including that Clarke was
entitled to a consulting fee and other information that showed the money
had been spent on legitimate expenses.
In his judgment,
Smith said Rains engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, including that
he deliberately altered the expenses sheet Clarke sent to Brisbane
Angels, and provided misleading information to obtain search warrants,
which subsequently misled several judicial officers.
The court
found he also lied in a briefing note to the Queensland Bar, and failed
to disclose emails between himself and Brisbane Angels before the state
fraud trial in 2020.
Smith said: “I consider Mr Rains exceeded his
authority by being heavily involved in the investigation of the state
charge and it is doubtful there was ever a case to answer as alleged. I
have found an abuse of process occurred here.”
Smith said Clarke
was subjected to considerable stress and expense in having to defend the
state charge whilst also defending the Commonwealth case.
He
said Clarke must have been “absolutely fearful of being unjustly
convicted on the state fraud charge which would carry a sentence of
several years in jail and she must have felt no one was listening to
her”.
He also said: “The court should not tolerate this type of
conduct by this ATO investigator or the ATO more broadly, or any
government authority for that matter.”
Smith said the justice
system would be put at significant risk if courts could not rely on the
integrity of government investigators and institutions.
Smith ordered for the prosecution against Clarke to be stayed.
The colonialists are still in charge of the residents of this (penal) colony.
Australians live under a false presumption that they live in a democracy, where a totalitarian state is the order of the business day.
With one of the more important aspects of penal colony policies being in place is the flow of information, which now it’s more important than ever.
The narrative that is ‘advertised’ to the masses must be strictly controlled and what better way to do it than with only a few in charge of it.
They hide under not-for-profit organisations or charities/trusts.
Their narrative is strictly controlled and must be regurgitated by the over 400 media outlets across the colony called Australia.
Australian ‘consumers’ or subscribers of news or rather entertainment conglomerates that supply so called ‘news’ believe that they have a choice from different sources or that even there is ‘opposition’ where in fact it’s controlled opposition.
See how Tim Penhalluriack unpacks:
How AAP operates as a centralised newswire
Who its key donors and corporate backers are
Why the same journalist byline appears across multiple outlets
How this affects media diversity and public trust
Whether “fact-checking” is really as objective as it sounds
Victoria is a money for mates system that rorts people’s tax dollars in fraudulent tender processes for whatever hair brained idea the politicians enact.
As a result the low quality people in government do not function for the benefit of society, but rather the policy to to give the bare minimum to their constituents, tax/rate payers.
While they line their pockets with disproportionate salary increases, they give back very little to society, where over-government is the order of the day.
This modus operandi is not only limited to Victoria but rather across all states and territories across the self governing colony.
Corruption costs, where it doesn’t ‘cost’ the government, but rather society and society’s tax pool.
Recent information from a source within the government, is that the funds allocated to road maintenance will not be entirely spent on fixing the state's atrocious roads but rather 40% of that budget will be spent on generating revenue.
“They simply don’t give a stuff about the people” the source stated, “they’re fixated on generating revenue in whichever way possible, even if it’s dishonest”
So, forty percent of the state’s road maintenance budget is going into speed/red-light cameras.
The cameras are not about safety but rather pure revenue raising.
To make it worse it’s done unlawfully, but that is beyond the scope of this article.
When tolls are legitimately charged,
they are traditionally seen as user-pays fees intended to recover the
cost of building and maintaining infrastructure. This is a form of cost
recovery, not strictly a "tax" in the conventional sense, though it
functions similarly. Although the States have some power to levy fees to
pay for public services and infrastructure. Section 90 of the
Constitution limits States from imposing duties of excise (a type of
tax) on goods or commerce that power belongs exclusively to the
Commonwealth. Section 92 guarantees free trade and movement, which tolls
arguably restrict if they become a permanent economic barrier.
Federation in 1901 did not create an
explicit, written “right to freedom of movement” in the style of a bill
of rights. However, it established a unified legal and political
framework particularly through Section 92 of the Constitution that the
High Court has interpreted to imply a constitutional guarantee of
freedom of interstate movement (as part of “intercourse among the
States”).
This freedom is generally protected,
but it is not absolute. In rare circumstances, such as during a
pandemic, reasonable and proportionate restrictions may be upheld
provided they serve a legitimate, non-protectionist purpose, such as
public health.
There is no clear constitutional power that allows private,
especially foreign-owned, companies to charge tolls purely for profit on
public roads in Australia. The original purpose of tolls was to recover
the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure not to generate
ongoing profit. While governments can fund roads through user charges,
once tolling becomes a tool for private profit rather than public
service, it risks straying beyond the intended scope of constitutional
powers. The Constitution gives the Commonwealth and States power over
trade, commerce, and roads, but it does not explicitly authorise the
outsourcing of essential public infrastructure to private entities for
commercial exploitation.
Not even under State constitutions,
is there express or inherent power for this that clearly allows private
or foreign owned companies to charge tolls purely for profit on public
roads. State governments may authorise toll roads, but the power to do
so is meant to serve a public purpose usually to recover the cost of
construction, maintenance, or operation of the road. Turning tolls into a
permanent profit making scheme for private companies, especially
foreign-owned ones, raises legal and constitutional concerns, including
Accountability and Sovereign control of public infrastructure.
In Vanderstock v Victoria,
the High Court ruled that a State-imposed charge on electric vehicle
use (the ZLEV road-user charge) was an excise, and therefore
unconstitutional under section 90 of the Australian Constitution.
Section 90 gives the Commonwealth exclusive power to impose duties of
excise, meaning the States cannot impose taxes on goods including
charges imposed for their use or consumption. The Court took a broad
view of what counts as an excise, holding that it can include charges on
the use of goods, not just their sale or production. This decision
widened the scope of what is considered an excise beyond traditional
manufacturing taxes. A charge imposed by a State on the use of a good
(like a car on a public road) may now be unconstitutional if it’s
effectively a tax, even if it's not called one.
So if a toll is charged by a
private company under State legislation, and the toll: Applies to the
use of vehicles (goods), and is not directly tied to the cost of
providing infrastructure, and, Generates ongoing profit, especially for
foreign-owned entities, then that toll could be constitutionally invalid
under the logic of Vanderstock, because it may function as an excise duty, which States are not permitted to impose.
In Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 263
In this case, Latham CJ gave a widely accepted definition of a tax:
“A tax is a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, enforceable by law, and is not a payment for services rendered.”
One needs to ask the
question is a toll charged by a public authority for a public purpose
and not a payment for services rendered? Essentially a charge imposed by
a State on the use of a good (like a car on a public road) may now be
unconstitutional if it’s effectively a tax, even if it's not called one.
Below is a draft letter to send to your representitives raising the
above concerns, get behind this and soon we could see this
unconstitutional charge removed giving relief to all Australians.
Victoria
To: The Hon. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Minister for Infrastructure / Member for xxxxxxxxxxx Parliament of the State of xxxxxxxxxxx [Address]
Reclaiming the Constitutional and Public Principle of Absolutely Free Movement on Australian Roads
Dear xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx,
I am writing to express my deep
concern regarding the continued tolling of Australian roads particularly
those that were built or co-funded using public money and the
constitutional and public policy implications this practice raises.
Historically, tolls were imposed to recover the cost of building
essential public infrastructure, such as the Sydney Harbour and West
Gate Bridges. These tolls were removed once construction debts were
repaid. This approach reflected the public interest and aligned with the
intent of the framers of the Constitution that travel and commerce
within our federated nation should be “absolutely free,” as enshrined in
Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which states:
“Trade, commerce, and
intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or
ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.”
However, the current model whereby
roads originally funded with taxpayer money have been handed over to
private and, in some cases, foreign-owned corporations under long-term
tolling contracts is a serious deviation from that principle. For
instance, Transurban collected over $3.2 billion in toll revenue during
the 2023–24 financial year. These revenues are not merely paying off
infrastructure; they are enriching shareholders and, in many cases,
leaving Australians with no real alternative routes.
Despite this, I am more than willing to pay future tolls, on the following strict conditions:
The toll is used solely to repay the cost of building and maintaining the road, as the framers of the Constitution intended.
The toll is not for the profit of any private or foreign corporation.
All toll revenue forms part of the
State’s Consolidated Revenue, as a legal required under Section 89 of
the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), which states:
“All taxes imposts rates and duties and all territorial casual
and other revenues of the Crown in right of the State of Victoria
(including royalties) which the Parliament has power to appropriate
shall form one Consolidated Revenue to be appropriated for the public
service of Victoria…”
That satisfactory and lawful response is provided in relation to the following key legal and constitutional matters:
With respect to Legal and
Constitutional Concerns Regarding Toll Revenues Used for Private or
Foreign Profit: While tolls have traditionally been justified as
user-pays mechanisms to recover the cost of building and maintaining
public roads, serious constitutional and legal concerns arise when tolls
are imposed indefinitely and used to generate profit for private
particularly foreign-owned corporations.
Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, the following key provisions are relevant:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 90
Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties.
“The power of the Parliament to impose duties of customs and of excise… shall become exclusive.”
This provision prohibits States
from imposing duties of excise, which are broadly interpreted to include
any tax on goods or services prior to consumption, including charges on
the use of infrastructure related to commercial activity.
In Vanderstock v Victoria (2023),
the High Court ruled that a state-imposed electric vehicle levy was an
unconstitutional excise, reinforcing the principle that States may not
impose such charges outside Commonwealth authority. By extension, it is
arguable that tolls functioning as revenue-raising measures, especially
when paid into private profit streams, may also constitute an invalid
excise.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 92
Trade within the Commonwealth to be free.
“Trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States… shall be absolutely free.”
Toll roads, especially when no
viable free alternative exists, create economic and physical barriers to
movement. When these barriers are imposed perpetually, and not for
infrastructure cost recovery, they arguably breach the constitutional
guarantee of absolutely free intercourse among the States, particularly
if they apply to essential routes of trade or migration.
A clear Violation of Public Revenue
Principles: According to Section 89 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic),
all revenue raised by the State must form part of the Consolidated
Revenue, and be appropriated for the public service unless it is
specifically provided for.
“All taxes imposts rates and duties… shall form one Consolidated Revenue to be appropriated for the public service of Victoria…”
Toll revenue that is directed to
private or foreign-owned corporations instead of the State's
Consolidated Revenueviolates this principle. Such arrangements bypass
parliamentary accountability and the public interest, creating a
two-tiered system where movement is monetised for profit rather than
governed as a public service.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that your office:
Review the legality and fairness of long-term tolling arrangements in light of Sections 90 and 92 of the Constitution.
Ensure that all toll revenue is
publicly accounted for and forms part of the State's Consolidated
Revenue, in accordance with Section 89 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic).
Propose legislative and
constitutional reform, where necessary, to restore the principle that
movement on publicly funded infrastructure should be absolutely free.
Consider initiating or supporting a
broader constitutional inquiry into the modern meaning of “absolutely
free” movement, particularly as it relates to public-private
partnerships and the monopolisation of essential roadways.
This is more than a legal issue it
goes to the heart of our shared national identity. Roads are not a
luxury service; they are a fundamental element of public infrastructure.
If everyday Australians cannot move freely without paying for the
privilege, we have strayed far from the original vision of a fair and
united federation.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
PLEASE NOTE:
The consolidated fund argument does not apply in NSW or Queensland.
The ATO (Australian Tax Office) is one of the colony's most secretive and corrupt organisations.
First and foremost, Australia's Anglo-Masonic system looks after its 'brethren', where case in point, it waived ex PM Paul Keating's tax bill of almost $1 million.
SO who has to mop up the rest?
Why the serfs/(tax) slaves do, of course!
See the Four Corners documentary:
What will the ATO do now?
It will surely harass the serfs in unlawful conduct to recoupe it's (alleged) 'losses', where it will 'require' taxes on unrealised profits, from plebs that own businesses, as the ATO is doing at this very moment.
There really should be a class action lawsuit against the ATO.
Will it ever happen? Probably not, but if it does, then it will be designed to fail.
The question is very simple, where how much does it cost for a pharmaceutical corpoation to make their 'trial' drug that is only distributed via Emergency Use Authorisation, where it is advertised by the Australian authorities as "safe and effective"
The spreadsheet above lists the three 'big pharma' corporations and how much each of them has paid to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia.
Moderna has paid a total of $3,314,869.50
Pfizer pad a total of $28,250,549.99
AstraZeneca paid a total of $13,582,028.62
A small brabe of each of them to reap in huge profits frm the sales of their drugs, which were forced on the general population, where the judiciary and others were exempt.
It's not the first nor the last bribe the TGA has taken, where as a result it cannot be trusted, but as always no one goes to prison over such large scale corruption in this colony.
SO during this mandate, the authorities did not check whether they had the lawfully enacted instrument for the ‘mandate’ to occur, they just forced the trial drug on frontline workers because that's what they wanted to do.
If you did not comply, your employment would be terminated.
Therefore those that did not comply were unlawfully terminated, where the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal business did not offer a remedy for the victims of government abuse.
VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) as its name suggests is a tribunal.
VCAT is enacting one the largest legal cons on the unsuspecting Victorian public.
The current, as of 23 June 2023, president of VCAT judge Edward (Ted) Winslow Woodward, pictured left, together with every single member issuing orders are complicit in this fraud causing harm to many respondents.
Will this ever come out like in the above mentioned Supreme Court case from Queensland?
Well, it’s already out since 2018, and it’s a one up better as it’s from the High Court of Australia.
Will the media pick up on this? Did they inform the general population of this from 2018?
Let’s do a quick recap on the unlawful actions of VCAT with regards to MANY orders issued by them.
First and foremost:
The High Court's decision Burns v Corbett significantly narrowed the jurisdiction of commissions and tribunals.
The High Court held that the Australian Constitution precludes a State tribunal from exercising federal and state jurisdiction, as tribunals are not Courts and cannot exercise judicial powers and jurisdiction.
A tribunal or Commission not being a 'court of a State' cannot adjudicate disputes involving any of the matters set out in ss 75 and 76 of the Australian Constitution, (see the sections below) even when the dispute involves the application of State legislation. The decision affects all areas of law including:
- anti-discrimination disputes,
- residential tenancy disputes,
- building and construction disputes.
A State law cannot impair or detract from the operation of a Commonwealth law by impairing the Commonwealth law’s ‘conditional and universal’ application, except to the extent that it has a ‘legal operation or practical effect within the universe of the conditional legal operation of the Commonwealth law’. Impairing or detracting from s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act is to say that the Parliament has made a complete, exhaustive and exclusive statement on federal jurisdiction: ‘It is necessarily to say that the Commonwealth Parliament has not only provided positively for the conditional investiture of federal jurisdiction in State courts but has also stipulated negatively for the non-investiture of any jurisdiction with respect to any of those matters other than in State courts.’ Gageler J noted the difficulty of finding any such ‘negative penumbra’ in the text of s 39(2), and stated that the more fundamental problem lies in finding a source of Commonwealth legislative power: namely that s 77(iii) does not allow Parliament to confer judicial power on a tribunal that is not a State court.
The Industrial Relations Tribunals and tribunals of the State such as VCAT and the Fair Work Commission all fall into the same category,
- they fail to be courts and cannot provide you with an enforceable judicial decision.
Let's see the case file:
THEREFORE, ANY Order that is enforced by law enforcement, e.g. Victoria Police is done so unlawfully.
Tortfeasor is a term worth exploring.
Have you been harmed by VCAT?
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75
Original jurisdiction of High Court.
In all matters--
(i.) Arising under any treaty:
(ii.) Affecting consuls or other representatives of other
countries:
(iii.) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being
sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:
(iv.) Between States, or between residents of different States,
or between a State and a resident of another State:
(v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction
is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 76
Additional original jurisdiction.
The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on
the High court in any matter--
(i.) Arising under this Constitution, or involving its
interpretation:
(ii.) Arising under any laws made by the Parliament:
(iii.) Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:
(iv.) Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws
of different States.
%20Woodward-SC-Ted-217x300.jpg)