The Corruption of the Supreme Court of Victoria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The corporatising of the Victorian Courts

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

 

March 24, 2005 — 11.00am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- HAS IT BEEN VALIDLY ESTABLISHED?

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

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

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

See the Act:

Sources:supplied

Victorian Government Involved In Driver Licencing Fraud

MANY people from the general population pool may be of the assumption that ‘persons’ in government are ‘honourable’, as they advertise on their ‘government’ [read: tax payer sponsored] websites referring to that person as ‘The Honourable’ wherever the person’s name is, in whatever particular position, where the reality is far from the advertised propaganda.

People may also be of the erroneous belief that the colony’s police forces are unequivocally ‘against’ crime without discrimination, but again that is not true.

They act under dictation from persons unknown to the general population.

A reality is that Australia’s governments (federal and state), need crime, for various reasons, which is a topic that is way beyond the scope of this article.

The federal government’s agenda is an over-immigration policy, on the good people of Australia, where the cause and effect is passed on to the states and territories, in particular to those on the east coast, at great distress to the public, e.g. 'housing crisis'.

The Victorian Government also advertised for a ZERO road deaths policy, knowing full well that it is no achievable.

With the above information in mind, many immigrants that have landed on our shores do not have the skill set to be in charge of a motor vehicle, either driving or parking it.

So what is the Victorian Government doing about it?

Well, information has been obtained from a source within the industry that requires to be anonymous, that Vicroads has been given direction to pass as many future drivers as possible, in the name of ‘the economy’.

“The people in government do not care about road safety, but rather the revenue drivers raise for the governments”, said the source.    

The Victorian Government’s driver licencing corporation ‘Vicroads’, which incidentally is not operating ‘lawfully’ (as opposed to ‘legally’, which it is), is the business responsible for issuing persons permission to drive on the roads not just in Victoria, but the whole of Australia.

There is a reason why Victoria or rather Melbourne has the nation’s lowest quality drivers, that being the immigrant’s countrymen have occupied positions that test prospective drivers for competency, and give them that piece of paper (also under bribes), when they should not have it, where Vicroads is seen as that nation’s most corrupt driver testing so called ‘authority’.

Sydney is not far behind in the ‘per capita’ stakes.

The word is to come to Victori, to get your driver licence easily, especially if you may not have the required co-ordination or skill set.

This information is not new and has been going on for decades, and it’s rarely exposed by government or mainstream media, in any decade.

Therefore is this kind of fraud, going to stop?

MOST DEFINITELY NOT!

The ‘economy’ depends on it! 

You know the automotive, insurance industries, auto repair centres, et al, are all depending on low quality drivers that are on the road, where realistically they should not be.

But hey, that’s life in a (penal) colony.

‘September 11' - The beginning of the next level of the Orwellian Agenda

Briefly,

A generation (25 years) ago, one of the largest PsyOp was enacted on the good people of the world, under a so called (alleged) ‘anti-terrorist’ agenda.

The laws were already drafted up before the turning point event to be put into place immediately after.

From an alleged plane crash into the US Pentagon, which looked more like a missile strike to the controlled demolition of Building 7, where Silverstein confirmed this, which take weeks to put into action, the US government (successfully) pulled of a huge con-job, where world governments accepts this, as it suits their agendas.

See video in his own words:

Larry 'Liar' Silverstein - WTC 7 "We Had To Pull It"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9D9RHZK9lI

Further information can be obtain from a 10 DVD series called ‘Open Your Eyes’ which 

The Money Masters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOk3wBuQNcE

AND

Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQXsPU25B60

is a part of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Governments, authorities and prosecutors cannot be trusted, period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 'data' that they seek is still there.

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

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

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

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

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

See articles:

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

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

Apple conning you that iPhones need to verify your age in the UK.

People should all be aware that governments and corporation lie to us every single day.

Apple are prolific liars, and that’s without any exaggeration whatsoever.

The new age verification laws put in place all over the world have seriously nothing to do with ‘child safety’ but rather everything to do with data collection, so that this can be used against the people to not only monitor and control their movements, but more importantly especially to stifle so their so called ‘free speech’.

Corporations (and governments) are now dictating how people can communicate on the internet, and that's deliberate by design.

See approx. 17 minute explanation by David Bombal on YouTube within the video of the title: Install GrapheneOS Before Your Phone Becomes the Checkpoint:

Laws like the Online Safety Act 2023 (UK) apply to websites and online services, where a phone's operating system does not fall under any of the two categories of the said Act.

Keeping in mind that Apple is an active participant of the FiveEyes 'Anglosphere' global surveillance network.

If you truly value your online security and privacy, the use of Apple products is not recommended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See excerpt below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

illustration of a headlock at ground level

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

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

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

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

Opinion:supplied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See document from 2022 within the post:

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

See also FOI documents within the post:

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

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

Will the real King please stand up?

Documents source:Constitution Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long live the (Stasi) police state of Victoria!

   

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

Albo: 43 days left of fuel, thanking the Australian public.

Briefly,

Today the current (puppet) prime minister, Mr. Anthony Norman Albanese went on the public record in the mainstream media stating that there are 43 days of petrol left for Australians.

This is not because the Australian Government (tm) has ANY reserves or proper production facilities, in full swing, but rather it is due to the public being fuel misers, taking trips ONLY when necessary and walking to the shops to get their soy chai latte, instead of driving there.

He went on to thank the Australian public for using fuel sparingly.

What a pathetic clown show the government of this colony really is.

Australia is going downhill and it’s going down very quickly.

Taking your investments out of Australia would be a sound financial move, according to many financial advisers, but that topic is for another day.

Donald Horne was too generous stating that this place is run by “second-rate” people.

It’s realistically run by low-quality human beings.

NDIS Files: The one that got away and allowed to come back.

It’s back to 1788, where Australia is into importing criminals (hasn’t it always?), and the ‘best’ part about it, is that it’s not going to stop, after all the courts need more ‘customers’, right?

But that’s not always the case where some are allowed to get away with criminal activity.

Information has been provided from a source close to the matter on the condition of anonymity as that person’s livelihood will be at stake if the source is identified or too many identifiable parameters point to the source.

A person who recently immigrated to Australia in order to commit fraud (a common occurrence nowadays), defrauded Aussie taxpayers well into seven figures, where how will not be disclosed as the source could be exposed.

When a so called investigation was launched the ‘private’ company’s case worker was implicated together with their customer.

A phone call was made to the NDIS funds recipient, where that person pretty much immediately packed their bags and fled the colony, meaning Australia to a country which will not be disclosed as again the source could be identified.

The one that got away, or so one would think.

‘Normally’ most people would call this a ‘failure of government’ but in reality that person was ‘allowed’ to escape.

What’s worse, is that person was not only allowed back into the colony, but no repercussions from criminal activity ever saw that light of day in a courtroom.

NOTHING!

This is just one unknown (to the public), example of how pathetic the government and police are, ‘allowing’ people to get away with ripping off taxpayers, while others who travel (allegedly) 3km/h over the speed limit will get pursued by the law to the n-th degree and in many cases unlawfully.

Donald Horne was right that Australia is run by second rate people, where that opinion was formed in the mid 1960's where now they're much lower than 'second' rate.

Another pathetic 'Failure of Government' is that 'Puneet Puneet' has not faced the criminal charge of a hit-and-run of university student Dean Hofstee in 2009, after fleeing to India.

After all Australia has to keep the Indian PM happy with importing 500,000 dalits per annum into the colony.

Note: NDIS, VicPol, etc ‘Files’ are articles of fraud or corruption that have not made it out into the public news media.

Google WIPES OUT over 700 videos of Israel's Human Rights abuse in Palestine - Of Course It Does!

"YouTube Quietly Erased More Than 700 Videos Documenting Israeli Human Rights Violations", 4 November 2025

A documentary featuring mothers surviving Israel’s genocide in Gaza. A video investigation uncovering Israel’s role in the killing of a Palestinian American journalist. Another video revealing Israel’s destruction of Palestinian homes in the occupied West Bank.

YouTube surreptitiously deleted all these videos in early October by wiping the accounts that posted them from its website, along with their channels’ archives. The accounts belonged to three prominent Palestinian human rights groups: Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.

The move came in response to a U.S. government campaign to stifle accountability for alleged Israeli war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The Palestinian groups’ YouTube channels hosted hours of footage documenting and highlighting alleged Israeli government violations of international law in both Gaza and the West Bank, including the killing of Palestinian civilians...

After the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants and charged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Secretary Yoav Gallant with war crimes in Gaza, the Trump administration escalated its defense of Israel’s actions by sanctioning ICC officials and targeting people and organizations that work with the court...

“Congress did not intend to allow the president to cut off the flow of information to the American public and the world — instead, information, including documents and videos, are specifically exempted under the statute that the president cited as his authority for issuing the ICC sanctions.”

YouTube...confirmed to The Intercept that it deleted the groups’ accounts as a direct result of State Department sanctions against the group after a review. The Trump administration leveled the sanctions against the organizations in September over their work with the International Criminal Court in cases charging Israeli officials of war crimes.

“Google is committed to compliance with applicable sanctions and trade compliance laws,” YouTube spokesperson Boot Bullwinkle said in a statement...

Al Mezan... told The Intercept that its YouTube channel was abruptly terminated this year on October 7 without prior notification...

...Al-Haq’s channel was deleted on October 3...with a message from YouTube that its “content violates our guidelines.”...

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which the U.N. describes as the oldest human rights organization in Gaza, said in a statement that YouTube’s move “protects perpetrators from accountability.”...

The three human rights groups’ account terminations cumulatively amount to the erasure of more than 700 videos...

The Al-Haq spokesperson said Mailchimp, the mailing list service, also deleted the group’s account in September. (Mailchimp and its parent company, Intuit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)...

Source:business-humanrights.org

Australia Is Facing Something Far Worse Than A Recession

Australia has become an absolute shithole now, where this is as a result of a few decades of actions by both federal & state Liberal and Labor 'governments'.

Quite simply put the fascists in control HATE the Australian public, taxpayers, voters or constituents.

Stagflation is the order of the business years.

So what does the government do? 

It imports 500,000 Indian nationals alone into the colony per year (for 10 years) to falsely prop up the 'economy'.

Aussies are going to be screwed with a 'government' created recession.

In reality the people in charge must be razed to the ground and a new 'administration' installed, in a similar manner to Israel's oops Frump's new regime change in 'Eye'ran.

See Michael Cowan's, Australia Is Facing Something Far Worse Than A Rcession video below:

Opinion:

It is not recommended to 'invest' within the shores of Australia, where it's better to do business elsewhere, for greater returns.

The people in charge have truly screwed to (good) people of Australia over!

See also:

EMPIRES & IMPERIALISM

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

Trump's Lies Exposed in a Series of Contradictions.

The old adage; "How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving" holds truth in Trump's public appearances.

See a collection of Trump's public appearances where he lies through his teeth to the world, as collated by Jimmy Dore within the video of the title: WATCH: Trump CAN’T STOP Contradicting Himself! , paying attention to Kurt Metzger's comments.

Trump lied on "regime change", day care, medicaid, medicare just to name a few.

With the U.S. and Israel attack on Iran, it's very clear that the US is Israel's soldier.

If Every Nation Is in Debt, Who Are They Paying? How Governments install Austerity

The people in governments and corporations truly do not care about the 'people'/serfs/commoners/general population.

The people in government are generally self serving, where all they truly care about is how much they can siphon from the positions they're in.

This 12 minute video is a great summary of how governments install austerity via a fraudulent monetary system.

See "If Every Nation Is in Debt… Who Are They Paying?" by Hidden Capital

"We the people" are the April Fools.

Fuel & Other Shortages, a DELIBERATE 'failure of government'.

Australia has truly either absolute fuckwits or arseholes in charge of this colony.

In any event MANY should be removed from their positions, as they have failed the people.

Australia is one of the most resource rich land masses on the planet, yet it's wealth has been squandered by the morons in charge.

See a video of approx. a dozen minutes by TopherField:

"Australia - the 'Lucky Country'" run by total arseholes. 

or more eloquently put by David Horne as explained in the following post:

TIL calling Australia 'The Lucky Country' was actually intended as an insult, not a compliment.