Australia’s Kangaroo Courts and corrupt Tribunals.

A place of corruption: South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Australia is the Wild Wild West, with reference to the lack of following the law, but this time not by the general population but rather those in positions of some authority.

Corruption is at an all time high, where also it's a free for all on the public purse by those in government.

Falsified tenders that are setup by shell corporations by those who have friends or family in government, are just a small part of the corruption in Australia.

Another huge aspect of corruption is that of those in the Judicial arm of government, where they cause harm to persons involved in the court system, where judicial misconduct and abuse of power are the main modus operandi at the end of the business day.

The colony’s businesses called Tribunals or rather persons within these tribunals are abusing their power and causing harm to unsuspecting victims.

In the instance the focus is on SACAT (South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), on the ‘Mari’ family.

Mrs. ‘Mari an 80-year-old non-English-speaking, Italian mother and her daughter ‘Rosie’ have been persecuted by the OAW (Office of Aging Well) with the forced removal of Mrs Mari’s two severely disabled daughters in their late 50s, “Tessa” and “Lotus” - Rosie’s sisters - into state care by use of deception and extra-judicial powers carried out in complete secrecy.

Human rights advocates say public servants are ignoring legislation and overriding the checks and balances put in place by Parliament to protect South Australians from systemic and administrative abuses of power and authority designed to uphold the human rights of those most vulnerable individuals.  Director of KSM Disability Consultancy, Ms. Ksenija Kristo, said “There is a dangerous clique of public servants which operate within the shadows, away from any public scrutiny.

These public officials work for the Attorney General but they don’t have to answer to anyone at all – not even the Attorney General or Parliament.  However, they can approach Parliament for more coercive and oppressive powers and protections for themselves, which is rarely questioned or denied.”

Despite the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) Act 2013 making clear hearings before it are intended - by law - to be “open and transparent” public servants, like Member Joanna Richardson, have managed to bypass these legislative protections with impunity, disadvantaging and persecuting thousands of innocent people.

Human rights advocate Ms. Ksenija Kristo stated, “The disabled women had a $2 million bounty on their heads and the State of South Australia wanted it all.  The OAW is controlled by ideological Statists who routinely disregard the rights of families to care for their own. Mrs. Mari’s daughters were essentially kidnapped by the Attorney General through a secret hearing, without any formal SACAT Orders and with no rights of appeal to a legitimate authority; denying Mrs. Mari and her family every procedural fairness and violating all natural justice principles.

First, the SACAT denied Mrs. Mari and Rosie the right to defend themselves as ‘interested parties’.  Then, SACAT prohibited Mrs. Mari from having her strongest professional advocates (KSM Disability Consultancy) attend the hearing, make submissions and support her appeal to have her daughters returned home. To make matters worse, Member Richardson removed off the file almost 200 pages of compelling defence showing clear evidence of gross misconduct by the OAW and shocking malpractice by the various NDIS Allied Health professionals involved in the “care” of the disabled women.  

Member Richardson had a clear conflict of interest with Mrs. Mari’s advocate and critic of SACAT, Dr. Matilda Bawden, and - by law - should have recused herself but instead she decided to punish Mrs. Mari by denying her the right to advocacy and to have her say; even going so far as to coerce Mrs. Mari to choose another, less competent advocate offered to her by the OPA – the very authority involved in the corruption behind the wrongful removal of her daughters in the first place.”

SACAT had a coverup job to do when the Adult Safeguarding Unit (ASU) knocked on Mrs. Mari’s door to kidnap her daughters on the pretence of a social outing, from which they would never return.  

While the ASU and OPA websites broadcast the purported right of families to access advocacy services and make complaints, in reality, the OAW, ASU, OPA, and SACAT strip vulnerable individuals of these very rights at every opportunity and they will refuse to investigate complaints.

When, on legal advice, Dr Bawden sought to apply as Intervener in the case, first she was informed that Member Richardson had “banned” her from making any applications to SACAT and that the ban was allegedly “unappealable”.  After Dr Bawden applied to become an Intervener on Mrs. Mari’s behalf anyway, during a hearing on 5th March 2025, Member Richardson engaged in a theatrical monologue, pretending firstly that Dr Bawden had to meet some obscure academic threshold of qualifications to serve as the family’s best advocate.  

Then Member Richardson pretended to seek the input of Mrs. Mari’s persecutors as to whether Dr Bawden should be permitted to advocate for Mrs. Mari despite Mrs. Mari being unrepresented against TWO officers from the OPA, TWO officers from ASU, Legal Services Commission and the Public Trustee.  The primary objection by the OPA and ASU given to Dr Bawden being Mrs. Mari’s advocate was her alleged “combative” and “unprofessional” communication, however, no specifics were given to substantiate such absurd proposition and Dr Bawden was given no opportunity to probe this nonsense.

“Imagine that!”, Dr Bawden said, “These criminals object to an advocate being so effective as to be blocked and banned for allegedly being “combative” when highlighting the corruption so clearly apparent in the Mari Family’s case.  Ironically, the same public officials colluding to kidnap the two disabled women from the care of their beautiful and loving family is not considered by them as either provoked or “combative”. The OAW’s ASU blatantly and knowingly lying to SACAT, claiming there were no family members who could act as Guardians of Last Resort, when in fact Mrs. Mari has over nine responsible adults and their partners willing and capable of stepping in to care for her family is also not considered “combative”.  Nor is secretly kidnapping Mrs. Mari’s daughters without proper Orders considered “combative”.  The lack of introspection and self-reflection is astounding!”.

Then Member Richardson postulated that Dr Bawden had committed a criminal offence by writing to members of Parliament alerting authorities to the grave injustices being played out within the SACAT, before finally demanding that Dr Bawden give her a verbal undertaking never to speak or write about the case publicly – despite no anonymization, suppression or non-publication orders having been issued. 

When Dr Bawden protested that it was the right of Mrs. Mari to be represented and that she would comply with any formal SACAT Orders handed down by Member Richardson, but would not voluntarily forfeit Mrs. Mari’s human and legal rights by consenting to such obscene and unlawful demands, Member Richardson ordered Dr Bawden out of the room and forbid her to further advocate for Mrs. Mari.

“The corruption didn’t stop there!” Dr Bawden said.  “When Mrs. Mari applied to have access to audio recordings of the very proceedings in which her rights were violated so brazenly (on request of a lawyer seeking to assist Mrs. Mari with advice), that request was also denied and Mrs. Mari was advised that this too was allegedly unappealable.  Of course, we know that this legal advice by SACAT is false also, however, Mrs. Mari doesn’t have $150,000 to take the State to court and that’s why corrupt public officials become emboldened to continue such illegal conduct, as they know that not even Parliament or a higher court will stop them! 

Member Richardson knows that without my willing compliance with her illegal demands, she could not continue to hold Mrs. Mari and her daughters hostage without damning public scrutiny.  Now watch the audio recordings and transcripts mysteriously go missing so the crimes committed by Member Richardson on the 5th February, 17th February, 27th February and 5th March 2025 will never see the light of day”.

 

Ms. Ksenija Kristo is available for comment at

ksmdisabilityconsultancy@gmail.com or by phone at 0403 871 364.

Source supplied.

VCAT also abuses their power every single day within their hearings, where most people are not aware that they are victims of judicial misconduct.

WARNING: NEVER rely on court (or tribunal) recordings, where it is in your best interest to bring your own independent ‘witness’.

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

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

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

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

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

Paying attention to:

Section 56 Execution of process and warrants

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

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

The key word here is “lawful”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See post:

VCAT acts beyond its power – unenforceable judicial decisions!

VCAT acts beyond its power – unenforceable judicial decisions!

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

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

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

See article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First and foremost:

• The High Court's decision Burns v Corbett significantly narrowed the jurisdiction of commissions and tribunals.

• The High Court held that the Australian Constitution precludes a State tribunal from exercising federal and state jurisdiction, as tribunals are not Courts and cannot exercise judicial powers and jurisdiction.

A tribunal or Commission not being a 'court of a State' cannot adjudicate disputes involving any of the matters set out in ss 75 and 76 of the Australian Constitution, (see the sections below) even when the dispute involves the application of State legislation. The decision affects all areas of law including:

- anti-discrimination disputes,

- residential tenancy disputes,

- building and construction disputes.

A State law cannot impair or detract from the operation of a Commonwealth law by impairing the Commonwealth law’s ‘conditional and universal’ application, except to the extent that it has a ‘legal operation or practical effect within the universe of the conditional legal operation of the Commonwealth law’. Impairing or detracting from s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act is to say that the Parliament has made a complete, exhaustive and exclusive statement on federal jurisdiction: ‘It is necessarily to say that the Commonwealth Parliament has not only provided positively for the conditional investiture of federal jurisdiction in State courts but has also stipulated negatively for the non-investiture of any jurisdiction with respect to any of those matters other than in State courts.’ Gageler J noted the difficulty of finding any such ‘negative penumbra’ in the text of s 39(2), and stated that the more fundamental problem lies in finding a source of Commonwealth legislative power: namely that s 77(iii) does not allow Parliament to confer judicial power on a tribunal that is not a State court.

The Industrial Relations Tribunals and tribunals of the State such as VCAT and the Fair Work Commission all fall into the same category, 

- they fail to be courts and cannot provide you with an enforceable judicial decision.

Let's see the case file:

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

Tortfeasor is a term worth exploring.

Have you been harmed by VCAT?

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75

Original jurisdiction of High Court.

    In all matters--

  (i.)   Arising under any treaty:

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

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

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

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

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. 

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 76

Additional original jurisdiction.

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

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

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

  (iii.)   Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:

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

Australia’s corrupt legal system hears C-19 matter

A legal matter of state or national importance in relation to a so called government mandated jab, has an originating motion not within a court but a tribunal, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to be exact, how pathetic.

To make matters worse, since state tribunals are not courts they cannot exercise judicial powers.

See link: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/state-tribunals-are-not-courts-and-cannot-exercise-judicial-powers/

Also, a tribunal cannot exercise power in a hearing and determining a complaint under a state Act.

See: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/no-jurisdiction-for-tribunal-to-exercise-judicial-power-in-hearing-and-determining-a-complaint-under-the-state-act/

A hearing was held within VCAT with regards to a woman obtaining a life saving heart operation which was denied by the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne for her not succumbing to obtain an injection that allegedly vaccinates the person against the disease called COVID-19.

This hearing was held in March 2023 over a few days from the 17th to the 21st, where it was also streamed via Zoom.

What about if one does not consent to one’s matter being streamed via Zoom for not just Australia to see, but the whole world?

No court reporters or mainstream media ‘advertising’ about such an important matter?

Well, to be fair, VCAT is not a court.

As one would be aware when the opposing parties sit at the bar table, they sprawl their paperwork over the area of their respective sides in order to put through their argument, before the ‘member’, the person they both consented to in hearing their arguments.

After a while humans need nourishment, where a lunch break, mandates a halt in the proceedings where the whole room is evacuated.

It is not out of the norm to leave one’s paperwork at the table, before vacating for a well deserved break.

That’s what one party did, whereas the other party packed up the documentation prior to exiting with it in a small luggage suitcase on wheels.

What happened next is quite odd, and definitely outside of the norm.

When the room was empty, after a few minutes, the member and her 'accomplice' went back into the room and started to sift through paperwork on the benches.

Why is it necessary to find some paperwork during a 'lunch break', where it cannot wait until everyone resumes?

Is there a document that was to be removed or referred to?

If this is a 'conspiracy theory' as some may suggest, then why cannot this document be referred with everyone present and most importantly 'on the record'?

After scurrying through the benches for whatever, the 'accomplice' then noticed that the camera was still 'rolling', where that problem as soon attended to.

What was the public not allowed to see?

Isn't this supposed to be a public matter, well and truly in the 'interest of the public'?

Will the mainstream media ever mention of this?

From what can be gathered on-line, the first time the mainstream media mentioned Ms Derderian was a couple of days ago, yet a hearing was a foot in March, and all the people heard was, crickets.

Did Victoria's CHO Brett Sutton have the authority to act on an alleged health incident?

Victoria, Australia was known as the most draconian place on planet Earth when it came to restrictions, with zero real gain against an alleged disease.

Today, according to government figures, it's those who have been double or triple stabbed that are causing the high case numbers, where it's literally a pandemic of the 'vaccinated'.

In July 2020, we've shown you that the test for the alleged disease CANNOT be fully validated, nor is it NATA accredited.

You can read more about this in the following link:

COVID test useless: “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic"

The authorities (corporations and the medical profession) have conned and forced people to partake in a TRAIL drug, or more specifically, as stated by the federal health minister Greg Hunt, "The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial",  see link:

https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/interview-with-david-speers-on-abc-insiders-on-the-covid-19-vaccine-rollout

It was 'advertised' as a vaccine, BUT it does not confer immunity as seen in a court case from within the Supreme Court of the United States on 4th of November 2021, see link:

The Covid-19 injections do not confer immunity, & therefore do not meet the definition of a vaccine

Courts, in general are not allowing many cases through against the authorities, where those that do get through, more often than not, the corrupt judiciary rules against the applicant.

This is one case that the registrars did allow through, but to this date (almost 5 months) there has been no ruling.

- Did Sutton factually have any authority to act?

- Was the law enacted lawfully (as opposed to legally) with regards to the new conditions?

- Is ANY Court a lawfully constituted court under the 'Queen of Australia'?

- Were your human rights violated by Australia's police forces?

- Were the new Acts in force compliant with the SARC (Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee)?

If so, the correct paperwork must be provided.

The case against Victoria's Department of Health and Human Services.

See submission to VCAT filed on the 10th of May 2022:

See interview with the applicant himself, Spiros Kalotihos:

Australia's Anglo-Masonic legal business is corrupt to its founding core, where we shall see the results in this case.

AEC censored a political party's social media post

AUSTRALIA, we (the people) have a problem!

The Australian Electoral Commission has removed a post made by a candidate of a political party, One Nation.

Democracy is truly dead in this (dictatorial) colony called Australia!

So, let's be clear about this:

Someone or rather a 'person' within the AEC, a 'commission' removed another person's social media post.

The AEC does not have the lawful nor legal authority to take such action.

If any person disputes this fact, then we welcome that person to provide the lawfully enacted instrument that allows such an action to occur, within the comments section of this post.

The person who removed that post, has (allegedly) committed a Commonwealth criminal offence, where this action must be investigated by the authorities.

Now, the real question is, will the general population hear from the mainstream media that an investigation will occur is another story.

To make matters ever more 'precarious' for the AEC, commissions are not courts.

See article from constitutionwatch.com.au of the headline:

Tribunals and Commissions are not Courts.

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, 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, even when the dispute involves the application of State legislation. The decision affects all areas of law including anti-discrimination disputes, residential tenancy disputes, and 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.

See Burns v Corbett - Perakath:

See Burns v Corbett - AIAL Forum No. 95:

Father of bikie brothers Daniel and Ben Pegoraro wins a legal brief encounter

Ben and Daniel Pegoraro. Source: News Limited

 

THE father of notorious bikie brothers Daniel and Ben Pegoraro has won a secret settlement after suing a law firm he accused of ripping him off. 

The intimidation that might be the favoured approach of outlaw bikies was not Joe Pegoraro’s way: he took his complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner, then a tribunal.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard that at 9am on March 7 last year, Mr Pegoraro and his wife delivered $15,000 cash to law firm Balot Reilly as a retainer to represent Daniel and Ben at court that day over allegations they were part of a gang that had stolen caravans.

Ben, 23, was represented by Balot Reilly’s George Balot. But Daniel, 28, contacted his preferred brief, Zarah Garde-Wilson, who represented him.

Joe Pegoraro later unsuccessfully sought a $7500 refund, arguing Balot Reilly had done only half the expected work.

He later approached the Legal Services Commissioner, and then applied to VCAT for a review.

Sam Tatarka, for Balot Reilly, told VCAT there’d been some “ping pong” over who’d represent Daniel, but the family were warned that if they switched lawyers their money had “already been spent”.

However counsel for the Pegoraros, Fraser Cameron, disputed that they had been told “if you change, you have done your dough”.

Mr Cameron said the family considered the $7500 fee for Daniel excessive, and felt he’d got “zero dollars’ worth”.

After an adjournment for talks, the parties agreed to settle the dispute for a confidential amount.
VCAT dismissed the case.

The charges against Daniel, a Hells Angels Nomads member, were thrown out late last year.
Ben was ultimately jailed and remains behind bars for his role in the caravan thefts.

heraldsun.com.au 18 Apr 2014

Law firms in Australia propagate Australia's false laws, and are set up in such a manner that they are able to rip customers off.

The term 'rip off' is a commonly used term indicating fraud or theft.

As the general populous is aware, fraud and theft is illegal in Australia, or at least that is what everyone is told to believe.

For the privileged few, theft and fraud is part of normal daily transactions and they are untouchable by the law.

A great 'win' nonetheless for Joe Pegoraro.

Knox Council slashes Boronia house valuation by nearly half just before case goes to tribunal

Estate agent John Garnett and Gerard Rebeiro took on Knox Council – and won. Picture: Susan Windmiller Source: News Limited

 

A KNOX man has successfully challenged Knox Council over the value of his property after his rates doubled in a single year. 

A real estate agent has warned of similar examples of properties being overvalued by Knox Council, ­resulting in higher rates bills.


Gerard Rebeiro was shocked when in 2013, he received a rates bill of more than $2200 for his Hastings Ave, Boronia home after Knox Council valued his property at more than $920,000.

His rates bill for the previous year was only about $1200.

Mr Rebeiro enlisted the help of Boronia Harcourts real estate principal John Garnett, who valued his home at about $450,000.

Mr Rebeiro then ­presented his case to Knox Council, and after a lengthy battle, the authority dropped the value down to $675,000.

Mr Rebeiro challenged them again, and in June last year the council came back with a value of $625,000, which Mr Rebeiro said he was told “was a goodwill gesture”.

But he still believed the house was overvalued, and on advice from Mr Garnett, took the case to VCAT last month.

In the week of the case, Knox Council once again offered to drop the value figure to $540,000 – and again, the duo rejected it.

On Tuesday, February 25 – the night before the case was due to go to VCAT – Knox Council agreed to further drop the value of his Boronia home to $500,000 if the case did not go to the tribunal.

Mr Garnett said he had seen many cases where Knox Council had valued residents’ properties higher than their worth.

“I have had at least three or four cases in the past where I have had to help them by writing appraisal letters to take down to council when they’ve been way overcharged in their rates,” Mr Garnett said.

Knox Council director corporate development Mark Dupe said council could not comment on individual cases, but emphasised ratepayers had the right to object to their home valuations and that council processed about 200 objections a year.

“Many factors can influence changes in valuation, such as the current property market and how it changes over time,” Mr Dupe said.

He said development regulations could also have an influence.

INCREDIBLE SHRINKING HOUSE VALUE
Mr Rebeiro’s house:

n Valued at $921,000
n Knox Council dropped it to $675,000
n Dropped it again to $625,000
n Dropped once again to $540,000
n Settled out of court at $500,000

heraldsun.com.au 11 Mar 2014

No one from the corporate media has mentioned that 'city councils' are corporations, that cannot 'lawfully' charge rates.

This fraud is on a grand scale that effects every single land 'owner' (the Crown actually owns ALL land in the Commonwealth of Australia) to the approximate tune of around $33 Billion per annum.

There is no legitimate '3rd tier' form of local government.

Knox City Council: ABN 24 477 480 661

Fast-food fury hits over another Mac attack

Residents in Melbourne's eastern suburbs are angry after a council decision to block fast-food giant McDonald's from moving into the neighbourhood was overturned by the state's planning tribunal.

Locals in Camberwell and Hartwell say the new restaurant, to be built on the site of a former service station and to include a car park and a service station, is inappropriate for the area. The site, on the corner of Toorak and Highfield roads, backs onto units.

Despite locals objecting to the development, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal deemed that the new complex would enhance the streetscape.

Catriona McCraw, a local resident who was party to the proceeding, said the site in question was inappropriate for a McDonald's or any fast-food outlet because of how close it is to the nearby Hartwell Primary School.

“Whatever type of fast-food outlet it is, most fast-food outlets don't have the types of healthy foods that we're trying to encourage our children to usually eat,” she said.

McDonald's has had a rocky reception in some Melbourne communities over the past year.

In Seaford and Tecoma, residents have rallied to keep McDonald's out of their communities with local councils rejecting advances from McDonald's.

In Tecoma, Yarra Ranges Council rejected a McDonald's restaurant, but lost on appeal.

In Seaford, McDonald's decided not to appeal Frankston Council's rejection of a Nepean Highway site but McDonald's are now looking at other locations nearby.

And, in Malvern East, a bid to have the existing restaurant trade around the clock was rejected because it could interfere with neighbours' sleep.

As in other cases, Ms McCraw said the Toorak and Highfield roads location was not the right site for a fast food outlet. She is concerned about flow-on effects in the area.

"[The] 24-hour aspect is a major concern and certainly one we were surprised that the chairman approved," she said.

"He has not given any consideration, we believe, to the large number of community residents ... who presented their objections. We feel we have been let down and ignored."

Ms McCraw believes the development is inappropriate for the area. She said there was a potential for the "wonderful parks just up Highfield Road" to attract loiterers.

Ms McCraw said that the intersection of Highfield and Toorak roads was extremely busy and dangerous, which posed safety issues for children and young pedestrians.

She said she hoped that the Boroondara Council, which initially rejected the development, will appeal VCAT's decision to the Supreme Court. She has written to federal member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, who has referred her letter to Planning Minister Matthew Guy.

In an outcome that is likely to further disappoint locals, Boroondara’s City Planning Director John Luppino said the decision could not be taken to the Supreme Court.“VCAT decisions are generally final,’’ he said.

‘‘An appeal can only be lodged to the Supreme Court on the basis that the tribunal erred in a point of law … While council is disappointed with VCAT’s decision, in this case there were no appealable points of law in the decision.”

theage.com.au 12 Apr 2013

Corporations literally run the Australian government, and the people within government.

There are various ties to heads of government and their business colleagues, the strongest one being that of  the Anglo-Masonic brotherhood.

Corporations function with government personnel in unison to the detriment of the general population.

McDonald's is widely accepted as 'junk food' i.e. NOT healthy for consumption, and also the staple food for the lower class of society.

McDonald's should be shut down under Occupational Health and Safety laws, as the products it sells are carcinogenic.

Herald Sun wins case on free speech

THE Herald Sun has won a ground-breaking political secrecy case against the State Government that could have implications for the public's right to know government information.

In a landmark case, the Court of Appeal upheld a VCAT decision that might now enable the Herald Sun and other media organisations access to documents the Government had refused to release under Freedom of Information laws.

The ruling could allow access to a wide range of documents under the control of government advisers that had previously been out of reach of FOI laws.

The unanimous finding by Justices Pamela Tate, Simon Whelan and Stephen Kaye ruled that a diary held by a former chief of staff to the premier was an official document that fell within the scope of FOI laws.
The ruling should make it easier for journalists, members of the public, academics and opposition MPs to scrutinise information the Government has kept secret.

Herald Sun editor Damon Johnston welcomed the ruling, saying the public would benefit from increased scrutiny of government business.

"For too long, governments of all persuasions have sought to limit public access to government information and have behaved in ways that are counter to the spirit of Freedom of Information laws," he said.

"This ruling pushes the boundaries back out and shows that the courts take the public's right to know seriously, as the Government should."

The Herald Sun had sought access under FOI laws to the diary of Michael Kapel, formerly chief of staff to Ted Baillieu.

The legal dispute has been running since 2011 - during which time all major players have departed, including Mr Baillieu, who resigned after losing the support of his party due to the secret tapes affair revealed by the Herald Sun last month.

The Herald Sun had sought access to Mr Kapel's diary to see who he was meeting, after revelations he held a secret meeting with former deputy police commissioner Sir Ken Jones at the height of the police leadership crisis, which ultimately led to the secret tapes affair and the downfall of Mr Baillieu.

Our original FOI request was rejected by the former premier's FOI adviser, Don Coulson.

He was sacked last month, another victim of the secret tapes affair.

Mr Coulson refused access to the diary on the basis that it was not "an official document of a minister".

But the decision ruled that most documents held by advisers were subject to FOI laws if the minister could call upon them at any time.

As a result of the decision, the Office of the Premier will now have to process the Herald Sun's original request.

heraldsun.com.au 12 Apr 2013

A (global) policy is for the entire population to be transparent, whereas the corporations that rule over the masses are to contain information, policies, procedures and political information under lock and key.

Since fraud and corruption in government hands costs the Australian general population literally billions annually, the government will go to great lengths to protect the information that contains the fraudulent deals.

Anyone exposing information or hidden policies will be met (at a later date) with consequences.

Victorians may be priced out of justice as VCAT fees soar

VICTORIANS could be priced out of justice by massive fee hikes at the state's civil tribunal, consumer advocates warn.

The cost of launching small claims, planning fights, tenancy disputes and many other matters will start soaring from March under a planned expansion of the user-pays system.

heraldsun.com.au 8 Jan 2013

In line with the global agenda, the government has embarked on the assault on the general populous to exclude justice matters against the system to be brought forward by the sheep.

Aside from the fact that the legal system is controlled by the Masonic brotherhood, where judgements are in favour of the brethren, irrespective of who's right, the term privilege in the legal fraternity means private law, or justice for those who can afford it, irrespective of evidence or circumstances.

Another loss to the 'sheeple', as their rights are getting stripped right under their noses without a single 'bleet', and a win to the 'corporatocracy'.

"Gutless' council rejects Maccas fight

Protesters threaten to chain themselves to Tecoma McDonald's site to stop development

UPDATE 1.20pm: PROTESTERS have threatened to use militant tactics in their fight against a McDonald's in Tecoma.

Some protesters have vowed to chain themselves to the site to prevent the fast-food giant from building the restaurant in Burwood Highway, after Yarra Ranges Council last night rejected pleas to take the battle to the Supreme Court.
Tecoma resident and protester Natalie Walker today said some protesters would take the fight to the next level and use more militant tactics.
"Some of the group believe the law is an artificial constraint put upon them and will chain ourselves to bulldozers and resist police," Ms Walker said on the Facebook group No Maccas in the Hills.
But Ms Walker said many of the group protesting at the site were committed to non-violent methods of stopping the fast food giant coming to the town.

Hundreds of residents screamed "shame, shame" after Yarra Ranges Council last night rejected their pleas to go to the Supreme Court to fight against a McDonald's being built in the town.
VCAT approved the proposed seven-day, 24-hour fast food outlet in the town on October 10.

Lyster ward councillor Samantha Dunn put forward an urgent motion at the meeting for the council to take the VCAT decision to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort to stop the restaurant.

The council voted 6-3 against Cr Dunn's motion.

Angry residents shouted down the councillors and called them "gutless'', and worse, for not supporting them in stopping the fast food giant coming to the community of about 2100 residents.

The main reasons put forward for rejecting the community's plea was that the council was in caretaker mode and that a Supreme Court appeal would not be an appropriate use of ratepayers' money.

Walling ward councillor Len Cox said the fight could cost from $250,000 up to $1 million.

Chirnside ward councillor Richard Higgins said he could not support "writing a blank cheque'' for the council to fight the issue.

"McDonald's will throw every single cent at it. If we lose we could be up for millions,'' Cr Higgins said.

Cr Dunn said VCAT was an "undemocratic process''.

She apologised to the residents and said "I'm sorry, I did all that I could''.

heraldsun.com.au  24 Oct 2012


The headline mentioned by the corporate media could not be further from the truth.

Gutless not, but rather subservient to the corporate giant's despite the wishes of the population.

Councils members are paid by the taxpayers, to serve the taxpayers.

If the desire of the majority is not to have McDonald's in their town, the council must respect this wish.

Residents would not be aware of this but, they have the right to sue to council.

McDonald's sell products that are unhealthy for human consumption, as they are carcinogenic, cause heart disease, obesity, addiction and various other illnesses.

One Law for us another for them - vehicluar assault

Here is another classic example of one law for the peasants and one for the rulers.

The first article goes by the title:

Alleged police car rammer charged with attempted murder

A MELBOURNE man who allegedly rammed a police car, seriously injuring two officers, has been charged with five counts of attempted murder.

Tam Quoc Thai, 31, of Cranbourne North, faced a total of 14 charges in an out-of-court hearing last night.

Apart from the attempted murder charges, he faces five counts of reckless conduct endangering life, two counts of causing serious injury and two counts of intentionally causing serious injuries.

Thai, sporting a bruised cheek but otherwise uninjured, did not seek bail and will appear in Melbourne Magistrates Court today.

It's alleged Thai had sideswiped a truck before speeding at about 80-100km/h at the police car.

to:

Hit-and-run taxi driver wins VCAT hearing

A TAXI driver who ran over a pedestrian before fleeing the scene and lying to police could be back behind the wheel within months.

The Victorian Taxi Directorate tried to ban the driver for 12 months, but a tribunal has reduced that penalty to six months.

Kulvinder Singh said he did not see the pedestrian at the corner of Barkly and Carlisle streets in St Kilda during the early hours of January 7 last year.

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal deputy president Catherine Aird said the pedestrian lights were green.

"After colliding with the pedestrian, Mr Singh stopped for three or four seconds before driving off," Ms Aird said.

Mr Singh later said he drove off because the victim's friend had banged the bonnet of the taxi, and he was afraid of being attacked.

The victim suffered a broken leg.

Mr Singh told the tribunal that he had intended to report the accident to police, but had picked up more passengers.

Mr Singh initially denied to police he had been involved in an accident, confessing only when he had been taken to the police station.

Police informed the taxi directorate of the charges on March 31 last year, and the directorate issued Mr Singh an interim suspension notice on April 7.

Mr Singh pleaded guilty to four driving charges in Melbourne Magistrates' Court on September 21 last year.

His driver's licence was suspended for six months and he was fined $1000, but no conviction was recorded.

Meanwhile, the state's taxi watchdog has admitted it has no idea how many accidents or other incidents taxis are involved in.

But it concedes the industry generates about 400 pages of complaints every week.

The Herald Sun sought access to reports of incidents and accidents involving cabs under but the Directorate said no such documents existed.

These two articles show how the same law deals with vehicular assault on police and on a civilian.

There are too many examples where supposedly the same law protects civilians, but it does not.

'Secrecy culture' rules in Victoria

A culture of secrecy rules in Victoria's public service when it comes to releasing documents under Freedom of Information (FoI) laws, the state's Ombudsman says.

In his 2008-09 annual report, Ombudsman George Brouwer said that during a number of investigations into FoI complaints he found an emphasis on protecting documents rather than releasing them.

"I remain concerned about the culture surrounding FoI practices in some areas of the public sector," he said in his report tabled in state parliament on Wednesday.

"Often, agencies act against the intention of the FoI Act by restricting rather than facilitating the release of information."

Mr Brouwer said there were some examples in the public sector of an open culture in handling FoI requests.

"However, the predominant culture in many agencies is to use FoI to prevent the release of documents, rather than to use it according to its intended purpose: as a means to allow scrutiny of an open and transparent government."

There was a 40 per cent increase in FoI complaints last financial year. There were 178 FoI complaints in 2008-09, compared with 125 in 2007-08.

Some of the exemptions that can prevent documents being released under the FoI Act include cabinet documents and those deemed to be provided to an organisation in confidence.

Mr Brouwer highlighted one occasion when the Department of Transport used the cabinet-in-confidence provision as a reason to refuse access to requested documents.

After the FoI applicant appealed the decision, the department sought legal advice and was told it had less than a 50 per cent chance of winning.

The department did not advise the secretary of its unlikely success before taking its case to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and the Court of Appeal.

"Both VCAT and the Court of Appeal clearly and unambiguously rejected the department's argument," Mr Brouwer said.

"Further, it was impossible to determine who, if anyone, approved the instruction to lodge an appeal."

Deputy Premier and Attorney-General Rob Hulls earlier this week told parliament that all departments would be required to publish commonly-sought documents twice yearly on their websites.

The documents include details of consultancies worth less than $100,000 and cabcharge expenditure. The salaries of executive officers will be published every 12 months.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said the government treated FoI with contempt.

"These are the seeds of corruption. When the public sector and the government conceal information, not reveal information, then this is the very culture which leads to the sort of breakdown of community trust and the abuse of office which has taken place in Brimbank."

Mr Hulls defended the government's record.

"The current system is delivering 97 per cent partial or full access to FoI documents, with complaints to the Ombudsman running at 0.6 per cent of 28,000 requests," he said in a statement on Wednesday.

"I have recently advised the Ombudsman of a proposed revision of FoI guidelines for departments and agencies and am waiting for his response.

"These guidelines will further promote accountability and transparency in relation to FoI."

ninemsn 16 Sep 2009