Parking ticket machine quietly removed from supermarket car park

Parking fines are fraud.

Parking fines originating from  a supermarket car park are even greater fraud.

(Let's put the technicality of degrees of fraud aside, where in reality fraud is fraud.)

(A company/business has)  NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE FINES.

So let's look at what happened in the suburb of Brunswick, Victoria.

A while ago a business installed parking ticket machines in a Woolworths car park, where as a result many customers of Woolworths were ripped off.

To make matters worse Woolworths supported this illegal activity by enticing their customers to conduct an action in commerce with the business called Secure Parking Pty Ltd (ACN: 108043689)

Many people also did not pay and as a result have had harm committed against their person's name.

From what we understand a law savvy individual took their parking ticket to court to fight it.

No hoo- ha, no court reporters, no reporter from the local newspaper reporting on such an important issue i.e. extortion, but rather a quiet 'win' and as a result the removal of the machine followed.

They just did not get enough time to remove the signage before these photos were taken.

Make no mistake about it by issuing 'fines' the owners / operators of SECURE PARKING PTY LTD are committing criminal actions i.e. fraud, extortion and the Australian government still has not shut them down.

It seems that the people in the 'Australian Government' are supporting these criminal actions.

See what the NSW government has to say about companies / businesses issuing fines from their LegalAid office under the article headline Private car park 'fines/payment notices at:

http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-resources/private-car-park-finespayment-notices

See also what an ex police officer writes on fines with reference to points of law in the post:

Ex Victorian Police officer comments on Fines

Please note: The full lawfulness of a 'fine' is not discussed in this post.

Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth's criminal past?

See video of the title The Royals: Royal Family Secrets Exposed! at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUfJXdMIRGw&feature=youtu.be

Microsoft stops you from controlling your own PC

The masses keep getting told by people in government that they represent them.

We cannot recall any election or result of  any votes where the people voted to be surveilled  24/7 with regards to all their computer / telephone data being stored by the people in government.

To make matters worse it seems that the people in the global I.T. giants are conspiring with the people in government against the masses.

One thing apparently that the people are supposed to have is something called a choice.

If you do not have a choice does that make you a slave?

To make matters worse for Australians, the people in governance over the general population are committing criminal offences by being in office unlawfully, but the general population are being distracted from this fact.

The new metadata laws that have come into play in Australia from April 2017 have been enacted unlawfully, but this point and the above one are beyond the scope of this post.

Microsoft may years ago were taken to the European courts for packaging a program called Internet Explorer with the Windows operating system, where the customer did not have a choice of internet browsers.

So, with regards to their new operating system Windows 10, Microsoft are at it again where they have decided for you that you will have their internet browser called Edge set permanently as your default browser.

Microsoft have also taken away your liberty to choose a search engine and have forced you to use Bing.

Windows 10 might as well be officially called spyware, where many technical publications have exposed how Microsoft covertly spies on you and sends data back without you being able to control these actions.

• We do not recommend the purchase of Windows 10.

• We do not recommend the purchase of any hardware that contains the Windows 10 operating system or where you cannot have another option for an operating system.

Microsoft just another government shill?

Computer crime law for Australians

So the people in the corporation conglomerate called the 'Australian Government' have put in a so called law that describes you committing a crime with a tool called computer.

The more relevant sections that could apply to most are items 12 and 28.

All you have to do is prove that the CYBERCRIME ACT 2001 NO. 161, 2001 is not a valid Act.

P.S. 

Don't go to a 'lawyer' they just might tell you that you're on your own, after all they don't really work for you....

Luke 11:52 (New International Version):

"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

With reference to the above mentioned Act:

12  After section 3L

Insert:

3LA  Person with knowledge of a computer or a computer system to

assist access etc.

 (1) The executing officer may apply to a magistrate for an order

requiring a specified person to provide any information or

assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow the officer to

do one or more of the following:

 (a) access data held in, or accessible from, a computer that is on

warrant premises;

 (b) copy the data to a data storage device;

 (c) convert the data into documentary form.

 (2) The magistrate may grant the order if the magistrate is satisfied

that:

 (a) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidential

material is held in, or is accessible from, the computer; and

 (b) the specified person is:

 (i) reasonably suspected of having committed the offence

stated in the relevant warrant; or

 (ii) the owner or lessee of the computer; or

 (iii) an employee of the owner or lessee of the computer; and

 (c) the specified person has relevant knowledge of:

 (i) the computer or a computer network of which the

computer forms a part; or

 (ii) measures applied to protect data held in, or accessible

from, the computer.

 (3) A person commits an offence if the person fails to comply with the

order.

Penalty: 6 months imprisonment.

3LB  Accessing data held on other premises—notification to

occupier of that premises

 (1) If: Law enforcement powers relating to electronically stored data   Schedule 2

   

Cybercrime Act 2001       No. 161, 2001            19

 (a) data that is held on premises other than the warrant premises

is accessed under subsection 3L(1); and

 (b) it is practicable to notify the occupier of the other premises

that the data has been accessed under a warrant;

the executing officer must:

 (c) do so as soon as practicable; and

 (d) if the executing officer has arranged, or intends to arrange,

for continued access to the data under subsection 3L(1A) or

(2)—include that information in the notification.

 (2) A notification under subsection (1) must include sufficient

information to allow the occupier of the other premises to contact

the executing officer.

28  After section 201

Insert:

201A  Person with knowledge of a computer or a computer system

to assist access etc.

 (1) An executing officer may apply to a magistrate for an order

requiring a specified person to provide any information or

assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow the officer to

do one or more of the following:

 (a) access data held in, or accessible from, a computer that is on

warrant premises;

 (b) copy the data to a data storage device;

 (c) convert the data into documentary form. Law enforcement powers relating to electronically stored data   Schedule 2

Cybercrime Act 2001       No. 161, 2001            23

 (2) The magistrate may grant the order if the magistrate is satisfied

that:

 (a) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidential

material is held in, or is accessible from, the computer; and

 (b) the specified person is:

 (i) reasonably suspected of having committed the offence

stated in the relevant warrant; or

 (ii) the owner or lessee of the computer; or

 (iii) an employee of the owner or lessee of the computer; and

 (c) the specified person has relevant knowledge of:

 (i) the computer or a computer network of which the

computer forms a part; or

 (ii) measures applied to protect data held in, or accessible

from, the computer.

 (3) A person commits an offence if the person fails to comply with the

order.

Penalty: 6 months imprisonment.

201B  Accessing data held on other premises—notification to

occupier of that premises

 (1) If:

 (a) data that is held on premises other than the warrant premises

is accessed under subsection 201(1); and

 (b) it is practicable to notify the occupier of the other premises

that the data has been accessed under a warrant;

the executing officer must:

 (c) do so as soon as practicable; and

 (d) if the executing officer has arranged, or intends to arrange,

for continued access to the data under subsection 201(1A) or

(2)—include that information in the notification.

 (2) A notification under subsection (1) must include sufficient

information to allow the occupier of the other premises to contact

the executing officer.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/ca2001112/sch1.html

Centrelink uses Nigerian scammers to write letters?

It's NOT enough that Centrelink has fraudulently sent out debt collection letters to welfare recipients,

(http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/pay-or-face-debt-collector-what.html)

now the people must put up this sort of abuse:

Police already committing criminal offences against new metadata laws

The good people of Australia MUST know that the government has been collecting and storing their data for quite some time, where only now (Good Friday, 2017) the law has caught up and been officially implemented.

Police commit many criminal actions against the general populous daily, and with regards to privacy breaches the numbers are staggering where they are hidden from the masses and for very good reasons.

ONLY one case has made it out into the public eye regarding a journalist having privacy breached with regards to the new metadata laws.

The people in government write laws where if a member of the public commits a 'criminal' offence the people in government obtain a financial remedy.

Since this journalist is a VICTIM of criminal actions by police, the new metadata laws must contain a remedy for the victim within the act, as they do for government bodies..

UNLESS of course the people in government who have written the laws regard the good people of Australia as slaves or enemies of the state.

Let's see what 'remedy' the journalist obtains being the victim of police criminal actions.

This is what smh.com.au wrote on 28 April 2017 under the headline:

Police illegally obtained journalist's phone records under new metadata retention regime

The Australian Federal Police illegally obtained a journalist's phone records under the Turnbull government's new metadata retention regime, the agency announced on Friday.

The breach took place as part of an investigation into a leak of confidential police material - and the incident will now be investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin said the police officers investigating the leak did not realise they were required to obtain a warrant to access the journalist's metadata.

"This was human error. It should not have occurred. The AFP takes it very seriously and we take full responsibility for breaching the Act," Mr Colvin said.

 

AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

"There was no ill will or malice or bad intent by the officers involved who breached the Act. But simply it was a mistake."

The journalist in question had not been informed their data had been accessed, Mr Colvin said, due to sensitivities around the ongoing investigation into the leak.

The breach occurred "earlier this year" and was reported to the Ombudsman on Wednesday.

Under the revised data retention regime, police are required to obtain a warrant from a judge to seek metadata from a journalist.

"The vulnerability is the investigator needs to understand that that's their requirement," Mr Colvin said on Friday. "On this occasion, the investigator didn't."

The phone records in question were relevant to the investigation, Mr Colvin said, but "what was improper was that the right steps weren't taken to gain access to it".

The breach is the first such incident that has come to light under the government's new metadata retention regime, which requires service providers to store their customers' data for two years.

Acknowledging the policy was "controversial", Mr Colvin said Australians should nonetheless have "full confidence" in both the police and the policy.

He conceded the AFP's internal procedures had not anticipated and prevented the error and therefore those practices would be subject to "significant changes".

Access to metadata would now be restricted to more senior officers, he said, and the number of officers who can approve access to metadata will be reduced. Training will also be bolstered.

Asked if the unlawfully-obtained phone records would still be relied on to inform the actions of investigators, he acknowledged that once seen it could not be unseen.

"Clearly they can't unsee it. They'll need to consider ... what weight they put on what they saw," Mr Colvin said. "But that material was accessed illegally, so it can have no bearing on the conduct of the investigation."

He stressed the content of the journalist's phone calls were not accessed, just the call records. But Paul Murphy, chief executive of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, said that was not a mitigating factor.

"It's another demonstration that the AFP do not understand the sensitivities here, the vital importance of protecting journalists' confidential sources," he said. "It's an absolute disgrace."

South Australian senator Nick Xenophon, who lobbied for extra safeguards for journalists when the laws were formulated, said he was "furious" about the revelation and would seek further amendments to the law.

"This is outrageous. There's been a flagrant breach of the law here," he said. "The safeguards have been completely trashed. This should chill the spine of every journalist in this country."