The FBI lied about the amount spent on iPhone hacking

The general population should be aware that people/administration staff/CEOs in corporations lie, they lie a lot, and even if they get caught there is little consequence as there is no You Must Tell the Truth Act of 1688.

People in government however are allegedly accountable to their financiers, i.e. the tax payers, that being the general population.

The accounting must be spot on, the tender process must be legitimate in accordance with the law and able to withstand any sort scrutiny.

With regards to obtaining data from an alleged terrorist at the time, in 2016, the head of the FBI a James Comey stated that the bureau paid $1.4 million in order to retrieve the data from the iPhone 5C of Syed Farook.

It was not until years later that it was revealed that the price was not $1,400,000 as Comey stated but rather $900,000 or half a million dollars less.

So, did the books state that taxpayers paid $1,400,000 for the service?

If so, then what did the $500,000 really go to?

Another Black Ops?

In any event the FBI lied.

How many more lies have the public paid for?

Can they be really trusted in other matters?

See article from phonearena.com of the headline:

Long running mystery is solved; this is the firm that unlocked terrorist's iPhone 

We now know the answer to a long-running mystery that involves the Apple iPhone. In December 2015, in what was later called a terrorist attack, married couple Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik shot to death 14 people in a San Bernardino office building. Apple got involved when a court ruled that the tech giant had to unlock Farook's iPhone 5c.

Name of company that unlocked terrorist's iPhone 5c in 2016 is finally revealed

Apple CEO Tim Cook refused to follow the court order because doing so would require Apple to create a special version of iOS for the government to use. The executive feared that this special software-dubbed Govt.OS-could leak once in the hands of institutions like the FBI resulting in the loss of privacy for every iPhone user. Eventually, the FBI paid a data extraction company to unlock Farook's phone although the identity of that company was only guessed at until now.

Before we get to that name, let's step back and look at the issue. The FBI felt that inside the alleged murderer's phone it might find evidence pertaining to the San Bernardino attack along with a list of places Farook might have been scoping out for future attacks. Those who agreed with Apple's decision not to abide by the court's ruling worried that the government was setting a precedent for unlocking handsets while others felt that Apple was supporting terrorism.

This was such a huge story in the beginning of 2016 that presidential candidates felt compelled to weigh in on Apple's decision not to follow a court order. Donald Trump, who was then the GOP front runner, said "The reality is time is of the essence when you’re talking about the possibility of a terrorist attack." Marco Rubio stated that, "Ultimately, I think being a good corporate citizen is important," and said that the standoff between Apple and the government was a good example why talks between the tech industry and lawmakers need to take place.

The FBI finally paid a company to open the device and there were plenty of rumors about which company was used to do the deed. The first rumor said that Israeli company Cellebrite was paid a little more than $15,000 to do the job. Later on, then FBI head James Comey said that the actual price to unlock the handset came to $1.4 million. It was later reported that no useful information was unearthed by the FBI.

According to the Washington Post, Cellebrite had nothing to do with the unlocking of Farook's iPhone 5c. Instead, a little-known firm named Azimuth was the company that cracked the device. Azimuth is now owned by L3Harris Technologies and was reportedly paid $900,000 to do the job for the federal government.

Apple discovered the truth in the process of suing a company called Corellium that creates virtual online iPhones which can be used to research hacks for iOS. The court dismissed the case filed by Apple.

While Apple was lambasted in the media for taking what was considered to be a stance in favor of the terrorist, Tim Cook told employees in a memo that "As individuals and as a company, we have no tolerance or sympathy for terrorists. When they commit unspeakable acts like the tragic attacks in San Bernardino, we work to help the authorities pursue justice for the victims. And that's exactly what we did. Starting with iOS 8, we began encrypting data in a way that not even the iPhone itself can read without the user's passcode, so if it is lost or stolen, our personal data, conversations, financial and health information are far more secure."

So we now have the answer to a long unsolved mystery that had been festering for more than five years.

The lies and propaganda of the mainstream media, government and police

The CCP aren’t the only ones that deceive their population, where all you have to do is look closer to home, i.e. here in this colony we call Australia.

Australia’s media is not unbiased, where to put it quite simply they are the government’s lap dog/biatch/corporate whores, doing whatever it takes to put the herd into a zombie state of government/corporate subservience for whatever agenda is on the table irrespective of the truth.

The general population is treated on the ‘idiot box’ to a propaganda series called Highway Patrol which currently airs on Channel 7 on Wednesday’s from 7:30pm.

In this case we pay attention to a section from Season 9 Episode 6 called Drunk Off Roading:

Source: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6s7x0s

From the 6m21s and 16m50s marks, a road pirate or cop (Senior Constable Damien O’Brien) as they are commonly referred to stops a driver, where the following conversation occurs:

O’Brien: How you doin’ mate, ah have you got your driver’s licence there?

Driver: Ah, can I ask what for?

O’Brien: Ah, ‘cause you’re driving a car, so you’re required to produce your licence.

You’re required to produce a licence when .... intercepted by police.

“This man reckons he knows the law better than senior constable O’Brien.” chimes in the narrator.

O’Brien: So far you failed to produce your licence... name and address... that’s two offences.

Putting the driver’s other banter aside, O’Brien also mentions that the driver must follow the Road Safety Act, but (deliberately?) FAILS to mention that a driver does NOT have to have a licence in his/her possession if the driver is 26 years of age or over.

O’Brien has given the driver false/misleading information using the fear of incarceration on the driver, irrespective of the other aspects of law.

You are not required at law to answer any questions by a police officer, when driving or in charge of a vehicle, other than providing your name and address.

In Victoria, you are not required to carry a driver licence if you are over 26 years of age.

O’Brien also failed to notify the driver that he is not required to answer any questions, but if he does that information may be used in a court of law, you know your 'Miranda Rights'.

In any event you cannot trust the police, even with a ‘simple’ roadside stop.

Would you trust O'Brien in a so called court of law, since he has shown on national television that he does not know the very Road Safety Act he is quoting?

Attacker can use a WhatsApp subscriber's phone number to suspend his service

A major security exploit can be used to suspend your WhatsApp account by a bad actor without your permission. The only information that the attacker needs is your phone number. According to Forbes, the attacker's first step is to install WhatsApp on a new phone using your phone number to activate the service.

What happens next is that WhatsApp, using two factor authorization (2FA), tries to verify that it is you who just set up the new WhatsApp service on your phone. Since it isn't you, this procedure will fail over and over again and if done multiple times, it results in your account log-in being suspended for 12 hours. For the next step, the attacker sends an email to WhatsApp stating that his phone (which is really your handset) has been stolen or lost and asks that the WhatsApp account associated with the number be shut down.

Following this request, WhatsApp sends an email confirming that the account has been suspended without asking the attacker for any kind of information that might prove that the request to suspend the account came from the legitimate owner of said account. This process can be repeated numerous times which basically locks you out of your WhatsApp account.

A pair of security researchers named Luis Márquez Carpintero and Ernesto Canales Pereña completed a proof of concept that showed how this attack can block you from using your WhatsApp account. What it can't do is give bad actors a way to enter your account and your confidential messages remain confidential. WhatsApp hasn't said anything yet about plugging the gaping security hole.

The Facebook-owned messaging app did suggest was that users provide it with their e-mail address and two factor authorization "credentials" to help prevent the above mentioned scenario from taking place. But even if this info is given to WhatsApp, you still have to rely on it to follow through. WhatsApp does point out that taking advantage of this exploit violates its Terms of Service which we wouldn't expect to be a deterrent against a hacker.

ESET's Jake Moore says, "This is yet another worrying hack, one that could impact millions of users who could potentially be targeted with this attack. With so many people relying on WhatsApp as their primary communication tool for social and work purposes, it is alarming at what ease this can occur."

Source: phonearena.com

Judges, MPs and ‘public servants’ above the law in Australia

Book cover: Australia's Paedophile Protection Racket

MANY people in government tout that ‘no person is above the law’ or that ‘the law applies to everyone’ in layman’s terms, but in reality that is not true.

To say that a law was made in error or that a loophole was undetected is false as the law making process is seen by many eyes has three readings in parliament and is supposed to be compatible with Human Rights, or so they tell us.

Source: poe.gov.au

So, the government of the colony was caught out in a sexual harassment matter, where attention was drawn to the law, and the public was made aware that judges, MPs and ‘public servants’ (yes, all of them) are immune from the Sexual Harassment law that applies to every other person in Australia.

So here we have lawmakers that enacted a law, that absolves people in government and their administration, i.e. ’public servants’ from any wrongdoing when it comes to sex 'crimes'.

That says it all doesn't it?

Remembering that the government hides sex predators, rapists and paedophiles, in office as supported with a suppression order for 90 years.

A paedophile that escaped 'justice' taking his secrets to his grave, was ironically called a justice that being a Mr. Lionel Keith Murphy, where his victims have been silenced by the system.

Are these actions for ‘good government’ ?

Is this something that the community accepts?

Maybe it is, since they’re doing nothing about it.

A more pressing question could be;

What other law are 'persons' in government, i.e. the Executive, Parliament and Judicature exempt from that the public are not aware of?

See article by theguardian.com of the title:

Australia’s sex discrimination law will be amended to include MPs, judges and public servants

PM Scott Morrison and sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins. The government has accepted most of the Respect@Work report’s 55 recommendations either in full, in part or in principle. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Members of parliament have been put on notice that there will be “consequences” for sexual harassment, as the government announces it will overhaul federal laws to try to stamp out sexual misconduct in Australian workplaces.

Responding to the Respect@Work report completed by sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins in March 2020, the government announced on Thursday that it had accepted most of the report’s 55 recommendations either in full, in part or in principle.

However, the government has pushed back against a key recommendation relating to the private sector, suggesting it will not legislate a “positive duty” that would force employers to take steps to eliminate sexual discrimination in the workplace.

Although not recommended in the report, one of the key measures announced by the government on Thursday is to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to include MPs, judges and public servants who are exempt under current sexual harassment laws.

The definition and scope of sexual harassment will also be broadened, with the “serious misconduct” provisions in workplace laws clarified to make sexual harassment a valid reason for sacking an employee.

In another major change aimed at encouraging victims to come forward, people will be given two years to lodge complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission, extending the current six-month time limit.

Morrison said the government would announce a funding commitment for the changes in the May budget, and acknowledged the events of the past two months had exposed the need for action.

“There is no doubt that the events of recent months has re-enforced the significance [of the problem] and highlighted it once again,” Morrison said.

Since February, the government has been under fire for its response to a series of misconduct scandals, including the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins by a colleague in the ministerial wing of Parliament House, a historic rape allegation against frontbencher Christian Porter, which he stridently denies, staff members sharing lewd pictures in Parliament House, and the poor behaviour of Liberal National MP Andrew Laming.

Morrison had already announced a front bench reshuffle that promoted women, while also establishing a new cabinet taskforce to bring a “fresh lens” to government deliberations.

Jenkins, who will lead a new taskforce to implement the government’s response to the Respect@Work report, is also undertaking a separate “bespoke” review into the work culture of Parliament House.

Declaring that “everyone” has a right to be safe at work, Morrison said the government needed to work out how to ensure that MPs – who are elected and not employed – were captured by the new laws.

“Members of parliament find themselves in a different situation because of the nature of how we come to be in these jobs,” Morrison said.

“We have one boss, and that is the Australian people who elect us, and that is a process that we’ll have to work through carefully in the drafting.”

“The recommendations are not … granular when it comes to the drafting in many of those provisions and how those matters are worked through. What’s important, though, is the principle that is established and that MPs and that is judges… [and] state public servants are not exempt from these arrangements.”

Morrison said the government would prepare a package of legislation to be introduced to parliament this year, saying there would be consultation to achieve bipartisan support for the changes.

The newly appointed attorney general, Michaelia Cash, said the government wanted to reduce complexity in the existing system for both employers and employees, but has shied away from a recommendation to introduce a positive duty on employers.

“We want consistency and we want to reduce complexity. So we’re going to now look at how you could implement that in the Sex Discrimination Act, but not make the system more complex and not confuse people as to where to go,” Cash said.

Jenkins had recommended changing the Sex Discrimination Act to introduce a positive duty on all employers “to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination” in the workplace, with the Human Rights Commission given the power to assess compliance.

But in response to the recommendation, the government has said it will assess whether this may “create further complexity, uncertainty or duplication in the overarching legal framework.”

On a range of other recommendations relating to the private sector – mostly around training and reporting – the government has said it “strongly encourages the sector to engage with the council.”

“The government notes that engagement from industry groups and the private sector will be crucial for delivering economy-wide change.”

A recommendation for the government to ratify the International Labour Organisation Convention concerning the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work has not been agreed to, nor has a change that would allow unions to bring representative cases to court.

The government has indicated it will do more on preventative measures as it seeks to foster broader cultural change, flagging new education and training programs across a range of sectors, more research on prevention strategies and better data collection.

Morrison said the problem of harassment in the workplace was a “culture we have to change right across our society”, and urged people to work together to achieve results.

“We will be stepping up to our responsibilities but we all, each and every one of us individually, have a responsibility for our own behaviours and our own actions and what we can positively do to ensure that we can change the culture of behaviour.”

He also said people needed to call out inappropriate behaviour in their everyday lives, some of which might arise from “unconscious behaviour”.

“That’s the sort of conversation that we have to have in our relationships, in our communities, in our homes, in our clubs, in our churches, wherever you happen to be. We’ve just got to have these conversations and people need to understand in our own workplaces what is OK, what’s not OK.”

Google's Android update throttles phones

Trust Google (or even Apple) to give you the most out of your phone?

Of course not.

They should be in court for 'unconscionable conduct', but people need to wake up that they are being duped!

In any event, you can read the following article from phonearena.com of the title:

April 2021 update apparently boosts the performance of the Pixel 5 substantially 

Google's Pixel smartphones are now getting the April security update, which seeks to fix vulnerabilities and seemingly also unlocks the potential of Pixel 5's SoC.

The April Pixel update fixes the grid size customization issue on the Pixel 4 and older supported phones that seemingly arose after the quarterly feature drop.

The security patch also aims to resolve an issue that caused Pixel 4 and later devices to freeze during boot. It also takes care of a problem that made Pixel 3 and older phones appear offline when connected to a VPN.

For Pixel 4a 5G and Pixel 5 owners, the update also improves camera quality on third-party apps like Instagram. 

Pixel 5 performance issues have been taken care of

Now comes perhaps the highlight of this update. It brings performance optimizations for graphic-intensive apps and games to the Pixel 4a 5G and Pixel 5. 

Austrian newspaper Der Standard's editor Andreas Proschofsky ran benchmarks on the Pixel 5 after updating it and its scores on 3DMark have improved by up to 50 percent relative to its performance after the March update. 3DMark is a tool that determines the performance of 3D graphic rendering and CPU workload processing capabilities.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the results will be reflective in real-life performance, but is nonetheless interesting, especially given that such boosts are rare. 

Proschofsky also notes that the Pixel 5 is usually slower than competing phones like the LG Velvet that are underpinned by the same chip, the Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, and theorizes that Google may have throttled the performance, and the new update has disabled throttling. This has fortunately not led to thermal issues, per Proschofsky, presumably because the phone was consuming less power than other comparable devices previously. 

AnandTech's Andrei Frumusanu, who in their review of the Pixel 5 said that it didn't perform as well as other Snapdragon 765G-powered phones, also says that the 'performance has been essentially doubled' when compared to January scores. 

If you haven't received the update yet, you can check for it manually in System Settings. If you have a carrier-locked device, you may have to wait longer.

Digital Vaccination Passport - Petition against - 10 days left!

For those unaware, the National Cabinet is working on plans for a new “Digital Vaccine Passport” that will be mandatory for anyone wanting to travel overseas with an announcement on the rollout expected within a couple of weeks. 

The passport will provide proof of an individual’s vaccination, so any Australian citizen wishing to travel overseas will be required by law to provide evidence of vaccination, or they will not be allowed to board ANY airline. 

The aim is for the Digital Pass to, over time, be expanded to include a whole range of activities and places, from sports stadiums, gyms, schools and universities, to theatres and possibly even your workplace.

Whatever your views are on the Covid-19 vaccine, any policy or law that divides a population between ‘the vaccinated’ and ‘the unvaccinated’ must surely ring alarm bells for anyone who cares about the future of our freedoms in this country.

Divisions like this will swiftly lead to a quasi ‘caste’ system, where one group will become a ‘favoured’ class, enjoying privileges and rights denied to a ‘pariah’ class of ‘untouchables’ who would, by any measure, become the most discriminated against group in Australia’s history (think of the social credit system used in China today).

There is currently a Petition running, but it is due to close on April the 14th: Petition EN2463 - Government to commit no rolling out any e-vaccination status/immunity passport

https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN2463

 Please sign and send this around your circles!

At the time of this post there are currently 41,050 signatures, where if we can get to 20,000 signatures, the House of Representatives will be forced to debate these new laws on the floor of Parliament, and hopefully make them at least have to submit it to a Senate Inquiry first. 

If you love this country and the freedoms that have been fought for, please sign this petition, as all evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

 Source:supplied

Australian governments human rights abusers, just sue them but there’s a catch!

The people in Australian governments (federal and state) are human rights abusers, not too dissimilar from those in charge of China, where all you have to do is catch them out and take them to court, you know a Chapter III one, in the name of the Monarch, right?

Not exactly, there’s a huge caveat.

You see the system is rigged against you, way before the matter of Corinna Horvath made it into the public news media, something the government would have loved to remain hidden from the public.

How is it rigged against ‘you’?

Well as mentioned in another post, there is no separation of powers, where the ’brotherhood’ kicks in and takes over, or threatens your livelihood or incarcerates you, if you expose government corruption, as many people are aware of this such as Richard Boyle (ATO whistleblower).

This is what happened in the case of the principal at AdvocateMe, when a class action was filed against the government, where this is explained in the embedded video below.

The nanny state agenda by those in power is a high priority, where those who oppose this will be crushed, whatever it takes.

Please note that the government is also responsible for child abuse as a result of the lockdown.

See article by news.com.au of the headline:

Public housing residents file class action, claiming to have survived off ‘nuts and beans’

Public housing tower residents have filed a class action over the lockdown in Victoria, claiming they survived off ‘nuts and beans’.

Public housing tower residents shut inside their homes during Melbourne’s lockdown are suing the Victorian government claiming they were left without food and medication.

A claim was filed in the Victorian Supreme Court last week, alleging residents are owed damages for the “invalid”, “oppressive” and “degrading” lockdown that failed to consider human rights.

More than 3000 people were locked inside nine apartment towers from July 4 to either July 9 or July 18 last year, before the entire state went into hard lockdown on August 2.

The claim alleges lead plaintiff Idris Hassan and his family were supplied with “spoiled” food after being banned from buying groceries. 

A child is seen in a window of the locked down public housing towers in North Melbourne, Victoria, in July last year. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Daniel PockettSource:News Corp Australia

After being provided nothing for three days they were given four partially-defrosted sausage rolls, placed at the door step, that were “not fit for human consumption”, it alleges.

Ms Hassan and his nine-year-old son suffered asthma attacks after they ran out of medication, with the family surviving on “nuts and beans”, it alleges.

Victoria’s Deputy Chief Health Officer Annaliese van Dieman is named as the first respondent in the suit, along with Deputy Public Health Commander Finn Romanes, Chief Commissioner of Police Shane Patton, and the state of Victoria.

Residents were deprived of access to fresh air, exercise and occupational activities, it is claimed.

They were exposed to health risks as communal areas were not disinfected, and PPE was not provided, despite the presence of COVID-19 in the towers, it is alleged.

Government workers left bins overflowing and some residents lost their jobs after being unable to work during the lockdown, it is claimed.

The claim alleges they were “not consulted” about the lockdown, which banned them from leaving their homes without approval.

Victorian Deputy Chief Health Officer Dr Annaliese van Diemen is named as the first respondent in the class action lawsuit. Photo: Darrian Traynor/Getty ImagesSource:Getty Images

“Some time on 4 July 2020, prior to 3.30pm, (Victoria Police) decided to deploy hundreds of Victoria Police officers to the Estate Towers to enforce the detention of the residents of those towers,” the claim states.

It alleges Ms van Dieman had 15 minutes to review, sign, and consider the human rights implications of the lockdown before a press conference scheduled for 4pm on July 4.

It claims she “felt constrained” to approve the directions and “considered that she could not delay signing” before the press conference, which she appeared in alongside Premier Daniel Andrews.

“(She) allowed the decisions of third parties, or their actions and attitudes, to control the way she exercised her discretion,” the claim alleges.

The lockdown was not explained at the time to the residents of the towers, according to the claim.

“The decision not to inform the residents of these matters was not governed by questions of practicability, but was a deliberate decision made to ensure that the residents did not go elsewhere,” it alleges.

“Intimidating conduct” by Victoria Police officers also began “triggering pre-existing trauma” in some residents, the claim alleges.

The lead plaintiff, Mr Hassan, is a Somalian refugee who arrived in Australia after fleeing civil war.

Residents claim they were exposed to health risks through the lockdown in a lawsuit suing the Victorian government for damages. Picture: Sarah MatraySource:News Corp Australia

He fled his village in 1990 when it was targeted by soldiers and made his way to Australia with his six siblings, making it to Australia in 1998.

At the time of the lockdown he lived in the public housing tower in Sutton Street, North Melbourne, with his wife and three children aged 9, 7 and 4.

About an hour after the lockdown began Mr Hassan asked a police officer for permission to buy groceries and medical supplies and was refused, it is alleged.

No food deliveries were made to him for several days and authorities “refused the Australian Muslim Social Services Agency permission to deliver culturally-appropriate food supplies to the residents”, it is alleged.

He ran out of asthma medication and despite calling a hotline number played on television, was not delivered medication in time and suffered asthma attacks, the claim alleges.

The medication was supplied on July 8, four days after they were locked inside the towers, the claim says.

Food supplied was not halal, a requirement of their Muslim faith, and Somali interpreters were not engaged in explaining why they had to go COVID-19 testing, it is alleged.

Residents were tested for COVID-19 “without giving their full, free and informed consent and, or in the alternative, under duress”, the claim alleges.

The class action is being run by solicitor Serene Teffaha of law firm Advocate Me.

It will be heard in the Supreme Court at a date to be set.

See response video by Serene Teffaha to action taken by the VLSB from the class action lawsuit filing:

Source:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zqkSfNH9cHvg/

Susan Kiefel, the High Court of Australia corrupt – Queensland edition

There is no separation of powers in Australia as alleged by the people in power.

The ‘brotherhood’ (now includes token women) in control of the three tiers of government, that being the Executive (the Queen, Governors, Governor-Generals), Parliament (MPs, bureaucrats) and the Judicature (Judges, courts and police) do not work separately, independently in the ‘interest of  justice’ but rather conspire against their salary suppliers, that being the people of Australia.

As people should know in 1922 ‘democracy’ was thrown under the bus in Queensland, with the abolishing of the Upper House (Legislative Council) with full support of the people, i.e. without a peep from the general population.

The (now) private business that we call a ‘court’ is supposed to be a place of remedy, but that is not so in many cases.

Sure, a serf may obtain a remedy from a parking fine or speeding ticket if presenting the correct paperwork with regards to the unlawful conduct of those in government, say with regards to the ‘Queen of Australia’ or the enactment of a law, but the win may never be on the ‘public record’ where what they do is dismiss the matter, so there is no trace of the evidence tendered or mention of the contents in a transcript.

Another common action by the court is to ignore subpoenas if the people in power must produce whatever evidence is required of them, where an allegedly lawful action was carried out.

As an example in Victoria, a subpoena was issued for the so called sheriff (then Mr. Brendan Facey) to produce a warrant (the instrument) that allowed [the ‘deputies’] to take possession of vehicles /cash etc in relation to not paying infringement notices arising from so called road 'offences'.

The evidence required for the court matter was not produced by the Sheriff’s Office Victoria, where the judge ignored the requests by the defendant for the office to produce the so called warrants.

The warrants to NOT exist, as prescribed by the law and never have.

A position description describing a sheriff for Victoria no longer exists, whereby the person replacing Mr. Facey a Mr. Warwick Knight cannot legally be called a 'sheriff'.

Victorian drivers have been duped by the government.

Would a court ignore the subpoena if a serf was required to produce evidence?

Would a serf not be charged, if the required evidence was not produced?

Well, in Queensland it gets worse for the serfs.

So called ‘justice’ Susan Kiefel, quashed a subpoena for the people in government to produce evidence that substantiated a lockdown, basically perverting the course of justice.

Next thing you know they'll call her 'the Honourable'. 

As a result you cannot trust the High Court of Australia in your matter, that exposes government corruption.

Is today’s High Court of Australia, which began in 1979, in accordance with ‘the Constitution’?

Do we truly have 'Chapter III' courts in Australia?

COVID-19 'jab' not covered by health insurance

At the time of this post, the drug administered to Australians is at 'Emergency Use Authorization' stage, where it cannot be technically called a 'vaccine' but rather an experimental/trial drug, as confirmed by Australia's Health Minister, Mr. Greg Andrew Hunt, in a public forum.

A letter from a health insurance corporation in Australia to its customer states the following:

"I confirm that side effects arising from the COVID-19 vaccine are not covered under our exclusion for: Complications from excluded or restricted conditions/treatment and experimental treatment exclusion."

The response also states the following:

"If you are injured while doing COVID -19 swab yourself, cover would be available towards the injury."

Source:supplied

Pay attention to the word "yourself".

(as you will be able to do the test on your own, soon)

Therefore if someone else is administering this 'test' i.e. a person in a 'drive-thu' then the insurance company will not cover you?

Do you know the name of the person putting a swab up your nose?

Does that person have the appropriate qualifications to conduct such a medical examination?

Do you know the legal name of the business the person is employed under? 

Will their policy cover you?

Greg Hunt:

"The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever..."

See full interview at:

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

Murdoch’s ‘news’ gone feral with tracking & ads

A lot has changed since the Australian Government has decided to tackle the ‘influencers’ of the world, that being Facebook and Google with regards to how they handle their content, where it seems that the so called ‘news’ empire has escaped scrutiny.

We’ve obtained statistics that show that Murdoch’s news empire has roughly doubled its advertising (and tracking) and therefore revenue from you the user.

While they prefer you to download their app, so that the empire can obtain more private data from your smartphone, data collection by their website is also rampant.

 

Reading a dozen pages from Murdoch’s publication including the home page, has generated  nearly six and a half thousand advertising and tracking instances that were blocked.

This is literally an assault on your privacy, where the government is deliberately slow to act for the 'good' of the consumer.

The government is very quick to issue a 90 year suppression order that protects paedophiles in government positions.

The government is very quick to put in 'rules' that fine people for whatever reasons.

It is of paramount importance for people to comprehend that VPNs, TOR, Orbot and other online anonymising tools must be part of your software suite on your smartphone or desktop personal computer.