Last Will and Testament no longer honoured in 'Dictatoria'?

Your Will is a legally binding document where your last wishes are to be honoured after your death, right?

It may be challenged and overturned if proven the author may be non compos mentis or something similar.

Well that may not be true in the colony that is approx 9,500 miles as the bird files from British Empire’s headquarters, as it seems that 'money talks' and not just ones sanity.

As most of the world knows, the colony was settled in not the most ‘honourable’ manner as it has a fundamental history of being settled by criminals not only from the general population pool, but also from the authorities, which is also true with today's immigration policy.

China has a low opinion of Australia, irrespective of whatever trade agreements are in play, where the state’s newspaper mentioned it as an insecure place once “roamed by rascals and outlaws from Europe”.

The (colonial) government was so out of control that the Imperial government stepped in and installed the Colonial Laws Validity Act in 1865 to mitigate the lawless nature of those in authority.

The saying ‘Australia, is a lucky country’ from the mid 1960s is a derogatory dig at those in charge  as the rest of the quote by author Donald Horne goes onto say “run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck”.

Today Australia is still an “insecure place” as described by the Chinese, but also a totalitarian state, a corporatocracy, our own version of oligarchical rule, a secretive police state and no doubt a few more ‘states’ that many can think of.

There is also another problem that the authorities and the mainstream media are deliberately hiding from the serfs, and it’s got everything to do with the highest court of the State, in particular Victoria.

The Supreme Court of Victoria oversees deceased estates, wills etc.

In order for a court to function ‘lawfully’ it must be established with its corresponding Act.

The following is an excerpt from the Supreme Court of Victoria:

1850s: Establishment of the Supreme Court

In 1851, the District of Port Phillip separated from New South Wales and the Colony of Victoria was established. One of the colony’s earliest legislative acts was to establish the Supreme Court with William a’Beckett becoming the first Chief Justice. He and the other judge appointed to the Court, Redmond Barry, took their seats on the for the first time on 10 February 1852.

The of gold in 1851 and the colony’s population growth led to a rapid increase in the business of the Court. A third judge, Justice Edward Eyre Williams, was appointed in 1852 and another, Justice Robert Molesworth, in 1854.

The most significant trials during this period were the treason trials of 13 of the men captured after the Eureka Stockade in 1854, all of whom were acquitted. The prosecutor in these trials, William Foster Stawell, later replaced William a’Beckett as Chief Justice in 1857.

Source: https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/about-the-court/our-history

So from the above excerpt: 

“One of the colony’s earliest legislative acts was to establish the Supreme Court with William a’Beckett becoming the first Chief Justice. He and the other judge appointed to the Court, Redmond Barry, took their seats on the for the first time on 10 February 1852.”,

people may be of the impression that the Supreme Court of Victoria has been established legitimately.

But is that factually true?

Has the entire process of making law been followed to the letter, or rather letters patent?

Let’s take a closer look within the link:

Has the Supreme Court of Victoria been validly established?

A very ‘public’ Victorian, a businessman, former Australian GP boss and Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Mr. Ron Walker died in 2018 aged 78.

In short, the Will of a sane and competent minded person was not executed, but rather an action of selling the property in question, for profit was deemed more beneficial, under the excuse that it would be better utilised in another person’s hands.

A fundamental question could be, "was it a fair and/or impartial hearing"?

Of course not, as the Victorian government was a stakeholder with regards to the decision, as it would profit as a result of the stamp duty from the sale of the property, if a judgement was to be made that it was to be sold.

So if that can happen to a man of his stature, what does that say about what can happen to the rest of the serfs, keeping in mind that the actions of the Supreme Court of Victoria are NOT 'lawful'.

Australia is truly one corrupt place, where the people are blisfully unaware of this, just as the sociopaths in government need them to be.

(Deliberate?) Misinformation on the 'Best' Phone to Avoid Government Surveillance

There are many websites on the internet that provide people with false or deliberately misleading information.

This also goes for people that are on 'social media' sites, like Facebook, Instagram et al.

In this example an, ex-CIA agent who has a YouTube channel Jason Hanson, claims that the best phone to avoid government surveillance is a satellite phone or 'sat phone'.

How a sat phone works

As the name suggests, a sat phone starts off is communications to a satellite, where this goes to another suitable satellite, then the communications going to an 'Earth Station' where then it goes through a local network to a mobile or a landline.

Now, with regards to the FiveEyes surveillance network, all communications are logged whether it be landline or mobile, where it is also known to the authorities that a particular phone is communicating with a sat phone.

Since there are not as many sat phones as there are mobiles, they are easier to keep tabs on which the authorities do.

Also irrespective of where you are calling from, only the local exchange where the Earth Station connects to has to be monitored, where each sat phone does not need to be infiltrated or targetted.

Also the comments (182) at the time of this post, reflect the sentiment that a sat phone is not the best phone to avoid govenrment surveillance.

Some of which are:

"Bro, WTF!! I'm retired USAF and came from a SIGINT aviation background. Iridium sat phones are the easiest to listen in. They are largely un-encrypted, and even a hobbyist with some open source software and an SDR can listen to them. The USG and other countries have programs that constantly monitor them and can triangulate the signal very easily. LTE burner phones are much easier to slip away in the noise and much harder to decode in a raw RF environment. I guess this guy slept through his SIGINT courses in the CIA"

"Plot twist: This guy is actually working for the govt. And his tips make it way easier for the govt. To track you and tap your calls."

"SAT phones require KYC (Know Your Customer). Also, the easiest way for the government to find you is to monitor the phones of anyone you would call. SAT phones also have IMSI/IMEI numbers, GPS, etc. No phone at all is the way to go."

"A pigeon is one of the most secure methods of communication."

See entire video:

How much did it cost to bribe Australia's TGA during Covid?

The question is very simple, where how much does it cost for a pharmaceutical corpoation to make their 'trial' drug that is only distributed via Emergency Use Authorisation, where it is advertised by the Australian authorities as "safe and effective"

 

The spreadsheet above lists the three 'big pharma' corporations and how much each of them has paid to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia.

Moderna has paid a total of $3,314,869.50

Pfizer pad a total of $28,250,549.99

AstraZeneca paid a total of $13,582,028.62

A small brabe of each of them to reap in huge profits frm the sales of their drugs, which were forced on the general population, where the judiciary and others were exempt.

It's not the first nor the last bribe the TGA has taken, where as a result it cannot be trusted, but as always no one goes to prison over such large scale corruption in this colony.

All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

Documentary Film by Michael Rivero, 2016.

The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest.

After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.

But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders.

Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws", the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild's chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton.

Also available on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v4pe3wl-all-wars-are-bankers-wars.html

Australia to import 5 million Indians

The Australian governments REALLY hate the general population, as it shows by their actions.

In the midst of a ‘housing crisis’ installed on the Australian people by the federal government, with the so called ‘affordable housing’ project, which is of little use for Australian families, being a deliberate failure with actual built housing failing the good people of Australia, what does the government do?

Why double down, of course, meaning increasing the immigration numbers into the colony in the process installing austerity and creating higher inflation, as a result of an unnatural strain on infrastructure and resources and housing of course.

So what's the goal? To bring in more (corporate/bank) slaves into the colony?

In order to change the demographics of Melbourne to build a mini Mumbai, in the next decade or so?

A current picure of Mumbai, which may not be too 

different from Melbourne within the next generation.

The reality is that Melbourne has aready changed from a safe city to a feral, unsafe cesspool ridden in crime and drug use, as a result of the government's low quality immigration policy that has been in place for a couple of decades now.

Also, as a result of the low quality imports, those that walk into the building industry, most are unqualified 'tradespersons' working with the intention to rip-off or cause harm to Australian homeowners.

Australian's homes are being butchered, below the already low 'Australian Standards', with realistically no intervention from the authorities to safeguard homeowners.

Another deliberate action that is for 'the economy', meaning inflated prices bring in more revenue for the corrupt people in government.

Some of the world’s better slaves are Indians, as they make really good corporate slaves especially since the inception of the East India Company, founded on the last day of 1600 and being familiar with the British Commonwealth, they'll slot into the colony called Australia perfectly.

 

What they didn't tell you!

Prime Ministers Anthony Albanese and Narendra Modi

It is often quoted by the mainstream media that they "can now reveal" whatever they're 'uncovering', which basically means there are no 'investigative' journalists but rather editors that are government puppets, where they can only print whatever info the government allows the plebs to know.

During Indian Prime Minister Modi's visit to Australia in 2023 none of the mainstream media outlets mentioned that Modi came to Australia to sign off on an immigration deal that will flood Australia with approximately 500,000 (low quality) Indians every year for the next decade.

It's already bad enough (for the people) that the governments (state and federal) do NOT have enough housing for 'Aussies', but also there is going to be another 500,000 people per year from India alone putting stress on Australia's 'housing crisis'.

The people or are not asking for more immigration, but rather to the contrary they're wanting less, but as if anyone in government cares what the people want, as then it would be a democracy.

Australia is a unique place, not because of its so called multiculturalism, but rather a place with elements of fascism, corporatism, oligarchy, nepotism just to name a few.

Another problem that India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi faces is faeces.

Indians are truly low quaility people, where most of the world's open defecation happens in rural India as most rurual Indians defecate in the open.

Approx. nine years ago, 500 million Indians defecated in the open every single day, rather than going to a toilet or latrine.

It's not because India is a poor nation.

So why are Indians 'low quality'? Because they do not put a priority on latrines or toilets.

See 15 minute TEDx talk from August 2015 of the title:

The surprising truth of open defecation in India | Sangita Vyas | TEDxWalledCity

Since Australia is into 'diversity' maybe 5,000,000 open defecators is what Aussies need?

Corrupt Real Estate agent Amir Jahan admits to deception – Will ACCC act?

It is usually considered by many that real estate agents lie (i.e. deceive) in order to make a sale, which is technically against the law.

Sometimes it’s difficult to prove, especially when it comes to the real estate agent knowing something that should be told to the prospective purchaser, or lies by omission.

But the story is different when an action of deception in order to make a sale is admitted on ‘public record’ by the person, as opposed to hearsay.

Mr. Amir Jahan, is a realtor for Ray White, in the Sydney Suburb of Paramatta.

From his public admission, he is not a person who is to be trusted, where if he sold you lemon of a property, then maybe his 'victims' could see legal advice for compensation.

Mr. Jahan put it out there in the public news media that “every agent has an imaginary buyer” they refer to when trying to sell a property. 

“Whenever there’s a serious buyer, and they make a serious offer, then we say, ‘You need to hurry up because I’m talking to another buyer, and you’re going to miss out,’” he explained.

Mr Jahan stated that he always mentions the threat of another buyer whenever he gets into the negotiation stages with anyone. 

In other words he is making false claims, deceiving the buyer.

So, the 27-year-old agent said it is simply a highly effective sales tactic, where he also claimed to be “100 per cent positive” that every agent uses it, but most won’t admit to it, wheras he has. 

The real question is what will the authorities do with his public admission of deception, where he is normalising it.

In public admissions on 'social media' of speeding or hooning, the authorites take action.

Imagine a speeding driver normalising 'speeding' to a police officer, and see how far that would get you in the courts.

The Australian authorities are deliberately doing far too little to protect consumers from this kind of predatory behaviour, as the government directly benefits from consumers being ripped off by low quality people like Mr. Jahan

That's life in a (penal) colony.

This is what the ACCC states about false or misleadning claims:

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/false-or-misleading-claims

Exposing corrupt builder - Mr. Ninos Jano, Immanuel Homes

Preston's worst build is done by Immanual Homes.

This was uncovered by building inspector Mr. Zeher Khalil on his YouTube channel Site Inspections, in the following video:

At the time of this post, Dun & Bradstreet, lists the Key Principle as NINOS JANO.

If you want the worst home built in your suburb, you can call Mr Jano on 0431 370 489 to help you out.

It's quite clear from the lack of action that the Victorian authorities are supporting the low quaility builds like that by Mr Jano, as it's ALL about the 'economy' and not about the victims, right?

Who cares about the victims as they're only serfs/plebs/commoners.

While the builder may be dodgy, another practice is also that the city council inspectors are part of the corruption, where they are given (by the builder) a certain amount of cash to turn a blind eye on the dodgy work.

In future posts we may also be naming corrupt council workers.

P.S. The 'industry' is NOT 'broken' but rather functions exactly the way it is intended to.

Are these people even real in the Testimonials & Clients section?

Because the first guy, 'Mike Sandoval' appears to be seen in a few places as a result of reverse image search:

APPARENTLY, according to Ninos Jano, a 'Sam Peterson', ".. used Immanuel Homes a few times won't hesitate to recommend."

BUT upon further investigation our mate 'Sam' is nothing more than stock?

 

So it's two out of three thus far, where we'll spare the lovely 'Kenya Soval' the embarrassment.

So, now it seems that Mr. 'Jano' is 'allegedly' involved in false advertising, which is a matter for the ACCC, under:

"This rule applies to any communication by a business, including through:

• advertising
• product packaging
• a quotation
• any information provided by staff, whether verbally or in writing
• social media
• testimonials
• websites or any other platform."

See:

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/false-or-misleading-claims

Law passed in excess of power is no law at all

The people in the colony's federal and state parliaments are corrupt.

In MANY instances they act beyond the power that is given to them.

They put in law that they are not allowed to put into circulation lawfully, but they still do.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, sets the boundaries how the people in govenrment must act.

The official guide to the Constitution is a book written by Sirs John Quick and Robert Randolph Garran called The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, which is referred to in legal circles as the 'Quick and Garran', which is approx 1050 pages.

See scanned book:

Unfortunately many self professed 'constitutional experts' mistakenly call this book Australia's 'proper constitution'.

One such person that does this very vocally is Wayne Kenneth Glew as seen in the first 43 seconds of this video:

Mr. Glew holds up the book referred to as the 'Qucik and Garran' for short referring to it as the "proper constitution", which is a plain and simple lie.

In this book, there is a section on the Judicature and its interpretation on page 791, as seen in the above excerpt. 

Paying attention to the last paragraph, the following is stated:

The Fedral Parliament and the State Parliaments are not soverign bodies; they are legislatures with limited powers, and any law which they attempt to pass in excess of those powers is no law at all it is simply a nullity, entitled to no obedience.

The so called law passed during COVID-19 is just one example.

Queensland's demolition of the Upper House is another.

Are the current 'hate speech' laws put into circulation in excess of power of the parliament?

Human right to adequate housing - Housing is a right, not a comodity.

The United Nations Human Rights Office of the Commissioner has put out a report on the right to adequate housing.

The Australian Government has installed a 'housing crisis' on the good people of Australia, where there is not enough housing for Australian citizens as a result of the government's policy to over import immigrants into the colony.

The Australian government is in breach of the human right to adequate housing.

So what are Australia's so called top legal minds/law firms, doing about it?

Why nothing of course, as they are protecting their brethren in government and of course 'the economy'.

Australia is a 'member state' of the United Nations since the 1st of November 1945.

The Office Of The High Commissioner states the following on the human right to adequate housing:

Housing is the basis of stability and security for an individual or family. The centre of our social, emotional and sometimes economic lives, a home should be a sanctuary—a place to live in peace, security and dignity.

Housing is a right, not a commodity

Manhattan - New York

Increasingly viewed as a commodity, housing is most importantly a human right. Under international law, to be adequately housed means having secure tenure—not having to worry about being evicted or having your home or lands taken away. It means living somewhere that is in keeping with your culture, and having access to appropriate services, schools, and employment.

Too often violations of the right to housing occur with impunity. In part, this is because, at the domestic level, housing is rarely treated as a human right. The key to ensuring adequate housing is the implementation of this human right through appropriate government policy and programmes, including national housing strategies.

Evictions and displacement

Climate change, natural disasters and armed conflict pose a threat to the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing and displace every year millions. Infrastructure development, hydro-power dams, and mega-events, such as Olympic Games or football World Cups, should contribute to the realization of the right to adequate housing and not undermine it.

Housing and real estate markets worldwide have been transformed by global capital markets and financial excess. Known as the financialization of housing, the phenomenon occurs when housing is treated as a commodity – a vehicle for wealth and investment rather than a social good.

Equality and non-discrimination

While revenues from real estate have accumulated, our cities have become increasingly unaffordable. In many countries women, religious and ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, migrants and refugees face discrimination in relation to housing or live in the most appalling conditions. Spatial segregation excludes many residents from equal access to public services, education, transportation and other opportunities. Local Governments are often at the forefront of the struggle for housing and can play a key role in protecting and realizing the right to adequate housing.

Homelessness and informal settlements

More than 1.8 billion people live in informal settlements or inadequate housing with limited access to essential services such as water and sanitation, electricity and are often under threat of forced eviction. And one of the most severe violations of the right to adequate housing—homelessness—has been on a steep increase in many economically advanced countries.

Building back better

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need for everyone to have a safe home to shelter. The economic crisis that followed will see many people unable to pay their rent or mortgage. National, regional and local governments need to prevent a new disastrous wave of evictions and urgently address discriminatory patterns of social exclusion in the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing. Only together we can ensure that nobody will be left behind.

The right to adequate housing in human rights law

Adequate housing was recognized as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 11.1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Other international human rights treaties have since recognized or referred to the right to adequate housing or some elements of it, such as the protection of one’s home and privacy.  

The right to adequate housing is relevant to all States, as they have all ratified at least one international treaty referring to adequate housing and committed themselves to protecting the right to adequate housing through international declarations, plans of action or conference outcome documents. Various international treaties and declarations referring to the right to adequate housing are available at the following link. 

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has underlined that the right to adequate housing should not be interpreted narrowly. Rather, it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. The characteristics of the right to adequate housing are clarified mainly in the Committee’s general comments No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing and No. 7 (1997) on forced evictions.  

The right to adequate housing contains freedoms.

These freedoms include:

• Protection against forced evictions and the arbitrary destruction and demolition of one’s home;
• The right to be free from arbitrary interference with one’s home, privacy and family; and
• The right to choose one’s residence, to determine where to live and to freedom of movement.

The right to adequate housing contains entitlements.

These entitlements include:

• Security of tenure;
• Housing, land and property restitution;
• Equal and non-discriminatory access to adequate housing; and
• Participation in housing-related decision-making at the national and community levels.

Key elements of the right to adequate housing

Adequate housing must provide more than four walls and a roof. A number of conditions must be met before particular forms of shelter can be considered to constitute “adequate housing.” These elements are just as fundamental as the basic supply and availability of housing. For housing to be adequate, it must, at a minimum, meet the following criteria:

• Security of tenure: Housing is not adequate if its occupants do not have a degree of tenure security which guarantees legal protection against forced evictions, harassment and other threats.
• Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure: Housing is not adequate if its occupants do not have safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, energy for cooking, heating, lighting, food storage or refuse disposal.
• Affordability: Housing is not adequate if its cost threatens or compromises the occupants’ enjoyment of other human rights.
• Habitability: Housing is not adequate if it does not guarantee physical safety or provide adequate space, as well as protection against the cold, damp, heat, rain, wind, other threats to health and structural hazards.
• Accessibility: Housing is not adequate if the specific needs of disadvantaged and marginalized groups are not taken into account.
• Location: Housing is not adequate if it is cut off from employment opportunities, health-care services, schools, childcare centres and other social facilities, or if located in polluted or dangerous areas.
• Cultural adequacy: Housing is not adequate if it does not respect and take into account the expression of cultural identity.

See the OCCHR Fact Sheet on the right to adequate housing:

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’.