The politics of limiting your choices in corporate media/political polls to guarantee the 'right result'

Polls have been used in the lamestream media for a long time. Pre-internet & mobile phones, people were asked to 'ring in' with their analogue phones, or were called by people conducting opinion polls which gave the 'public's opinion' about a range of serious topics.

Many moons ago, i worked for a market research company called Quadrant, who at the time, performed surveys on behalf of the Herald-Sun. In a room full of people performing the same menial task, i would have a list of phone numbers & would ring them in turn and ask a series of questions.

These questions were designed to elicit a particular response, before, we asked the question that would be published in the paper. Most questions that i asked were never published in the paper.

This two minute, seventeen seconds clip from the brilliant English tv series, 'Yes Prime-Minister' illustrates the method of governing peoples opinions in polls rather magnificently. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&feature=player_embedded
 

Yesterday, whilst reading a story that i intend to share on 'Mikiverse Law', entitled "Detaining drivers a human rights' breach: lawyer" in the Canberra Times, i came across a poll that was using the logic of limiting your choices in order to get public opinion to a pre-arranged destination.

Notice that all of the questions presume that the police have the right to detain you. The poll is debating the issue of the circumstances that govern this police detention of an innocent man, and for how long this detention. Not, whether or not a detention should be taking place.

It is also worth noting that the positioning of the poll immediately after the story, as opposed to above, in the middle or to the side is not accidental.

It is my opinion that the logic that underpins a poll like this is that because, apart from the article itself, there are no 'primer' questions to shepherd you to pre-arranged conclusion, different tools have to be employed to try to ensure success. 

Therefore, the article, coupled with the limitations enforced by the poll question itself, is the employed method of generating 'public opinion' on this particular issue.

USING THE REFERENDUM TO GUARANTEE A POLITICAL OUTCOME.

In 1999, war-mongering terrorist, Prime-Minister, John Coward, proposed a referendum on the issue of whether or not Australia should be a republic.

Coward, a staunch monarchist, didn't want Australia to become a republic to become a republic, unless it was on his terms, so, being the devious criminal that he is, successfully sought to pervert the referendum process itself.

He did this by, instead of asking a direct & simple question such as:

Do you support Australia becoming a republic?

Instead, Coward had the temerity to ask: 

"A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.1"

It is in fact a proposal for the continuation of the same cistern, with the Monarch/Governor-General being retitled a 'President' and being appointed by politicians as opposed to 'we the people'.

The most significant change is in fact the change in appointment of the Governor-General/President from the Prime-Minister/Cabinet to both Houses of Parliament.

Naturally enough, no mention was made in the referendum to the question of the existing ownership of the land by the various Originie nations.

The second question was more devious.

"Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.2"

The people said NO. 

The Constitution ALREADY HAD A PREAMBLE in it, so why ask people if the government could insert something that already exists.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

This is an important point to get your head around because these are particular employments of a dangerous political instrument called the 'Hegelian Dialectic', whereby, the media/government et al uses the generated 'public opinion' to demand that the government engage in particular behaviour.

Many of you are familiar with its employment after false flag op's like 9/11, but, not so familiar with the fact that this tool is rudimentally employed by corporate media, government etc to give you a false impression about what 'public opinion' is on a myriad of topics that seeks to influence or govern, not just your view but, your activities relative to perceived authority.

It is my opinion that it is in all of our interests to be as aware as we can about all of the tools that these vipers employ against us individually and collectively so they can live of our collected energy.

Anything we can do to prevent this is in all of our interests.

FOOTNOTE

1. http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/1999.htm
2. http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/1999.htm 

mikiversepolitics 18 Feb 2014

Supreme Court of Victoria seal exposed

In the words of a high profile Melbourne lawyer who is responsible for bribing judges / police prosecutors and others in order for his clients to avoid jail;

"There are two types of people who are in prison, those who do not have the money to pay for a lawyer, and those too stupid to pay for one".

Many high profile criminals have been able to escape a jail sentence, and continue to operate under the watchful eye of the corrupt police heads and their 'foot soldiers' in Victoria.

To the uneducated public, one might be under the impression that if all forms of resolution to a dispute have failed, then taking the matter to the "Supreme Court of Victoria" will result in justice prevailing once the truth is told.

In Australia, the courts are not courts of 'law', but rather places of business/trading/commerce (trading on your ESTATE NAME) which have ABN's (Australian Business Numbers), which in the example of the County Court of Victoria (ABN: 32 790 228 959), is owned by the Liberty Group, which has financial ties to the Rothschilds.

Unbeknown to the public, judges/magistrates/judicial clerks bid for matters, which are paid for by securitised bonds.

Matters are already decided before the 'official' commencement of the matter, which appears in the daily law list.

The company logo or in this case, the Coat of Arms is another aspect that escapes the notice of mere mortals.

The Coat of Arms with the lion and unicorn as in the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901" document pertains to the only valid version of the 'Constitution', where it is also part of a seal, which is the ONLY valid seal for any Act.

(See illustration)



The kangaroo and emu Coat of Arms which is pictured on another version of the so called 'Constitution' is NOT part of any valid laws, and that particular Constitution is NOT VALID, contrary to popular belief.

The Supreme Court of Victoria, has its own logo, which looks very similar to that of the original one from the 'Constitution' with one very important difference.

The Coat of Arms contained in the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901" has a lion sitting atop of the Crown.

This refers to the habeas corpus, which is valid and in force in Victoria (a fact that the 'authorities do not want the masses to know) and expresses that:

“No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land”


When stepping into the jurisdiction of the business known as the Supreme Court of Victoria, there is no lion atop of the Crown, which quite simply translates to in lay mans terms is that you are guilty and MUST prove your innocence.

Not one single judge has an impartial perspective but rather a vested interest, as the payment of the judge depends on the resolution of your matter, which must be judged in a manner that is first and foremost to the benefit of the system.

Every single so called judge that presides over any matter  is factually corrupt, in contempt of court and should realistically be arrested.

As a side note:

The Australia Act 1986 is INVALID.

This has been established in 2006 within the County Court of Victoria, and thus is Ultra Vires in the main as it does not comply with section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act, to which the crown conceded to this fact.

No need to carry driver licence

With the assumption that Australia's Road Safety Act is lawful and valid, then from this:

ROAD SAFETY ACT 1986 

- SECT 19

Driver licences

(8)     A person under the age of 26 years who holds a driver licence must have the licence in his or her possession at all times while driving or in charge of a motor vehicle.

Penalty:     5 penalty units.--



________________

Therefore, 
anyone over the age of 26 years old who is stopped by police does not need to produce a 'driver licence'.

Only your name and address (can be business) needs to be stated, and NOT your date of birth.


Note:

Other material to consider:

Driver Licence unlawful?

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/drivers-license-unlawful.html

Parking 'Officers' caught fabricating infringements

A news report has revealed that some council parking officers have devised a cunning way of fabricating photographs so that cars that are legally parked in fact appear to be illegally parked, thus generating more bookings for those parking officers. It all has to do with an optical principle and anybody who is into photography will understand how this scam is being perpetrated.

To keep it simple, what happens is that the longer the focal length of a lens, the less the depth perspective. In the case mentioned in the news item, the motorist's car was parked 25 metres from a school crossing. However, the council ranger used a telephoto lens to take a photograph of the front of the car and the foreground, making it appear as if the car was literally parked next to the school crossing.

There are a couple of ways to beat this scam. The best way is to use a car black box recorder that will automatically take a GPS located time and date-stamped video clip whenever the car is used. The clip can be produced as hard evidence to show that a motorist's car was indeed parked legally and that the council ranger's photo was deliberately taken with a telephoto lens in order to make the motorist's car appear to be parked illegally. Such evidence will also destroy the council ranger's testimony in court.

For motorists who do not yet possess car black box recorders, they should merely take time and date-stamped photographs of their parked cars with the cameras in their mobile phones. Virtually all mobile phones have built-in cameras and such photographs can be used to fight wrongful bookings.

Motorists always need to be in a position to have hard evidence, because police, governments and councils rely on the fact that most motorists who are booked have no way of showing that bookings were wrongful.

The beauty of a car black box recorder is that it operates automatically all the time, gathering such evidence and storing it on a memory card. But even a photograph taken with a mobile phone is better than nothing.

What is a Birth Certificate?

Your birth documentation should be straightforward and transparent, however it soon becomes the most complex and secretive paper trail imaginable. This alone suggests a long history of corruption. The process involves a maze of secret Trusts and various parts of legislation, focused on claiming your Estate.

The modern “Birth Certificate” began as a “Settlement Certificate” issued in England in 1837 to officially record the poor (paupers), granting basic rights to benefits in exchange for recognition of their status as owned “property”, lawful slaves, also known as indentured servants and bondsmen. A child’s birthplace was its place of “settlement,” where its bond began. Thus, a “settlement” is equivalent to a voluntary slave plantation. Since 1933, all New Zealanders have been required by statute to have a Birth Certificate, and a tax identification number. Since 1990, under the United Nations and the World Health Organisation (WHO), by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the birth certificate process has become an international system of “settlement”.

When you are born (given life), a “Record of Live Birth” is created as prima facie evidence of your Life. The New Zealand equivalent is a “Notification of Birth for Registration”. It is your Affidavit of Life, with details that absolutely identify your living standing. It records your given name as a unique “Title”, i.e. John, to your Estate. The autograph of your Mother establishes the origin of your Estate (an Estate must come before a Trust). Your Mother and the State are now, by law, Trustees in an “expressed” Public Trust, of which you are the Beneficiary. You are the holder in “expectancy” of your Estate, which will descend to you as of right when you attain the “age of majority” (20). This original Trust should serve you well, but …

Soon, your parents are told that you “must” be registered. They are under no such lawful obligation, but the State is very insistent for reasons undisclosed. According to Ecclesiastical Law an Estate can only be held in Trust by a man. But your Mother was asked for her maiden name, constituting “Maternity”. [MATERNITY. It is either legitimate or natural. 

The former is the condition of the mother who has given birth to legitimate children, while the latter is the condition of her who has given birth to illegitimate children. Maternity is always certain, while the paternity (q.v.) is only presumed. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Ed.] Therefore, all naturally born children are illegitimate (bastards) with uncertain fatherhood, having no paternal holder of their Estate. When registering, an “Informant” (unknowingly) makes an accusation as to your illegitimacy. [INFORMANT. A person who informs or prefers an accusation against another. - Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.] The Status of Children Act 1969, 2. says ‘For the purposes of this Act marriage includes a void marriage’. So you are legally a bastard without rights. [BASTARD. 4. Considered as nullius filius, a bastard has no inheritable blood in him, and therefore no estate can descend to him. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Ed.] Moreover, your given name (Title) is recorded in the “still-born” column. [A stillborn child is one … incapable of living … if they do not in fact survive so long as to rebut this presumption of law, they cannot inherit. -  

Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.] The State can now legally claim your Estate, making you a “Ward of the State” in an “estates for life” Foreign Situs Trust. [ESTATE. 9.-2. The estates for life created by operation of law are … 4th. Jointure. … The estate for life is somewhat similar to the usufruct of the civil law. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Ed.] “Jointure” (joinder) is similar to “usufruct” (right to derive income from property of another).

Your Record of Live Birth, and the Registrar’s evidence, are used to create a Birth Certificate Bond, publicly certifying that a property Title is registered as a Security for the national debt. It is like a Warehouse Receipt for the baby, the delivered goods. [WAREHOUSE RECEIPT. A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument used for financing with inventory as security. - Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition]. At the same time, the bond converts your given name and family name into a tradename. Only corporations have a “last name”. A legal person has been created by the State, as a franchise child of the parent corporation.

The Bond is sold to the World Bank (Bank of International Settlements, created in 1931 by the Vatican) as Settlor of the Trust. Your weight in ounces on the Record of Live Birth is to calculate your market value relative to gold. Your Bond becomes a registered Security, which the Treasury uses as Surety for Treasury securities such as Treasury Bonds, Notes and Bills.

So you have been MONETISED. The people truly are the “Credit of the Nation”. However, in the corrupted system, the people’s credit is effectively “human capital”, or “livestock”.

Although the State can seize the legal person baby as a “Ward of the State” if the State’s “investment” is threatened, its greatest value is realized from the “matured” working adult.

The perpetrators of this deception know that you could one day discover the truth and invoke your Power of Attorney from the age of 18. Property Law Act 2007, Section 22.(1) ‘Person between 18 and 20 years may do certain things, … (c) accept appointment, or act, as an attorney, 22.(2) … has the same effect as if the person were 20 years old.’ In short, you can attain the age of majority (20) by declaring your own Power of Attorney from the age of 18. However, if they can somehow “kill” you off, legally speaking, they can claim your “deceased Estate”, being your real property (lands), and personal property (life).

This is why the legal person is legally a “vessel” in which the State has a Security interest, via the Birth Bond. When you reach full legal age, you become the Master (Mr/Mrs/Ms) of that “vessel”. The living you has “gone to sea”, and under the Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction, which is the “Law of the Sea”, if you are missing for seven years, you can be declared legally dead by the court. The same process is applied to ships and mariners lost at sea. 

But you will probably “voluntarily” forfeit your Estate. You may start work and register as a taxpayer on a IRD330, or you may enroll on a voting register. Either way, you are transferring your Estate to the State’s legal person by registering as an “accommodation party”. If you decide not to register as the legal person, you are a “vessel lost at sea”. 

After seven years, you “died” without a will “Intestate”, so someone is appointed to manage your Estate/Trust. The Public Trust applies to the Family Court to manage your Estate under the ‘Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, Section 11. Form PPPR 6 Application for order to administer property’.

Under the first Sovereign Public Trust agreement set up by your Mother, you are the Beneficiary, while your Mother and the State are your Trustees. The State employees are your Public Servants obligated to work for your benefit and defend your rights, having a Fiduciary responsibility to do so. But under the new Foreign Situs Trust, the government becomes the Beneficiary, and you become the Trustee obligated to work for the Trust, because the Trustee always pays. The State has turned the tables on you.

The People are employed by the State as debtors for a private banking system, which is upheld by a private Bar Association Guild (Law Society). While “acting” as the Trustee of the Foreign Situs Trust in your corporatised NAME, you will receive endless presentments (bills), which that employee of the State, the legal person, Strawman, is obliged to pay.

But the theft of your Estate is based on false presumptions that cannot be proven in fact. 

The fundamental flaw is that in order for a Birth Certificate to be issued, a man or a woman must first have been born on the land. Plainly, you are not really dead, so you still have living rights on the land. You are “the holder in due course” of YOUR Estate Title. 

Under the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, IV ‘If the supposed dead MAN proves to be alive, then the title is revested.’

 

Remember that only YOU have a “birthday” on which you were born into the world from your Mother. Whereas the artificial legal person has a “date of birth” on which it was registered by the Registrar. They are usually created on different dates! (see your Registration Print-out)

Maxim of Law: “He who fails to assert his rights has none”.

Part-time work hoax: Five days squeezed into three

PART-TIME employees are having to squeeze five days of work into three, making a sham of flexible working conditions and work-life balance. 
 
As a result, working mothers or employees who look after their parents are losing out on many of the benefits flexible working was supposed to bring, such as more family time, ongoing participation in the workforce and a lighter workload.

The findings of a Centre for Work and Life investigation coincide with a leading Australian businesswoman calling on corporate Australia to turn rhetoric into action to ensure women’s careers aren’t crippled by motherhood.

CWL senior researcher and report author Dr Natalie Skinner said an ageing population, cost pressures on business, and increased numbers of working mothers had brought the issue to a head.

“Even if people are working flexibly or working reduced hours, if their workload is unreasonably high they lose a lot of the benefits of those conditions or arrangements,” she said.

“It’s something which comes through strongly on our qualitative research. It is not uncommon for those in long part-time hours jobs (working three of four days) to find themselves being expected to manage a full-time workload.”

Avoiding a part-time job with full-time hours: COMMUNICATE: Be clear where you are up to with work in progress, be clear about when you will be able to respond and when you are in the office. PRIORITY SETTING: You must be able to identify what is most important to do and that includes the priority of your reasons for seeking part-time work. STICK TO YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION: Resist the temptation to do other things, whether to help others out or because it is easier. Your hours are set by the tasks you have. ASK FOR HELP EARLY: Do not wait until something is urgent or overdue and you feel compelled to work longer to resolve it. Get help early. BE STRONG: Be strong when people say what a great job you are doing and offer you more hours. TECHNOLOGY: Make good use of technology to stay in touch and communicate well with handovers, without letting yourself be tempted to do more work hours when at home. Source: Broadspring Consulting director Pam Macdonald

The report found work-life policies will only be effective when they are accepted as the norm and not just a special consideration for working mothers.

A recent University of Queensland study also found it was common that “employees working in part-time positions would experience heightened work intensity, essentially being required to complete a full-time job in part-time hours”.

The report, based on 40 interviews with members of a national Australian employer, found it was common for part timers to be sidelined from promotion and training opportunities because they were seen as less committed than their full-time colleagues.

Dr Skinner said the culture of an organisation is the biggest determiner of whether or not parents with flexible working arrangements, for example, spent enough quality time with their family.

“The role of technology in the late hours and on weekends is huge,” she said.

“People have their laptops and smartphones they can use to keep in touch. But there is a concern about the quality of family and home time because of this.”

Senior businesswoman and mother Elizabeth Proust, who is the director of an ASX-listed company and the former managing director of ANZ, called on employers to get their act together to ensure women’s career progression isn’t stifled by caring responsibilities.

“It is for senior managers and boards to be serious about making available a range of part time and other flexible arrangements, whereby people are able to — at various stages of their careers — have flexible arrangements,” she said.

“It is a matter of companies translating the policies and the rhetoric into action.

“There is no doubt that in most cases part time is seen as a lesser role and I don’t think there is any doubt that women get sidelined when they take time off to have children. It is then harder for them to re-establish their careers.”

news.com.au 15 Feb 2014

Commonwealth Bank censors Corporate Australia

The private banking company known as the 'Commonwealth' Bank has filters both software and hardware to keep its computers, employees and customer's data safe, which is mandatory in today's internet connected world.

The Commonwealth Bank has censored access to the blog corpau (Corporate Australia), which can be seen in the screen capture (below), together with the apparent reason for the block to the information contained within the site.

Commonwealth Bank states that:

The web resource http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/?m=1 has been deemed by your administrator to be unsafe or unsuitable for you to access. The resource has been blocked. No further action is required.

This is the same policy the Australian government has with the censorship of the internet, with regards to what it sees as safe for the public to consume.

Only government sanctioned information will be able to be read by the people.

China currently has the policy that limits free speech, together with a heavily censored 'internet' that people access. China's current population sits at approximately 1.365 billion.

It is not difficult to control, censor or limit access to resources out of a total population of 23 million people, via new 'internet' projects, where there is a 'black hole'  or 'project blowout' budget which funds the hidden agenda.

Australia is truly the new age Alcatraz, where policies, agendas and laws are put into action in such a manner that does not awake its sleeping prisoners.