A look into Corporate fraud in Australia, Stranglehold of Monopolies, Telecom's Oppression, Biased Law System, Corporate influence in politics, Industrial Relations disadvantaging workers, Outsourcing Australian Jobs, Offshore Banking, Petrochemical company domination, Invisibly Visible.
It's not what you see, it's what goes on behind the scenes. Australia, the warrantless colony.
Note: Site has more info in desktop mode or 'web version' as seen at bottom of page, when on smartphone.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (ABN: 122 104 616)
Australia's Prime Minister (CEO) Tony Abbott : "Australia is Open for Business"
When you have ‘dealings’ with the police for example with a ‘speeding’
or traffic ‘fine’,your comments and the
actions of the police ‘person’ must be noted down which is referred to as their
contemporaneous notes.
The notes are supposed to reflect an accurate description of
what really occurred.
Sometimes these notes can also be the officer’s undoing.
It is almost certain that the average Joe is not fully aware
of police procedures and most definitely the term contemporaneous is not part
of the lay person’s vocabulary.
It is with this deception that the ‘charged’ person is not
getting a fair hearing, based on the facts that police are concealing vital
evidence.
If you have ANY dealings with police, make sure you ask for
the contemporaneous notes in a place of business / trading / commerce called the ‘court’.
The fraud goes much deeper than this but for the
moment we are publishing this information as only one part of exposing the
fraud and corruption within the corporation known as Victoria Police.
This is how the executive behaves on a prison island, a penal colony, which it still is today. Private companies / superannuation funds calling themselves city councils or 'local government' do not have any legitimate right to you private information. Apparently 'privacy laws' are supposed to protect the plebs, but they [deliberately] do not. The companies commonly referred to as 'city councils' are currently trading unlawfully, which we have disclosed this information to the corporate media, but they choose not to public this information. Make no mistake about it - Australia is a corporate criminal's paradise.
Full article from smh.com.au from 4 Dec 2015:
Knox City Council has tripled its requests to access metadata. Photo: Wayne Hawkins
Two city councils in Melbourne and Sydney are increasingly spying on residents by finding out who they are calling and emailing.
Knox City Council in Melbourne's east is the worst offender, followed by Bankstown Council in Sydney's west.
Knox made 15 "metadata" requests in the year ended June 2015, up from just five in the previous year, according to a federal government report.
The
metadata may include phone numbers of people who called each other
and how long they talked to each other, or email addresses and what
times messages were sent. Access to it does not require a warrant.
Sometimes a request might simply be for who the owner of a certain phone number is and what their address is.
Bankstown was granted access to residents' metadata on 13 occasions, up from seven in the previous period.
Queensland's
Ipswich City Council, which made 21 requests in 2013-14, has cut down
on spying. It made just three metadata access requests in the year.
Melbourne's Darebin and Wyndham councils made one request each in 2013-14, but did not request any metadata this year.
However the number of requests by councils remains relatively steady overall, at 32 this year compared to 35 previously.
Other
government agencies accessing citizens' private communication
records include Australia Post, which made 625 requests in the period,
down from 810. Various racing authorities, the RSPCA and the Tax Office
are among other agencies that dip into metadata year after year.
A
spokesperson for Australia Post said it requests phone records from
telcos to chase people who steal phones or SIM cards from its stores, or
to pursue people who make "serious threats" to staff or engage in
corruption and fraud.
Overall requests up 9 per cent
The
overall number of request authorisations for telco data, including for
requests from police and other law enforcement agencies, leapt 9 per
cent to 365,728 in the year to June 2015.
However the number of
requests from non-law enforcement agencies, such as councils, fell
slightly from 4018 in 2013-14 to 3941 this year.
A spokesperson
for Bankstown Council said it had only accessed call records to place
people suspected of illegally dumping waste at the scene of the offence,
resulting in "a number of successful prosecutions". In one case around
20,000 tonnes of waste was dumped at five different sites, the
spokesperson said.
Knox City Council was asked to explain what it used metadata for, but has yet to respond.
In
previous years councils have admitted to using metadata to chase minor
infringements such as unauthorised advertising, unregistered pets, and
littering. Last year Sydney's Hills Shire Council told Fairfax it
used metadata to track down a roof cleaner who had polluted a river.
The
practice has become more common in a few short years. Back in the
2011-12 financial year, only two councils – Bankstown and Wyndham – were
accessing metadata.
Before mandatory data retention legislation
came into effect in October, a broad range of government agencies able
to issue fines or "protect public revenue" had been automatically
authorised to access citizens' metadata.
Since October – a period
which will be covered in next year's report – non-law enforcement
government agencies are required to apply directly to Attorney-General
George Brandis before they can access the data.
The
Attorney-General must consider a range of criteria when granting a
request, including whether the agency has a binding privacy scheme, and
whether the functions of the agency include investigating "serious
contraventions" of the law.
Fairfax is awaiting a response from
the Attorney-General's office as to which agencies, if any, have applied
to access metadata. The Australia Post spokesperson said Australia Post
was no longer accessing metadata.
Next year's report will also include detail on what metadata requests were used for.
It is well known within the 'force' that you have to meet quotas for speeding 'fines', arrests, etc.
So what's a 'person' (read police officer - TOTALLY different from police-man/woman) to do?
Why not keep everyone from the respective communities (police force (read - executive) and the general offending public) happy?
Has this police person got a conscious?
This person has confirmed what all police forces in every state deny that being the 'quota' system.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC!
Make up your own mind from the article at dailyadvertiser.com.au from 4 Dec 2015 of the headline:
Gundagai highway patrol officer charged after allegedly issuing tickets to fictitious drivers so he could reach 'quota'
A local highway patrol officer has been charged in relation to issuing false tickets to fictional drivers.
CLAIMS
have emerged a Gundagai highway patrol officer issued speeding tickets
to fictitious foreign drivers so that he could reach an informal quota
set by his bosses.
The 39-year-old officer was charged last week on 16 counts of modifying restricted data held on a police computer.
He claimed he had caught 16 drivers from different countries speeding in and around Wagga
The false tickets were allegedly issued to international drivers that didn’t actually exist.
The
officer allegedly believed he would escape detection if the tickets
were made out to foreigners because the State Debt Recovery Office would
not pursue them once they’d returned overseas.
The officer is believed to be a senior constable attached to the highway patrol command. He will face court on January 6.
There is MUCH more criminal activity that is hidden from the general populous, but there is no doubt that there are plenty of 'rotten apple' in the 'force'.
The 'government' allows these people to still be employed in positions of 'power'
Australian taxpayers have to work nearly one-and-a-half weeks
full-time every year just to pay for subsidies and tax concessions for
the fossil fuel, superannuation and private health insurance industries,
according to the Australian Greens.
That figure is based on the
same formula used by Treasurer Joe Hockey last week when he warned
taxpayers had to work over four weeks every year ''just to pay for the
welfare of another Australian''.
Mr Hockey used his calculation to
explain to the right-leaning Sydney Institute last week why Australia's
welfare system was unsustainable.
''This year the Australian
government will spend on average over $6000 on welfare for every man,
woman and child in the country,'' Mr Hockey said.
''Given that only around 45 per cent of the population pays income
tax, the average Australian taxpayer must pay more than twice this
amount [over $12,000 a year] in tax to refund welfare expenditure.''
But the Greens say that Mr Hockey's calculation can work both ways.
When
taking into account the capital gains rebate, the private health
insurance rebate, the super tax concessions rebate, fossil fuel
subsidies and favourable tax for discretionary trusts, the ''average
worker'' must work 1.34 weeks full-time every year, or nearly $2000, to
pay for it, the Greens said.
''While Joe Hockey set out to falsely
pit those receiving welfare against those in work, the reality is that
the 'average worker' works two days a year to fund unemployment
benefits,'' the Deputy Greens Leader, Adam Bandt, told Fairfax Media.
''The
Greens aren't saying that all of these concessions and subsidies should
be removed tomorrow, but just that there should be a factual and
informed debate about who the 'end of the age of entitlement' is really
hitting.''
It comes after the latest Household, Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey found working-age Australians have
become far less reliant on welfare payments since 2001. The study found
that 23 per cent of people aged 18 to 64 received welfare payments every
week in 2001, but by 2011 that number had fallen to 18.5 per cent.
Following
Mr Hockey's speech last week, an Australian Council of Trade Unions
(ACTU) economist, Matt Cowgill, published a graph showing where
taxpayers' money is actually spent in the welfare system.
It has
been replicated by Fairfax Media to match the government's assertion
that the average taxpayer pays more than $12,000 a year to fund welfare.
It
shows that each taxpayer will be asked to pay $3640 in 2014-15 to pay
for income support for seniors, while $1885 will go towards family tax
benefits.
Just $936 of taxpayers' money spent on the welfare system will go towards the sick and unemployed.
Mr
Hockey's office said the point of the analogy of full-time work was to
highlight the ''very high and growing expenditure on welfare''.
A Liberal MP has called on the Local Government Minister to investigate bullying allegations among Wyndham councillors, claiming many are “out of control”.
Speaking in parliament last week, Western Metropolitan MP Bernie Finn asked the minister to appoint someone to “inquire into the good governance level” and have, as a possibility, the prospect of appointing commissioners, “if they do not come up to scratch”.
“We have had numerous instances of councillors bullying other councillors behind closed doors,” Mr Finn said. “Councillors [are] threatening other councillors behind closed doors.”
Acknowledging the work of administrators with Brimbank council, Mr Finn suggested it was time for administrators to do the same at Wyndham.
“Wyndham is one of the fastest growing municipalities in Australia. It needs a good council; it deserves a good council,” he said.
Star Weekly has been told of at least one official complaint lodged by a councillor, who claims to be fed up with the bullying culture around the council table.
Kelly Grigsby
Wyndham council’s chief executive Kelly Grigsby said she had no concerns regarding the governance of council, but confirmed the organisation was investigating “matters relating to behaviour that is not in keeping with the standards outlined in the councillor code of conduct”.
“Given that the matters are unresolved, it would be inappropriate to comment on specific details,” she said.
She said the council took its obligation to provide a healthy workplace and to protect councillors from bullying and harassment very seriously.
A spokesperson for Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins indicated Wyndham would not go into administration any time soon.
“Mr Finn’s allegations need to be referred to the appropriate investigative body,” the spokesperson said.
“The minister will then consider any recommendations from those investigations.”
starweekly.com.au 3 Dec 2015
What the corporate media WILL NOT TELL you is that the businesses commonly referred to as current 'city councils' are in office UNLAWFULLY, according to the Australian document called the 'Australian Constitution'.
December 3, 2015 1:52 pm
by
Adem Saban
Share
Bernie Finn
A
Liberal MP has called on the Local Government Minister to investigate
bullying allegations among Wyndham councillors, claiming many are “out
of control”.
Speaking in parliament last week, Western Metropolitan MP Bernie Finn
asked the minister to appoint someone to “inquire into the good
governance level” and have, as a possibility, the prospect of appointing
commissioners, “if they do not come up to scratch”.
“We have had numerous instances of councillors bullying other
councillors behind closed doors,” Mr Finn said. “Councillors [are]
threatening other councillors behind closed doors.”
Acknowledging the work of administrators with Brimbank council, Mr
Finn suggested it was time for administrators to do the same at Wyndham.
“Wyndham is one of the fastest growing municipalities in Australia.
It needs a good council; it deserves a good council,” he said. Star Weekly has been told of at least one official complaint
lodged by a councillor, who claims to be fed up with the bullying
culture around the council table.
Kelly Grigsby
Wyndham council’s chief executive Kelly Grigsby said she had no
concerns regarding the governance of council, but confirmed the
organisation was investigating “matters relating to behaviour that is
not in keeping with the standards outlined in the councillor code of
conduct”.
“Given that the matters are unresolved, it would be inappropriate to comment on specific details,” she said.
She said the council took its obligation to provide a healthy
workplace and to protect councillors from bullying and harassment very
seriously.
A spokesperson for Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins indicated Wyndham would not go into administration any time soon.
“Mr Finn’s allegations need to be referred to the appropriate investigative body,” the spokesperson said.
“The minister will then consider any recommendations from those investigations.”
- See more at: http://www.starweekly.com.au/news/councillors-out-of-control-mp/#sthash.Qtgxe4em.dpuf
But could
there have been an age-old enemy of the government brewing right under their
noses and setup and supported by the very people in government?
Who is this
old foe?
Could it be
the meek, mild and very learned ‘Constitutional Lawyer’?
Let’s start
educating the Aussie pleb as to what a Constitutional Lawyer is.
If you are challenging
your criminal (read administrative) ‘fine’ for example for parking, in the
lowest ‘court’, the Magistrates’ then you could be challenging the validity of
that law or Act that you are being allegedly charged under.
When you go up the ‘court’ ladder it’s only a
couple of steps until you reach the ‘High Court of Australia’.
What is the
High Court of Australia, the ‘footy fanatic’ uneducated pleb may ask?
It’s a
place set up by the Australian government where people can question the law
with respect to the Australian Constitution.
So what
does this person called a ‘Constitutional Lawyer’ do?
This ‘person’
focuses on the law, and the various relationships of it with respect to the
Australian Constitution.
It’s
actually the Ninth part of a document called An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th
July 1900]. It is an Act of the United Kingdom.
Some people (judicial registrars/magistrates/judges)
may tell you that it is a ‘historical document’, ‘outdated’ or not relevant to
today’s legislation.
BULLOCKS
!!! !!! !!!
This
document was pulled from the public curriculum in the 1970’s to keep people the
plebs in the dark.
It’s one of
the more powerful documents with relation to how the ‘authorities’ MUST behave.
The court’s
are a sham, practicing in deceit, fraud and various other criminal activities.
The country’s
lawyers are pulling the wool over your eyes with respect to the ‘law’, and not
fully disclosing to you what’s really going on.
PLEASE NOTE:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109
Inconsistency of laws
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the
latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the
inconsistency, be invalid.
Anti-government extremists known as "sovereign
citizens" have been identified as a potential terrorism threat in
Australia by a confidential NSW Police report.
What are sovereign citizens?
Sovereign citizens don't accept Australia's legal framework or government
They consider themselves outside the law
Counter terror command warns they should be considered "a potential terrorist threat"
In NSW, police estimate there are about 300 sovereign citizens
The FBI considers them domestic terrorists
The NSW Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics command
assessment — obtained by 7.30 — suggests there are as many as 300
sovereign citizens in the state, and that their numbers are growing.
It
also suggests they have "the motivation and capability to act against
government interests and should be considered a potential terrorist
threat".
Police records show the number of Australian sovereign
citizens in NSW doubled from 2009 to 2011 and nearly tripled from 2009
to 2012.
Interactions with police increased 50 per cent in 2011, with a "notable increase in threats of violence".
In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies sovereign citizen extremists as domestic terrorists.
The US Department of Homeland Security has listed them as the number one domestic terror threat in America.
Detective
Superintendent John O'Reilly is the commander of the Counter Terrorism
and Special Tactics Operation Group for NSW Police.
He said NSW police had been examining overseas trends and threats.
"Sovereign citizens are people that don't buy into our legal framework, our system of government," he said.
"They consider themselves individuals and operate outside the law and outside our tax system."
We are always conscious of preventing terrorism and we are mindful of any movements that have the potential to go down that path
John O'Reilly, NSW Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Operation
Police intelligence of incidents involving sovereign
citizens in Australia ranges from displaying homemade registration
plates and "plans to use paint bombs to disrupt court proceedings", to
making plans to kidnap a judge, judicial officials and a police officer.
The
report also states that in 2012, sovereign citizens threatened to burn
down the home of a judge and "cause harm with firearms" and had "plans
to murder Sheriff Officers if they attempt to seize property".
While
Commander O'Reilly stressed Australia had not experienced any of the
high impact violence resulting in death or casualties associated with
the movement overseas, he said there were indications of radicalisation.
"A
number of instances have ended up in people being placed under arrest
and sometimes there has been a degree of resistance on the basis that
they claim that the police officer has no authority over them," he said.
"We
are always conscious of preventing terrorism and we are mindful of any
movements that have the potential to go down that path."
His path towards sovereign ideology started
in the late 1990s, when he was evicted from his home because he refused
to acknowledge the mortgage over his house.
"It means you are your
own master, in other words you have the right to your own body, your
own freedoms, and if anybody wants to impose something upon you, they
have to do it lawfully.
"If you are a sovereign person, you make the laws for yourself. You decide in your own conscience what you want to do."
Mr Wilson only pays fines or taxes when he thinks they are fair. He has been to court more than 200 times and jailed.
In
1997 he threw a plastic bag containing yellow liquid at a Supreme Court
judge, in 2006 he attempted a citizen's arrest of a Supreme Court judge
and in 2009, Mr Wilson sent a letter to the police commissioner.
In it, he threatened to burn down the premises he was evicted from.
He
said that he was the victim of a government conspiracy and that there
were hundreds of other Australians who shared his beliefs.
"There
would be many hundreds scattered across the continent. The Queenslanders
are very conscientious, the Victorians are doing a good job and even
now in Western Australia we are getting more and more farmers and
ordinary people, saying no, this is not right," Mr Wilson said.
"At the moment I have membership of about 95 people, but I haven't really pushed it."
Deadly US attacks linked to movement
The sovereign citizen movement began in 1969 in the United States as an anti-tax, anti-government group called Posse Comitatus.
Members believed that the United States federal authority was unlawful, and only accepted small levels of government.
Up to 300,000 Americans identify as sovereign
citizens, according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre. Of those,
100,000 are considered extreme.
Before the 2001 World Trade Centre
terrorist attacks in New York, the most destructive loss of life uring
peacetime in the United States was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
168 people died, including 19 children under the age of six.
The
two key conspirators were domestic terrorists and Timothy McVeigh's
partner in the attack was Terry Nichols, a person designated by the FBI
as a sovereign citizen.
Since the Oklahoma bombing, 32 law enforcement officers have been murdered by domestic anti-government extremists in America.
Two
of the officers killed were serving under former Chief of the West
Memphis police, Bob Paudert in May 2010. One of them was his son,
Brandon Paudert.
"It has been five-and-a-half years since he has
been killed and it was the most devastating event that has occurred in
my life," Bob Paudert told 7.30.
Sergeant Brandon Paudert and his partner,
Officer Bill Evans, were shot and killed during a traffic stop by
sovereign citizen Jerry Kane Jr and his 16-year-old son Joseph Kane.
"Brandon
and Bill were killed because they had never heard of sovereign
citizens. It was something new to them, they didn't know about them," Mr
Paudert said.
"I am convinced of this — if they knew and they had
the training that we are now giving officers around the country and
around the world, they would be alive today. They would be with us."
Since
their deaths, Bob Paudert has worked closely with the Southern Poverty
Law Centre in Alabama and the FBI to train law enforcement officials in
the United States and Canada about the dangers sovereign citizens
potentially pose.
"No-one had heard of sovereign citizens in May
2010, now the FBI says that they are the number one threat in this
country. Australia is facing a similar scenario that we went through and
it's starting the same way," he warned.
"They didn't commit acts
of terrorism over here at one time. Now they do. And you can't wait. You
can't wait until you lose officers, or officers are killed, to decide
to do anything."
What many people may not be aware of is that as of 2013 Victoria Police is a corporation - via the Victoria Police Act (2013) - and therefore subject to 'corporate law'.
What people may not also realise is that the Victoria Police 'logo' is trademarked, and therefore illegal for others to use, under 'corporate law'.
It has been recently posted on various sites that Victoria Police are trialing in certain suburbs of Melbourne, a stop and give 'receipt' to the person.
Why?
Under corporate law you are then engaging in a commercial activity.
You know what 'we' say to this?
Give the police 'your terms and conditions' as per template in the blog post titled:
After
reading the posts from the Corporate Australia (corpau.blogspot.com) blog on
Victoria’s sheriff, Brendan Facey and his (alleged) office of employment ‘Sheriff’s
Office’ and now the ‘Sheriff’s Office Victoria’ (which are two different
business entities, under two different jurisdictions - See Corporate Australia blog article:There’s a new sheriff in old Melbourne town) the readers should be
aware that according [to their many other
invalid] Acts, the Sheriff Act 2009, where Victoria’s sheriff allegedly get his
powers of incarceration, detainment and seizure of goods is invalid.
It is also
important to point out that there is no lawful appointment for the current so
called ‘sheriff’ Brendan Facey (see above meme).
Having said
the above, there can be no lawfully generated warrant for road offences as a
result from a place of business/trading/commerce called the ‘Infringements
Court’.
If you have
had dealings with the sheriff, Brendan Facey or any other person from the ‘Sheriff’s
Office’, or anyone claiming to be a ‘deputy’ –
ASK FOR THE
WARRANT!
The short
answer is that you will not be provided with one.
The longer
answer is:-
If you write
a letter to the ‘Sheriff’ Brendan Facey at the address of the ‘Sheriff’s Office
Victoria’ to supply you with the warrant/s supporting their claims, wait for a
response from him, as the person Brendan Facey, of the title ‘Sheriff of
Victoria’, on the letter head ‘Sheriff’s Office’.
If you
obtain a reply from another company, e.g. CCV from no person only a title ‘CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICER’, you [in law] did NOT receive a reply from the ‘sheriff’ Brendan
Facey, from his place of business the 'Sheriff's Office'.
If you actually
do get provided with a warrant, it will NOT be a LAWFUL one.
Knox City Council has tripled its requests to access metadata. Photo: Wayne Hawkins 
