Pay or face the debt collector - what Centrelink the government or the media will not tell you

Centrelink has been caught out sending out tens of thousands of letters per week falsely claiming debts that their customers have allegedly accrued.

In addition to these false claims, it has now emerged that Centrelink is also unlawfully passing this alleged debt to a debt collector.

What is worse is that the corporation conglomerate called the 'Australian Government' states that the 'problem' does not exist.

Please note that your Centrelink / Social Security payments are inalienable, meaning are unable to be taken away from your 'person'.

They can only [lawfully] deduct funds upon your consent.


See the following law in relation to the above statement:


Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 - Sect 60


 Protection of social security payment

             (1)  A social security payment is absolutely inalienable, whether by way of, or in consequence of, sale, assignment, charge, execution, bankruptcy or otherwise.

             (2)  This section has effect subject to:

                     (a)  sections 61 and 238 of this Act; and

                    (aa)  Parts 3B and 3D of this Act; and

                     (b)  sections 1231 and 1234A of the 1991 Act.

Ref:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ssa1999338/s60.html

Also it is stated in the

Social Security Act 1991 - Sect 66

Age pension to be absolutely inalienable

66. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and section 1359, age pension is absolutely
inalienable, whether by way of, or in consequence of, sale, assignment,
charge, execution, bankruptcy or otherwise. Payments to Commissioner of
Taxation at recipient's request

(2) The Secretary may make deductions from the instalments of age pension
payable to a person where the recipient asks the Secretary:

   (a)  to make the deductions; and

   (b)  to pay the amounts to be deducted to the Commissioner of Taxation.
        Note: the Secretary must make deductions from a person's pension,
        benefit or allowance if requested by the Commissioner of Taxation -
        see section 1359. 

Ref: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/ssa1991186/s66.html

Also note that you MUST be notified by mail that your debt is being sent to a debt collection agency.

As soon as that happens you MUST write back to Centrelink that you are disputing their claims, where they must provide all paperwork in relation to your matter.

Your dispute may go on for 1,2 or 7 years where in this time the debt collection agency is NOT allowed to take any action against your person e.g bad credit rating etc.

Should any monies be taken from your account where your Centrelink payments are made, then this is theft, where you should follow up with criminal charges against the 'persons' involved or head of the debt collection agency.

Also keep in mind that if your alleged debt is sent to a collection agency, the collection agency 'buys' your debt and you technically do not owe them anything, as you have no valid contract with them.

Your communications method with any of the above entities should be in writing.

Should you choose to speak over the phone you inform the other party that the telephone conversation is being recorded.

Victorians can stop harassing phone calls under 'Brodie's Law'.

People from other states or territories can tell the other 'harassing party' to stop, and take criminal action against the people on the other end of the phone should they continue.

You must take action if you have had an [unlawful] claim of debt against your person.

Throwing the letters in the bin is considered acquiescence by 'silence'.


There is more with regards to 'debt collection' that is not posted here, and it is up to the reader to research this topic thoroughly.

See article from 6 Jan 2017 by news.com.au of the headline:

Aussies panicking over Centrelink demands to pay up to avoid debt collector

Catherine Herir was wrongly told she owed more than $4000, and should start paying it back to avoid debt collectors. Picture: Supplied

DEMANDS for Centrelink payments are putting Aussies under intense pressure, with the Government agency even tweeting the Lifeline suicide helpline number. 

Like many Australians, Catherine Herir, from Brisbane, was sent a letter just last month telling her she owed thousands in overpaid unemployment benefits.

In FY2011 to 12, she claimed benefits after leaving her admin job for full-time study, but Centrelink’s new automated system — introduced in October to claw back money from claimants — had spread her wage across the whole year and calculated she needed to pay back $4500 she claimed while not working.

The 27-year-old told news.com.au she spent a month trying to sort out the issue online, making calls to Centrelink and chasing up old employers from five years ago.

“They suggested that I start a payment plan even before my review was complete to avoid being taken to a debt collector and they would reimburse me later if they found the debt was incorrect, which I refused to do because I knew it was wrong. Maybe that is what they are talking about their ‘recovery success rate’ because people start paying to avoid worse outcomes.

Centrelink has tweeted the Lifeline phone number after several of the vulnerable Australians affected said they were suicidal.Source:News Corp Australia

“I finally had enough and had a lengthy conversation with a Centrelink rep where the phone call went on for over an hour. I wouldn’t take no for an answer, so she did my review manually in minutes and then, sure enough, found I was not guilty at all. Human common sense overriding an incorrect computerised system.

“I was stressed and anxious about the debt and my case was straightforward, I couldn’t imagine any pensioner, person with a disability or illness trying to manoeuvre this system.”

Ms Herir’s ordeal is finally over, after she received a letter today confirming she owed nothing. The young woman is one of the lucky ones. Thousands of Aussies are being forced to pay back welfare payments because of suspected Centrelink computer errors.

News.com.au has been contacted by scores of scared and angry Australians who say they or their loved ones have been falsely accused of owing money to the social security program, and even pursued by private debt collectors. Several said they had begun paying the unexplained debt because of short timeframes given to sort out the mess, but others do not have a cent to spare.

They include people with autism, those in care, a woman undergoing chemotherapy, the elderly and people with other mental and physical disabilities.

Colleen McCormack, 36, said her first thought on receiving the demand for $3000 was of taking her own life.Source:Supplied

‘SUICIDE WAS MY FIRST THOUGHT’

Colleen McCormack, from Melbourne, suffers from chronic pain and has had multiple surgeries that forced her out of her job in the healthcare industry for most of FY2013-14. The 36-year-old told news.com.au that after receiving a Centrelink letter saying she owed more than $3000 she “cried all the way through Christmas”.

Ms McCormack’s documents show she was out of work on sick leave, yet the automated system said her earnings must apply to the whole year, and she was ordered to pay back $3000.

“Having mental health issues, suicide was my first thought,” she said. She wrote back explaining her situation, but two weeks after the initial request, she received a letter from a private debt collection agency demanding payment on behalf of Centrelink. She has now set up a GoFundMe page in a desperate attempt to get financial help.

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie yesterday said he had heard more than 100 complaints from “terrified” people, at least four of whom said they were suicidal.

Centrelink is paying three private debt collection companies to recover money from Australians.

Many have expressed fear and frustration at receiving the letters but being unable to explain their case to a human, with phone lines clogged, branches unable to help and an online system incapable of comprehending nuance and complexities.

Michael Griffin, from Brisbane, told news.com.au on Tuesday that after he was on the dole for three months in 2013, the automated system had gone back and averaged out his earnings for the year, assuming he was employed in those months and therefore owed just over $3000. The 34-year-old filmmaker labelled it “extortion” and calling it “the biggest issue in Australia” right now.

Linda Steven, 64 with a heart condition and high blood pressure, says the stress of being wrongly told she owes $8500 has been overwhelming.Source:Supplied

“I’m wondering if everyone’s going to get these letters,” he said. “It’s preposterous.”

Linda Steven, from rural NSW, was also asked to pay back her welfare payments of $8500 in FY14-15 because the system decided she was in work for months when she was not.

She printed out two years’ worth of her payslips and visited a Centrelink office where staff tried to help her change her employment dates online.

“It was soon discovered they cannot be changed because a debt has already been raised,” she told news.com.au. “The issue now has to go through a full administrative review process. Even though staff can look at my payslips and know I do not owe the money, nothing can be done.

“At almost 64 years old and suffering from high blood pressure and a heart condition I can assure you the stress was overwhelming at first. Not to mention the lengthy phone wait times and expenses.

“In the meantime, payment of the debt must still be made but they reduced the payment
that I must make to the minimum of $15 per fortnight for three months. Three months is the longest time they can reduce it for, and the staff member expressed the hope that my review would take place before then.

“So all the money the Government is hoping to claw back is in fact non-existent in a lot of cases, and is actually costing Centrelink more in trying to sort out the mess.”

Michael Griffin said what was happening was “extortion”.Source: Supplied

‘THESE ARE REAL DEBTS’

The system was brought in three months ago, with the government claiming it would recover $400 million in overpaid benefits owed to taxpayers by retirees, the unemployed, families, carers, parents, people with disabilities and indigenous Australians.

Social Services Minister Christian Porter on Tuesday maintained the automated system was working “incredibly well”. He told ABC radio less than one per cent of review letters had resulted in complaints and said they were not “debt letters” but “polite letters”.

The government has sent out 169,000 of the review letters regarding potential overpayment since July, and Mr Porter said one in five people who received one would not owe a debt.
“In 80 per cent of instances the debt is repayable to the Commonwealth, in the final 20 per cent of instances the matter is resolved, generally speaking, by people simply providing information online,” he said.


Department of Human Services general manager Hank Jongen, who has released his email for people to complain to him directly, told the ABC last night the letters sent out by Centrelink were “not debt letters”, and said there had only been just over 200 complaints.

“I really am surprised that people are seriously suggesting that when we are obliged under the law to recover outstanding debt when it is identified, that we are being asked to stop doing this,” Mr Jongen said. “I think you need to keep all of this in context.”

But Centrelink workers who told news.com.au they wanted to remain anonymous said the program was in chaos.

“The government is just cutting corners, calculating debts fast is their goal, and it’s just wrong,” said one. “Staff morale is so bad everywhere.”

HOW THE DEBT RECOVERY SYSTEM WORKS

The initial “polite letter” asking people to update their details online, in which they are warned of the 10 per cent recovery fee. Source: Supplied

• Centrelink sends people a letter warning of a potential overpayment and asking them to clarify their details online. It will also send an SMS.

ISSUE: Some people have moved or changed phone number and don’t receive the messages.

• You have 21 days from the date of the letter to update online.

ISSUE: Some have complex situations they can’t explain in the online system. Others were told their salary did not match that recorded by the ATO. Upon confirming the ATO salary, the system averaged it out for the year without realising they weren’t earning anything for many of those months. Others found the system recorded them as having two jobs because their employer was recorded under slightly different names by the ATO and Centrelink (e.g. Uni Melbourne and University of Melbourne).

• If there is a concern, you can call Centrelink or visit a branch to speak to someone.

ISSUE: Huge queues at branches, staff telling people to go back online, hours wait on telephone. Some also told news.com.au their jobs prevented them from contacting Centrelink during normal working hours.

• Once you update the information, Centrelink may ask you to provide supporting documentation, including bank statements, letters from an employer or payslips.

ISSUE: Some people no longer have the payslips from in some cases six years ago and/or their former employer no longer exists.

 Centrelink then sends people a notice if it thinks they have a debt. Source: Supplied

The notice comes with this explanation. Source: Supplied

You will also receive an online update — note this $1849 debt comes with a ten per cent recovery fee of $184.Source:Supplied

• You will then receive a letter stating the amount you owe, plus a “recovery fee” of 10 per cent. 

If you do not begin payments within two weeks, you may receive a letter from the debt recovery agency.

ISSUE: You may still believe the decision is wrong but once the debt is raised, you have to begin paying it.

Just two weeks after their payment due, people receive a letter from a private debt collection agency — in this case, Dun & Bradstreet. Source: Supplied

• If you think the decision is wrong you can ask for a review.

ISSUE: The reviews take months, and in the meantime, you may still be pursued for the debt. Some were told to start paying it back and be reimbursed later — but many say they do not have the hundreds of dollars to spare.

Readers seeking support and information about suicide prevention can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14

Australian Government lies about Centrelink extortion

Approximately a month after the news of Centrelink extorting their 'customers' for debts that they have not accrued has made it into the public arena, Centrelink is still continuing with this action, to the tune of 20,000 letters per week.

What may be considered worse is that the people in the 'Australian Government' are lying, in that they are stating the problem does not exist.

How can you trust a government that provides deliberately false information to the people on such an important matter.

Could you trust this government to provide you with factual / truthful responses on lesser matters?

Centrelink is an unlawfully created 'business', a middle man between the corporation conglomerate called the 'Australian Government' and the welfare recipient.

To make things even worse Centrelink claims that they are above the law, by stating in their brochure that they are "exempt from most subpoenas".

See blog post of the headline:
Centrelink is exempt from most subpoenas - BOLLOCKS !

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/centrelink-is-exempt-from-most-subpoenas.html

How can you trust law makers that enact laws that make businesses above the law?

How is that making a law for "peace, order, and good government"
(page 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act).

If you received an extortion letter from Centrelink, you may want to sue the CEO of Centrelink Grant Tidswell.

It seems that the people in government are bunch of dodgy liars, doesn't it ?

How secure is your private data on your fingerprint scanning Android phone?

Some companies may have you believe that you should buy a new phone every year.

Why? Is that technology really beneficial to your survival or theirs? Is a software or hardware enabled feature, packaged up in a 'new' phone not a dodgy sales practice?

Alright, alright, so you're a proud member of the brainwashed herd populace and have been conned into purchasing a new 'droid phone with fingerprint scanner from anything between $1200 - $1600 (depending on your resident country's dodgy taxing policy) 'cause you're a wannabe gangsta rapper and have secret stuffs on your droid.

Warning: Conspiracy theory line following;
Smartphones are made with back-doors as mandated by governments against the enemy of the state that being the mass population.

So, here's a screen capture from a piece of software that tells the user how easy it is to open up a 'secure' (pmsl) Android phone.

"Don worry" says Mr. Muppet wannabe gangsta rapper (more like crapper),
"I got mi a finga prin skanna"
It's going to be as useful as a rectal scanner, you moron!

You may have a short span of attention Mr. Crapper, but 'member the "conspiracy theory" from above?

Well, this piece of software reads the fingerprint id where all the user has to do is accept the read value, and they're in.... "simples" (see screen-capture below).

We hear that drug lords prefer the old Nokia GSM phones.

But wait, Australia's telco Telstra has shut down its GSM network on 1 Dec 2016.

Drat! Foiled again!!!

Free consulting note to authorities:
Drug lords less likely to use Telstra?


So how secure is your new Droid with fingerprint scanner?

A brief response (as it's the 'holidays' in 'Straya) - Not very!

Oh well, back to the drawing board for some.

A government for the people versus one of a colony

The policy differences - a gov for the people -v- a gov of a colony(?):

On BBC World News on the ABC News 24 tv channel, the China24 news outlet stated that in 2016 the Chinese government addressed the problem of people living in poverty where (we say 'allegedly') 10 million people were lifted from poverty, according to the president's message.

The (Chinese) government said it has a long way to go, where there are still 50-60 million people that need help urgently.

MEANWHILE.....

The company called the 'Australian Government' states no such messages nor has any policy that actively (genuinely?) combats homelessness, unemployment, etc, instead it (e.g.) rapes the land of minerals (tax free) and further enslaves the mass population.

It has a 'slave labour' import policy under whatever banner be it 'refugees' / 'hu-man' rights / 457 or other BS visa numbers that ultimately leave the 'Aussies' out of work where further consequences arise.

A primary difference between a government for the 'people' and a government of a 'colony'.

Australia was settled as an economic project, a 'chartered corporation'.

This 'government' is NOT for the people's benefit, never was.

KNOW YOUR ADVERSARY !!! !!! !!!

How to choose a VPN provider

In recent years the general public has been made aware how governments (read corporation conglomerates) have been acquiring [your?] data.

From web surfing history, online purchases, emails, phone records, texts including their content, literally your entire digital footprint is collected and stored.

Instead of enacting privacy laws that protect the masses governments have ramped up more laws that invade the so called privacy the people may have thought they had once upon a time.

The VPN (Virtual Private Network) is not a new invention, where it could be older than may of the users of social media sites, where in its early days it was associated with a workplace creating a secure tunnel over the internet for workers to communicate securely to their other offices.

In the early days of network hardware encryption companies like Cisco had the market sewn up, but as always, as time goes on, other companies have sprouted up and started to offer those services to the masses.

So how does one choose a company to provide a VPN service to a member of the masses?

Nowadays the above question has a few aspects: a technical one and a political and a legal one.

To make this post as brief as possible we're going to cut straight to the chase, and provide a few basic tips.

The companies to stay away from are the one's who operate in five, nine or fourteen eyes countries which are as follows:

Five: UK, US, CA, NZ, AU
Nine: Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway
Fourteen: Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Spain.

It does not matter what they write in their spiel, about how private they are, it's best to stay away from them.

As an example of government / company lies, a group of companies called the  'Australian Government' has stated that there are three levels of government, that being federal, state/territory and local, see attached photo:

There are only two lawful levels of government: federal and state /territory but alas, this is a digression.

It's good to chose a company that does not store cookies, or use external trackers or have external analytical services.

Third party email is also a weak point, as it can be compromised.

Stay away from companies :

- that keep logs,
- offer only PPTP,
- give out info from "court orders" in "other jurisdictions" (we should know how dodgy they can be).

Run some testing software to see if there are any leaks, or for how long your true IP address masked.

Refer to user forums for technicalities, rather than advertising material alone.


At the end of the day it also comes to trust, in that you trust the company that you are dealing with that they are telling you the truth e.g. that they do not store any logs of your activity.

There is no doubt that there could have been many more words written in this post on this topic.

If you have a shopping list of VPN providers, that can be crossed of from some of the basic info provided here, then you could be on your way into narrowing your choices where you might want to delve deeper into the technical details to make sure that the company is right for you.

Australians losing privacy rights but snaring a Xmas bargain more important

With almost literally every new law being put into 'force' by the corporation conglomerate called the 'Australian Government' the serfs are being more and more exposed, losing their privacy right's where the rule of Roman law (which is contrary to a founding document called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900);  "Guilty until proven innocent" is coming out of the legal labyrinth into the public eye.

'Dodgy' laws can be put in place when the herd is asleep, for example at 2:30am, or when the footy grand finals are on, or even times of religious / festive season celebrations.

So how do the masses feel about that?

They're not fussed at all, they could not give a stuff.

They just want to survive at the lowest level of existence, (i.e. beer, footy, sex and roof over head) according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

No one's telling their government they do not want those laws invading their 'Human Rights' are they?

No one's being vocal to march on parliament to tell the law makers they 'suck' (colloquial term for where something bad might come from).

What the herd want is a real shopping bargain after Christmas on a day called Boxing day.

Just another distraction created by the corporation conglomerate to keep the herd populous occupied.

Just another 'Police State' law coming into action, on this colony of the British empire.

The 'government' states that it enacts the will of the people (not the 'minority' but rather the herd populace), and since the herd love their 'shopping' the corporation conglomerate gives them plenty of 'bargains', staying 'honourable' (cough cough) to their words...

Note: 

You may want to research if Australia's current Attorney-General George Brandis is in office 'lawfully'.

P.S. Also note the word from the headline being 'could'..

See article from 22 December 2016 by the Fairfax publication of the headline:

Australians' phone and email records could be used in civil lawsuits

Australians could have their private phone and email records used against them in civil litigation cases, with the federal government considering relaxing data retention laws.

Critics say it would pave the way for phone and email records to be mined for material to be used in legal action following marriage breakdowns and business disputes.

Many experts have warned that personal phone data could be mined for civil lawsuits. Photo: SeongJoon Cho
 
The Communications and Attorney-General's departments quietly announced they were conducting a review of national data retention laws five days before Christmas.

As part of the review, the departments are seeking feedback on whether there are particular kinds of civil proceedings, or other circumstances, in which prohibitions on metadata being released could be relaxed.

Attorney-General George Brandis said the mandatory metadata retention regime ''applies only to the most serious crime''.  Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
 
The review has alarmed technology experts, many of whom warned that personal data could be used for civil lawsuits when data retention laws were first introduced.

"The plan to use the data in civil cases is an outrageous overreach and goes against the safeguards initially introduced," technology and law expert Angela Daly, of the Queensland University of Technology, said. "Data retention should be rolled back, not extended."

Internet law expert John Selby, of Maquarie University, said the review raised the possibility that data retention laws, initially justified on national security grounds, could grow to include measures well beyond their original intent.

"Such provisions may have seen even stronger public resistance to the law if they had been included at the time," Dr Selby said.

Since October last year, Australian telcos such as Telstra and Optus have been required to store metadata logs of people's email, internet, mobile and landline use for up to two years. The contents are not recorded.

The Coalition used the threat of terrorism to justify introducing the laws in 2014, vowing that people had nothing to fear from their introduction.

"The mandatory metadata retention regime applies only to the most serious crime – to terrorism, to international and transnational organised crime, to paedophilia," Attorney-General George Brandis told the ABC in 2014.

But the Communications Alliance, which represents Australian telecommunications companies, the Law Council of Australia and others warned that stored data could become a target for civil litigants and those with malicious aims.

Communications Alliance chief executive John Stanton told a parliamentary committee last year: "Our concern is that ...[it] may generate a tsunami of action in commercial disputes, in marital disputes and in many other cases where the data is being mined."

A spokeswoman from the Attorney-General's office said that as part of the data retention laws, there would be a prohibition on courts releasing telcommunications data to be used in civil legal proceedings, which would take effect in April next year.

However, she said, the review would consider whether there should be exemptions to this, and pointed out a parliamentary committee last year said there were some circumstances, including international abductions or family violence cases, where having access to metadata could be valuable.

The committee recommended the government review the "exclusions" from access to metadata by April 13, 2017.

While there were already provisions in the Telecommunications Act that allowed telcos to be compelled to produce data relating to court proceedings, this only applied in criminal cases, Deakin University criminology lecturer Adam Molnar said.

"One has to be concerned about the recent call for submissions over the holiday period - it's hardly fulsome conditions for informed debate," he said. "And extending this into civil litigation is potentially opening up a whole new can of worms."

Submissions can be made to the review by January 13.

Arson versus Speeding @ Victoria Police

We're not huge fans of memes but this one is a 'fact':

So how does the 'Code of Conduct' work in this case???

No action to "Prevent offences" ???

Of course, it's the 'silly season', PLENTY of motorists 'speeding'*


* speeding equals HUGE revenue for the corporation conglomerate commonly referred to as the 'Australian Government'.

Australian police to use sonic weapons to maim the people as they are the enemy of the state.

So apparently in Australia, the people are told that they live in a 'democracy'.

The people allegedly are supposed to have a 'freedom of speech'.

The people are also allegedly allowed to protest, where the focus could be on government or corporate misbehaviour (read fraud).


Also the herd populace for now, have some sort protection with the help of entrenched U.K laws under a system of rule from the monarchy, which does not sit well with certain people, hence the push for a republic, but that alas is another dozen or two posts.

What the majority of people do not realise is that Australia is still a British colony, where this is reflected in certain instances of law, other than the private, commercial, administrative, maritime or mercantile laws that also operate in this country.

So in a penal colony the mass populous is the enemy of the administration.

Any form of protest is to be extinguished.

"But that's a conspiracy theory you tin foil hat nutter",
bleats a member of the 'beer and footy' herd mob.

Naahhh not really -

Under the banner of 'innovation' which should read 'slavery' you can

read article from 22 Dec 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

Long range acoustic devices terrorising protesters

A Los Angeles County Sheriffs deputy stands ready to use a sound cannon, or Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), against protesters near a Donald Trump campaign rally on May 25, 2016 in Anaheim, California Picture: David McNew/Getty Images/AFP

A SONIC weapon that can permanently damage people’s hearing is being rolled out across world and Aussie police now have them in their anti-protest kits.

Long range acoustic devices (LRADs) are often referred to as sound cannons and have been used against protesters in the US with damaging impacts, with some saying they should be considered weapons.

Although many people in Australia may have never heard of them, police in many states count the devices as part of their arsenals.

Protesters were warned about the use of LRADs ahead of the G20 in Brisbane in 2014, which some community groups described as an “exercise in intimidation”.

Initially designed for military use, the LRADs were used to keep pirates away from ships and have been used in warzones in Iraq and Afghanistan to lure people out of buildings into the range of snipers.

The device, which looks like a satellite dish and is often mounted on an armed vehicle, can emit an extremely loud, piercing sound that is very disturbing to humans. This makes them very good at dispersing crowds.

“It’s a very high frequency ... it really hurts your ears”, University of Missouri professor Karen Piper told ABC’s Law Report earlier this year.

Ms Piper was blasted with the LRAD while taking footage of a G20 protest in the US town of Pittsburgh, where the device was used in 2009. Authorities played the piercing noise at the highest setting for three minutes, instead of for 30 seconds at the lowest setting.

“The initial thing I felt was pain, I thought my eardrum had ruptured,” she said. “Then I felt dizzy and nauseous and disoriented.”

Prof Piper said she had bad ringing in her ears for a year that drove her crazy but more seriously, she discovered she also had permanent hearing loss.

“It’s actually nerve damage ... and those nerves will never recover,” she said.

The English professor was the first person to sue over the use of a LRAD and eventually reached a settlement with the City of Pittsburgh for $US72,000 ($AU99,255).

“I was really mad that this had happened to me when I was just down there, this innocent bystander,” she said.

Prof Piper said she didn’t think the devices should be allowed.

“I have to live with this for the rest of my life ... why is it okay to say we can use this against our own citizens?”

Her experience highlights one of the main problems with the device, as it will blast anyone in its vicinity, regardless of whether they are the target.

An LRAD being used on G20 protesters in Pittsburgh in 2009Source:Supplied

“The LRAD is indiscriminate, whoever happens to be in the way of the soundwave is equally likely to be affected,” Dr James Parker of Melbourne University told ABC.

“At least a baton in principle should be aimed at somebody, while the LRAD is aimed at everybody.”
The LRAD is marketed as a communication device, not a weapon, which is key to its saleability. This has enabled the US sell the devices to China, as well as the UK and South America.

A number of police departments in Australia confirmed to news.com.au they have LRADs and all said the devices were used for their loudspeaker ability. No one mentioned whether the high-pitched “alert” function had been used.

Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia as well as the Australian Federal Police, all confirmed they have an LRAD.

Northern Territory would not comment to ensure it did not “compromise policing methodologies or tactics”.

Western Australia Police said it could not make a comment on “specialist equipment”.

Tasmania said it did not have an LRAD.

NSW Police did not respond to inquiries.

Of those authorities that did respond, they described the use of the LRAD as performing the function of a really powerful, expensive loudspeaker.

Queensland Police said it currently had 15 LRADs in operation, and have had the device since 2009.
A spokesman said they were purchased for their use in negotiation during high risk environments as a form of communication.

“LRAD’s have been used on numerous occassions at high risk incidents to communicate with persons in crisis,” he said.

However, he did not say whether the siren had been used, only that it was used “in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions when conditions allow this to occur”.

“These instructions ensure no damage to hearing to anyone involved,” he said.

South Australia Police said it has had two devices since 2011.

“One has an amplification range of approximately 200 metres and the other a range up to 3km,” a spokeswoman said.

“The devices can be used in a range of situations to communicate and amplify messages and tones over some distance during incidents including primarily search and rescue, protest activity, high risk negotiation and mass casualty.”

Victoria Police said its critical incident response team had LRADs to enable negotiations with suspects when it was too dangerous for a negotiator to be in a closer position.

“CIRT have used the devices on a number of occasions. There are strict guidelines in place and they are only used by trained negotiators,” a spokeswoman said.

The Australian Federal Police said its officers had never used the device to disrupt or disperse crowds.

“This is useful in situations where it is deemed an unacceptable risk, or there is no ability for the AFP to engage in face-to-face negotiation,” a spokesman said.

“These devices are only used by specialist members who are appropriately trained,”
“On every occasion these specialist members use these devices, they are required to submit a report to ensure appropriate use.”

The police can rape the children of the cannon fodder and not get charged

It seems like the police have sent out a loud and clear message to their brethren that they can rape the children of the herd population and not get charged.

Fancy that?

Aren't the police supposed to

• Preserve the peace,

• Protect life and property,

• Prevent offences?

It may apply to the executive that the police work for, but does it also apply to the inhabitants of this colony?

Don't forget that Victoria Police hand out millions of dollars worth of fines unlawfully every year.


Can you really trust Victoria Police?

Are they your 'friend'?

Are they really 'public servants' working for you (the tax payer)?



See text of article from 17 June 2016 by theage.com.au of the headline:

Victoria Police did not charge 'monster' cop who raped children, court told

Victoria Police failed to act on complaints about a policeman who sexually brutalised nine children during his 12 years in the force, the County Court was told on Friday.

Instead, the organisation forced the officer to resign in 1979, the court heard. He then went on to sexually assault and rape children for at least another four years.

The former officer, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, on Friday formally pleaded guilty to 18 offences against nine victims, who were as young as five when he stole their innocence.

The man, now 66, worked as a police officer between 1967 and 1979, during which time he preyed on boys and girls, often in his police uniform.

Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers told the court that one boy who the man assaulted in 1979 later told his mother what had happened, and she reported the abuse to the officer's colleagues.

While the woman decided not to press charges, Dr Rogers told the court that police went to the woman's house the next day and told her "that the offender wouldn't be in the police force any more and would be moved away".

He was forced to resign but was not arrested over the allegations, to which he finally pleaded guilty on Friday.

Dr Rogers described how the officer had asked one boy, who was between six and 10 when he was raped, whether he wanted to see the police station. He took the boy to a room in the station where there was a bed, and raped him.

Another girl went to the police station for help after losing her mother at a nearby festival. After telling the child, "I'll look after you", Dr Rogers said, the officer took her into the back of a police divisional van and forced her to perform oral sex on him.

Three of the other victims were his step-children. Others were friends of the children, friends of the family, or neighbours.

In harrowing testimony, one of the former officer's step-daughters, now 45, told the man she hoped he rotted in hell for what he had done to her, including holding a police-issue revolver to her head as he raped her.

She wept as she described how she had hoped he would pull the trigger and put her out of her misery. Instead, he forced her to suffer through years of "hell and his sick games".

The woman said she went to her grandmother when she was nine and would not stop bleeding. Her grandmother initially thought the girl was having her first period. Instead, a doctor informed her she was having a miscarriage.

"He is a monster," she raged at the man, who would not meet her eyes. "He needs to never see the light of day again ... once a monster always a monster – he will never change."

While she and her siblings were terrorised at home, she said, primary school was no refuge.

"He would show up in police uniform, in the police car, police revolver ... all the other kids thought it was cool."

Instead, she said, he would take her home while everyone else in the house was away and rape her, before driving her back to school in the police car.

Children were brought up to believe that the role of police was to serve and protect, she said bitterly. "What a load of bullshit that is."

She said that when she was 15, her grandfather helped her go to police and report the abuse, but she was told the man "would probably get off because he was an ex-cop".

She dropped the matter, and told the court she still felt guilty about what he had done to other children after that.

Police began investigating the former policeman in 2011, Dr Rogers said, and he was finally arrested in 2012.

Defence counsel Amelia Beech told Judge John Carmody that: "There is some evidence of remorse on [his] behalf. I don't say that it's strong evidence of remorse ... [but] if I can say this, Your Honour, he is making the right noises."

She said the former officer had no family support, and no visitors in prison.

Since 2012, he has been in jail, serving a 17-year sentence for separate offences which, the court was told, were of a "similar" nature.

Ms Beech said that after leaving Victoria Police the man moved into the private sector.

Ms Beech asked the judge to show compassion in sentencing, and to take into account the man's age and his severe osteoarthritis.

Judge Carmody said he was concerned about a report finding that the man, "even at 66", was in the high-risk category for re-offending.

He will sentence the man on Tuesday.

Crime pays in Australia especially when you're a cop committing it

Spoiler Alert: Conspiracy theory ahead but not 'fake news'.

The Australian judicature is sending out a loud and clear message to its police personnel that if you commit criminal activities that amount to vast load of ($100) notes and by chance you get caught, you get to keep your ill gotten loot.

Fancy that?

You can enroll into the police force, like the new ~2800 police officers are doing in Victoria, and not bother with 'keeping the peace', or 'protecting life and property', where it would be far more financially viable to commit criminal offences and get away with the big bucks you stole.

Not a bad 'law' coming from the judicature of a penal colony, hey?

Note to self: 

Must round up the motley crue who beat Corinna Horvath senseless to teach some other plebs a lesson...

as if they're going to see 'justice' in the next 20 years bwwaaaahhhhaaaahhhhaaa!!!