Australian Government to ban encrypted communications?

So good peoples of Australia, if you haven't heard (or you're a free man) we have a new enemy in town.

It's apparently called 'terrorism'.

Remember once upon a time there was this evil that was (apparently) going to take over the world called communism?

Apparently the communists were so much of a threat to Australia (lol, pmsl, etc, etc), the people in government made a law called the Communist Party Dissolution Act from 1950.

"Oohhh those Russians" (Damn you Boney M!)

Once we have this thing called the information superhighway, and can obtain documents at the drop of a (whistle-blower's) hat, we can see how ludicrous this apparent threat 'communism' really was. 

So in the words of a famous author and linguist, Noam Chomsky, let's take a few of words from his book / lecture; Manufacturing Consent - The political economy of the mass media Part 1 (15 Mar 1989) - " two events seem rather remote from one another"..

1). apparently terrorists are Muslim,

2). they use encrypted communications...

hence the (polygamous) marriage of the various entities:

 

So you don't think it can happen in Australia?

It (the banning of encrypted communications for the serf population) did happen in Pakistan.

Yes, Pakistan, you know the SAVAGES in the 'council' who ordered the 'revenge rape' of a girl.

Idea: Bring these councillors as 'refugees' to Australia in the name of diversity.

Commonwealth Bank CEO Ian Narev a money launderer and common law thief?

In today's modern day and age it is incredible how quickly information travels.

In the "good ol' days" the banking cartel would have their own courier who put false information though in order for people to sell their stocks before the real news got out where the same people would by the stocks for huge profits.

 

People can even share an unlawful 'fine' over the interwebs and ask others how to get out of it, or even sending others their unlawful arrest warrant issued by an unlawful sheriff of Victoria (a natural person by the name of Mr. Brendan Facey).

But the CEO's of banks don't commit criminal activities, or do they?

The people in charge of businesses known as banks commit criminal activities against their shareholders, tax payers, 'mums and dads' investors (the people who pay for the fraud if/when something goes wrong), every single day and get away with it.

Why do the CEO's of banks get away with committing criminal activities? 

Because no one from the serf population takes them to task.

Because if they try, they are threatened by an army of lawyers / barristers also making it cost prohibitive to the below average beer Australian.

We have obtained documentation that shows that the current CEO of the Commonwealth Bank Mr. Ian Mark Narev (you know they're a criminal because they have their 3 names mentioned) has committed one of the greatest no-nos against a 'person' ( or even a free man) that being a low life's common law crime of theft.

At this point in time the information has been provided on the basis of anonymity without divulging any specifics.

Will one of the serfs knock the head off one of Australia's largest money laundering facilities?

Australia - A nation of losers

The people of countries can be world famous for many reasons. 

For example the people of Switzerland could be known for their input into governing their own affairs in a country known as a direct democracy (let's not talk about the secret money laundering accounts).

The people of Germany could be known as the automotive powerhouse production of Europe, 6 weeks of annual leave, and very very fast roads (let's not talk about the war that allegedly killed 60 million Europeans)

The Russians... oooohhhhh those Russians (Boney M).

The Chinese could be seen as the production capital of the world (let's omit slave labour conditions).

The English are very famous for being savages that go to the Greek islands and trash the place (let's not talk about the alleged paedophiles tied to the Monarchy).

So what will the relatively new nation of colonialists go down in some secret government dossier or some law review or university law professor's deeply hidden url link?

Well 'we' say that it's a nation where the people have lost it all.

The people (i.e. the serfs) of this continent have been given sovereignty over the people in Australia's parliament  and lost it.

How do we know that the people are sovereign? 

Easy, it's written in this document referred to as the 'Constitution', you know that pesky document the people in government must abide by, you know the one rattling the cages of MPs in office over Section 44, i.e. citizenship.

The current Rule of Law for Dummies (in Australia) is as follows;

From over the seas:

1). The U.K. Monarch (NOT the 'Queen' of Australia - as that's an unlawful title / 'person')

1b). The parliament of the U.K.

From within the colony of Australia;

2). The people,

3). The parliament.

At one point in time the Constitution was taught to the children of the masses, where at a point in time not too long ago the people in government twigged that it's a document the herd population's children should not be taught in schools, therefore it was taken out of the curriculum.

So no real loss to the people in government as they are acutely aware that once the herd mentality kicks in there is no stopping it, and in the case of the good ol' Aussie bogans, they're just interested in footy and beer and not the 'authority' vested in them.

Australia was a great 'social' experiment, where the people 'had' all the authority and took none of it.

Why 'had'? The Labour party (oops, another 'unconstitutional' entity), being the official republic vehicle will steer the herd towards a republic doing away with this pesky document called the Constitution, once and for all, until then the people STILL have 'authority'.

Viva la gay marriage, and don't forget the voice of the minority group, the unrepresented pregnant albino Japanese single mothers.

A letter to Victoria's Premier Daniel Andrews of the government's criminal actions.

We have obtained documentation that has apparently been sent to the current premier of Victoria, a Mr. Daniel Andrews (currently of the Labour Party - oops in office unlawfully, according to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, you know, Section 44) of the following content as contained within the pdf file attached:



https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21_coIgIYu2RWViVUlsSWY3dGM


Please note that the sender's details have been edited for the purpose of the document being in the public domain.

Gay marriage in Australia is unconstitutional

Australian politicians have just woken up to the fact that they must abide by a law that has been put in place for approx 117 years that being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

The mainstream media too has jumped on it making the herd population aware that Section 44 of the 'Constitution' can claim a few scalps, with regards to dual citizenship or allegiance to a 'foreign power' (freemasons not excluded from this section either) leaving MP's to do what they do best, that being deceiving the good people of Australia, and going into an overdrive deception mode that it may not apply to them or some other lame excuse, or even a false interpretation of the law.

What the mainstream media has not caught on is that not one MP is sitting in office lawfully, but let's not let that pesky Constitution leave our parliaments empty, or law enforcement left to charging them otherwise Allah forbid, the country just might be run by the serfs, and the 'authorities'* will never let that happen.

When you refer to this bugbear (to the unlawfully sitting MP's)  called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, you should also make reference to a book that should be side by side with the Constitution commonly referred to as the 'Quick and Garran' (for short) i.e. by the authors Sirs John Quick and Robert Garran called the Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

So what is actually meant by this creature called 'marriage' in the 'Constitution' according to the learned authors and according to what the legal framers had in mind.

So for those who require their spoons and bullets in silver, the definition of marriage is found on page 608 of the 'Quick and Garran' under item 200 of the heading "Marriage".

From there on you will read:

"According to the law of England a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.."

Thank you and goodbye on that topic.

* often confused as people in government as opposed to the mass population of Australia.

Illustration: Source Supplied.

Every Australian MP is in office unlawfully

We have been informed from within government sources that most of Australia's MP's are not aware of this document called the 'Constitution' (for short) or even of its contents, given that this document has been a law for nearly 117 years, where the people in government must abide by it.

MP's have apparently woken up to Section 44 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, where if they are under;

 "... any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power ..." 

then they are in trouble, where many have 'just' now realised this law.

That pesky Constitution sure is a bugbear for those in the three tiers of government all the way from the Governor-General (currently Mr. George Brandis) to the lack of any lawful 'Chapter III' courts.

The best way for the people in government to deal with it would be to con the mass population of Australia into becoming a (banana) republic, but that's a digression to another post or few dozen.

We have been provided with documentation showing that Australia's MP's are not in office lawfully, something some people may already know, but that is totally different from proving this within the current legislation.

So what do you think will happen IF this information is made public and/or hits the floor of the parliament?

Do you really think the criminals in office will say something to the effect of; 

okay the jig is up, you busted us... we'll be happy to face criminal prosecution, we'll leave and destroy our family lives in the process...

Of course not silly, these criminals in office will destroy you financially, assassinate your character via their brethren in the mainstream media or maybe just get their armed goon squad, the police to fix it for them, after all the police work for them and not the people right???

STILL not convinced you're on a prison island run by criminals with guns???

Why do you think they took the guns from people, under the Port Arthur pretext?

All is not right with the NBN, will you be a victim?

When you see advertisements on the television from the 'authorities' or government sponsored businesses, then ALARM BELLS should be ringing, unless of course you are one of the herd population who is in their most basic form of existence as defined by Abraham Maslow.

We know even the intellectually superior men and women need a reminder from time to time.

Let's recall what the people in this corporation called the 'Australian Government' did not too long ago, namely in 2016.

In 2016, the Australian Government ran 'advertisements' on all of the country's television and radio networks for people to engage in an action of business, commerce or trade, namely to fill in the census form.

Those who comprehend the correct processes of law in Australia will know that the people in government did not lawfully notify any 'person' to complete a census, in line with the correct procedure as directed in the lawfully enacted legislation, from the correct department of the Commonwealth of Australia.

As a result the people in the 'Australian Government' then went on a (false) advertising campaign in order to 'entice' (read under the treat of an unlawful fine even the the extend of per day value) the less knowledgeable people of Australia to comply with what they no doubt thought was a lawful request.

It was also revealed that the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) sold the people's private and confidential data to the value of $41,000,000 (forty one million dollars) the previous year.

So far the top honours for the  advertising of a fraudulent business for 2017 by the mainstream media go to the NBN.

They're advertising it, 'cause they want to to buy this crap.

Will you be the 'victim' of this fraud?

Will you use an alternative?

P.S. We have been informed that the good people will be forced to purchase the NBN.

Is forcing a person to be a 'customer' lawful, even in this British colony called Australia ??? !!! ???

NEWSFLASH: Stealing petrol in Victoria is NOT a crime

What the serfs in Victoria, Australia are told in 'advertising' material on petrol bowsers is that apparently "Stealing petrol is a crime", as indicated by illustration below;

People 'advertising' stuff wouldn't lie would they?

There are laws against false / misleading 'advertisements', right?

Let's take a look at what the government did not that long ago.

The 'Australian Government' advertised on the television for people to complete the census form, an action that the people did NOT have to partake in, as there was no lawful notice given to do so.

If the 'government' cares so much for people to follow law, then why does it not advertise that you only need to carry your licence on you if you are under 26 years of age (in Victoria) as per 'law', i.e.

Road Safety Act 1986 Section 19 (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 applying to this subsection: 5 penalty units.

The Victorian motoring public have been conned that stealing petrol is a crime.

This is confirmed in today's  newspaper by the mainstream media that if the coalition gets elected in 2018, petrol theft will be reclassified as a criminal offence.

Any class of deranged individual (i.e. sovereign 'citizen' or freeman on the land) will tell you that the only law or 'God's' law is to do no harm.

From what we comprehend theft is causing someone harm, irrespective of who they are or in this case whether you 'like' oil the companies or not.

Would the lack of classifying the theft of petrol have something to do with it being sold as a commodity?