Guilty until proven otherwise in the rogue colony of Australia

Have you heard the saying "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Where did you hear it from, the movies, in a 'democracy'?

Well the above two at least do not pertain to Australia.

The corporation aggregate known as the 'Australian Government' have gone ferral on the serfs, the tax slave population.

The following is an article of action taken by the "Department of Human Services" or rather the Department of Inhumane Services from the 27th day of August 2019 as described by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation of the headline:

Centrelink seizes tax return of robodebt recipient in what may breach policy

Photo: Miranda Debeljakovic had her disputed robodebt deducted from her tax return. (ABC News: Jerry Rickard)




The tax returns of Australians appealing controversial "robodebts" have been seized by the Department of Human Services, in what may be a breach of its own policy.

Automated debts raised by Centrelink have been criticised by legal groups because they put the onus on welfare recipients to prove they do not owe any money.

Key points:

• Some people are finding their tax returns have been garnished over alleged robodebts
• Miranda Debeljakovic is disputing her robodebt but still had it taken from her tax return
• The Department of Human Services says it garnishes tax returns in accordance with the law

The controversial scheme matches income data from the Australian Tax Office with income reported to Centrelink by welfare recipients.

Compliance officers from the Department of Human Services told 7.30 they are experiencing a large volume of calls from Australians who have unexpectedly had their tax returns garnished over alleged robodebts.

In some cases, disputed debts have been taken directly from people's tax returns.

 
Miranda Debeljakovic is one of those people.

Last year, she received an $8,920 debt notice from Centrelink. The debt was later found to be inaccurate and was reduced twice — first to just $2,797, and later to $2,117.

"Every single day I was waking up and I was thinking about the debt and what I was going to do about the debt," Ms Debeljakovic said.

When she got her tax return, the $2,117 had been deducted.

Got a confidential news tip?

    Contact Paul Farrell using the Signal secure messaging app on +61457262172 or at paulfarrell1@protonmail.com

A policy guide for compliance staff seen by 7.30 states that debt recipients who have lodged reviews are exempt from the garnishing process.

"I think the fault with this entire system is that … the onus is on the individual to prove that they don't owe a debt," Ms Debeljakovic said.

"And now that my money has been taken away from me, I also have to prove that I don't owe the money that's already been taken off me."

A spokesman for the Department of Human Services told 7.30 it would not comment on individual cases, but that it garnished tax returns in accordance with the law.

"We only take this action when other attempts to recover money owed have failed. In these cases, we notify the person before any action occurs," he said.

Centrelink 'double-dipped' into aged pensioner's benefits


Photo: Pamela Egan was told she owed a $9,305 debt. It was later reduced. (ABC News: Alex McDonald)

There are growing concerns about the use of automated debt recovery against vulnerable Australians, including disability support pensioners and aged pension recipients.

The Department of Human Services told 7.30 in July that a "small number" of pensioners were targeted in online compliance reviews.

Sydney aged pensioner Pamela Egan, 72, was told she owed a $9,305 debt in 2016.

"They're not interested in the average person," she told 7.30.

"They're only interested in getting money and they don't care who they get it from and how they get it, and what we have to do without to pay it."

The Department of Human Services regularly deducted funds from her pension each fortnight to repay her debt.

"My sister passed away in December, and having the debt on top of all this was just, I was stressed out because of it, I was worried about it," she said.

"I didn't know what I was going to do."

7.30 first contacted the Department of Human Services about Ms Egan's case in July. Several weeks later, her debt was reviewed by a compliance officer and reduced to just $4,209. She was refunded the excess amount of $152.19.

Ms Egan says a department officer told her on the phone it was due to a mistake in which part of her income was counted twice. Her Centrelink records appear to back this assessment.

One of her employer's names appears twice on an internal working document, which 7.30 has been told is a common error in the data-matching process.

"My anger is that they had a $9,000 debt that suddenly came down to $4,000," she said. "I told them the truth but they still managed to double dip.

"So I'm questioning their accounting procedures and how they came up with that figure in the first place."

She says she maintains that even the reduced debt is incorrect.

Stuart Robert apologised to disability pensioner's mother


Photo: Minister for Government Services Stuart Robert. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty)

A spokesman for the Department of Human Services told 7.30 that since it started, the scope of the online compliance program has not expanded to include new payment types.

7.30 previously revealed that the department had attempted to recover a debt from a deceased disability pensioner, placing the robodebt scheme under significant public scrutiny.

Minister for Government Services Stuart Robert apologised to the pensioner's mother in Parliament

"In the vast majority of times, compassion will step in and the debt will be wiped," Mr Robert said. "In this particular case, because of the size of the debt being both uneconomical to recover as well as the length of time, the department should have simply waived the debt.

"They didn't, my department was wrong, I apologise for it."

The debt recovery program is now facing two separate parliamentary inquiries.

A spokesman for the Minister for Government Services referred to the department's response.

The Australian government used its soldiers as lab rats in nuclear tests

Nuclear tests carried out at Maralinga have had a devastating health impact on communities still in the area. (Source:northernstar)

Everyone (in government?) loves to paint a picture of the Russians being the secretive state, the bad guys where after all if there would be no 'bad guys'  there would be need to send out soldiers to be killed for the business interest of those in government (you know China, Huawei, damn, no soldiers in that one... yet!), right?

After the very popular TV Mini-Series Chernobyl (2019), there have been renewed interests in say Russia's state of nuclear affairs, and their cover ups, but all is quiet on the colonial front.

Very briefly,

When you enrol into the military service, you might be told that you will be serving your country (whatever that really means), but what you are not told is that you might get maimed or killed (where you or your faimily will not obtain adequate compensation) protecting the business interests of those in power.

Back in the day of nuclear 'testing' in the British colony called Australia the government deliberately and knowingly sent people to their painful deaths caused by cancer as a result of radiation exposure.

Well, to make the test more effective the government put a tank into the nuclear fallout zone, then told the personnel to retrieve the tank under the pretence to bring it back to 'Pucka' (Puckapunyal, base), knowing full well that the tank would hold the radiation thus exposing the 'lab rats'.

These people were not told that they were going to be used as ongoing experiments with cancer later on in life.

They were not given 'full disclosure' into the health risk the government knew about.

No 'royal commission' into this one ?

Remember:

"everything is fine trust your government"

Paedophile magistrate Graeme Curran incarcerated over assault of teenage boy

And these are the people in charge of the serf family's welfare.

There are plenty more paedophile magstrates/judges around, but only this one has made the public news media of late.

See article from 23 Aug 2019 by the Sydney Morning Herald of the headline:

Magistrate jailed over indecent assault of a teenage boy

Disgraced NSW magistrate Graeme Curran has been handcuffed and led away at the court complex where he used to hear cases, after he was jailed for two years and four months for indecently assaulting a teenage boy in the 1980s.

Curran, 69, was convicted this year of seven counts of indecently assaulting the boy, who was then aged between 13 and 15, after facing trial in the NSW District Court. The victim made a police complaint in 2013.



Curran befriended the family of the boy, whom he called his "little chicken", before assaulting him during a boat trip and in a "ritual" at his Sydney home where he ran his hands over the boy's naked body after they slept in the same bed.

Acting Judge Anthony Rafter on Friday said the offending involved a "very grave breach of trust" as he jailed Curran for two years and four months with a non-parole period of 16 months.

Acting Judge Rafter – who was brought in from Queensland to oversee the trial – said there was a significant age disparity between Curran and the boy, and Curran exploited the boy's vulnerability for his own sexual gratification.

He said Curran, who was admitted as a solicitor in the 1970s, "would have been in a position to know the ramifications of his offending".

"I am satisfied that imprisonment is the only appropriate penalty," Acting Judge Rafter said.

Curran was handcuffed by two Corrective Services officers and led away through a door at Sydney's Downing Centre, where he served as a magistrate from 2007 until his suspension in 2017 when he was charged.

Speaking outside court, Curran's victim thanked his family for their support.

"I'm glad that this six years is over, it's been a really long struggle," he said.

"It's been, you know, arduous and I'd like more than anything to thank everyone that's supported me through all this time."

In a victim impact statement, the man said the abuse had a "profound" impact on him which changed his life monumentally.

He said he was still trying to come to terms with it more than 30 years later, and felt revolted and sickened recounting the impact it had on him.

"While the physical acts have been impossible to forget, Graeme Curran’s psychological manipulation of me proved crippling," he said.

The Chief Magistrate's office confirmed in a statement on Friday that Curran is still a magistrate but will "remain suspended from the local court bench until all criminal proceedings have concluded".

"As he has not exhausted his appeal rights it would be inappropriate to make any further comment," a spokesperson said.

Curran will be eligible for parole in December 2020.

Pauline Hanson's remarks undermine the foundations of a democracy

Many people will alledge that Australians live in a so called democracy, where one of the alledged rights people have is something called the "right to free speech" which is a Constitutional law protection according to Australia's Human Rights organisation.

With regards to any government or corporate action, the people may allegedly have the right to protest the policies by the corporation aggregate, under this "right to free speech", or rather the freedom of expression.

Pauline Hanson has remarked that protesters (the topic at hand is realistically irrelevant) should be dispersed with cattle prods, meaning that their voice must not be herd [oops sorry, Freduain slip] heard.

And the poor constituents thought that she was one for the people...

Seems that she's one for the corporatocracy or more like for the fascist state.

How VERY unconstitutional!

'Lord' Louis Mountbatten a paedophile

No doubt the 'palace' knew about this, and also 'supported' his behaviour.

There are more hiding within the palace, but whether they will be exposed is another matter.

These are the people who the serfs look up to...

Government refuses to report data breach despite legal obligation

You've heard it before, right?

"No one is above the law", where technically it would be better phrased that no person is above the law, as the law is with reference to your 'person'.

And in this (rogue) colony we call Australia, it gets better.

While the serfs are punished, where their privileges, benefits and services are taken away from them for not following the law to the letter, those in government who have written law that specifically applies to them, do not follow it, with little to no punishment ever being seen.

The current myki 'scandal' is another reason why you should not willingly register ANY item with the people in government.

For those who have not registered their myki card with the government, and other items (like cash in a bank) kudos to you!

So, if the people in government do not follow their own law, why should you follow theirs?

Amazon’s Ring Is a Perfect Storm of Privacy Threats

Doors across the United States are now fitted with Amazon’s Ring, a combination doorbell-security camera that records and transmits video straight to users’ phones, to Amazon’s cloud—and often to the local police department. By sending photos and alerts every time the camera detects motion or someone rings the doorbell, the app can create an illusion of a household under siege. It turns what seems like a perfectly safe neighborhood into a source of anxiety and fear. This raises the question: do you really need Ring, or have Amazon and the police misled you into thinking that you do?

Recent reports show that Ring has partnered with police departments across the country to hawk this new surveillance system—going so far as to draft press statements and social media posts for police to promote Ring cameras. This creates a vicious cycle in which police promote the adoption of Ring, Ring terrifies people into thinking their homes are in danger, and then Amazon sells more cameras.

How Ring Surveils and Frightens Residents

Even though government statistics show that crime in the United States has been steadily decreasing for decades, people’s perception of crime and danger in their communities often conflict with the data. Vendors prey on these fears by creating products that inflame our greatest anxieties about crime.

Ring works by sending notifications to a person’s phone every time the doorbell rings or motion near the door is detected. With every update, Ring turns the delivery person or census-taker innocently standing on at the door into a potential criminal.


Neighborhood watch apps only increase the paranoia. Amazon promotes its free Neighbors app to accompany Ring. Other vendors sell competing apps such as Nextdoor and Citizen. All are marketed as localized social networks where people in a neighborhood can discuss local issues or share concerns. But all too often, they facilitate reporting of so-called “suspicious” behavior that really amounts to racial profiling. Take, for example, the story of an African-American real estate agent who was stopped by police because neighbors thought it was “suspicious” for him to ring a doorbell.

Even law enforcement are noticing the social consequences of public-safety-by-push-notification. At the International Associations of Chiefs of Police conference earlier this year, which EFF attended, Chandler Police Assistant Chief Jason Zdilla said that his city in Arizona embraced the Ring program, registering thousands of new Ring cameras per month. Though Chandler is experiencing a historic low for violent crime for the fourth year in a row, Ring is giving the public another impression.

“What happens is when someone opens up the social media, and every day they see maybe a potential criminal act, or every day they see a suspicious person, they start believing that this is prevalent, and that crime is really high,” Zdilla said.

If getting an alert from your front door or your neighbor every time a stranger walks down the street doesn’t cause enough paranoia, Ring is trying to alert users to local 911 calls. The Ring-police partnerships would allow the company to tap into the computer-aided dispatch system, and alert users to local 911 calls as part of the “crime news” alerts on its app, Neighbors. Such push alerts based on 911 calls could be used to instill fear and sell additional Ring services.

From Neutral Guardians to Scripted Hawkers

Thanks to in-depth reporting from Motherboard, Gizmodo, CNET, and others, we know a lot about the symbiotic relationship between Amazon’s Ring and local police departments, and how that relationship jeopardizes privacy and circumvents regulation.

At least 231 law enforcement agencies around the country have partnered with Ring, a report by Motherboard revealed. This partnership takes both a financial and digital form.

Police that partner with Ring reportedly have access to Ring’s “Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal,” which allows police to see a map of the locations of Ring cameras. Police may then ask owners for access to their footage—and when owners give permission, police do not need to acquire a warrant.

The arrangement is also financial. Amazon encourages police to encourage residents to install the Ring app and purchase cameras for their homes. Per Motherboard, for every town resident that downloads Ring’s Neighbors app, the local police department gets credits toward buying cameras it can distribute to residents. This arrangement makes salespeople out of what should be impartial and trusted protectors of our civic society.

This is not the first time the government has attempted to use an economic incentive to expand the reach of surveillance technology and to subsidize the vendors. In 2017, EFF spoke out against legislation that would provide tax credits for California residents who purchased home security systems.

Police departments also get communications instruction from the large global corporation.
Documents acquired by Gizmodo revealed that questions directed at police departments concerning Ring are often passed on to Ring’s Public Relations team. Thus, many statements about Ring that residents think are coming from their trusted local police, are actually written by Ring. Worse, Ring instructed police departments not to reveal their connections to the company. Instead of getting an even-handed conversation with your local police about the benefits and pitfalls of installing a networked security camera, residents are fed canned lines from a corporation whose ultimate goal is to sell more cameras.

Even the Monitoring Association, an international trading organization for surveillance equipment, announced its concern regarding Ring's police partnerships. The organization's President, Ivan Spector, told CNET, "We are troubled by recent reports of agreements that are said to drive product-specific promotion, without alerting consumers about these marketing relationships...This lack of transparency goes against our standards as an industry, diminishes public trust, and takes advantage of these public servants."

Dissemination of Your Video Images

So, Ring and the police have an intimate relationship revolving around sharing data and money. But at least users own their own video footage and control who gets access to it, right? Not if you ask Amazon.

Earlier this year, social media users pointed out that Ring was using actual security camera footage of alleged wrong-doers in sponsored ads. Amazon harvested pictures of people’s faces and posted them alongside accusations that they were guilty of a crime, without consulting the person pictured or the owners of the cameras. According to their terms of service, Ring and its licensees have “an unlimited, irrevocable, fully paid, and royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide right to re-use, distribute store, delete, translate, copy, modify, display, sell, create derivative works,” in relation to the footage taken from your front door.

Police will also seek access to residents’ video footage. Residents may deny police access when requested. However, Amazon actively coaches police on how to persuade residents to hand over the footage. A professional communications expert instructs police on how to manipulate residents into giving away their Ring’s footage.

If convincing the resident doesn’t work, police can go straight to Amazon and ask them for the footage. This process circumvents the camera’s owner. Amazon says it will not disclose Ring video to police absent a warrant from a judge or consent from the resident. And California law generally requires police to get a warrant in this situation. But some California police say they don’t need a warrant. Tony Botti of the Fresno County Sheriff’s department told Government Technology that police can “subpoena” a Ring video. A subpoena typically does not require judicial authorization before it is sent. Botti continued: “as long as it’s been uploaded to the cloud, then Ring can take it out of the cloud and send it to us legally so that we can use it as part of our investigation.” Amazon needs to clear up this uncertainty.

Next Steps

The rapid proliferation of this partnership between police departments and the Ring surveillance system—without any oversight, transparency, or restrictions—poses a grave threat to the privacy of all people in the community. It also may chill the First Amendment rights of political canvassers and community organizers who spread their messages door-to-door, and contribute to the unfair racial profiling of our minority neighbors and visitors. Even if you chose not to put a camera on your front door, video footage of your comings and goings might easily be accessed and used by your neighbors, the police, and Amazon itself. The growing partnerships between Amazon and police departments corrodes trust in an important civic institution by turning public servants into salespeople for Amazon products.

Residents of towns whose police department have already cut a deal with Ring should voice their concern to local officials. Users of Ring should also consider how their privacy, and the privacy of the neighbors, may be harmed by having a camera on their front door, networked into a massive police surveillance system.

Source: eff.org

Migrants send welfare benefits overseas for their families

Many people would be aware that Australia's welfare allocation business called Centrelink can be dodgy at times, where those times would be from 8:30 am to 4:30pm, but let's take a look at how some people are defrauding us (hard working tax payers, no not taxpaying multinationals, silly) of Centrelink's allocated funds.

Some may recall that a previous government spokesperson stated that they stopped the 'boat people', which they may or may not have, where in reality the influx we see today has been transferred to 'plane people'.

These people come into the country under the false label as refugees or students, where their actions are geared towards fraud against the Australian people.

How do they do it?

They rent out a property, say a three bedroom place where three people would be officially registered at, then once they've settled in they put in extra beds where it's not uncommon to have 8 welfare recipients living in a three bedroom place.

To start off with, they receive cash upfront from the government, as well as their fortnightly benefit.

They can also be supplementing their welfare benefits with cash work, not excluding or limited to the passenger transportation or hospitality industries.

People should be aware that welfare benefits are only for the registered recipient for that person's 'survival' in this country and not as cash to be sent overseas.

Unfortunately this fraud has been happening for quite some time and the government has been aware of it, but has chosen not to do anything about it.

Don't forget when the ATO accuses you of an allegedly owed tax, they'll just take those numbers from your account.

How many Centrelink's 'robo-debt' notices were sent out to those fraudsters ?

Government conceals lack of consent and ward of the state status of William Tyrrell case

Children’s advocate Allanna Smith (above, right) with the birth grandmother of William Tyrrell at an inquest hearing in March this year. Picture: Peter Rae.Source:News Corp Australia

"Missing boy William Tyrrell’s doomed life" is the current headline of the article by news.com.au, but they should have added "in the hands of the government".

One of the most crucial elements with regards to the legality of any action is a minor detail called consent, which corporations are all too aware of, and the (Australian) government brushes aside or 'forgets' in many instances.

The Australian Government tried to cover up adoption "plans without consent or knowledge..." with regards to the disappearance of William Tyrell.

They also tried to cover up that he was a 'handpicked' ward of the state.

'Handpicked' for paedophile's activities?

Some wards of the state fall into the hands of known abusers.

Well the matter just got a lot messier for the government, as these facts the government tried to conceal have been exposed by a whistleblower, Allanna Smith.

By now you would have figured out that the government is liable for William Tyrrell's disappearance.

Read more within the following link:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/missing-boy-william-tyrrells-doomed-life/news-story/38baa59f1db54e441f01cc11a6af6eba

Australia's 1.1million children living in poverty is a deliberate failure of government

Very briefly:

Currently on the Australian television air waves a message is sent out to the general population to commit to a business transaction to donate their cash to a charity because there are 1.1 million children in Australia living in poverty.

But we already gave at the 'office', in the form of taxes.

Is it the people's fault that the lawmakers or people in government did not distribute our cash to those in need?

Is it the people's fault that the people in government choose not to allocate enough tax payers cash into healthcare or infrastructure?

Australia's homeless is also the people's fault, right?

Maybe we should also donate (their corporate promissory notes, commonly referred to as cash) to the poor breeders in government who give themselves $200k+ salaries which they claim they cannot afford to live off, meanwhile stating that the 'dole' is enough to live off and they can do it.

It is our job to give to Australia's 1.1 million children in poverty and we did, but those in the 'Australian Government' allocated these funds to themselves, and created jobs for mates and family members (now now don't go running off with that last remark as the sole reason, for it was just an example).