Officer Charged with Fabricating Evidence, But His Victim Explains that Coverups Run Deep

NEVER trust police. Record all interactions, preferably via a hidden device.

There are plenty of officers that act illegally, where only a handful are accused and see court time over it.

When NSW police constable Daniel Keneally answered the phone at Newtown Police Station on 24 February 2021 to speak to the caller, Luke Brett Moore, neither man knew the other.

Wanting to discuss this state’s police misuse of strip searches, Moore was happy to talk with whichever officer happened to be on phone duty that day, as he’d been the subject of an illegal strip search in 2017.

Recent years have seen the misuse and overuse of these searches the focus of a campaign led by former NSW Greens MLC David Shoebridge and the Redfern Legal Centre, as well as the invasive practice having been the subject of a Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) inquiry.

Perhaps the call annoyed Keneally. Who knows? But it did lead the then 23-year-old constable to write an official statement in which he fabricated a version of events that had Moore threatening the lives of then NSW police commissioner Mick Fuller and Goulburn police officer Ed Taylor.

Regardless of why the son of the well-known former Labor senator, Kristina, blatantly lied, it led detectives from the Fixated Persons Investigations Unit to arrest Moore the following day, and the innocent man then spent 21 nights in solitary confinement at the South Coast Correctional Centre.

And on Tuesday, the LECC announced that the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions has laid charges against Keneally over the fraud allegations, which were the subject of a “belated” investigation by the state’s police watchdog, which occurred only after the matter had been raised in parliament.

But, according to Moore, the story goes much further, and it raises serious questions, as per usual, about the culture that prevails within this state’s law enforcement agency.

Questions remain

“I’m relieved that they finally charged him. But it’s crazy it took this long for them to do something,” Moore said straight after he’d heard the news on Tuesday. “It has been mentioned in parliament three times. They know I am suing them. It has been reported in the media for 18 months.”

“They tried to cover it up from the moment it started happening,” the law graduate, who is waiting to be admitted until after this matter is finalised, told Sydney Criminal Lawyers. “They all just happened to get busted because I wouldn’t leave it alone.”

Kenneally has been charged with fabricating false evidence, contrary to section 317(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). And if he’s found guilty, he faces up to 10 years behind bars.

The reason why Moore isn’t still up on the three offences he’d been charged with, including using a carriage service to threaten to kill, is that he’d recorded the call he made, which clearly shows he didn’t threaten anyone’s life, as well as conveying the level of deceit Keneally stooped to.

“I’m grateful that they’ve finally taken action against Daniel Keneally,” Moore reiterated. “But what I would like to know is what’s happening with the other officers that attempted to cover it up.”

Protecting their own

Fixated Persons Unit detective Malcolm Felgate charged Moore with the three federal offences on arrest. However, the law graduate claims that the detective was aware of the recording of the Keneally conversation stored on his phone within days of his being remanded for three weeks.

“The detective that charged me knew I was innocent within two or three days of me being in gaol, and not only let me rot there, but continued with the prosecution for two or three months,” said Moore, adding that Felgate “dropped off the brief of evidence to me that included the recording”.

After 21 nights spent in solitary confinement based on the lies of a young constable, who seemed comfortable to contemplate an innocent man he didn’t know facing multiple charges, which together carried up to 16 years imprisonment, Moore was released on his second attempt at bail.

“The case was only dropped when it went to the Director of Public Prosecutions and they just withdrew it without any explanation,” Moore said, hinting that the obvious reason was there was clear evidence that he had not threatened the now retired police commissioner.

Moore then took the matter to the LECC, which stated it was beyond its mandate, and referred it back to NSW police. Keneally’s superior, superintendent Sam Crisafulli then informed Moore that it had been found the constable had not acted with due diligence and that was the end of the matter.

Lies upon lies

On Tuesday, the NSW Police Force released a statement in relation to the case, outlining a serving officer, “attached to the Central Metropolitan Region”, had been charged, following a subsequent LECC investigation, which resulted in the police watchdog referring the matter to the NSW DPP.

“The constable… is due to appear at Downing Centre Local Court on Thursday 17 November 2022, for the offence of fabricate false evidence with intent to mislead judicial tribunal,” the statement reads. “The officer’s employment status is under review.”

Indeed, during a 31 August budget estimates hearing, NSW MLC Rod Roberts queried incumbent NSW police commissioner Karen Webb on constable Keneally’s “current employments status”, to which she replied, “he was originally suspended and he’s now back in the workplace”.

However, Roberts put supplementary questions to NSW police minister Paul Toole regarding Keneally’s alleged suspension, to which he replied on 27 September, “Constable Keneally was never suspended from the NSW Police Force and is a current serving police officer”.

A law unto itself

Moore was offered a compensatory settlement of $170,000 that came with a confidentiality clause, which he declined last December. The Nowra man, who runs legal service ISUEPOLICE.COM, has since lodged civil proceedings against the state police force with the NSW Supreme Court.

“It’s effectively ruined my life,” he underscored. “I was just about to finish my law degree when all this happened. I’d just begun my business. And when it came out and people thought it was all true, it was really difficult for me to get along in the legal profession.”

Of course, this matter raises further serious questions about how the NSW Police Force is operating, as this young officer obviously thought there was no issue with getting away with such a crime, other officers then tried to cover it up, and when it was exposed, there was no initial action taken.

During an interview on strip search misuse in August, Redfern Legal Centre senior police accountability solicitor Samantha Lee suggested it’s time for another Royal Commission into NSW police, in terms of how its operating “beyond the legislative framework” and its “cultural demise”.

“There is obviously a culture of corruption and coverup,” Moore said in conclusion. “They tried to cover it up from the moment it started happening.”

“If it’s so hard for me to get justice in this situation, where I’m a qualified legal professional, how on Earth an ordinary person could try to get justice is beyond me.”

Source: SydneyCriminalLawyers.com.au

Deception by Police supported by Australia's Judiciary - Law Reform Commission

There is a long standing problem, that victims of police and the judicature's 'injustices' have been not only harmed but seemingly there is no remedy from Australia's corrupt administration of the justice business.

Australia's courts are not representing the Crown as erroneously believed, but rather operate as independent businesses accountable to their stakeholders.

Sure some like Ms. Corinna Horvath may have seen 'justice' but at 18 years after the fact does not seem like in a timely manner, where 'justice delayed is justice denied' holds true.

Will a so called sheriff take 18 years to gain possession of your vehicle with no lawfully executed warrant in place?

See excerpt from the 29th Australian Legal Conveton in Adelaide, 1979:

In Queensland the lawless state, police want you to inform on persons, neighbours, friends!

WARNING: ‘Conspiracy theory(?) ahead; Queensland is a ‘lawless’ state.

After the shootings at Wieambilla, approx 250km north west of Brisbane on Monday the 12th of December 2022, Queensland police want the general population to do their job for them.

They want people or rather in legal terms; multiple ‘persons’ to snitch/inform/dob in their neighbours, friends or even other unknown persons to them.

If a person knows someone that shows “concerning behaviour” around conspiracy theories, anti government, anti police and specifically stated by police ‘conspiracy theories around Covid-19 vaccinations’ the police want to know about it.

See video:

So, what qualifies a ‘member of the public’ who may not have all the information in particular to the global health situation or what certified qualifications does that person possess to make a judgement call that the person is witnessing a ‘conspiracy theory’ in progress, a discussion or a mere polemic on anything let alone a specific topic.

This is not only an invasion of privacy, but also an attack on freedom of speech, that being policies of a totalitarian state.

One important aspect to note is that the colony’s police forces have been given the legal power to not only monitor social media posts, but also control AND modify them.

That means that police can change text, video and/or audio of person’s post in order to set them up, period.

This is an action of a totalitarian régime.

Let’s have a brief look at a current simple example a prompted by police:

- What constitutes a ‘conspiracy theory’ around a so called covid19 vaccination, as reffered to by police?

- How do you know that you factually have the disease?

- Is it a 'conspiracy theory' given the fact that the test even today cannot be fully validated nor is it NATA accredited?

COVID test useless: “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic”

- Is it a 'conspiracy theory' that the federal health minister stated that it’s a global trial?

Interview with David Speers on ABC Insiders on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout

- Is it a 'conspiracy' theory' that a US Supreme Court file from 4th of November 2021 states that the injections do not confer immunity therefore do not meet the definition of a vaccine?

The Covid-19 injections do not confer immunity, & therefore do not meet the definition of a vaccine.

- Is it a 'conspiracy theory' that in the European Parliament, Pfizer Director admitted that at the time of introduction, the drug had never been tested on stopping of the virus.

- It is a 'conspiracy theory' unless the Pravda news agency the Rupert Murdoch 'news' empire  or the Xinhua News Agency, Australia's ABC tell the masses about it?

Queensland the ‘lawless’ state.

First and foremost all law must be in line with the colony's founding legal document, that being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

E.g. ALL 'constituted' courts must abide by Ch.III.

Today, there are none, where they are subservient not to the 'Crown' but rather 'stakeholders', but that is a topic outside the scope of this post.

To ensure that the democratic law making process holds it's face value, the ‘Upper House’ (Legislative Council) and ‘Lower House’ (Legislative Assembly) must remain intact in accordance with the Commonwealth Constitution.

In Queensland in 1922, despite a referendum being held where 60% of the people voted to keep the Upper House, the people in government removed it anyway, unconstitutionally.

Therefore any law passed passed from then onwards is technically not in circulation ‘lawfully’.

No public outcry?

Then again there is no ‘public outcry’ from the totalitarian states of China or North Korea.

Australia, the better version of Alcatraz.

A Censorship-Resistant, Privacy-Enhancing and Fully Decentralized Name System

See document:

Apple Sued For Tracking All Users!

Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft etc are all part of the 5 eyes surveillance regime.

One would think that this kind of important news would be reported by the Australain mainstrea media, but crickets (i.e. nothing)

In any event one can see the information in the following video:

All I.T. companies in the 5 eyes are subservient to their local laws to hoover all data for governments to use as they please.

It's almost as if one was guilty until proven otherwise (i.e. not 'innocent' as this does not exist at law).

Well, in fact in the colony called Australia this holds true in strict and absolute liability 'criminal' offences.

Consumer Warning: Eufy surveillance products not safe for your privacy!

Have Australian ‘consumers’ been warned by the authorities of Anker’s sub brand Eufy's false advertising and security risk?

Basically Anker should be in the courts for false advertising which has been exposed on various tech channels approx. two weeks ago.

The products (deliberately) do not feature encryption as stated, which makes them easily hackable with a simple and common video player such as VLC.

What's worse is that advertising states that no data is sent to the cloud, but upon further inspection, your biometric data, i.e. facial features are given an id number and stored on the company's servers.

See details within:

Therefore this product cannot be recommended for purchase or use, where the recommendation would be for the ‘consumer’ to return the product to the store for a full refund.

Australian retailers such as JB Hi-Fi, Bunnings, The Good Guys, SuperCheap Auto sell this product.

As of the time of this post the Australian Cyber Security Centre has not posted any information about Eufy, where around that time it only posted about Citrix Gateway vulnerabilities.

A failure of the Australian Government, putting consumers at risk.

Meta agrees to pay $725mn to settle Cambridge Analytica case

Proposed figure would be largest settlement achieved in a US data privacy class action and biggest paid by Facebook parent.

Meta said in a statement: ‘We pursued a settlement as it is in the best interest of our community and shareholders’ 

Meta has agreed to pay $725mn to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed that the social media giant, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, allowed third parties to access users’ personal information.

The proposed amount would be the largest settlement achieved in a US data privacy class action, and the most Meta has ever paid out in a lawsuit, revealed in a court filing released on Thursday.

The long-running case was prompted by the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, where a company whistleblower revealed that Facebook allowed the British political consulting firm to access the personal data of up to 87mn users. However, the class action lawsuit expanded the remit to include other third parties that may have inappropriately used Facebook data.

Meta’s settlement, which does not admit any wrongdoing, comes with the company hit by the slowest growth in revenues since going public amid fierce competition from social media rivals and a slump in digital advertising.

Last month, the social network led by chief executive Mark Zuckerberg cut 11,000 staff, about 13 per cent of its workforce, as part of cost-saving measures and recently reduced office space in the UK and US.

The class action lawsuit claimed that the company had allowed app developers and business partners to access users’ data without their consent. The estimated number of people affected in the case is between 250mn and 280mn people, representing all US Facebook users between 2007 and 2022, the filing said.

Meta said it had revamped its approach to privacy over the past three years. “We pursued a settlement as it is in the best interest of our community and shareholders,” it added in a statement.

Digital rights campaigners and whistleblowers previously accused Cambridge Analytica of using harvested personal data to influence the results of the UK’s EU referendum and the 2016 US presidential election and breaking campaign rules.

Meta paid a £500,000 fine to the UK’s data watchdog over Cambridge Analytica, which found no evidence that it misused data in an attempt to influence the Brexit referendum or help any Russian intervention in political processes but that it had failed to protect the personal information of its users.

The tech giant has also paid $5bn to resolve a US Federal Trade Commission probe into Meta privacy practices and $100mn to settle a US Securities and Exchange Commission investigation over claims it misled investors about the misuse of user data.

Multiple investigations by US state attorneys-general are ongoing.

Source:ft.com

Royal Assent to Legislation

Royal Assent to Bills:

The Constitution requires legislation to receive "royal assent", by the Governor-General as the Sovereign's representative, or by the Sovereign directly.

See further details within email:

See Section 58 from the 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act':

Please also note that in Victoria, a body called 'SARC' (Scrutiny of Acts and Regilations Committee) checks to see that the bills brought forward comply with a law called the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

The Committee also scrutinises regulations and legislative instruments pursuant to sections 21 and 25A of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.  

All new law brought into Victoria from 2020 with regards to a particular health event must have passed through SARC and given the green light with regards to Human Rights, where it must be signed off.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, Human Rights abuser:

From 2020 Victorian premier Daniel Michael Andrews began a human rights abuse campaign.

He even stated that people's views about human rights has "no basis on science, fact or law"

So, how does the Victoiran Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission fell about that?

Don't tell SARC about that either.

https://new.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/committees/scrutiny-of-acts-and-regulations-committee/

And the law was thrown under a bus too?

https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/charter-human-rights-and-responsibilities-act-2006/015

Indiana sues TikTok citing safety and security concerns

Indiana sues TikTok, claiming it exposes children to harmful content.

Indiana’s attorney general sued TikTok on Wednesday, claiming the Chinese-owned company exposes minors to inappropriate content and makes user data accessible to China, in one of the strongest moves against the social media giant taken by a state.

Indiana’s lawsuit is the latest move to put TikTok and its parent company under scrutiny. As U.S. officials have sought to regulate TikTok, the platform in recent years has come under sharp questioning in Washington and been under investigation by a bipartisan group of attorneys general for its potential effects on youth mental health, its data security and its ties to China.

Filing two lawsuits in a state superior court, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) argued that everything including people’s interests and their facial features are potentially accessible to the Chinese government. The suits claim that TikTok and its Beijing-based owner, tech giant ByteDance, have deceived consumers about their data security and suitability for young teens.

One suit alleges that China could use the vast amount of American consumer information tracked and collected by TikTok in the name of its own national security or “to spy on, blackmail, and coerce” users. The suit echoed long-standing U.S. government concerns that China could access American user data through ByteDance.

As Washington wavers on TikTok, Beijing exerts control

TikTok and ByteDance have also misled consumers about how safe the app is for children, Rokita’s office claims in the second lawsuit. The state’s court filings dispute the app’s 12-plus age rating and “infrequent/mild” designation for content about sex, drugs, alcohol and violence in Apple’s App Store.

Not only are entire corners of TikTok dedicated to trends and songs that involve sexual content, the suit argues, but the app’s autocomplete search feature and video-suggestion algorithm mean explicit clips are often recommended to users who may not even search for them. Sexually explicit content is banned by TikTok, but users often change one letter in a word to get around those rules.

“At the very least, the company owes consumers the truth about the age-appropriateness of its content and the insecurity of the data it collects on users. We hope these lawsuits force TikTok to come clean and change its ways,” Rotika said in a statement.

Home to millions of users, viral clips and a culture-shifting algorithm, the platform has captured two-thirds of American teens, a quarter of whom say they’re on the video-sharing app “almost constantly,” a Pew Research study found in August. The app’s unique “For You” algorithm learns a user’s tastes and then feeds video after video, sometimes with an accuracy that stuns users.

Why lawmakers are not buying assurances from TikTok on China

As the app has become a cultural phenomenon, U.S. policymakers have raised concerns about privacy and data, children’s online safety and national security. TikTok executives have said the app does not share information with the Chinese government and have attempted to quell fears from members of Congress about national security and transparency.

The company has said the data it collects is not stored in China and is not subject to Chinese law, claims disputed by Indiana in the lawsuit.

TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter said in an emailed statement to The Washington Post on Wednesday that “youth well-being” was part of TikTok’s policies, including age-limited features and tools for parents to control what children view.

“While we don’t comment on pending litigation, the safety, privacy and security of our community is our top priority,” Oberwetter said. “We are also confident that we’re on a path in our negotiations with the U.S. Government to fully satisfy all reasonable U.S. national security concerns, and we have already made significant strides toward implementing those solutions.”

The suits came amid steps by other states to limit TikTok’s access to their data. Also on Wednesday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) ordered state agencies to ban their employees from using the app on any government-issued devices. That followed similar directives last week in South Dakota and Maryland.

A TikTok spokesperson told The Post this week that state officials’ concerns “are largely fueled by misinformation about our company.”

The growing pushback against TikTok has included competition from fellow social media behemoths. Meta, which owns TikTok rivals Facebook and Instagram, hired a major Republican consulting firm to conduct a campaign to turn public opinion against TikTok, partly in a bid to distract from scrutiny of Meta, The Post found in March.

Facebook paid GOP firm to malign TikTok

Indiana’s lawsuit argues that TikTok “routinely exposes” consumers’ data “to access and exploitation by the Chinese Government and Communist Party,” partly through ByteDance’s ownership of the app, and misleads users about how safe their data is. Rokita’s office argues that TikTok’s assurances that data is not being sent to China are false, saying the data the app collects can be accessed by people and companies subject to Chinese law, including ByteDance.

“While TikTok vacuums up reams of this highly sensitive and personal information about Indiana consumers, it deceives and misleads them about the risks the app routinely poses to their data,” the state’s complaint says, later concluding: “TikTok is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

At the same time, TikTok, which requires users to enter an age of 13 or older to create an account, has short videos on everything including hallucinogenic mushrooms and bondage. The lawsuit cites lyrics of various popular songs, such as Cardi B’s hit “WAP” and dance moves including twerking as evidence that the platform contains content inappropriate for young teens.

Just typing the first two letters of certain TikTok trends will bring up search prompts for explicit content, the suit notes, often offering videos categorized under tags that are misspelled to avoid triggering the app’s content bans. Further, a mode in the app meant to restrict younger users from seeing vulgar videos is ineffective, still serving sexual content in response to searches, the Indiana attorney general’s office argues.

“TikTok intentionally falsely reports the frequency of sexual content, nudity, and mature/suggestive themes on the TikTok platform to the App Store because TikTok wants to keep and increase young users’ engagement with the TikTok platform,” the complaint says.

The lawsuit also raises concerns about how the platform polices videos related to child pornography, rape fantasies and abuse. Citing a Forbes investigation, the state alleges that users get around TikTok’s policy banning sexual or exploitative content by uploading content showing child sex abuse to private accounts and then distributing the log-in information so others can log in and view it.

On its website, TikTok says it is “deeply committed to ensuring the safety of minors” and prohibits any videos relating to child sexual exploitation or endangerment. Such videos are “subject to intervention from law enforcement,” the company says.

Drew Harwell contributed to this report.

Source: washingtonpost.com

Windows 11 v 10 resource use

As time goes on Microsoft continues to data mine your computer use via its spyware tool marketed as an operating system called Windows.

Telemetry, phone home, backdoors, keylogging, etc have become more prevalent as the numbers rise in the version of Windows.

Here is a comparison of a version of Windows 11 that user’s computers comes preinstalled with that you must pay for, even if you do not want this product.

After a few minutes of ‘settling down’ the user’s/person’s personal computer uses 3.3 GB of RAM, 127 Processes, 1294 Threads and 44381 Handles

Noting also that the CPU (Central Processing Unit) idles at 1.53Ghz.

Windows 10 from 2019, shows a much leaner picture.

Processes are at 89, Threads at 719 and Handles at 27017, while only using 1.3GB of RAM.

Also the processor is working less harder at 1.02Ghz.

What sort of sloppy programming or how much spyware is in the extra 2GB of RAM?

Microsoft's archaic programming practice is based on a 50 year old language C, and its newer C++, where it even acknowledges that 70% of vulnerabilities stem from this.

If you’re serious about privacy and a more efficient operating system with no bloatware then Linux should be considered.

It’s so good that even Microsoft uses it instead of its own proprietary, closed source server operating system.

We do not recommend the use of Microsoft products, where even it’s Office Suite is irrelevant in today’s computing world.

Keeping in mind that Windows 8.1 used:

33 Processes, 460 Threads and 10630 Handles, while only using 1GB RAM.