Pandora Papers - 169 Documents

Just a reminder that the Pandora Papers was an exposé of currupt people in government, corporations and banking institutions, including but not limited to the UK government, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Apple, Nike banks, media personalities like Shakira, Claudia Schiffer, Julio Iglesias, Elton John, Ringo Starr.

See some of the documents within the zip file:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pZi7Ozy6SD0kjDPKbO018F88N_ahmm1k/view

Disclosures:

In total, 35 current and former national leaders appear in the leak, alongside 400 public officials from nearly 100 countries and more than 100 billionaires.^[14] Some of the activities were legal according to the country's tax laws. Some files were showing the date of 1970, but they were actually created between the years 1996 to 2020. The data included 130 billionaires listed by Forbes, over 330 politicians, celebrities, members of royal families and religious leaders. Among those names are former British prime minister Tony Blair, Chilean president Sebastián Piñera, former Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, Montenegrin president Milo Đukanović, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Qatari emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, United Arab Emirates prime minister and Dubai ruler Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Gabonese president Ali Bongo Ondimba, Lebanese prime minister Najib Mikati,^[15] Ecuadorian president Guillermo Lasso, family members of former Argentine president Mauricio Macri and his spin-doctor, Ecuadorian Jaime Durán Barba,^[16][17][18] and Cypriot president Nicos Anastasiades.^[19][20] More than 100 billionaires, 29,000 offshore accounts, 30 current and former leaders, and 336 politicians^[21] were named in the first leaks on 3 October 2021.^[1][11]

King Abdullah II of Jordan is one of the main figures named in the papers, with documents showing he had invested over US$100 million in property across the US and UK, including houses in Malibu, California,^[22] Washington, D.C., London and Ascot.^[23][24] A UK company controlled by Cherie Blair was shown to have acquired a £6.45 million property in London by purchasing Romanstone International Limited, a British Virgin Islands company; had the property been acquired directly, £312,000 would have been payable in stamp duty. Tony Blair's name appears in a statement of joint income for the associated mortgage.^[25]

The papers also reveal how an office block owned by Azerbaijan's ruling Aliyev family was sold to the Crown Estate, the UK sovereign's public estate, for £66 million in 2018, netting the Aliyevs a £31 million profit. Another office block worth £33 million was sold to the family in 2009, and was gifted to the son of Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev, Heydar.^[5] According to Las Vegas Sun, "Members of the inner circle of Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan are accused of hiding millions of dollars in wealth in secret companies or trusts".^[26] Supporters of former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko accused his successor Zelensky, who came to power on an anti-corruption campaign, of tax evasion.^[27] Elsewhere, close associates of Russian president Vladimir Putin, like Svetlana Krivonogikh and Gennady Timchenko, were revealed to have secret assets in Monaco, and Czech prime minister Andrej Babiš, who had campaigned on promising to crack down on corruption and tax evasion, did not declare the use of an offshore investment company in the purchase of eight properties, including two villas, in Mougins on the French Riviera for £12 million.^[5][28][29] As a result of the Pandora Papers, more information emerged about Russia-linked, allegedly Kremlin-linked, donations to the Tories.^[30] Uhuru Kenyatta was also mentioned, despite being quoted in 2018 as stating, "Every public servant's assets must be declared publicly so that people can question and ask – what is legitimate?"^[11] Kenyatta and six members of his family have been linked to 13 offshore companies.^[31] The leaked list also includes transnational criminal organization leaders, such as Raffaele Amato, boss of the Amato-Pagano clan, a clan within the Camorra, dedicated to international drug trafficking. Amato used a shell company in the UK to buy land and real estate in Spain.^[32][33][34]

See list of people named in the Pandora Papers in the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_Papers

Will these (alleged) criminals ever see a courtroom?

Pricewaterhouse Coopers operates in Australia.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, has committed over 13,000 criminal offences, being a money laundering facility, quite literally above the law, still operates in Australia.

How do you deal with corrupt govenrment departments, polticians etc?

You don't go to them, as they're the problem?

You don't go to the mainstrream media, as they're part of the problem too, you 'leak' it online in the most anonymous way possible.

The ATO allegedly vowed that 'no stone is left unturned' regarding 400 Australian names.

So, how did that go two and bit years later?

So what's the blowback from this whole fiasco regarding the people/corporations etc mentioned?

Brethren protecting their own, would be an appropriate response.

Yet, when the authorities accuse a serf of  a (say road related) 'crime', the remedy for the authorities is swift.

That's life in a colony.

The Great Australian (post COVID-19) Rip Off!

The world has changed dramatically since 2020, where governments and corporations have lied and forced people into actions that are against medical practices, where also ‘human rights’ have been (unlawfully) thrown under a bus.

Tens of thousands of Australians have also been unlawfully issued Infringement Notices, where they have been withdrawn en masse, after a challenge in the Supreme Court in NSW meaning they were invalid to begin with, where police acted dishonestly in the first place, under dictation from the government, which has been downplayed by the mainstream media, but that is a separate and quite lengthy topic in itself.

The topic of this post is that of price gouging Australian consumers/shoppers/corporate fodder or generally anyone that participates in the ‘economy’. 

One of the government’s priorities, apart from looking after the safety of its (own) people is this behemoth called the economy.

What is good for the economy may not be good for the people.

Governments require a strong economy, meaning the serfs keeping busy spending, purchasing imported goods, leaving cash behind, using credit cards, loans to acquire goods services etc.

Those little mice need to keep the wheels of industry turning.

Restricting people from using cash is also a high priority for governments and corporations, as ‘going cashless’ is for the purpose of monitoring and collecting data for next level analytics, which also includes limiting actions/movements, e.g. you cannot get a home loan because you have too many smashed avo meals at restaurants or you eat too much junk food, where you are the author of your own health issues so medical care for certain illnesses will be denied.

Some people may call the above a ‘conspiracy theory’ but the above examples are a fact, paying specific attention that medical care has been denied for many as they have, for example, not succumbed to a trial drug forced by governments and medical practitioners without full disclosure of the ingested product.

According to the law medical care must be give to every person, without prejudice or conditions, which has not been the case in Australia.

MANY people in government should give themselves a pat on the back, as they have taken action to boost the economy significantly therefore making their bosses and the banking giants super rich, putting aside 'big pharma'.

The people in government deliberately created the ‘housing crisis’ by dumping more immigrants (also referred to a debt slaves/corporate fodder) than the general population/infrastructure can handle.

While then Premier Dan Andrews unlawfully installed a martial law type lockup of Victorians the government imported over thirty thousand Chinese nationals under the cover of darkness. 

The supply to demand ratio quickly changed where prices skyrocketed, putting many Australians into financial hardship, below the (Henderson) poverty line into the streets/tents/cars for accommodation with little to no reprieve from those who created the problem in the first place.

The government also 'punishes' you for being poor:

New law for Centrelink to punish people for being unemployed

As with all this hopelessness, and no sign of help, in despair some have taken their lives.

Apperently road traffic fines are all about 'if it saves one life', as 'marketed' in Victoria under the 'Towards Zero' campaign, a number the authorities are fully aware will NEVER occur.

But all that does not matter, as the housing crisis action alone triggered other actions which brought in huge revenue, in the form of tax dollars for those in government, so that their pensions after their useless tenure ( to the general population) will be secured to support a life of luxury for their family members.

Building costs have (artificially) skyrocketed in the process, creating more debt for the ‘debt slaves’ to the (immense) pleasure of the banking world.

Since 2020, goods and services/’consumer’ items/’things’ have gone up anything from one hundred to  five hundred percent, with no real justifiable cause, even though the pandemic is often heard as an excuse, where (deliberately) zero intervention from the authorities that monitor this, yet the government continues to falsify the Consumer Price and Living Cost indexes, where in reality we (Australia) are in a recession.

Another couple of items high on governments agendas are to lie to the general population without transparency which the people in the Australian Government are excellent at, supported by their corrupt ‘brethren’ in the judiciary and to install a level of pain, be it financial, mental or emotional to a (well defined) level that is below the general population rioting.

Paying two to five times for ‘things’ is GREAT for the ‘economy’, but not really for you, right?

ZERO intervention on this just shows you how much the government ‘cares’ about you, the lowly serf.

So why is there a push for your alleged ‘health’ to forcibly take a trial drug? 

Deliberate(?) failure of government re: SMS phishing (Smishing)

There are at least a couple of fundamentals the average ‘Joe’ should be aware of, that being:

1). The first job of a government is to ‘look after the safety of its people’, meaning the people in the Executive, Parliament and last but definitely not least that being the Judiciary, meaning the serfs/plebs/general population are left out of the equation.

2). The corporation aggregate commonly referred to as the 'Australian Government', being part of the Five Eyes surveillance network, obtains its residents data in real-time storing it on servers for later retrieval.

This screenshot of an SMS sent out to Australian mobile phone numbers has not been intercepted by the government as fraudulent or at risk to the vulnerable.

The ‘vulnerable’ are at the best of times targeted, neglected and often dejected by those in authority.

A vulnerable man or woman may fall into this category via mental, physical, or financial difficulties.

With regards to the SMS, a website is mentioned that has zero correlation to any mentioned topic within the message.

Keeping in mind that the government has a real-time blacklist of sites that it sees not fit for Australian internet users to access or 'consume', where any access to the site is met with a generic error that notifies the user that the sites does not exist, even though in reality it does, once one changes the DNS servers.

The fact the site mentioned in the message is not flagged and allowed to go through Australian servers is a ‘deliberate’ failure of government.

Authorities are alerted IMMEDIATELY if a message from an Australian registered mobile number like 0461380 235, contains ‘key words’ which may threaten the ‘safety’ of the government’s people, as opposed to the general population.

The government is more than capable to stamp out ALL messages that contain malicious intent / fraudulent dealings against the general population, but rather chooses not to do so.

That’s how much the government ‘cares’ about you (the ‘vulnerable’).

So why would they really care about your health, with regards to a particular global event that started 4 years ago?

Telstra to move your NBN home phone to Telstra 4G – DON’T DO IT (Update)

Consumer Advice

Telstra has advised its universal service obligation (USO) customers (those on the $25-45 per month plan) that receive a landline only (not data) via NBN that it is moving their home phone to Telstra 4G.

BLOODY INCOMPETENT TELSTRA STRIKES AGAIN (UPDATE 2 APRIL)

I received another letter on 1 April (not an April Fool’s joke) after having advised Telstra on 12 March that I categorically did not want to move from NBN to 4G. I could not have made that clearer and was given a reference number. This NEW letter was a reminder that the NBN-based landline would be moved to 4G.

So I rang Telstra again, WASTING MORE TIME, and explained that I had categorically ASKED TO REMAIN ON NBN. What manner of incompetence would allow a second letter telling me that it was going to 4G? The assistant looked up the original reference number and said that it had not been actioned because the request had not been processed correctly. I was given another reference number and assured that it would be processed correctly this time. The assistant also said that they had experienced a huge response to staying on NBN, and they were weeks behind due to that.

Why am I annoyed at Telstra?

I am annoyed at Telstra because it says if you do nothing, your home landline phone will automatically swap to Telstra 4G from 18 April 2023. I am doubly annoyed at the absolute incompetence of its so-called ‘customer service’ centre.

It should state (but does not) that you will stay with NBN if you do nothing (the old opt-in, opt-out status quo argument). Frankly, it is a dirty trick as many pensioners and non-tech savvy users don’t understand the implications of this and cannot be bothered to ring 1800 621 290 or visit a Telstra store. The Telecommunications Ombudsman and ACCC have heard about that and agreed that it should have been opt-in – yet Telstra seems content to ignore best practice.

A move from NBN landline to Telstra 4G could be a disaster.

Telstra won’t tell you that there are things such as blackspots where the signal is barely a single bar or two. It won’t admit that some areas have extremely variable signal strength, and it has been unable to fix that.

It also won’t tell you that by moving to Telstra 4G, your landline will save Telstra money as it does not have to pay NBN. The revenue goes straight to Telstra’s bottom line. It is likely not subject to the same Universal Service obligations either.

And if you have emergency medical devices, alarms, Fax, EFTPOS etc., Telstra 4G won’t work.

I rang Telstra, and it was not easy. First, the support person wanted to know why I wanted to stay with the NBN Connection when Tesltra 4G was so much better. I said it was my option to remain with NBN – full stop. But they insisted on knowing, so I let them have it regarding crap Telstra signal strength; all the while, the 4G signal was dropping out, and we were both asking, “Can you hear me?”

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE YOUR LANDLINE TO TELSTRA 4G, SO DON’T DO IT. BUT YOU HAVE TO CALL THEM TO STOP THIS

NBN provides a far more reliable service with far fewer outages and issues. Even if you just use NBN for your phone, you still have a Telstra modem and can upgrade the VOICE service to VOICE and DATA should you need it. Although at that time, it would make sense to swap to a decent NBN provider like Aussie Broadband (a company that cares), which has a landline plan for $10 per month that includes unlimited national/mobile calls across Australia. That is on top of the DATA plan starting from $69/25/10Mbps per month (Telstra is $80 per month).

CyberShack Telstra news

Victoria Police falsifying flight data?

Victoria Police commits criminal offences every single day, period.

The ‘problem’ there is to catch them out, where that is only just one hurdle.

The next problem is that if one (i.e. the serf) wants to take action, there are a few more hurdles to overcome.

The courts are corrupt and they’re corrupt to the core.

One then has to get past the ‘gate keeper’ of the court, you know, the one who stop matters getting into a ‘court of public record’, because that could alert the general population that something is not right, where that would be embarrassing for their bosses and the stakeholders (see post:   )

Just say the (lucky) serf gets the paperwork past the gate keeper, the matter is then put forward before a judicial registrar, magistrate or judge, where it may not even make it onto a ‘public record’, i.e. the juicy parts.

While the system is rigged, some people may have success BUT it comes at a price called an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) which is against the ‘public interest’ and should be exposed as it (the NDA) realistically has no lawful standing.

In any event it seems that Victoria Police have falsified the information of their helicopter, to look like an aeroplane, with no registration or type code.

An ‘honest’ mistake? Believe what you will.

Anyone want to bring this up with CASA?

Digital ID will go mainstream across Australia in 2024. Here’s how it can work for everyone

n a world promising self-driving cars and artificial general intelligence, the prospect of a new form of digital identity verification can feel … less than exciting.

And yet digital identity is about to be unleashed in Australia and around the world. In 2024, many years before most of us experience the joy of commuting in our fully autonomous car, new forms of digital ID will profoundly change how we engage with government and business. For example, digital ID may remove the pain of handing over physical copies of your driver’s licence, passport and birth certificate when renewing your Working with Children Check or setting up a new bank account.

How can we gain the benefits of digital ID – convenience, efficiency, lower risk of cybercrime – while minimising the attendant risks, such as privacy leaks, data misuse, and reduced trust in government?

In a new paper released today by the Human Technology Institute, we propose legal and policy guardrails to improve user safeguards and build community trust for the rollout of digital ID in New South Wales. While the paper focuses on NSW, it contains ten principles to support the development of any safe, reliable and responsible digital identity system.

Across Australia, governments are kickstarting digital identity initiatives

Some forms of digital identification already operate in Australia at scale. For example, the Document Verification Service was introduced as early as 2009 to automate checking of important documents such as passports.

Last year this service was used more than 140 million times by roughly 2,700 government and private sector organisations. A limited form of facial verification technology was used well over a million times.

A key problem, however, is that Australia has not had an effective legal framework to govern even the existing digital ID system. This is starting to change.

---

Read more: A national digital ID scheme is being proposed. An expert weighs the pros and (many more) cons

---

In June this year, the federal government released a national strategy for digital identity resilience. In its final sittings for 2023, the Australian Parliament passed the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, which provides some important protections for privacy and other rights.

Also in December, the government proposed a second law, the Digital ID Bill 2023. This bill would provide rules for a major expansion of Australia’s system of digital identification.

Notwithstanding this recent flurry of activity in the federal government, NSW has long been Australia’s leading jurisdiction in this area. It announced its Digital ID program in April 2022 and has quietly worked to put in place the key elements of what could become a world-leading digital ID system, with strong community safeguards.

What is a ‘digital identity’, and what are the risks?

The technologies at the heart of digital ID are powerful and carry risks.

In particular, facial verification technology matches an individual’s face data against a recorded reference image. It may also incorporate “liveness detection”, which checks that the face to be verified belongs to a genuine individual requesting a service in real time (as opposed to a photograph, for example).

NSW’s digital identity initiative uses both these technologies.

Overall, digital identity should mean less of our personal information is collected and used by third parties. For example, when someone enters a pub and a bouncer asks for ID, the only information the bouncer needs to know is that the patron is over 18. The bouncer doesn’t need other personal information on their licence, such as their address or organ donor status.

Good design and regulation would ensure the digital ID service can verify someone’s age without disclosing other sensitive data.

On the other hand, these technologies use sensitive personal information and this brings risks when they are used to make decisions that affect people’s rights. Errors may result in an individual being denied an essential government service.

Because a digital ID system would by its nature collect sensitive personal information, it also poses risks of identity fraud or hacking of personal information.

Making digital ID safe

There must be robust safeguards in place to address these risks.

Accountable digital identity systems should be voluntary, not compulsory. They need to ensure citizens have options for choice and consent, and should be usable and accessible for everyone.

Digital ID also needs to be safe. It should protect the sensitive personal information of users and make sure this data is not used for other, unintended purposes like law enforcement.

---

Read more: Australia's National Digital ID is here, but the government's not talking about it

---

To achieve these aims, we recommend that NSW Digital ID be grounded in legislation that enshrines:

• user protections, including providing for privacy and data security of all users

• performance standards, ensuring that digital identity performs to a high standard of accuracy and be fit for purpose, with public reporting by the responsible government agency or department on relevant independent benchmarking and technical standards compliance

• oversight and accountability, with both internal and external monitoring, and clear redress mechanisms

• interoperability with other government systems.

These principles are not specific to NSW. They are relevant and transferable to other jurisdictions looking to develop digital identity systems.

Whether Australia’s digital identity transformation is a success depends on how digital identity systems are established in law and practice. It is crucial that robust governance mechanisms are in place to ensure digital identity systems are safe, secure and accountable. Only then will Australians embrace and trust the digital transformation that is afoot.

---

HTI’s work to develop independent expert advice outlining a governance framework and training strategy for NSW Digital ID was funded by a James Martin Institute Policy Challenge Grant. 

Source:The Conversation

The Right To Silence Across Australian Jurisdictions

The right to silence is not protected by the Australian Constitution, unlike in the United States where is is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to that nation’s constitution and reflected in what are commonly known as ‘Miranda rights’, also known as the right against self-incrimination.

Rather, protections against a person’s silence being used against them in criminal proceedings have developed in Westminster (British) common law – which is law developed by the courts over many years.

Here’s a general outline of the current protections in states and territories across Australia, as contained in laws and crystalised in formal cautions given by the police.

What is the right to silence?

In short, the right to silence in Australia is derived from various common law principles including the presumption of innocence, the burdens and standards of proof in a criminal trial and the privilege against self-incrimination.

The right to silence means that no adverse inference should be drawn from a defendant’s failure to answer police questions during interview or to present evidence at trial. An ‘adverse inference’ is any kind of assumption or conclusion that a person is more likely to be guilty.

The principle means that, other than their name and address, a charged criminal defendant is not required to provide any information to police (subject to some limitations), and their failure to answer police questions cannot be used against them at trial.

One common limitation to the right to silence in Australia is an exception in circumstances of partial silence. This means that a defendant cannot invoke their right to silence if, during a police interview, they answer some questions but not others. In those circumstances, an adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that they have partially responded to police inquiries.

Generally, it’s best to not provide any response during a police interview, other than providing your name and address – an approach called a “no comment interview”.

Although the right to silence exists under common law and therefore across Australia, it has also been codified (or legislated) in each State and Territory. Some of these provisions are identical (as they are part of uniform evidence law) whilst others have their own distinct wording.

The right to silence in New South Wales

The right to silence in NSW is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) which provides that:

(1) Subject to section 89A, in a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused–

(a) to answer one or more questions, or

(b) to respond to a representation,

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2) Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4) In this section–

“inference” includes–

(a) an inference of consciousness of guilt, or

(b) an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

 This right is severely limited by the operation of section 89A of the Evidence Act which has curtailed the right to silence in certain situations.

A full explanation of the right to silence in New South Wales and its dilution since 1 September 2013 following the enactment of section 89A, as well as situations where the right does not apply at all and witnesses can be compelled to give evidence is contained in this article.

The right to silence under Federal law

The right to silence under Federal law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), which states:

1)  In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused:

(a)  to answer one or more questions; or

(b)  to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)  Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3)  Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)  In this section:

“inference” includes:

(a)  an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b)  an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in Victoria

The right to silence under Victorian law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Vic), which  states:

1)  In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused:

(a)  to answer one or more questions; or

(b)  to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)  Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3)  Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)  In this section:

“inference” includes:

(a)  an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b)  an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in Queensland

The right to silence under Queensland law is outlined under section 397 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 (Qld), which states:

Nothing in this chapter affects the right of a person to refuse to answer questions, unless required to answer the questions by or under an Act.

This preserves the common law right to silence in Queensland.

The right to silence in the Australian Capital Territory

The right to silence under ACT law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), which states:

(1)     In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or someone else failed:

(a)     to answer 1 or more questions; or

(b)     to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at the time was exercising functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)     Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw an inference mentioned in subsection (1).

(3)     Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)     In this section:

“inference” includes the following:

(a)     an inference of consciousness of guilt;

(b)     an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in Tasmania

The right to silence under Tasmanian law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), which  states:

1)  In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused:

(a)  to answer one or more questions; or

(b)  to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)  Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3)  Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)  In this section:

“inference” includes:

(a)  an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b)  an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in the Northern Territory

The right to silence under Northern Territory law is outlined under section 89 of the Evidence Act 2011 (NT), which  states:

1)  In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused:

(a)  to answer one or more questions; or

(b)  to respond to a representation;

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2)  Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3)  Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(4)  In this section:

“inference” includes:

(a)  an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b)  an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.

The right to silence in South Australia

The right to silence under South Australian law is outlined under section 18(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), which  states:

the failure of any person charged with an offence to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution.

The right to silence in Western Australia

The right to silence under Western Australian law is outlined under section 8(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), which  states:

the failure of any person charged with an offence to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution.

Source: Sydney Criminal Lawyers

Victoria Police – template letter of empty threats (Enforcement warrants and seven-day notices)

Enforcement warrants and seven-day notices.

"DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER" or rather should it be ‘IGNORE THIS LETTER’?

Some citizens or rather ‘sovereign citizens’ or the 'free man’ on the land may interpret this letter as an offer to contract, but the reality is quite different.

You’ve already ‘contracted’ with your friendly police force, hence you are the proud recipient of this letter.

In this letter Victoria Police claim that there is in ‘outstanding’ (as in spectacular?) warrant to arrest.

They then state that if you do not respond within 7 days (where 14, is normally acceptable, and 28 can also be used), the police will ‘assume’ that you are avoiding them.

What about if you’re on holidays locally, interstate or overseas? What about if your work has taken you away from home for a month? What about if you’ve landed in hospital had an operation or three, and have gone into rehabilitation for a couple of months?

This is clearly an oppressive ‘penal colony policy’ by those in government.

First and foremost, you are 'guilty' of whatever they conjure up, oh, that's strict liability and absolute liability. See post: The difference between Absolute and Strict Liability

Victoria Police then lists 5 actions where you will be punished as a result of not showing up within 7 days.

1). Victoria Police will then inform 'Social Security' a federal jurisdiction, that you are ‘Unlawfully at Liberty’, an illegal action by VicPol.

2). Victoria Police states that they will Break, Enter and Search ANY PLACE where you are suspected to be, INCLUDING your place of employment. Well, they better be sure that every ‘i’ is dotted and ‘t’ is crossed, where the so called warrant is stamped and signed by the relative issuing authority, where you could also obtain the affidavit for this action if the need arises.

3). Victoria Police also states that they will release your photo to media outlets, where not only this is a breach of your privacy, but also could result in a lawsuit for defamation, which they don't care as it's the tax payers that are paying, if the lawsuit becomes successful and not the actioning police person. 

4). Victoria Police states that any motor vehicle that is registered in your name may be subject to police ‘scrutiny’, define scrutiny, as in roadworthy?

5). Victoria Police also states that if there are any ‘outstanding’ fines with the Sheriff’s Office, Victoria Police ‘may’ contact the Sheriff’s Office to request you Driver’s Licence to be suspended.

This therefore indicates that the (lawfully appointed) Sheriff or the lawfully appointed Sheriff’s officer, persons that are subject to the Supreme Court of Victoria, will act under the dictation of Victoria Police, an unlawful action.

The person that was mentioned in this letter, did not attend the police station, where after 7 days and later on 3 years the above five threats did not occur.

Why?

Because Victoria Police never possessed any lawfully issued warrant.

NOTE:

Familiarise yourself with your state's Bench Warrant, which must be signed, stamped and dated in order for it to be valid.

FOI - Primary VISA Grants (186 & 482) Sponsors 2017-2020

Australia importing trash/low quality migrants/corporate slaves, under whatever pretext they can.

See which companies support this action in the 70 page document:

Every Victorian must work for at least 5 of the 12 months to pay taxes only

Why? Dan Andrews introduced the following taxes to recovery the debt of his (deliberate) 'mismanagement':

1. A New Stamp Duty On Property Transfers Between Spouses (2017-18)

2. An Increased Motor Vehicle Duty On New Cars (2017-18)

3.A New Stamp Duty On Off-The-Plan Purchasers (2017-18)

4. A New So-Called 'Vacant Home Tax (2017-18)

5. Widening Of Vacant Residential Land Tax To Uninhabitable Properties (2019-20)

6. Retrospective Increase In Insurance Duty For Overseas-Based Insurers (2019-20) 7. A New Annual Property Valuation To Increase Land Tax

8. Cladding Rectification Tax (2019/20) 9. Environment Mitigation Levy

10. Increased Luxury Car Tax (2019-20)

11. Increased Land Tax For Homes With Contiguous Blocks On A Separate Title (2019-20) 12. Increased Fire Services Property Levy (2015-16)

13. Increased Fire Services Property Levy (2019-20) 14 A New Point Of Consumption Gambling Tax

15. A Tripling Of Brown Coal Royalties (2016-17) 16. Gold Mining Royalties (2019-20)

17. A New Tax On Uber And Taxi Fares. (2016-17 Update)

18. A New Corporate Restructure Duty (2019-20) 19.Increased Foreign Stamp Duty (2019-20)

20.Increased Foreign Stamp Duty (2016-17)

21 Introduced Foreign Stamp Duty (2015-16)

22. Increased Absentee Landowner Surcharge

For Foreigner Property (2019-20)

23.Increased Absentee Landowner Surcharge For Foreigner Property (2016-17) 24.Increased Absentee Landowner Surcharge For Foreigner Property (2015-16)

25.A New City Access Tax For West Gate Tunnel

26. A New 'On-Dock Rail' Charge On Imported Shipping Containers

27.Increase To The Municipal And Industrial Landfill Levy ('Bin Tax')

28. Road Occupation Charge On Construction Companies

29. Number Plate Tax

30.Electric Vehicle Tax

31. A New Affordable Housing Tax (Windfall Gain Tax On Rezoned Land)

32. Increased Land Tax On Taxable Landholdings Above $1.8 Million

33.Increased Stamp Duty On Property Transactions

34.Expanded Point Of Consumption Tax On Gambling To Keno

35.10 Per Cent Increase To Victorian Government Penalty Units

36.Expanded Land Tax On Gender-Exclusive Clubs

37.Mental Health Payroll Tax Surcharge 38. Increased Wagering And Betting Tax (2021-2022)

39.Increased Fire Services Property Levy (2021-22)

40.50 Per Cent Increase To Births, Deaths And Marriages Fees

41.Proposed Levy On Employers To Fund 5 Days Sick Leave For Casual Employees - Initially A Government-Funded Trial To Be Followed Up With A New Tax After 2 Years

42. Narrowing The Land Tax Exemption For Charitable Institutions By Harshly Insisting That Charitable Institutions "Exclusively" Use Their Land For Charitable Purposes, Otherwise Triggering A Full Land Tax Charge On The Entire Landholding.

43.Increase To The WorkCover Average Premium Rate

44. Increased Payroll Tax On Businesses (Jobs Tax) 45.Increased Land Tax On Landholdings Above $300,000

46.Land Tax On Landholdings Between $50,000 To $300,000 (Rent Tax)

47.Increased Absentee Landowner Surcharge

48. Increased Wagering And Betting Tax (2023-24) 49.Payroll Tax On Independent Schools (Schools Tax)

50.Holiday & Tourism Tax"

Source:supplied