Damages awards must consider inflation - judge

Courts would have to start taking the continuing inflation into account when awarding damages for loss of incomes, Mr. Justice Murphy said in the High Court yesterday.

He was delivering a judgement on an appeal against an $84,000 damages award by Mr. Justice Blackburn in the A.C.T. Supreme Court.

“The continuation of inflation will require the courts to evolve principles to do justice in assessing the way in which future loss or expense will be affected by inflation,” Mr. Justice Murphy said.

“The development of such principles is long overdue.

“In calculating the present value of future loss of wages as a basis for assessing loss of earning capacity, the prevailing practice is to assume unchanging wage rates when clearly the wage rates will increase.

“This is not a reasonable way to achieve restitution.”

The High Court dismissed the appeal.

From the archives:

Please also note that Lionel Murphy, was as corrupt as they get.

Tax evasion, organised crime and porn are just some of the allegations made against him, not mentioning paedophilia on night flights to Brisbane. 

The best part about all of this is that his 'brotherhood' looked after him, where over half of the allegations where dismissed.

How it pays to be supported by 'friends' in high places.

The police are also part of the corruption.

And people are 'judged' by scum of the Earth like him, who demand to be called 'honourable'? 

A cancer to society dies from cancer in 1986, how befitting.

The tentacles of the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal system reach far and wide.

New Sheriff of Victoria, Julie Brown – SHOW US YOUR (LAWFUL) APPOINTMENT!

The authorities of this colony have a long history of using force, intimidation, violence and threats of incarceration against the good people of whatever state you live in.

Victoria Police do it and were called out for it, in a recent County Court of Victoria case.

See article: Victoria Police – Thug Life - Unlawful Violence

The so called ‘Sheriff’ and other ‘employees of the Sheriff’s Office, which are supposed to be deputies are also involved in unlawful actives BUT the corrupt courts keep them going.

VERY briefly,

There are a few laws in play.

The authorities will have you believe that the Victoria’s Constitution, the one from 1975 is the one in use as it is ‘in force’.

BUT is the in use ‘lawfully’?

Victoria’s original Constitution is an Imperial Act from 1855.

Was it repealed ‘lawfully’? The short answer is no, where the government is hiding this fraud on the people of Victoria.

Let’s move on to the so called Sheriff of Victoria.

The Sheriff of Victoria is an officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and as such is subject to the procedures and policies of that Court.

Most importantly the appointment of the sheriff must be gazetted.

The sheriff is mentioned in the Supreme Court Act 1958 Section 194

The sheriff’s actions are also subject to the Sheriff Act 2009, where in this case Section 51 - Offence to impersonate sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s office or justice employee is in the spotlight.

The so called ‘Sheriff of Victoria’ is multi million dollar annual extortion  perpetuated by all connected within, including the judiciary in ‘our’ (the people's) courts.

Let's see what the Supreme Court of Victoria says about extortion with regards to people oops, 'persons' in office, as stated in Section 183 of the Supreme Court Act 1958:

- Can YOU (the accused) make an appointment to see this sheriff, Julie Brown?

- Can YOU find where this position of sheriff is within Oragnisation Chart of the Department of Justice? 

- Can YOU (the accused) challenge the action of this sheriff in a so called court of law, and obtain her lawful appointment, as part of the burden of proof on the accuser?

- Can YOU get a subpoena from the business called a court for the sheriff to produce the lawful appointment?

The truth is the answer to the above questions is, No.

Will your barrister be the one that exposes a generations long fraud?

Will that person ever be able to work again, if he/she does?

The truth is there is no lawfully appointed 'sheriff' of Victoria, therefore no lawfully appointed ‘deputies’, where they say they work “at” the office, and therefore no lawfully issued warrants.

See article:

Tasmanian magistrates not sworn in correctly for 30 years

See hidden video within Fines Victoria, 

(277 William St Melbourne 3000):

Sheriff's warrants do not exist - verified on video

The tentacles of the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal system reach far and wide.

“Your licence, please” – Corrupt police, courts and a ‘racist’ judge?

 The Anglo-Masonic government of the colony called Australia has caused and evidently still does cause harm to many ‘ordinary’ Australians, some actions visible while many are not.

The truth is that European migrants or now the derogatory term ‘wogs’ have been bullied, discriminated and degraded also held back from promotions, by Anglos in positions of power, just for being a wog.

A so called ‘judge’ whom people have to refer to as ‘Your Honour’ has lost his (alleged) honourable status, where he showed his true colours towards ‘ethnics’ with vexatious and ‘racist’ remarks, against Mr. Kyriazis.

Realistically, ‘judge’ Geoffrey Chettle (also referred to as judge Shittle, by some) should be removed from office.

IF someone called him by his nickname in court then surely there would be repercussions, a contempt of court perhaps, yet the ‘authorities’ are allowed to be belligerent, abusive and racist?

Abuse of power

So, Mr Kyriazis was found ‘guilty’ on two charges:

1). Failing to produce licence,

2). Give name and address to authorised officer.

There are problems with regards to those two charges.

On the first charge, when seen by the officer, it would have been safe to judge, without a trial by jury, that Mr. Kyriazis is over 26 years of age, where in Victoria a person is not required to carry a driver licence on him/her, as seen within law, that being an excerpt from the Road Safety Act 1986 Section 19, (8):

On the second charge, Victoria Police officers are also very familiar with the ‘Kaba’ cases, that being Kaba v Watson and DPP v Kaba, on the request of giving your name and address to an ‘authorised’ officer.

See reference:

https://policeaccountability.org.au/kaba-decision-on-random-vehicle-stops/

On the first charge, there is zero lawful standing to charge Mr. Kyriazis for ‘failing to produce licence’, where if it has gone through, it is truly a vexatious litigation and a corruption of the court or specifically judge ‘Shittle’, where a judicial review must follow.

This is another exposé of how truly corrupt the legal system really is.

Mr. Kyriazis experienced harassment and degrading behaviour from the judge and as a result causing stress and elevated emotional behaviour.

See link to article from Neos Kosmos

https://neoskosmos.com/en/2018/09/07/news/australia/legal-saga-over-mispronunciation-of-greek-name-kyriazis-as-mr-crazy/

Many experience passive aggressive behaviour from the judiciary, but are unable to recognise this.

Vic Supreme Court rules that courts have fair hearing and equality obligations to assist self-represented litigants

There is a LOT of 'misbehaviour' by the judiciary going on in the colony's court rooms.

MANY judicial registrars/magistrates/judges do not follow the rules or worse the law.

Their misbehaviour goes unnoticed the accused, which could be understandable, but that's worse it's not caught out by the so called legal professionals.

Because they're 'officers of the court' and first and foremost they serve the courts, you're just their 'customer' as mentioned by one magistrate.

The brotherhood could sanction a lowly lawyer that points out the injustices by the judiciary and goes against them, where real life consequences would occur, e.g. job loss resulting in a tarnished career.

Solicitors, lawyers, barristers, QC's etc are not there to 'buck' or expose the fraudulent legal system, but rather support it against the serfs, irrespective of however many from the general population (allegedly) 'win' against the system.

In any event, see the following documentation, especially if you're what they hate, i.e. a self-represented litigant. 

Matsoukatidou v Yarra Ranges Council [2017] VSC 61 (28 February 2017)

See full document:

Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria has delivered an important decision on the obligations of courts to ensure fair hearing and equality rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (Charter) in the context of unrepresented litigants, and in particular where a litigant has a cognitive disability.

Facts

Betty and Maria Matsoukatidou (mother and daughter respectively) were charged by Yarra Ranges Council with offences under the Building Act 1993 (Vic) for failing to secure and demolish their home after it was destroyed following an arsonist attack. They each received fines (Betty with conviction) from the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

After their appeals to the County Court under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) were struck out for non-attendance, they applied for orders reinstating them. At the hearing, Maria and Betty appeared self-represented.  Maria has a learning disability and Betty's first language is not English. Consequently, they struggled to present their case and the judge dismissed their applications without adequately explaining the relevant procedure or applicable legal test. 

Maria and Betty sought judicial review of the orders made on the grounds that, in the way that the hearing was conducted, the judge failed to ensure their human rights to equality and a fair hearing under sections 8(3) and 24(1) of the Charter respectively.

Sitting in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Bell had to consider whether a judge in the County Court is required to apply those Charter rights when hearing and determining legal proceedings. In this respect, submissions were made on behalf of Maria and Betty and the Attorney-General (who intervened).

Decision

Justice Bell accepted that courts and tribunals have an obligation to apply human rights in circumstances covered by section 6(2) of the Charter.

Equality under section 8(3)

The right to equality contained in section 8(3) of the Charter includes the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination, as defined in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

Justice Bell identified that Maria’s learning disability substantially diminished her capability to participate effectively in the hearing, including her ability to communicate with the judge.

The County Court judge should have recognised Maria as a person with a disability. Conducting the hearing on the basis she was an adult without a disability had the effect of disadvantaging her. As the judge failed to make any adjustments and accommodations in relation to the conduct of the hearing, a fundamental deficiency had occurred in relation to Maria's right to be equally and effectively protected from (indirect) discrimination. Consequently, her right to equality had been breached.

Fair hearing under s 24(1)

The right under section 24(1) of the Charter is not just to a fair and public hearing; it is to decision by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after such a hearing.

Justice Bell identified that self-represented litigants are usually disadvantaged in all kinds of legal proceedings. Consequently, a judge has a duty to ensure a fair trial by providing due assistance.  These matters are not limited but may extend to issues concerning substantive legal rights as well as the procedure to be followed. Justice Bell stated "The proper scope of the assistance depends on the particular litigant and the nature of the case – the touchstones are fairness and balance".

 With regard to whether a fair hearing had been conducted, the evidence revealed Maria and Betty’s applications for setting aside the strike out orders were listed for hearing in the County Court the day after being issued. The Council was legally represented through counsel instructed by a solicitor whereas Maria and Betty were self-represented. Justice Bell found that the County Court judge did not appear to take into account Maria and Betty’s English capacity. The hearing was conducted too quickly for their comprehension and this compounded the disadvantage they experienced.

In the light of them being self-represented, some assessment needed to be performed by the judge as to how the hearing would be conducted. For this purpose, the County Court judge needed to gain some understanding of their capabilities by appropriately engaging with them at the outset, which ought to have revealed that Maria had a disability.

Maria and Betty should not have been prevented from explaining how the loss of their home to arson had affected their participation in the criminal legal process. The loss of their home would have been a traumatic event.

As they were self-represented, the judge in the County Court hearing their applications was required to give them such advice and assistance to ensure their effective participation in the hearing and equality of arms with the legally represented party. As the judge failed to do so, Maria and Betty’s rights to a fair hearing under section 24(1) of the Charter were breached.

The orders of the judge of the County Court refusing Maria and Betty’s applications to set aside the strike-out orders were in turn set aside by the Supreme Court and their applications have now been remitted to a different judge for hearing and determination according to law.

Relationship between the Charter and common law

Justice Bell identified that in almost all cases, self-represented parties will be entitled to seek judicial review for breach of the rules of procedural fairness and excess of jurisdiction when a court or tribunal fails to apply the right to equality under s 8(3) and a fair hearing under s 24(1) of the Charter. He explained the obligations of courts and tribunals under the Charter to apply those human rights in proceedings are very close to, and in almost all cases coextensive with, their obligations under the common law to give self-represented parties such advice and assistance as well as ensure a fair trial.

Commentary

This important decision confirms that courts have a responsibility under the Charter to ensure that self-represented litigants can participate effectively in legal proceedings. Courts must ensure that self-represented litigants understand the relevant procedure and legal test and in particular must make reasonable adjustments to ensure a fair hearing for self-represented litigants with cognitive disabilities. Justice Bell unequivocally stated that the duty to ensure a fair hearing is “inherent in the rule of law and the judicial process. Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental human rights". The case builds on Justice Bell’s 2007 decision in Tomasevic.

Betty and Maria Matsoukatidou were represented pro bono in the Supreme Court hearing on the Charter issues by Kylie Evans and Evelyn Tadros of the Victorian Bar, Colin Biggers & Paisley and the Human Rights Law Centre.

Court documents reveal corrupt police falsify statements

 A huge burden on society, including taxpayers is a corrupt arm of government called the Judicature, that being the judiciary, staff connected with the administration of justice including the police.

Court documents obtained from a source that wishes the details not to be published in order to remain unidentified, show that Victoria Police falsify statements to suit their alleged ‘facts’ in order to gain successful outcomes for police.

Remembering that a ‘person’ has the ‘right to a fair hearing’ is not a saying or anecdote, but rather a law, and at a state level, it’s enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act, 2006 Section 24.

Cited court documents have shown on many occasions that the prosecution ‘supports’ the false statements of corrupt police, where ultimately the judiciary especially in the lower courts also turn a blind eye to police corruption.

BUT does the accused ever get a ‘fair hearing’ in Victoria?

For one, it’s not a level ‘paying field’ as it’s two versus one, where the prosecution in the office and the court room (two different ‘persons’) are against you, the accused.

When you (first and foremost) their 'customer' first enter the business called the court, you're greeted with a lie, by the clerk behind the desk.

You are asked how do you wish to plea, where you are told that there are two choices that being guilty or not guilty.

You are being 'sold' a lie, first off the bat the court is being dishonest with you!

You have another choice that they do not want you to know about, as it is not 'beneficial' for the court, that being a plea of "no plea"

See document within the link: How to plea in court

The prosecution also falsely claims that the "Preliminary Brief" that you are supplied with is factually the full brief, contrary to the titled document.

What will they think of next?

Claim that an 'Excel' spreadsheet is an actual warrant? Which has actually been done in court many times before. 

SO, with regards to this ‘alleged’ fair hearing one is to obtain in Victorian courts according to the law, it is stated in Section 24 (1)

“A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. “

The focus in the above paragraph are the words  “independent and impartial”.

Also the Court is to function solely in Crown (the King or Queen) in right of the State of Victoria.

You will see in law or Acts the words “Act to bind Crown” followed by “This Act binds the Crown, not only in right of the State of Victoria..”

A document in the public domain authored by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria states otherwise.

See link to original document: 

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

The document states the following, at the end of the first page:

"Develop, maintain, and enhance key relationships with internal and external stakeholders to influence decision making processes and outcomes critical to the success of MCV, including court staff and judiciary, Court Services Victoria,  and other Victorian government departments."

---

Therefore the Victorian judiciary or rather more accurately the judicature does not function independently nor impartially, where they are influenced for the (financial?) benefit of the businesses for the stakeholders.

Who are these ‘stakeholders’?

The truth is that they are banking and financial services institutions, like Vanguard and BlackRock.

Therefore, will any person obtain a “fair hearing” in Victoria?

Keep in mind that the mainstream media deliberately under reports corruption within the Judicature, where it's through truly brave people labelled as whistleblowers that maybe the authorities can be held accountable, although past events show otherwise.

Should you have some documentation you wish published, then comment on any post with a link to that document where it may be published here without revealing your response i.e. the source link.

Corrupt police Demand respect: Joke of the Decade!

So, the colony's first police force, that being of New South Wales was purely made up of criminals, albeit a little better behaved ones, let's throw in an 'allegedly'.

Ever since it's inception the criminality of actions of the police expanded across the entire colony.

With regards to Victoria Police, they have shown their true colours during COVID-19, that being acting ILLEGALLY against the population, as stated in the Country Court of Victoria.

See article: 

Victoria Police – Thug Life - Unlawful Violence

Victoria Police 'bashed' (assaulted) people violently without cause, and also acted under 'dictation', another less known illegal action.

They had a choice to be 'honourable' but instead chose not to be.

According to their 'Code of Ethic' it's hardly something that the community would expect isn't it?

What's also important is at the 'business' and of the deal, that being in a place of business called a court.

Victoria Police more often than not, lie in court, either verbally or in written format or both, and in reality it's their most 'believable' lies and not the truth that wins them cases.

A LOT of people are harmed by their lies in court, BUT it's costly and very overwhelming for most to go up against 'the force' or more precisely the brotherhood. 

MediSecure data breach - Another cover-up and 'failure of government'?

See front page of MediSecure's website:

The above screen capture reads the following:

MediSecure

Cyber security incident/data breach

MediSecure has identified a cyber security incident impacting the personal and health information of individuals. We have taken immediate steps to mitigate any potential impact on our systems.

While we continue to gather more information, early indicators suggest the incident originated from one of our third-party vendors.

MediSecure takes its legal and ethical obligations seriously and appreciate this information will be of concern. MediSecure is actively assisting the the National Cyber Security Coordinator to manage the impacts of the incident. MediSecure has also notified the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and other key regulators.

MediSecure understands the importance of transparency and will provide further updates via our website as soon as more information becomes available. We appreciate your patience and understanding during this time.

It does not seem that at the time of this post the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has informed the public, as seen by this screen capture:

Also,

Australia's Cyber Security Coordinator says the large-scale ransomware data breach of e-script provider MediSecure was an "isolated" attack, though she warns cyber criminals are likely to target the health industry again.

- Another health industry corporation Medibank, was breached in 2022, hardly an "isolated" action.

- Monash Health, May 2024, was also breached, an "isolated" action too?

- Ambulance Victoria, April 2024, yet again "isolated" right?

- Diabetes WA, another health organisation breached in April 2024.

- RACOGP (Royal Australian College of General Practitioners) in March 2024, no doubt "isolated" too.

The above are only some of the data breaches that have been reported in 2024 regarding the health industry.

THEREFORE, we call this out as a BS statement by the Australian Cyber Security Coordinator, in order not to scare the public that no 'online' personal information is safe from hackers.

In simple terms: more government lies, about the severity of the situation.

Does this 'Lieutenant General',  Michelle McGuiness not recall other health industry breaches, or even know about them irrespective of that fact that there were other health industry breaches before her tenure, if so then she is not fit for the role, another useless bureaucrat?

Is she truly qualified for the job, or is this another 'money for mates' position, like most of them are within the governments of this colony called Australia. 

'Lieutenant General', aye? Seems that we're in the defence force or at least occupied/governed by one.

Since Australia is full steam ahead to cashless and all records are going digital, e.g. land titles, etc for easier administration of the serfs/plebs, there WILL be more data breaches, period.

The government is in full 'propaganda' mode to lull the plebs into a false sense of security, with this latest breach.

Australia also 'outsources' a LOT of domestic information into the hands of unskilled labour in order to keep the costs down.

People offshore that have access to 'our' private and confidential information can then pass it on to known criminals, where Aussies will be clueless.

The reality is that it's through the people in governments' mismanagement that we will see more and more data breaches, where they will even lie about how much data was compromised.

MediSecure, the company which facilitates electronic prescriptions and their dispensing, did not reveal how many Australians were affected.

HUGE fines should be imposed on the companies where data breaches occur, where as a follow up, the I.T. staff or the outsourced 'monkeys behind the keyboards' should be made redundant, effective immediately.

BUT, the people in government don't care as it's not 'their' private and confidential data that is leaked.

Maybe if Daniel Andrews' or Bill Shorten's home addresses where 'leaked' then they WOULD do something more to keep data safe?

Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show

Meta, the company that owns data hoovering cash cows Facebook, Instagram & WhatsApp is basically scum of the Earth, the lowest of lows a corporation that should be razed to the ground, period.

Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show

Its own in-depth research shows a significant teen mental-health issue that Facebook plays down in public 

Facebook Inc. knows, in acute detail, that its platforms are riddled with flaws that cause harm, often in ways only the company fully understands. That is the central finding of a Wall Street Journal series, based on a review of internal Facebook documents, including research reports, online employee discussions and drafts of presentations to senior management.

Time and again, the documents show, Facebook’s researchers have identified the platform’s ill effects. Time and again, despite congressional hearings, its own pledges and numerous media exposés, the company didn’t fix them. The documents offer perhaps the clearest picture thus far of how broadly Facebook’s problems are known inside the company, up to the chief executive himself.

Facebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite That’s Exempt

By Jeff Horwitz

Mark Zuckerberg has said Facebook allows its users to speak on equal footing with the elites of politics, culture and journalism, and that its standards apply to everyone. In private, the company has built a system that has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules. The program, known as “cross check” or “XCheck,” was intended as a quality-control measure for high-profile accounts. Today, it shields millions of VIPs from the company’s normal enforcement, the documents show. Many abuse the privilege, posting material including harassment and incitement to violence that would typically lead to sanctions. Facebook says criticism of the program is fair, that it was designed for a good purpose and that the company is working to fix it.

Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Many Teen Girls, Company Documents Show

By Georgia Wells, Jeff Horwitz and Deepa Seetharaman

Researchers inside Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, have been studying for years how its photo-sharing app affects millions of young users. Repeatedly, the company found that Instagram is harmful for a sizable percentage of them, most notably teenage girls, more so than other social-media platforms. In public, Facebook has consistently played down the app’s negative effects, including in comments to Congress, and hasn’t made its research public or available to academics or lawmakers who have asked for it. In response, Facebook says the negative effects aren’t widespread, that the mental-health research is valuable and that some of the harmful aspects aren’t easy to address.

Facebook Tried to Make Its Platform a Healthier Place. It Got Angrier Instead.

By Keach Hagey and Jeff Horwitz

Facebook made a heralded change to its algorithm in 2018 designed to improve its platform—and arrest signs of declining user engagement. Mr. Zuckerberg declared his aim was to strengthen bonds between users and improve their well-being by fostering interactions between friends and family. Within the company, the documents show, staffers warned the change was having the opposite effect. It was making Facebook, and those who used it, angrier. Mr. Zuckerberg resisted some fixes proposed by his team, the documents show, because he worried they would lead people to interact with Facebook less. Facebook, in response, says any algorithm can promote objectionable or harmful content and that the company is doing its best to mitigate the problem.

Facebook Employees Flag Drug Cartels and Human Traffickers. The Company’s Response Is Weak, Documents Show.

By Justin Scheck, Newley Purnell and Jeff Horwitz

Scores of Facebook documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show employees raising alarms about how its platforms are used in developing countries, where its user base is huge and expanding. Employees flagged that human traffickers in the Middle East used the site to lure women into abusive employment situations. They warned that armed groups in Ethiopia used the site to incite violence against ethnic minorities. They sent alerts to their bosses about organ selling, pornography and government action against political dissent, according to the documents. They also show the company’s response, which in many instances is inadequate or nothing at all. A Facebook spokesman said the company has deployed global teams, local partnerships and third-party fact checkers to keep users safe.

How Facebook Hobbled Mark Zuckerberg’s Bid to Get America Vaccinated

By Sam Schechner, Jeff Horwitz and Emily Glazer

Facebook threw its weight behind promoting Covid-19 vaccines—“a top company priority,” one memo said—in a demonstration of Mr. Zuckerberg’s faith that his creation is a force for social good in the world. It ended up demonstrating the gulf between his aspirations and the reality of the world’s largest social platform. Activists flooded the network with what Facebook calls “barrier to vaccination” content, the internal memos show. They used Facebook’s own tools to sow doubt about the severity of the pandemic’s threat and the safety of authorities’ main weapon to combat it. The Covid-19 problems make it uncomfortably clear: Even when he set a goal, the chief executive couldn’t steer the platform as he wanted. A Facebook spokesman said in a statement that the data shows vaccine hesitancy for people in the U.S. on Facebook has declined by about 50% since January, and that the documents show the company’s “routine process for dealing with difficult challenges.”

Facebook’s Effort to Attract Preteens Goes Beyond Instagram Kids, Documents Show

By Georgia Wells and Jeff Horwitz

Facebook has come under increasing fire in recent days for its effect on young users. Inside the company, teams of employees have for years been laying plans to attract preteens that go beyond what is publicly known, spurred by fear that it could lose a wave of users critical to its future. “Why do we care about tweens?” said one document from 2020. “They are a valuable but untapped audience.” Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, said Facebook is not recruiting people too young to use its apps—the current age limit is 13—but is instead trying to understand how teens and preteens use technology and to appeal to the next generation

Facebook’s Documents About Instagram and Teens, Published

By Wall Street Journal Staff

A Senate Commerce Committee hearing about Facebook, teens and mental health was prompted by a mid-September article in The Wall Street Journal. Based on internal company documents, it detailed Facebook’s internal research on the negative impact of its Instagram app on teen girls and others. Six of the documents that formed the basis of the Instagram article are published here.

Is Sheryl Sandberg’s Power Shrinking? Ten Years of Facebook Data Offers Clues

By Stephanie Stamm, John West and Deepa Seetharaman

The Wall Street Journal reviewed 10 years of Facebook annual employee lists, which showed names, titles and managers for Facebook’s staffers and contract workers. The data show which teams under which executives have expanded the fastest, providing an unusually detailed public view of the company’s shifting power centers and priorities.

The Facebook Whistleblower, Frances Haugen, Says She Wants to Fix the Company, Not Harm It

By Jeff Horwitz

​Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager who gathered documents that formed the basis for the Journal’s series, said she had grown frustrated by what she saw as the company’s lack of openness about its platforms’ potential for harm and unwillingness to address its flaws. A Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said the company strives to balance free expression with safety. “To suggest we encourage bad content and do nothing is just not true,” he said. 

 

Facebook Says AI Will Clean Up the Platform. Its Own Engineers Have Doubts.

By Deepa Seetharaman, Jeff Horwitz and Justin Scheck

Facebook executives have long said artificial intelligence would address the company’s chronic problems keeping what it deems hate speech and excessive violence off its platforms. That future is farther away than those executives suggest, according to internal documents. Employees say Facebook removes only a sliver of the posts that violate its rules, and that Facebook’s AI can’t consistently identify first-person shooting videos, racist rants and even, in one notable episode, the difference between cockfighting and car crashes, according to the documents. Facebook, in response, says it takes other actions to reduce how many people view content that violates its policies and that the prevalence of that material has been shrinking.

How Many Users Does Facebook Have? The Company Struggles to Figure It Out

By Sam Schechner and Jeff Horwitz

Facebook is struggling to detect users’ creating multiple accounts on its flagship platform, according to internal documents, raising questions about how the social-media giant measures its audience. One Facebook presentation called the phenomenon of single users with multiple accounts “very prevalent” among new accounts, after an examination of roughly 5,000 recent sign-ups indicated that as many as 56% were opened by existing users. Facebook says those numbers are incorporated into estimates it discloses of duplicate accounts, and that such accounts pose a challenge for many large internet companies.

 

Facebook Increasingly Suppresses Political Movements It Deems Dangerous

By Jeff Horwitz and Justin Scheck

Internal Facebook documents show that people inside the company have long discussed a systematic approach to restrict features that disproportionately amplify incendiary and divisive posts. Facebook rejected those efforts because they would impede the platform’s usage and growth. Instead, Facebook is making ad hoc decisions about groups it deems harmful, such as a movement by far-right activists after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot to form what they called a Patriot Party. The company’s approach puts it in a role of refereeing public discourse that strays from its public commitment to neutrality. Facebook acknowledges tension in its work on such viral social movements, and says it has invented new technologies and balanced difficult trade-offs to develop its solutions.

 

Facebook Services Are Used to Spread Religious Hatred in India, Internal Documents Show

By Newley Purnell and Jeff Horwitz

Facebook researchers documented how its platform has contributed to divisive, inter-religious conflict in India, according to internal records. The company’s researchers found hate speech spiked by 300% amid bloody riots, and that Indian users held the company responsible for failing to prevent or police it. Facebook has traced some of the stream of hate to influential entities tied to India’s ruling government but hasn’t taken action amid concerns about “political sensitivities.” Facebook says hate speech against Muslims is rising world-wide, and that the company is working to improve enforcement on its platforms.

 

Facebook’s Internal Chat Boards Show Politics Often at Center of Decision Making

By Keach Hagey and Jeff Horwitz

Facebook employees and their bosses have hotly debated whether and how to restrain right-wing publishers, with more-senior employees often providing a check on agitation from the rank and file, according to internal documents viewed by the Journal. The documents, which don’t capture all of the employee messaging, didn’t mention equivalent debates over left-wing publications. Other documents also reveal that Facebook’s management team has been so intently focused on avoiding charges of bias that it regularly places political considerations at the center of its decision making. Facebook says it enforces its rules equally and doesn’t consider politics in its decisions.

Is Facebook Bad for You? It Is for About 360 Million Users, Company Surveys Suggest

By Georgia Wells, Deepa Seetharaman and Jeff Horwitz

Facebook researchers have found that 1 in 8 of the app’s users report engaging in compulsive use of social media that affects their sleep, work, parenting or relationships, and the problems were perceived by users to be worse on Facebook than any other major social-media platform, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The documents highlight the company’s research into the possible negative impacts on the day-to-day lives of a broad swath of users. Facebook said it has built tools and controls to help people manage when and how they use its services.

Facebook Allows Stolen Content to Flourish, Its Researchers Warned

By Keach Hagey and Jeff Horwitz

About 40% of traffic to pages in 2018 went to those with content that was plagiarized or recycled, according to the company’s internal reports. The researchers said the tactic is an effective way to build a large audience and has been used by foreign and domestic groups that post divisive content and peddle false information. “This is the basic game plan used by many bad actors,” one researcher wrote. Facebook says it has taken steps to address the issues, including removing fake accounts and reducing distribution of unoriginal news reporting.

Facebook’s Pushback: Stem the Leaks, Spin the Politics, Don’t Say Sorry

By Keach Hagey, Georgia Wells, Emily Glazer, Deepa Seetharaman and Jeff Horwitz

Part of Facebook’s response to the disclosures made by the whistleblower was to push politics to the forefront. The company’s goal, according to Republicans and Democrats familiar with its outreach, was to muddy the waters, divide lawmakers along partisan lines and forestall a cross-party alliance that was emerging to enact tougher rules on social-media companies in general and Facebook in particular. “When our work is being mischaracterized, we’re not going to apologize,” said Facebook spokesman Andy Stone. “We’re going to defend our record.”

Source:wsj

See the Facebook Papers, from the SEC Office of the Whistleblower within the link:

https://facebookpapers.com/sec-documents/

See the Facebook Papers from Gizmodo:

https://gizmodo.com/facebook-papers-how-to-read-1848702919

The TRUTH about Bank Privacy

The truth is that we (the people) do not have privacy any more.

It's been thrown under a bus, gone out the door or whatever other metaphor you like.

The sad reality is that people LET it happen.

And once it's 'lost' you're NEVER getting it back again, period.

People, the herd/serfs/plebs are really asleep at the wheel.

See content in the following video:

Victoria Police – Thug Life - Unlawful Violence

In Victoria, a monumental event occurred in 2021, when the true colours of Victoria Police have come out, i.e. black uniforms, which pretty much they are now, from the good ol’ days of ‘office’ blue, but with red armbands with a circle and ‘cross’ insignia at least in spirit anyway.

Victoria Police are human rights abusers, act unlawfully, under dictation and with disproportionate violence but worst of all, women abusers.

There is all this talk now, or rather an agenda focusing on the male serfs from the general population abusing women/spouses, where statistically it is literally no different from decades ago.

BUT there is zero focus on male police officer’s abuse against their wives/partners, where statistically it would be alarmingly higher compared the serf pool.

Since the police are part of the Judicial arm of government, it would be of little benefit for their brethren in government launching an investigation into police domestic violence, as it is higher percentage wise compared to the general population pool, where this would expose a ‘no confidence’ in government or policing

So, in short Victoria Police is an organisation that commits criminal activities, where Covid-19 gave them an excuse or opportunity to carry out disproportionate violence towards the general population.

Victoria Police is not an ‘honourable’ organisation, period.

The mainstream media reported court findings on the 11^th of May 2024 of a highly publicised event,

see article: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/judge-rules-victoria-police-violence-unjustified-in-covid-lockdown-protest/news-story/c447aa4f4e903c06a2bbd8b72753b9e1

What is not mentioned or referred to that being probably the most important piece of information, that being the actual court case file from the County Court of Victoria.

See file:

Note the following on the first page: "Body worn camera and Police statements inadmissible at trial"

Australia’s Anglo-Masonic legal system is corrupt and the courts are corrupt, where there is a LOT of ‘misbehaviour’ in the courts where it is difficult for the ‘Joe Average’ or the ‘accused’ to recognise or catch onto the corruption of the judicature.

Unfortunately a remedy could have been given in the lower Court, but wasn’t, therefore the matter was taken to the Country Court of Victoria.

Hidden in plain sight? A BIG snake in the background of the County Court of Victoria.

Since this matter was one of high profile and a matter in the public interest, the matter was dropped by Victoria Police at the County Court jurisdiction, so that evidence would not be on file, that would be damaging to Victoria Police, which is a common tactic used by police if there is overwhelming evidence against them.

Video footage that the accused persons had on police easily shows disproportionate force, and provocation, including ‘plain’ aggravated assault by police, some of which is available in the ‘public domain’, that being YouTube or other social media platforms.

The banning of the accused Mr. Nicholas Patterson from computers is so that he would not post damning footage of the actions of Victoria Police, basically silencing victims of Victoria Police, basically throwing 'free speech' out the window.

BUT can you truly ban someone talking to someone else? 

Maybe the governments of this colony might be working on such a law right now?

Another way Victoria Police silences victims of their criminal actions is that of an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement), prior to court or settling any compensation claim against police.

Victoria Police does a lot of damage to the community, which is deliberately under-reported by the mainstream media’s non-existent ‘investigative’ journalists, where only a small percentage of people have enough courage to sue.

Having access to resources, information from over a decade ago showed that Victoria Police was sued on average to the tune of $250,000 per week, meaning that the Victorian tax payers where footing this bill and not police perpetrators personally, where the figure is much higher today.

One would have thought that such an important matter which was held from the 3rd-9th of April and finalised on the 16^th of April, the Murdoch 'entertainment' empire would have reported on it earlier instead of taking a month to inform its subscribers.

Note: this case file is "Revised, (Not) Restricted and Suitable for Publication", BUT there are MANY cases in the County Courts and High Court that are deemed not suitable for publication, where some of them are deliberately hiding the power of the corrupt governments, state and federal, especially in Constitutional matters.

NEVER forget how Victoria Police assaults pensioners:

NEVER forget how Victoria Police assaulted Corinna Horvath to an inch of her not remembering her name:

"Victoria Police's Chief Commissioner has apologised and paid compensation to a woman almost 20 years after her nose was broken in an unlawful police raid"

20 years to obtain compensation, is this truly 'justice' in the colony called Australia?

Some documented 'facts' of actions by Victoria Police during 'Covid' in 2021

Source:supplied: