The colony called Australia is a secretive police state, period.
We are told by politicians and others that nuclear energy is the way to go, but is it?
As with everything there are issues.
If 'we' the people are supposed to consume electricity from nuclear energy, don't we have the right to know what the issues are?
Well according to the buffoons in some secretive government department, they don't think so.
See full document:
Google had a motto “Don’t be evil”, where it’s not a ‘normal’ company value.
This value is no longer current, why?
Is it because that goal has already been breached?
Google is one of the world’s largest advertising corporations and supplier of data to the FiveEyes global surveillance network, and as a result its (alleged) illegal actions, such as breach of copyright or monopolistic behaviour have long been overlooked by governments worldwide.
Depending on one’s interests ‘influencers’ such as the Kardashians, Khabane Lame, Mr Beast, PewDiePie etc, in fact all of them even collectively, pale in comparison to how Google can ‘influence’ people.
Google ‘falsifies’ search results, in one example based on a person’s login, where the internet history is used to profile the user’s religious, political and sexual beliefs, compared to another person’s different internet useage history rather than the metrics on hand of the topic concerned.
Google even removes topics from its search pool, see post from 14 years ago:
AS mentioned before Google is the world’s largest copyright breacher, where nothing has been done about it for decades, where now it allows the theft of creator’s content on its YouTube platform to be used for A.I. as an example.
So what’s the point of copyright law, if it’s not being enforced?
Is it only enforced if a kid downloaded a song for 'free'?
To make matters even worse, people coming to YouTube to obtain an honest review of a phone from a ‘content creator’ cannot even trust that source, as that source is ‘influenced’ by Google.
Google gets its creators on YouTube to falsify product reviews under a program called ‘Brand Love’ where the creator MUST agree to the following:
“By opting into this program, do you acknowledge that you are expected to feature the Google Pixel device in place of any competitor mobile devices? Please note that if it appears other brands are being preferred over the Pixel, we will need to cease the relationship between the brand and the creator”
Google should be charged at the very least with false, deceptive and misleading conduct in relation to this matter.
Will the legal system business take this course of action?
The answer would be, probably not!
Governments and corporations want 'consumers' to use smartphones for ALL their online activities, as they provide people in those organisations with more data than a privacy focused PC & browser ever would give up.
A 'standard' browser (e.g. Chrome, Edge, Safari) is also an application or program that gives away plenty of information about the user, so much so that you can be 'fingerprinted' from just the browser you're using.
A tool, from PrivacyTests.org can be used to determine how much information and what sort of information your browser is leaking.
See:
https://privacytests.org/
Also other sites may help you:
https://browserleaks.com/
The colony’s police forces are far from honourable, but rather are deceitful and dishonest, even committing criminal offences that largely go unpunished.
Victoria Police are now in the business of sending unsolicited and unsubscribed to propaganda via Australia Post, as seen in the document below.
This unsolicited letter is allegedly from a "Mark D" from the State Emergency Service (SES) of Victoria.
This so called letter can be irrelevant with regards to your allegation to a breach of the law, where it is designed to appeal to your emotions.
Basically another 'scam', just like the 'Towards Zero' campaign was where police and government were fully aware that the road toll being zero can never be achieved.
What's more concerning is that the letter contains a "QR" code, which is a privacy threat, as privacy and security threat, as described by the government.
The Australian Signals Directorate, has issued a warning about QR codes, which it has since removed, stating the following:
“Scanning a QR code which directs you to a non-government website requesting your name, phone number and email address, could result in your personal contact information being used for marketing or criminal purposes”.
The Australian Signals Directorate removed the danger warning within the following link:
Why is this so?
Aren't QR codes STILL a danger today?
To make matters worse, the government changed this information within the link.
The information within the original link, was backed up on the 26th of November 2020 and can be seen here:
This content differs at a later point in time.
In November 2021, the content was as follows:
To totally different content in March of 2023, where the original link was no longer available, containing the following replacement:
Make no mistake about it the people in the business called the 'Australian Government' are corrupt at many levels.
One thing is for sure, Sydney Criminal Lawyers have not removed or changed their article on this topic, as seen within the link:
See also:
MANY people may think that companies, or internet data hoovering corporations wrapping themselves up as 'social media' platforms require you to use 2FA (Two Factor Authentication) for your 'security', but that is a farce, where it's all about tying your number to your 'person'.
In any event your number can be 'spoofed' or hijacked / hacked.
Realistically this action is part of the Nanny State agenda.
For a more in-depth explanation see the following:
On this planet duopolies rule, where there can also be anti-competitive behaviour or 'rigging' if one takes a deep dive into the subjects.
From supermarkets to politics to even geopolitical boundaries, consumers, constituents, citizens are realistically afforded only two choices.
In the smartphone world all the competition has been destroyed where there are only two main consumer operating systems that being Apple iOS and Google’s Android, neither of which respect your privacy or even security.
There is however one smartphone operating system which is the baseline for all Android smartphones in its most ‘purest’ form that being AOSP (Android Open Source Project) where manufacturers such as Google and Samsung later load up the operating system with their own ‘spyware’.
There are a few organisations that offer Android in its barest form, which then has privacy and security enhancements by LineageOS, /e/ foundation, GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, which run on new and older smartphones.
Cellebrite, an Israeli firm long regarded as an industry leader, is used to hack into peoples smartphones by governments within the FiveEyes global surveillance network, and also anyone else who will pay their fee, including hostile governments that abuse people's Human Rights, indicating that Israel 'supports' Human Rights abuse by those 'bad actors'.
Enter GrapheneOS, which is available on Google’s Pixel phones.
How ironic a ‘de-Googled’ Google phone.
Cellebrite are still unable to exploit locked GrapheneOS devices unless they're missing patches from 2022. A locked GrapheneOS device also automatically gets back to BFU from AFU after 18h by default.
See tables below:
"GrapheneOS is defending against these tools with generic exploit protections rather than by patching specific vulnerabilities. Until recently, it's likely that it was our generic memory corruption exploit mitigations including hardened_malloc which was successfully stopping this.
In February 2024, we added a new feature for disabling the USB-C port at a hardware level. In March 2024, we set the default mode to "Charging-only when locked, except before first unlock". In June 2024, we increased the default security level to "Charging-only when locked".
Later in June 2024, we extended our software-level USB protection, merged it into the newer hardware-level protection feature and extended the hardware-level protection to pogo pins on the Pixel Tablet. There's extremely strong protection against these USB-based attacks now.
Here's the Cellebrite Premium 7.69.5 Android Support Matrix from July 2024 for overall Android devices. Other than the Titan M2 on the Pixel 6 and later not being successfully yet to bypass brute force protection, it's largely just based on what they've had time to support."
See link: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14344-cellebrite-premium-july-2024-documentation
If you truly value your privacy and security, then this would be reflected in your non-use of Apple or Google's Android smartphones from manufacturers like Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, et al.
As all Australians should know the colony's founding document/law is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act dated the 9th of July 1900, which came into effect on the 1st of January 1901.
Yes, that's right, 'colony's'. Australia is still a colony, See post: Australia the self governing colony
The Constitution is a document that sets the rules and regulations that people in government must follow.
It offers very little protections, per se for the people, where it's primary directives are for government.
ALL points/aspects of the constitution must be adhered to, period.
The focus is with reference to the last page of the Constitution, that being the Schedule of the Oath or Affirmation.
The Oath states the following:
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.
SO HELP ME GOD !
The Affirmation states the following:
I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.
(NOTE.—The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)
The Parliamentary Education Office states the following:
Oaths and affirmations are formal vows or promises. An oath concludes with the phrase ‘So help me God’, while an affirmation does not reference religion. Ministers are required to take an oath or affirmation on 3 occasions.
Before ministers can be sworn-in by the Governor-General, they must first be sworn-in as a member of the Federal Executive Council. Section 62 of the Australian Constitution says there must be a swearing-in but doesn’t say what the words of the oath or affirmation are. This is left up to the Governor-General, who administers the swearing-in for members of the Federal Executive Council.
After an Executive Councillor is sworn-in, they then take the oath or affirmation of office as a minister. This is not required by the Constitution or a law but by tradition it is always done. The Prime Minister decides what the oath or affirmation will be for their ministry. The Governor-General administers this to all ministers, assistant ministers and the Prime Minister.
Each minister must also be sworn-in as a member of the Australian Parliament. The words of this oath or affirmation are in the Constitution and can only be changed by the Australian people in a referendum. Section 64 of the Constitution says ministers can be sworn-in up to 3 months before they become a member of parliament. As a result, sometimes being sworn-in as a member of parliament is the last of the 3 oaths or affirmations taken.
IF "The Prime Minister decides what the oath or affirmation will be for their ministry.", then show us the lawfully generated instrument that allows for this.
In reality if the person does not swear the correct Oath or Affirmation as within the Constitution, then that person is not in office lawfully, period.
If the person is not in office lawfully, then whatever actions follow are not lawfully enacted.
For example:
If an MP for example, Katherine Gallagher, has not sworn the Oath or Affirmation as per the Constitution, then she is not in office lawfully, and must be expelled, just like those who had dual citizenships, were expelled under Section 44.
Katherine Gallagher then pushes the Digital ID Bill through, unlawfully.
At another level, if the Bill becomes law, i.e. an Act, is it in circulation lawfully?
Did all the checks and balances occur at every single stage of the law making process?
The short answer would be: No.
See the Oaths and Affirmations of those in office within this 114 page document:
"Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck." - Donald Horne 1964.
To make matters worse, for the Australian people, by the government importing too many bank slaves into the colony to allegedly boost the economy, the Australian people are faced with another crisis that is deliberately not talked about by the mainstream media, and that is another aspect of the low quality homes that are being built today.
Low quality farmed timber.
Newer isn't always better, and this picture sums it up pretty well. The quality of modern lumber is simply far inferior to the quality of lumber they were using to build homes in the early and mid-20th century. Wood quality began dropping on a serious scale in the 1980s due to old-growth timber being almost completely depleted.
Most wood used today is grown very fast - not only can you visibly see the difference in quality, but the newer lumber is more prone to rotting due to a lack of heartwood.
Slow growth wood yields much more heartwood, which is the longest lasting part of the tree, whereas sap wood (new growth wood) will rot very quickly.
Modern lumber is also a lot more prone to termite damage as it is softer and easier to consume whereas old lumber is extremely resinous and naturally termite resistant.
A good rule - as long as the plumbing and electric has been updated, a well-built home from the mid-20th century is a better investment and will likely outlast a newer build.
Clarification: Yes, these two pieces of lumber come from two different trees.
The expert in the attached article is not comparing the lumber of the same tree over time. He is comparing the lumber that was commonly used to build houses 75 years ago versus the lumber commonly used to build houses today
Source:supplied
Off the public record.
The government (all three tiers, Parliament, Executive and Judiciary) is corrupt to the core.
The businesses known as the courts, are corrupt where they are ‘owned’ by banking and financial services institutions such as Goldman Sachs, The Vangaurd Group and BlackRock, being subservient to their ‘stakeholders’.
See court document within the article:
Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions
The courts are allegedly places of public record, but they have ways and means of hiding cases from the public, as part of the agenda of the secretive police state, naturally to the detriment of society.
In your documentation, if you expose the corruption of the police, government or courts, your matter will not make it to the ‘public record’ where it will be withdrawn or dismissed.
This may be seen as a ‘victory’ but it’s actually a loss, a loss for the people, as they are unaware of the details, and a cover-up of criminality by those in power.
In many states of Australia, ‘Covid’ fines have been withdrawn.
They have been withdrawn not when people started to challenge them, but more importantly when people started getting their paperwork right and asking the RIGHT questions.
A proper challenge to any alleged offence should be, first and foremost, on a basis of a ‘question of law’.
Government overflowing with people that gas-light their constituents.
In the police state of Victoria, under the leadership of ‘Chairman Dan’ (Andrews), premier of Victoria from 2014 – 2023, Covid fines were issued unlawfully, under whatever pretexts.
The government knew this, the police knew this and the courts knew this but they wanted to see if the serfs knew, so they gas-lighted the people.
Once again, when people started to obtain the correct knowledge, the fines were getting withdrawn.
The courts are corrupt.
The corruption begins at the registrar level.
They are the 'gatekeepers', the people who will not allow you to have the documents required for you to be successful in defending your matter.
So, apparently ‘advertisements’ were flung around everywhere that the good people of Victoria are under a ‘State of Emergency'.
SO, can the government prove this was a lawfully (as opposed to legally) issued declaration?
What medical advice was given that gave rise for this State of Emergency?
Allegedly there was a State of Disaster issued on 2/08/2020 @ 6pm.
Was this lawfully issued? Can ‘we’ have a copy of this?
MANY people obtained a ‘Covid’ fine, where the charge was as follows:
“Refuse or fail to comply with a direction or requirement made of a person in the exercise of a power under an authorisation given under Section 199 (INDIVIDUAL) Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.”.
In the above you may have noticed that “direction or requirement made of a person” has been underlined.
Keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the accuser, where every aspect of the accusation or charge must be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Therefore, Victoria Police accuses that you have refused or failed to comply with a direction/requirement that was made of you.
NOW, first and foremost can Victoria Police PROVE that this alleged direction/requirement was given to your ‘person’?
If so, then you require proof that it was served on your person, where an ‘advertisement’ on a freeway digital sign is not legally binding.
What Act have you been charged under?
Since the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, is the alleged source, then a ‘deep dive’ can be initiated if this Act is in circulation lawfully, under something called a ‘reservation of points of law’ or a Section 72B (of the Judiciary Act 1903).
In reality there was no lawfully enacted ‘State of Emergency’ in Victoria, and the government does NOT want the serfs to know about this.
Sure there may be a piece of paper, that states it’s a ‘State of Emergency’ but was it issued lawfully?
Since Victoria Police were fining people under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, Section 167 - Power to request information, the following is stated:
(1) An authorised officer may request a person to provide information to the authorised officer which the authorised officer believes is necessary to investigate whether there is a risk to public health or to manage or control a risk to public health.
(3) A person may refuse to provide the information requested under subsection (1).
Meaning, when they stop you, there is no need to answer ANY questions.
See documents within the article: Is the 25km rule in Victoria a valid statutory provision?
The reality is that if you ask for the documents, as shown above within the Subpoena, Form 13, the ‘gatekeepers’ will not allow you to have them, where your request WILL be denied.
See also:
That’s life in a corrupt colony.