Governor-General of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA signed Proclamation document missing - Government hiding something?

Could this be a real 'Conspiracy Theory'?

• Could we account for human administrative error, where outsourced IT personnel could not marry the html code of a link to the actual whereabouts of the document?

• Could we account for some hackers from maybe China, who got into the gg.gov.au website?

• Or is it something more sinister, like the government getting grid of incriminating evidence?

Let's take a walk through some very basic steps in law.

Even tough information is written in government websites, and in law (read Acts), it is also through various social media forums and other informative websites, that the lay person has become more aware of the role of the Governor-General with regards to law in Australia.

For those people interested in other things than beer and footy, they may have heard that for a law to be valid it must have Royal Assent , i.e. the current Monarch's approval.

Since the closest Australian city to London U.K. is just over eight and a half thousand miles away, that being Darwin, the current Monarch, Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second cannot just jump in her horse and carriage to sign off every great and well thought out idea the from the people in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to become law quite so easily.

Knowing these limitations apparently a law was thought up in Australia to state that the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, can be the representative of the U.K Monarch and enact laws.

• What happens if that person who has been given the title of Governor-General is not in office lawfully?

• What happens to the laws (read Acts) that the person passed while they were in office?

Let's answer the above questions shall we?

• If the G-G is not in office lawfully, they're up for the charge of treason.

• The laws enacted by the person in office as G-G are not valid.

Many researchers have obtained documentation that Australia has not had a lawful Governor-General since the first decade of the 20th Century.

Documentation exists that the current Governor-General Peter Cosgrove is not in office lawfully.

Also, there is documentation that states the previous Governor-General Quentin Alice Louise Bryce is not in office lawfully.

So let's have a look at the source.

The above illustration points to the link: http://www.gg.gov.au/oath-office

Where the oath of office by Quentin Bryce is stated to be:

Oath of Office

I, QUENTIN ALICE LOUISE BRYCE, do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law, in the office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Commonwealth of Australia, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. SO HELP ME GOD!

(Quentin Alice Louise Bryce)

Sworn, declared and subscribed by the abovenamed Quentin Alice Louise Bryce at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory before me on 5 September 2008

(Robert French)
Chief Justice of Australia

Also on that page, under the oath is a link to a pdf file that is to contain a signed copy of the Oath of Office in the Commonwealth Gazette.

A law note here: Apart from other processes not mentioned here, a law also MUST be gazetted in the lawfully described gazette in order for it to come into effect.

The link is apparently supposed to point to a document at -
http://gazettes.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/BE3DA28C3AD427BFCA2574C00009B5AF/$file/S181.pdf
but no such document exists at the above mentioned link, see illustration below.

The people in the Australian government have been systematically deleting incriminating evidence of their unlawful / criminal actions.

If you have another link to this document please post it in the comments section of this post.

Our Land in Foreign Hands - Corporate media BS?

So here is an article from the Herald Sun publication of the headline:
"OUR LAND IN FOREIGN HANDS", as seen in illustration below:

In this article is complied a list of countries with their percentage in relation to landholding (of farmland).

The Herald Sun states that the U.K is at 7.1%, U.S at 2%, Netherlands at 0.77%, Singapore at 0.48%, China 0.38%, Philippines at 0.29%, Switzerland at 0.227%, Jersey at 0.24%, Indonesia at 0.20% and Japan at 0.17%.

It is of paramount importance for people to comprehend that no one in Australia can actually 'own' land.

 So have the Herald Sun gotten away with it by calling them 'landholders'?

Let's do a quick search in your favourite search engine

So, let's have a look at the text of the above illustration:

landholder

ˈlandhəʊldə/

noun

noun: landholder; plural noun: landholders; noun: land-holder; plural noun: land-holders

1. a person who owns land, especially one who either makes their living from it or rents it out to others.

 As mentioned before, at law no one can 'own' the land of this continent, as it is owned by the Crown.

You have actually bought the right to use it (for a limited time), that's all.

So how did this occur?

Well in short,

In 1788, this land was occupied by armed forces led by Captain James Cook, where the land of this continent was forcibly taken (no treaty - unlike with the Indigenous people of 'New Zealand') from the caretakers, the Indigenous Australians, by the British monarchy, making the British monarchy one of the largest war criminals of our time, still until today.

Australia's land - 100% OWNED by the Crown. 

So how can the 'government' sell something that is not lawfully theirs?

Facebook keeps taking this post down. Why?

Does anyone know why Facebook keeps taking the following post down?

If you know why please post in the comments section.

Can you really trust the corporate media?

Same newspaper. Same day. Same edition. 

The one on the right was distributed in Austin. 

The one on the left was distributed in the rest of Texas.

 #Propaganda

Quacks paid $39000 a year by big pharma

THE best way to become a drug dealer in Australia is to become a doctor.

You can 'legally' (that is something produced by companies - for huge profits, then 'taxed' and given to the public) prescribe drugs, even ones that are detrimental to the 'customer', tell them they need it/them and reap the rewards (like obtaining profit - a bit like an 'illegal' drug dealer) from the company that 'sponsored' you to give their drugs to people.

Conversely if you sell an illegal (something produced naturally, and sold to another man/woman for little profit) drug that may help others, e.g cannabis oil, you risk incarceration.

Ask your quack how much they're getting for prescribing your medications?


That is the current state of law on this penal colony called Australia.

The best way to become a criminal in Australia is to become a 'Corporate Criminal'.

As an example, you're on social security benefits (through a company called Centrelink in Australia) where you receive your inalienable payments.

Your circumstances change where you must receive a lesser payment, after a while due to the circumstances of life you genuinely forget to notify that company.

The company gets to you beforehand and demands to pay back the monies, and when you do not have them, you most likely end up in court and a (unlawful) judgement (MUST be done before a jury, and not in the star-chamber courts, i.e. Magistrates', County or Supreme Courts, buy a single 'judge') will be made to incarcerate you.

If the business (knowingly) overpays you and you do not give the monies back, you again most likely go to prison.

Conversely if you deliberately engage in a business where you steal or defraud the people and you get IF you get caught, you could end up in court, you most likely will not go to jail (especially if you are a member of the boys club, a 'brotherhood') and most definitely will NOT have to pay back the monies you stole.

If you are a politician, like Julia Gillard or Craig Thomson and get implicated in criminal activity, you do NOT go to jail (gaol).

Again laws deliberately protecting high end criminals (e.g. in parliament) immune from prosecution.

"Australia the 'lucky' country" ? - Hardly.

Just a penal colony where (smart/supported - part of the 'brotherhood') high end criminals rule the masses, starting off with the birth mother - the 'Crown' and it's descendant - the 'Australian Government'.

We help pay for terrorism at the petrol pump

Petrol is cheap at the moment in Australia but there's a lot of complaint that it should be cheaper yet.
In truth, we have never experienced cheap petrol. There has never been cheap oil.

Saudi Arabia uses the proceeds of its oil exports to pay for, among other things, the missionary spread of the Islamic fundamentalist doctrine of Wahhabism.

This has spread like a cancer to scores of countries. It has poisoned traditional local interpretations of Islam and created the toxic climate for extremism and terrorism to grow.

Illustration: John Shakespeare 

The official religion of Saudi Arabia is a "brand of ultraconservative Islam [that] is nearly identical to that of the Islamic State," says William McCants, author of The ISIS Apocalypse.

The two are so similar, in fact, that when the so-called Islamic State or Daesh was looking for textbooks to hand out to schoolchildren in its de facto capital city of Raqqa, it printed copies of official Saudi textbooks it found online.

The barbaric punishments that Daesh hands out? It's no coincidence that they're identical to the religious penalties or hudud that the Saudi government inflicts on its people – death for homosexual acts, death by stoning for adultery or attempting to leave Islam, amputation of a hand for stealing, and so on.

A former imam of Saudi Arabia's Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani, said in January the leaders of Daesh "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles", according to The New York Times.

The Saudi government and Saudi religious charities and Saudi philanthropists have spent a fortune quietly funding Wahhabist mosques, preachers and schools across the world in countries now struggling to contain the threat of Daesh terrorism, countries from Belgium to Indonesia.

How much have they spent on this global missionary effort? A well-regarded professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, Brahma Chellaney, says: "Since the oil-price boom of the 1970s, Saudi Arabia has spent more than $US200 billion on its global jihad project, including funding Wahhabi madrassas, mosques, clerics and books."

All of that has been funded, ultimately, by the export of Saudi oil. By buying Saudi oil, we in the West have funded the fomenting of the fundamentalist movement that now assaults our security and our civilisation.

"Western powers actually encouraged the kingdom – as an antidote to communism and the 1979 anti-US Iranian revolution – to export Wahhabism," Chellaney says.

And even when there was not active encouragement from the West, there has been the unending flow of great treasure to the kingdom. The average cost of producing a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia is about $US9, the lowest in the world.

So whenever the world oil price is above $US9 a barrel, the Saudis are making a profit. It has never been anywhere near as low as $US9 in the entire post-oil shock era that began in the 1970s. The lowest recent price was when it briefly hit $US15 in 2001.

The world price is currently in the high $US40s. In other words, the West and others have kept the Saudis richly funded and well bankrolled. And that has meant that Wahhabism has been well bankrolled, too.

The West's complicity in supporting its own most virulent enemies may not be household knowledge, but it's certainly no secret.

US Vice-President Joe Biden made the point in a speech two years ago that the Saudis and other "allies' policies wound up helping to arm and build allies of al-Qaeda and eventually the terrorist Islamic State".

Washington has supported the House of Saud, with a military base in the country, since 1945 under Roosevelt.

As the American resource academic Michael Klare explains in his book Resource Wars: "At the core of this arrangement is a vital but unspoken quid pro quo: in return for protecting the royal family against its enemies, American companies will be allowed unrivalled access to Saudi oilfields."
And the Saudi royal family has a power-sharing arrangement with the country's Wahhabist clerics.

The government supports Wahhabism as the state religion, and the clerics in turn endorse the legitimacy of the Sauds as an absolute monarchy.

Counting only the countries where Islam is a minority religion, Saudi Arabia has paid for the construction of 1359 mosques, 210 Islamic centres, 202 colleges and 2000 schools, The New York Times reported on the weekend.

Recent terrorism in Belgium and France has drawn attention to the Brussels neighbourhood that has now become notorious as the epicentre of Daesh terrorism in western Europe, Molenbeek.

This is no accident; the Saudi government opened an enormous mosque in Molenbeek in 1978 and has steadily spread Wahhabist intolerance ever since.

The extremist challenge in some Muslim-majority countries is even more severe. It's changing the character of countries.

Barack Obama explained to Malcolm Turnbull during an APEC summit how Saudi-funded Wahhabism was changing Indonesia, The Atlantic Monthly has reported.

Obama, who spent some of his childhood in Indonesia, told Turnbull that he'd watched the country change from a relaxed, syncretistic Islam to a more fundamentalist, unforgiving interpretation; large numbers of Indonesian women, he observed, have now adopted the hijab, The Atlantic Monthly reported.

When the Australian leader asked why this was happening, Obama told him that "the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs have funnelled money, and large numbers of imams and teachers, into the country", according to the magazine.

"Aren't the Saudis your friends?" Turnbull asked, according to the magazine's rendition. "Obama smiled. 'It's complicated'," he reportedly answered. Not really. The US has supported the Saudis externally in order to extract the oil; the Saudis have supported their own legitimacy internally by using some of the proceeds to finance missionary extremism.

"We feel that we are under attack from the growing influence of Wahhabists in Indonesia" preaching an alien literalist Islam, Monash University law professor and Indonesian national Nadirsyah Hosen tells me.

Considering the cost of Saudi-sponsored extremism to our security, to our social cohesion, to civilised values everywhere, even the cheapest oil price means that we pay for our petrol at an incalculably high price.

smh.com.au 30 Aug 2016

Dodgy government data mining commercials - AncestryDNA too?

Leading up to the allegedly compulsory ( is it really compulsory at law? we say NO it's not) Australian census date of 9th of August 2016, the corporation conglomerate (read government) went on a propaganda binge (tv/radio commercial advertisement campaign).

You can almost smell a dirty rat emanating from the tv screen that almost makes you want to puke, when you see a 'govenment' ad telling you what to do.

With regards to the census, the Australian Government sends out a "thank you" for completing the 2016 census.

Why should you be 'thanked' if it is compulsory?

The Australian government also claims that "The census data is apparently used to shape Australia's future."

This is absolute bollocks.

There is literally no data that is needed from the census that can be used to "shape Australia's future".

The government already has all the data it needs from other departments, including but not limited to the taxation office, social security, and bank account information, residential records from the land titles office, births death and marriages, immigration department etc etc.


The Australian government claims that "your data is safe"

• What penalties are in force if your data is compromised?

• How can your data be safe if it was sold last year for $41,000,000

See blog post :

Australian Bureau of Statistics sells YOUR data for $41 million

• How  can your data be safe if it has been reported that the ABS has been hacked 14 times since 2013?

• How can you trust a 'government' that blatantly provides false information over the airwaves.

See official government advertisement, REMINDING you to fill in the census if you already have not at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6POPnuZp48k


NOTE: We do not recommend any man/woman to fill in the census.

So now the herd populace of this country is subjected to AncestryDNA commercials, where your DNA will be stored in a (government?) database forever.

The BEST part about is that YOU have to pay to get your DNA logged into some (dodgy?) database.

Mind you this is not done by force (for now), but rather in an enticing package (see illustration below).

Will you be a muppet and pay $149 to have your DNA stored on some database that (probably/most likely) will be used against you at a future date?


The 2016 Census advertisment the Australian government should be aired on national television:

Title: Honest Government Advert - Census Day

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakivOyBo-M

Royal Assent, The Queen - She has to sign laws

So,

in order for a proposed law (Bill) to become an actual law, it must be signed off by the current reigning monarch, in this case Queen Elizabeth the Second, written into law (Acts) as "the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty".

Reading the above line some people by this stage would be absolute outrage in saying that this is not the case in Australia.

So, currently in the British penal colony called Australia, there are some laws that say that a person that holds the title of Governor-General can give Royal Assent as a representative of the sovereign.

As always, anything to do with law in Australia, is actually a question of law.

So, does that person who holds the title of Governor-General actually hold it 'lawfully' (as opposed to legally)?

Please note also that in order for a law to be 'lawful' it must pass through BOTH houses of Parliament.

The current Governor-General of Australia is Peter Cosgrove, since 28 March 2014.

With reference to an article from Business Insider Australia from 20 May 2015 an excerpt has been taken out from the article of the following subheading:



She has to sign laws.

The Queen’s consent is necessary to turn any bill into an actual law. Once a proposed law has passed both houses of Parliament, it makes its way to the Palace for approval, which is is called “Royal Assent.” The last British Monarch to refuse to provide Royal Assent was Queen Anne, back in 1708.




Royal Assent is different than “Queen’s consent,” in which the Queen must consent to any law being debated in Parliament which affects the Monarchy’s interests (such as reforming the prerogative or tax laws that might affect the Duchy of Cornwall, for example). Without consent, the bill cannot be debated in Parliament.

Queen’s consent is only exercised on the advice of ministers, but its existence provides the government with a tool for blocking debate on certain subjects if bills are tabled by backbench rebels or the opposition.

It has been exercised at least 39 times, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information act, including “one instance [in which] the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member’s bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament,” the Guardian reported in 2013.

Also note blog post:

How to easily spot an unlawful Act

The entire article can be read at:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/weirdest-powers-queen-elizabeth-ii-british-sovereign-prerogative-swans-dolphins-2015-5

Australian authorities forcing you to use smart phones

To the average consumer the path of technology and the way the authorities utilise this technology can be viewed as progress, but as always there is another aspect to the matter, in reality actions that use the technology may have more sinister consequences behind it.

In recent news that had a lot of chatter on social media, was enormous the fail with regards to the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) online census login, where the servers (allegedly) crashed.

From a governance point of view, this is a huge failure of governance.

The ABS website did not have adequate security compromising every single person's details, despite the fact that the ABS stated that its site was secure.

This was a deliberate lie by the government/business called ABS.

It was also revealed that the ABS sold (your?) data for $41 million last year.

Therefore as a result you cannot trust the government with any of your census data.

Many reports emanating from the corporate media with regards to your duty/compulsion to fill in the census form, and the lawfulness to do so are false / incomplete / deliberately misleading.

So now the government is making apps, forcing urging its people to fill in form online (cheaper/quicker/easier to administer).

But there is one HUGE problem with this.

Your data is NOT secure nor is it private.

Some people still are in a 'we will not comply'  attitude, by not having a 'smart phone'.

So, the boffins in 'government' never fail to disappoint and have a solution for that.

Under the guise of 'progress' your old 'brick' / flip / dumb phone will be switched off.

Well not literally it but rather the technology (frequencies) it depends on will be.

Therefore you will have no other choice than to purchase a 'smart phone'.

The 'old' phones rely on frequencies known as (2G) GSM (850/900/1800/1900Mhz).

Although the newer technologies 3G, 4G, LTE may use some of the 2G frequencies, they are not backward compatible, and require new hardware - 'smart' phones.

Telstra will be switching off their 2G network in December 2016, Optus in April 2017, and no official word from Vodafone for the moment.

In many interactions with the government, e.g. social security, you are 'encouraged' to use an app or their website and not come into an office or interact with a man/woman behind the counter.

Pretty soon the British penal colony commonly referred to as Australia will be administered by unseen or unknown entities in some 'cloud'.

It would almost be 'heavenly', to be administered by some sort of digital gods.

Keeping in mind that the corporation conglomerate known as the 'government' is fully aware that 'your' data is neither safe, secure nor private via this carriageway called the internet. 

How can you trust a 'government' that failed to keep your data secure and one that sells it for profit, year upon year?

Oops! Microsoft acciedntally leaks back door keys to bypass UEFI Secure Boot

It's True — There is no such backdoor that only its creator can access.

Microsoft has accidentally leaked the Secret keys that allow hackers to unlock devices protected by UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) Secure Boot feature.

What's even worse?

It will be impossible for Microsoft to undo its leak.

Secure Boot is a security feature that protects your device from certain types of malware, such as a rootkit, which can hijack your system bootloader, as well as, Secure Boot restricts you from running any non-Microsoft operating system on your device.

In other words, when Secure Boot is enabled, you will only be able to boot Microsoft approved (cryptographically signature checking) operating systems.

However, the Golden Keys disclosed by two security researchers, using alias MY123 and Slipstream, can be used to install non-Windows operating systems, say GNU/Linux or Android, on the devices protected by Secure Boot.

Moreover, according to the blog post published by researchers, it is impossible for Microsoft to fully revoke the leaked keys, potentially giving law enforcement (such as FBI and NSA) special backdoor that can be used to unlock Windows-powered devices in criminal cases.

The issue actually resides in the Secure Boot policy loading system, where a specially signed policy loads early and disables the operating system signature checks, the reg reports.

This specific Secure Boot policy was created and signed by Microsoft for developers, testers, and programmers for debugging purposes.

"During the development of Windows 10 v1607 'Redstone,' MS added a new type of secure boot policy. Namely, "supplemental" policies that are located in the EFIESP partition…" researcher said.

"...a backdoor, which MS put into secure boot because they decided to not let the user turn it off in certain devices, allows for secure boot to be disabled everywhere!"

Yesterday, Microsoft released August Patch Tuesday that includes a security patch for designing flaw in Secure Boot for the second time in two months, but unfortunately, the patch is not complete.

 

thehackernews.com  10 Aug 2016

And whoever said there are no back doors in 'their' operating systems is a liar.

 

The company's sometimes shortened name MS should stand for Mass Surveillance.