Victoria Police admits to using unlawful retrospective law in 'lock up' fines

Cowardly attack by Victoria Police on female pensioner.

The Victorian Government, police and the courts are involved in an intricate web of deceit against persons who have been fined under the Chief Health Officer's 'directions'.

In an embarrassing situation for police, in a 'court of public record' Victoria Police admitted that the organisation is using unlawfully passed legislation that 'fixed' the problem, where the Victorian Parliament enacted retrospective legislation where Victoria Police officers had no lawful authority to issue health related fines based on directions given by the CHO.

Whether it's a 'stay at home' order akin to Martial Law, an order against a public gathering or travelling outside of a Nazi like fictitious boundary, they're all unlawful orders with regards to the 'general population'.

Briefly,

First and foremost police acting under the 'direction' of the CHO, is an action acting under dictation which is forbidden at law.

Victorian legislation must be compatible with Human Rights, where it also must abide by the rules set out according to the SARC (Scrutiny of Act and Regulations Committee).

See article: https://corpau.blogspot.com/2015/08/sarc-scruitny-of-acts-and-regulations.html

The Chief Health Officer at the time Brett Sutton, is part of the Executive branch of government, the lowest part of the legal system, where his so called directions are 'public policy' meaning the directions are only binding on the public service, that being not binding on the police nor the judiciary.

Victoria Police have been caught out fabricating false charges, for example against Marty Focker.

See hidden video: 

The businesses known as Courts are part of this conspiracy, where your human rights are abused by the judiciary, but you have to catch them out, call it and take further action.

What's more concerning is that the Courts are not acting independently, free from bias, as they are acting in the best interest for the stakeholders in order to achieve successful outcomes critical to the “success” of MCV (Magistrates' Court of Victoria ) and other Victorian government departments.

See document:

Who are these 'stakeholders'?

Financial institutions like the Challenger Group.

See also document “Legal Remedies for All Australians”:

Humans - Polluting Earth and Space. How many satellite orbiting Earth?

n the past decade, the number of satellites in orbit has skyrocketed thanks to tiny electronics and cheap launches. The crowded night sky is posing problems for astronomers and astronauts.

By Supriya Chakrabarti, The Conversation  |  Published: Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Thousands of the satellites orbiting Earth are small – like this cubical satellite seen here being released from the International Space Station.

It seems like every week, another rocket is launched into space carrying rovers to Mars, tourists or, most commonly, satellites. The idea that “space is getting crowded” has been around for a few years now, but just how crowded is it? And how crowded is it going to get?

I am a professor of physics and director of the Center for Space Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Many satellites that were put into orbit have gone dead and burned up in the atmosphere, but thousands remain. Groups that track satellite launches don’t always report the same exact numbers, but the overall trend is clear – and astounding.

Since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik – the first human-made satellite – in 1957, humanity has steadily been putting more and more objects into orbit every year. Over the the second half of the 20th century, there was a slow but steady growth, with roughly 60 to 100 satellites launched yearly until the early 2010s.

But since then, the pace has been increasing dramatically.

By 2020, 114 launches carried around 1,300 satellites to space, surpassing the 1,000 new satellites per year mark for the first time. But no year in the past compares to 2021. As of Sept. 16, roughly 1,400 new satellites have already begun circling the Earth, and that will only increase as the year goes on. Just this week, SpaceX deployed another 51 Starlink satellites into orbit.

The ever-shrinking size of technology has led to tiny satellites like the one students are working on here.

Small satellites, easy access to orbit

There are two main reasons for this exponential growth. First, it has never been easier to get a satellite into space. For example, on Aug. 29, 2021, a SpaceX rocket carried several satellites – including one built by my students – to the International Space Station. On Oct. 11, 2021, these satellites will deploy into orbit, and the number of satellites will increase again.

The second reason is that rockets can carry more satellites more easily – and cheaply – than ever before. This increase isn’t due to rockets getting more powerful. Rather, satellites have gotten smaller thanks to the electronics revolution. The vast majority – 94% – of all spacecraft launched in 2020 were smallsats – satellites that weigh less than around 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms).

The majority of these satellites are used for observing Earth or for communications and internet. With a goal of bringing the internet to underserved areas of the globe, two private companies, Starlink by SpaceX and OneWeb together launched almost 1,000 smallsats in 2020 alone. They are each planning to launch more than 40,000 satellites in the coming years to create what are called “mega-constellations” in low-Earth orbit.

Several other companies are eyeing this US$1 trillion market, most notably Amazon with its Project Kuiper .

Large satellite constellations – like SpaceX’s Starlink, seen in the video above – are set to dramatically increase the number of objects orbiting Earth and are already causing problems.

A crowded sky

With the huge growth in satellites, fears of a crowded sky are starting to come true. A day after SpaceX launched its first 60 Starlink satellites, astronomers began to see them blocking out the stars. While the impact on visible astronomy is easy to understand, radio astronomers fear they may lose 70% sensitivity in certain frequencies due to interference from satellite megaconstellations like Starlink.

Experts have been studying and discussing the potential problems posed by these constellations and ways the satellite companies could address them . These include reducing the number and brightness of satellites, sharing their location and supporting better image-processing software.

As low-Earth orbit gets crowded, concern about space debris increases, as does a real possibility of collisions.

Future trends

Less than 10 years ago, the democratization of space was a goal yet to be realized. Now, with student projects on the Space Station and more than 105 countries having at least one satellite in space, one could argue that that goal is within reach.

Every disruptive technological advancement requires updates to the rules – or the creation of new ones. SpaceX has tested ways to lower the impact of Starlink constellations, and Amazon has disclosed plans to de-orbit their satellites within 355 days after mission completion. These and other actions by different stakeholders make me hopeful that commerce, science and human endeavors will find sustainable solutions to this potential crisis.

Source: astronomy.com

Retrospective law - against ICCPR etc

In Australia governments (federal and state) LOVE to make criminals out of people by enacting legislation to 'fix' the past.

Quite simply put this is against the Rule of Law, also against your right to a 'fair hearing', against 'human rights' and also against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

See further reading:

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-129/13-retrospective-laws/a-common-law-principle-12/

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/prohibition-retrospective-criminal-laws

https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/prohibition-retrospective-criminal-laws

https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5484/what-are-retrospective-criminal-laws-and-why-dont-.aspx

Ch. III (Chapter three) Court - Australia

What is a Chapter III court?

Does it exist?

Apparently the people of Australia are told that the 'Commonwealth of Australia's' founding legal document is the 'Constitution' where all other law and actions by those in government are bound to it and abide by it.

Some will say that those in government do not abide by it.

Some can even prove that Prime Ministers (and other 'persons of interest') have not sworn the correct oath as described in the Schedule.

Some will even say that the Constitution has been thrown under a bus, where we are under private/corporate law, where a current example is that Victoria's current premier Daniel Andrews has given corporations the power to discriminate against employees medical choices enacting their own health policies (law?).

Under what lawfully enacted instrument is this?

A Ch.III court is defined in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act in Chapter III on page 15 and 16 of the original document, as seen following scans.

See link to document as tabled in the UK Parliament:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12/enacted

The two other laws that are to be used in conjunction with the 'Constitution' are:

Acts Interpretation Act Act 1901

Please note that there is no mention of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 under the Commonwealth heading within founding.docs.gov.au, therefore a scan of the original document cannot be provided.

For an alternative source of the legislation, 

See: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1901A00002/e5a7d8d8-06ac-41d9-a8ba-8ac57ecd1a40

Judiciary Act 1903:

See: https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-92.html

So now a 'question of law' that is embarrassing to the 'administration' of justice in Australia;

Does a Ch. III court really exist?

Short answer: No.

Corrupt Yarra City Council must be terminated!

Australia's 'city councils' are corrupt to the core.

You 'just' have to catch them out! 

A Study in the Abuse of Power - High Court of Australia

The colony's courts today are first and foremost  corrupt to the core.

The so called judicial registrars/magistrates/judges are not in office lawfully.

On thing that they do is abuse their power, where most people are OBLIVIOUS to this.

They literally act with impunity.

See the above document within the link:

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/cgi-bin/download.cgi/download/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/1999/47.pdf

Mainstream media's misguided FOI vs 'real' one

In the immortal words of Tom Cruise in the film Jerry Maguire “Show me the Money” a similarly appropriate phrase would be quite simply, “Show me the FOI!”.

So called journalism has died a while ago, where some will say since 60 Minutes realised that it could capitalise on 'news' by selling it before the Internet age.

Since then, information platforms touting themselves as 'news' services have become click-bait providers for the sole purpose of generating income, from you (the product) in process 'hoovering' metadata from their apps they so desperately need you to use for their so called 'service'.

The biggest 'journalism' farce begins with “we can now reveal” or something similar to that effect, where the Joe (below) Average is led to believe that he/she is reading exclusive/confidential or whatever news story.

The mainstream media's so called FOI (Freedom Of Information) requests do not really cut it when it comes to an alleged exposé of the authority's questionable actions.

They don't even have the decency to publish the question or even the response you know the actual FOI, how pathetic.

And you're paying for this information?

In the motherland, there is a running joke that the colony called Australia is a 'legal basket case' from the mid 1980's, or about the time of the enactment of the Australia Acts.

That's right, plural as in two.

The legal 'geniuses' had no idea which one would stick, so they enacted to, one a 'local' version and another the UK version.

The real legal basket case scenarios started way before 1986, but that's another topic.

That's the (real) state of 'law' in Australia, i.e. NFI.

One of the most important legal farces in this colony is this fictitious/unlawful entity called the 'Queen of Australia'.

Will you ever see the mainstream media write “documents obtained under freedom of information” in relation to this?

Well, you will from one person within constitutionwatch.com.au.

The questions posed:

' I request the document, instrument, or law of the Commonwealth that exempts the courts judges and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth from the Treason and Felony Act 1848.

I request the instrument that allows the Parliament of Australia under the Queen of Australia to have any lawful effect.

I request the instrument or information that demonstrates the Parliament of Australia as a legal entity.

I require any information in edition to the finding being referenced.'

See response within the document:

Samsung Australia to pay $14m penalty for misleading water resistance claims

Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (Samsung Australia) has been ordered by the Federal Court to pay $14 million in penalties after it admitted misleading consumers about the suitability of various Samsung Galaxy phones to be submerged in pool or sea water, in proceedings brought by the ACCC.

The false or misleading claims were made about the water resistance of the S7, S7 Edge, A5 (2017), A7 (2017), S8, S8 Plus and Note 8 Samsung Galaxy phones (Galaxy phones). There were more than 3.1 million of these Galaxy phones sold in Australia.

Between March 2016 and October 2018, Samsung Australia conducted a marketing campaign that included nine ads(link is external), published across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, on its website, and in-store, which represented that these Galaxy phones were suitable to be used in pool and sea water.

Samsung Australia has acknowledged that if the Galaxy phones were submerged in pool or sea water there was a material prospect the charging port would become corroded and stop working if the phone was charged while still wet.

“Samsung Australia’s water resistance claims promoted an important selling point for these Galaxy phones. Many consumers who purchased a Galaxy phone may have been exposed to the misleading ads before they made their decision to purchase a new phone,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We reviewed hundreds of complaints from consumers who reported they experienced issues with their Galaxy phones after it was exposed to water and, in many cases, they reported their Galaxy phone stopped working entirely,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Prior to the launch of the Galaxy phones, Samsung Australia’s parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), was already seeking to mitigate the effects of this charging port corrosion caused by charging following exposure to water. Despite this, Samsung Australia’s marketing campaign promoted Galaxy phones being used in pools and sea water while there remained a material prospect the Galaxy phones would be damaged due to corrosion.

“Samsung Australia’s ads promoting its Galaxy phones featured people using their phones in pools and sea water, despite the fact that this could ultimately result in significant damage to the phone,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“This penalty is a strong reminder to businesses that all product claims must be substantiated. The ACCC will continue to take enforcement action against businesses that mislead consumers with claims about the nature or benefits of their products,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said. 

The vast majority of Samsung Australia’s contravening conduct occurred prior to the increase of maximum penalties for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law. Similar conduct under the new penalty regime could give rise to greater penalties.

Samsung Australia admitted that it had contravened Australian Consumer Law and made joint submissions with the ACCC in respect of penalties and orders.

Consumers who purchased one of the relevant Galaxy phones and experienced damage to the charging port after submerging the phone in pool or sea water and then attempting to charge the phone while water remained in the port are encouraged to contact Samsung Australia.

Source:accc.gov.au

Twitter fined abusing 2FA, what about Google Facebook?

2FA (Two Factor Authentication) is touted as 'ants pants', 'duck's guts' in security, but that is far from the truth.

While Twitter may have been fined for abusing this method of authentication, the two largest data hoovering multinationals that supply data to governments, Google and Meta (nee Facebook) are allowed to run rampant.

See full video:

US:Roe v Wade, don't just delete period tracking apps, smart watches are a problem too

Since it became clear that the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling may be overturned by the U.S's Supreme Court, women in America started ditching the popular period-tracking apps from their phones from fears of persecution in states where abortion can now be made illegal, but that's only one problem with regards to your privacy.

Smartwatches are the next bio-metric gathering device that will be used against you.

In just about all cases the smart watch manufacturer forces you to obtain an account with the company where your data is 'owned' by that corporation where the data can be later sold to other corporations and passed on to government and non-government organisations, to be used not for your benefit.

Smart watches have been able to obtain your unique heart 'fingerprint' and now with oxygen saturation (Sp02) and period tracking new bio-metrics are used against you.

We do not recommend the use of smart watches from the likes of Apple, FitBit, Garmin, Huawei, Samsung, etc with closed source programming but rather (lesser known) hardware like Amazfit, Casio, Mi (Xiaomi) or Sony that is compatible with applications that are open source like Gadgetbridge from f-droid.