Saturday, April 18, 2015

ANZAC Day 2015 - The 'Cousin's War'

May we never forget the brave men who lost their lives in the belief that they were fighting for their country.

The Australian government of the day sent the children of the masses to be used as cannon fodder to invade the shores of another country, Turkey.


What is now known to the general population as ‘World War I’ is referred to as the ‘Great War’, also has another name attached to it, the ‘Cousin’s War’.

The ‘cousins’ (European royalty) used the children of the masses as cannon fodder for their so called territorial wars.

See video of former SAS soldier Ben Griffin comment   “I will not fight for Queen and Country”


The ‘cousin’s’ is in reference to all the inbred and retarded royalty across Europe which stems from the matriarch Queen Victoria (24 May 1819 – 22 Jan 1901), that ruled the various kingdoms, across Europe and as far as Russia, where Tsar Nicholas II was married to Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse), the granddaughter of Queen Victoria.



The current British Monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, whose great grandparent Edward VII, is a brother to Princess Alice who is the great grandparent to Queen Elizabeth’s husband Prince Philip.

Inbreeding effected the royal families with a high infant mortality rate together with the ‘royal disease’ commonly known as haemophilia.



Let us never forget the atrocities of war that are propagated by corrupt governments, this ANZAC day the 25th of April 2015.

ICAC's powers queried in Sydney court


 Lawyers for former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald have queried the state corruption watchdog's powers.


Lawyers for former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald have queried the state corruption watchdog's powers in court a day after the ICAC's humbling defeat at the High Court. 

Mr Macdonald's lawyers argued a misconduct in public office charge should be dropped as it was improperly initiated by the ICAC, Downing Centre Local Court heard on Thursday. 

'This is an unauthorised prosecution,' defence barrister Phillip Boulten said. 

'They're not a police force and they're not a prosecuting agency.' 

Macdonald is still facing the same charge in the Supreme Court. 

The charge against the former Labor minister relates to his alleged handling of a lucrative mining licence at Doyles Creek in the Hunter Valley, which emerged in a high-profile ICAC inquiry. 

Ex-CFMEU official John Maitland is alleged to have earned $15 million out of his activities at Doyles Creek from a $165,000 investment and is also before the courts. 

Mr Boulten also asked for his client to be paid legal costs. 

The challenge to ICAC's powers comes a day after it lost a High Court challenge against its investigation into senior NSW prosecutor Margaret Cunneen.
 


skynews.com.au 16 Apr 2015

Australia a criminal's playgournd*.

A 'mecca' for white collar criminals, criminal police, politicians and judges using 'force' to enslave and oppress the general populous into corporate submission.

* - provided you are one of the ones supported.

Lawyers for former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald have queried the state corruption watchdog's powers.
Lawyers for former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald have queried the state corruption watchdog's powers in court a day after the ICAC's humbling defeat at the High Court.
Mr Macdonald's lawyers argued a misconduct in public office charge should be dropped as it was improperly initiated by the ICAC, Downing Centre Local Court heard on Thursday.
'This is an unauthorised prosecution,' defence barrister Phillip Boulten said.
'They're not a police force and they're not a prosecuting agency.'
Macdonald is still facing the same charge in the Supreme Court.
The charge against the former Labor minister relates to his alleged handling of a lucrative mining licence at Doyles Creek in the Hunter Valley, which emerged in a high-profile ICAC inquiry.
Ex-CFMEU official John Maitland is alleged to have earned $15 million out of his activities at Doyles Creek from a $165,000 investment and is also before the courts.
Mr Boulten also asked for his client to be paid legal costs.
The challenge to ICAC's powers comes a day after it lost a High Court challenge against its investigation into senior NSW prosecutor Margaret Cunneen.
- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2015/04/16/icac-s-powers-queried-in-sydney-court.html#sthash.ePHlvh0h.dpuf

Vic police inquiry stalled by privacy bid

Public hearings into an alleged misconduct at a Victorian police station could instead be held in secret.
A judge is to decide whether public hearings into alleged misconduct at a Victorian police station will instead be held in secret.

Open hearings into the Ballarat station claims were scheduled before the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission on Wednesday but stalled by a Supreme Court bid to prevent details being aired.

Barrister David Grace QC for one of the two accused officers is seeking to have the hearings held privately.
Neither officer has been interviewed or charged and publishing their names and details of the allegations would damage their reputations and prejudice any potential criminal trial, Mr Grace argued.

Justice Peter Riordan agreed to suppress both names but has adjourned a decision on whether the hearings will be public or private until Thursday morning.

skynews.com.au 16 Apr 2015

The 'brotherhood' stepping in to protect the criminal actions of (their 'brethren') in one of Victoria's most corrupt organisation's, that being Victoria Police.

Watch as the corruption is kept from the general population, in contrary to what the police are (allegedly) supposed to be, the being public servants.

This illustrates how Australians are realistically living in a Police state.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Kangaroo Courts of Australia are star chambers contrary to law

Whether the law in Australia is Martial, Roman, or strictly contractual, one thing is for sure the law that came with the 'first fleet' also included the entrenched laws of Great Britain.

Some of these laws are transcribed or hidden in other Acts.

The current state of the Australian (Kangaroo) court system is that it is a star chamber, contrary to current laws, as defined in for example in Victoria's legislation, in the Imperial Acts Application Act (1980) Section 8

which states:

[1640] 16 Charles I c. X

An Act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.

Ref: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iaaa1980240/s8.html

From wikipedia:


(illustration: A document of 1504 showing King Henry VII sitting in the Star Chamber and receiving William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Foxe, Bishop of Westminster, and clerics associated with Westminster Abbey and St Paul's Cathedral, as well as the Mayor of London.)

The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law who sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (ca. 1641), and was composed of Privy Councillors and common-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters. The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.

Court sessions were held in public, although witnesses and defendants were examined in secret.[1] Defendants were given prior notice of the charges against them, and had the right to be represented by an attorney.[2] Evidence was presented in writing. Over time, the Star Chamber evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and its courts.

In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of politically-motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since the 17th century.

 Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

Indemnity to all persons acting under Martial Law in Victoria

Here is one from the history books for Victorians.

By His Excellency SIR CHARLES HOTHAM, Knight commander of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath, Lieutenant Governor of the Colony of Victoria, &c,&c,&c.

No. XII


The Act is called:

An Act to indemnify all persons who have proclaimed or acted under the authority of Martial Law within a certain district of Victoria. [Assented to 19th December 1854]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21_coIgIYu2Z1hCdlJCMnpiSlE/view?usp=sharing

With another seemingly unrelated insurance regulation:

INSURANCE CONTRACTS AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2002 (NO. 2) 2002 NO. 147

in particular

(a)       war, invasion, acts of foreign enemies, hostilities (whether war has been declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, martial law, military law, military or usurped power or attempts at usurpation of power; or.

Source : http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg_es/icar200222002n147463.html


How the police waste our time, on a massive scale

<i>Illustration: Simon Bosch.</i>  
Illustration: Simon Bosch.

Court 4.4 at the Downing Centre was packed – standing room only  – when I paid a visit recently to observe the legal sausage factory process the prodigious amount of time-wasting that the police and the justice system impose on the public every year. The police, in particular, are running an enormous con job.

Only 21 per cent of police rostered hours are spent on criminal investigations, according to the last annual report of the NSW Police. The rest of their rostered hours are occupied with traffic matters (10 per cent), bureaucratic process (15 per cent), courts and custody (six per cent) and community support (45 per cent), which appears to mainly involve patrols and responding to calls.

About six million times a year NSW police stop people who are doing nothing wrong, or issue infringements for minor offences. Most people just pay the fine, which is what the police and court system count on. It's a growing revenue stream for the government.

This particular journey of discovery was triggered by the sound of a police siren outside my house a few days before Christmas. It was the middle of the afternoon, in a quiet suburban street, yet a police officer felt the need to give his siren a blast at a woman sitting in her car. She drove off.

It was poor policing but it got worse. Every year, millions of people are subject to pointless, pedantic, time-wasting in the name of public safety.

Two weeks after the siren incident, the woman, Jo, received a traffic infringement notice, a $242 fine for double parking. She was outraged, given that she had only stopped briefly, was not blocking the light flow of traffic and her driving record was excellent. She ticked the box on the form saying she would go to court.

She received a court attendance notice by mail. Her presence would be required at Downing Centre at 9.15 am on March 30. She was now a "defendant".

After receiving (free) legal advice she changed her mind and mailed back a form advising that she was pleading guilty and did not need to attend court. She filled in the space available to explain if there are circumstances that would mitigate the penalty.

She heard nothing. As the court date approached, she called the State Debt Recovery Office. All they knew was that she was due in court.

On March 30, Jo appeared in court 4.4 in the Downing Centre. The courtroom was packed. I counted 45 people, not counting lawyers at the bar table. Clearly, everyone had been told to turn up at 9.15 am. This says a lot about how the courts value the public's time.

The registrar began pushing through cases. After 40 minutes, and numerous cases, Jo's name was called. She was instructed to go to court 4.3, where a magistrate would handle her matter. The waiting thus started again.

This court was also packed, with a row of people standing at the back. The magistrate was Greg Grogan. Over the next two hours I watched him strike a balance between compassion and legal gravitas.

For the first time in this process, someone seemed to be exercising common sense. All morning, Grogan took the view that if someone was bothered to come to court, and could provide him with a plausible case for mitigation, he would waive the fine or reduce the suspension.

In this legal sausage machine, it was primarily the police prosecutions that were put through the grinder.
Then it was Jo's turn. She began describing the incident. "I was sitting in my car…"

Grogan interjected, incredulous: "You were in the car?"

Jo continued. "A police siren went off". Grogan looked even less impressed. After a few more sentences, he had heard enough. "This case is dismissed."

It took less than a minute of testimony but half a day in court. The police officer with the heavy hands on the police siren, whose judgement had not been vindicated by the court, had long ago moved on.

Multiply this example by about a million times a year and you get a sense of the scale of the make-work by the police and productivity lost by the public. Over the past 15 months, police have conducted more than 6.5 million random breath tests on motorists. Only about 0.35 per cent of these tests result in charges being laid.

As another way of increasing revenue, the state government has contracted a private company, Redflex, to operate a growing number of mobile speed traps, for profit. Not surprisingly, the number of people trapped and fined as a result of speed cameras is up by 50 per cent in the past year, according to the NRMA.

All these intrusions and this bureaucratic make-work is always justified in the name of "public safety" but the downward trend in fatalities over the past decade has come more from the introduction of air bags than from the four to five million random stops by police each year.

The government could achieve broadly the same impact by directing the police to conduct half the number of stoppages, at half the cost, and half the social disruption. I'd like to see a study which seeks to quantify the productivity lost by the hundreds of thousands of hours of the public's time wasted by inefficient and intrusive practices by the justice system.

Instead, both sides of politics, wanting to appear tough on law and order, are complicit in the giant con by the police, this bureaucratic make-work, this time-wasting and intrusion, all at our expense.

smh.com.au 12 Apr 2015

That's only half of it.

The police 'force' in Australia is a slave to the corporations and not for the people as commonly misconceived.

They are literally at the top of the criminal food chain.

the mainstream media is really reluctant to expose the police 'force' as a criminal organisation.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Family Law Court Sworn Valuer


One of the greatest rip offs perpetrated by the so called ‘authorities’ is that of the judicial system’s so called ‘courts’ where the ‘customers’ are mislead, deceived and not given full disclosure of contract details in the place of business, trading and commerce commonly referred to as a court.

This also refers to people ‘contracting’ (more about that in another post) with the Family Law Courts where people are advised by the business to obtain a valuation of their property by someone called a ‘sworn valuer’.

Well this is where you are getting ripped off to the tune of anything from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands.

What the majority of people do not know when obtaining a valuation from an appointed ‘sworn valuer’ is that the valuer is not bound to it, and it is only an estimation where it can change at any point in time.

This is another example of, not the system making money, but rather depleting the masses of their savings in order to further enslave them.


You may as well ask your cat what the place is worth, multiply the meows by pi divide it by three multiply by the selling price of a neighbour’s house to obtain a more accurate figure.

All this signed in ‘wet ink’ where placing your cats right front paw on an ink stamp pad and transferring that to the said ‘quote’ will suffice.

Your quote will have as much credibility as the one supplied by the 'court' appointed 'sworn valuer', and in the process you will save a fair few tins of kitty food, saving even more when at a later point in time the court documents can be used as kitty litter.