Friday, January 27, 2017

Police too scared to act but not too scared to commit unlawful actions against the public


So now the mainstream media reports that in the wake of the Bourke St massacre Victoria Police are too scared  allegedly creating "horrible and tragic" outcomes because officers only act "when their hand is forced".

Is this the most sadly laughable biggest load of garbage PR stunt Victoria Police has ever written?

We have seen numerous attacks on non threatening people where a gang of police bash the person senseless into subservience.

We have seen Victoria Police assault motorists.

We have seen Victoria Police unlawfully arrest people.

Was Victoria Police 'scared' when they bashed Corinna Horvath to a point where this woman would not remember her name?



Is shooting people in the back a result of a scared action?

Is ramming a person's car into their letterbox then bashing him a result of being "scared"?

Is Victoria Police 'scared' about committing criminal offences against the public?

It does not seem so from our end.

Victoria Police commit millions of dollars worth of fraud against the Victorian motorists every single year without being 'scared' (as there are no consequences) where each person from Victoria Police committing this criminal action should be charged and incarcerated.

Don't let the mainstream media tell you this, let an ex cop say it how it is according to the law (for the better use of the term), in his document :

Ex Victorian Police officer comments on Fines:
http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/ex-victorian-police-officer-comments-on.html


Victoria Police is not your 'friend' (research the inception of the police 'force' in Australia), never was and never will, nor are they 'public servants' (where the tax payers are their 'masters'), as they work for the executive where the masses are the 'enemy'.

Victoria Police will keep on indulging in criminal activities against your 'person' until YOU take action in your dealings with Victoria Police. 

Source: Supplied 

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Australian Government's dodgy motto - Reveal Their Secrets - Protect Our Own

Now we wouldn't want to accuse the corporation conglomerate called the 'Australian Government' as being dodgy, as a fate worse than ASIO awaits us, that's right, the wrath of 'facebook' lawyers.

You see the age old legal maxim of the burden of proof is on the claimant prevails, and ye ol' facebook 'lawyers' who are really online legal studies students wanting you to back your claims up with case law, so that they can hand in their homework as a result of your hard earned labour.

But alas we digressed and we deserve a couple of case law pdfs deleted.

So what do these 'persons' in the Australian Government do again?

Well, lets take a lookie at a so called 'government' department called the Australian Signals Directorate.




As you can see from the above screen capture from their website, they claim that they reveal others secrets while protecting their (the ASD's?) own.

So, lets imagine how they could 'reveal' others secrets.

The ASD (Australian Signals Directorate) could hack into a company's or government's computer systems.

As the peasants should be aware, hacking is an illegal / criminal action..

Once the ASD has hacked into your computer system, they could then take the information from your computer system to their computers.

Now that would be a 'common law' crime of stealing or breach of copyright, as we all know how Hollywood is very cranky about.

Imagine if the ASD stole your IP (not Internet Protocol silly, but something a lot worse, your Intellectual Property), you could then sue them for millions.

James Bond has a licence to kill, but what do you get from the ASD?



That's right you get a "Licence to Hack" from a business called the 'Australian Government'.

Is the application form on the side of a packet of corn flakes?

So you have a 'licence' to commit criminal activity from a business.

Let's make this nice and easy for the simple folk;

It's like you walking into McDonald's logging into their wifi and them giving you their permission to hack Hungry Jacks.

Sounds lawful, right?

So if/when you get hacked by the ASD do you reckon they'll give you the name of their employee who committed the criminal activity against you?

Can you really trust the actions / laws of the 'Australian Government' to be 'lawful' and in line with a document called the 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act'?

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Victoria Police failed Bourke St massacre victims


There are many points of failure by the authorities with regards to the actions of Dimitrious Gargasoluas that lead to the mowing down of innocent people in Melbourne's busy Bourke St mall on Friday the 20th of January 2017.

Police state that when dealing with criminals apparently Victoria Police has "time" on their side, as written in an email by Deputy Commissioner Andrew Crisp.

How long are we talking about a week, half a year, why not five?

Does Victoria Police not have a Policy Manual?



Does Victoria Police not have  Code of Ethics and Conduct instructions?



Does it say anywhere that "time is on your side"?

Since Gargasoulas was already committing criminal offences, Victoria Police 

  • FAILED to "preserve the peace",
  • FAILED to "protect life and property",
  • FAILED to "prevent offences".

Even though it has been mentioned in the mainstream media, the masses may not be aware that the employees of the corporation known as Victoria Police are not in the business of getting hurt on the job, as the State of Victoria will deny duty of care to injured employees of Victoria Police.

So victims are created as a result of police inaction due to Victoria Police not being able to (financially) burden the State of Victoria if they get hurt.

It all about the money (from the bail justice to the actions of Victoria Police) and not about the lives of the public the police are supposed to "protect".

Now the false reports justifying police actions will take form over the course of the year.

Grab yourself a copy of the Victoria Police manual at:



While you're at it grab yourself a copy of the Victoria Police business Style Guide at:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21_coIgIYu2ajNpUFVMdGJhMHc

Much more can be written on Victoria Police, their actions or corporate status where some of this information can be found elsewhere in the blog.

Victoria Police should be sued by the families of the victims.

One word to note is nonfeasance.

Do not fear, as any official inquiries will cover up any police wrongdoing, where police will even be exonerated.

See contents of article from 6 July 2014 by theage.com.au of the headline:

State denies duty of care to injured police

The state government and Victoria Police are using an arcane legal technicality to block seriously injured police officers from suing the force for compensation, claiming they owe no duty of care to members hurt in the line of duty.

The use of the contentious tactic comes as Victoria Police are fighting at least three lawsuits from former officers who allege they received permanent physical and psychological injuries on the job.

In a bid to avoid a payout, the government is claiming that police officers are not technically employees of the state but ‘‘public officers’’ conducting ‘‘independent duties’’, absolving the government of civil liability for their injuries.

The defence has been filed in a lawsuit brought by former mounted police officer Justin Boyer, who alleges he sustained severe psychological trauma at the hands of fellow officers after he reported allegations of corruption to authorities.

The government’s argument is based on an interpretation of the wording of a police oath written more than 56 years ago which sees Victorian officers sworn into service of ‘‘our Sovereign Lady the Queen’’.

‘‘[The government] denies that [Mr Boyer] was employed by [the government], and says further that at all material times [Mr Boyer] was executing independent duties cast upon him by reason of his oath taken under the Police Regulation Act 1958,’’ the defence filed in the Supreme Court says. 

‘‘[The government] denies that it owed a duty of care to [Mr Boyer].’’

Police Minister Kim Wells and Chief Commissioner Ken Lay have refused to comment on whether they personally authorised the defence used by the external law firm hired to represent the government because the matter is currently before the court.

A source said the government has used the defence in the past in a bid to block civil claims despite police officers being apparently recognised as employees in some industrial relations legislation and by WorkSafe.

But Giuseppe Carabetta, senior lecturer at the University of Sydney Business School, said the government’s defence could be difficult to refute because police have long been recognised in law as “office-holders” rather than employees.

“Essentially the Crown is denying that the plaintiff is an employee in the strict common law sense. As the law currently stands, the Crown will, in my view, succeed,” he said.

The decision to fight the claim also comes despite the government acknowledging Mr Boyer had received a ‘‘serious injury certificate’’ early last year.

Mr Boyer claims to suffer from a knee injury and severe post-traumatic stress disorder and depression after being subjected to a campaign of  ‘‘harassment, discrimination, vilification, intimidation and bullying’’ by fellow officers for reporting allegations of misconduct and corruption. He is seeking more than $250,000 in damages.

The government has denied the allegations but also claimed that Mr Boyer could be ‘‘guilty of contributory negligence’’ for failing to report to superiors that he was allegedly being victimised.

The Police Association has declined to comment on the government’s defence because the case involves a former officer making claims that include other members of the force.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Mainstream media conveniently omits Rothschild's name in articles?

Damn those 'conspiracy theorists' and damn those peasants with 'puters!

You see Australia is a 'lucky country' and as a democracy is run by the most honest government on the planet.

Australians having the right to the social security / welfare system are treated with respect by the governing body where all forms of communications are honest and all lawful.

The people in the corporate media are literally the most honest bunch out there.

They report racism the way it really is. The court reporters accurately report how a person from the masses can nullify any fine by showing that literally no valid laws exit.

Now back to reality and enough of the day dreaming.

Australia's 'executive' has a few problems that deliberately do not make it out into the mainstream media, where one of them is that there has not been any valid appointment for Australia's Governor- General for quite some time, but that topic is for the courts silly, with a binder or two of supporting documentation.

Another issue is in relation to the global financial giant the Rothschild's where actual figures of the family's wealth are hidden from reports, downplayed or even delegated to conspiracy theories.

In early 2017 the mainstream media reported on an unfortunate freak accident where Ben Cowen was killed while paragliding.

To the cattle population the surname might not ring any bells.



But to the Jewish community it is an illustrious surname, where it makes the grand entrance as the 19th Governor-General of Australia in office from 8 Dec 1977 - 29 Jul 1982.

Sir Zelman Cowen's son Ben is the founder of the retail store Anaconda.

During the mainstream media's write up on Ben's death, the Herald Sun publication (from 11 Jan 2017) mentions that Ben began his career as a mergers and acquisitions lawyer with Corrs and as an investment banker with Deutsche, Rothschild and Gresham before moving into entrepreneurship.

 
The Herald Sun from an article published on the 9th of January does not mention that he was an investment banker with Deutsche, Rothschild and Gresham, only stating "Mr Cowen, a father of three, trained as a lawyer before a career in investment banking."


An article from The Age publication on the 10th of January also does not mention that he was an investment banker with Deutsche, Rothschild and Gresham, only stating "He sold out of the chain in the late 2000s and founded Edison Partners, a boutique advisory firm, where he specialised in mergers and acquisitions.".


The Geelong Advertiser from the 10th of January also did not state that he worked as an investment banker with Deutsche, Rothschild and Gresham, only stating "The entrepreneur and community leader trained as a lawyer before beginning a career in investment banking".


Damn! One out of four surveyed articles mentions the Rothschild's name, possibly not even enough for a 'conspiracy theory'. Oh well, back under the tin foil hat we go.


Geelong Advertiser, Herald Sun, The Australian and news.com.au are owned by News Corp.
The Age publication is owned by Fairfax Media.

Monday, January 23, 2017

The Great Seal of Australia Trademark Corporate Logo


The 'Great Seal of Australia' is a beautiful styled company logo which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office at the link supplied below;


Where the search can be done for the various versions of the Coat of Arms;

Serial Number:

89000535
89000534
89000533
89000532
89000531
89000475
89000474

This has been collated into an easy to read 2 page pdf (compiled in 2015 by the original source of the document) at:


Source: Supplied

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Australians waiting on hospital list up to 6 years for refugee priority


There are many dodgy policies and actions by the Australian Government that deliberately are not reported by the mainstream media.

A recent article (on cleaning out Melbourne's streets of the homeless) by the Herald Sun publication stated that the publication "can reveal" that a bylaw is being passed by the Melbourne City Council.

Are laws passed in secret that the publication cannot 'reveal', where it can only do so upon the approval of that business entity?

Aren't 'lawful' laws supposed to be passed by the parliament of the said state, where they are debated a few times and the public can sit in?

If it sounds dodgy then it most likely is; with reference to this 'bylaw' that gets rid of the homeless.

Hard working Australians, tax payers who have paid their dues to society where they also provided wages for people in parliament, the underprivileged, people on social welfare as a result of being unemployed due to foreigners taking their jobs,  are being treated by their policy / law makers as third class 'citizens' (technically Australians are not citizens, as Australia is still under a monarchy, where the people are 'subjects'), to make way for refugees.

A hospital source has passed on information with regards to a government enacted policy treating Australian patients.

The source stated that Australians are put on a waiting list for treatment which can initially blow out from 12 months to 3 years, which in a lot of cases leaves people waiting for up to six years, where top priority is given to refugees, thereby putting Australian lives at risk.

It is with actions like this that it seems that the policy makers in government really despise the Australian public, or there may be something that the herd population has done to the policy makers that deserves the masses to be f'cked over by their government.

The people in the Australian government import scum for whichever corners of the world under the refugee banner, where the criminal element is imported into Melbourne (as opposed to Canberra).

On a side note these refugees could be as a result of the Australian military bombing their country.

The 'refugees' then commit violent assaults on the Australian masses, 'common law' theft, dangerous driving that shuts down the West Gate bridge, only to have magistrates free them to commit further criminal actions against the public.

These people also get priority to Australia's health care system, while Australians rot on the sidewalks.

On the other side of the (injustice) scales a man gets (unlawfully - by a 'star chamber') incarcerated for 'arguing' with a magistrate, posing NO DANGER to the community.

NEVER forget that the people in government make laws for "peace, order, and good government".

There is no need to be concerned, nor to take any sort of action as there is footy and beer aplenty.