Thursday, December 30, 2010


Winston Shrout explores the dissertation of Doug Herich, entitled: 'The Orphan Constitution.' Winston then discusses why it doesn't matter where Mr. Obama was born. If you have the patience to watch these 6 videos, you could be part of the solution. This discussion was part of a 3 day Solutions In Commerce seminar held in Phoenix, Ariz. April 2009. For more information, or to purchase this seminar visit






Tuesday, December 28, 2010





Whereas it has been established by the Affidavit of John Harris that Elizabeth the Queen is in bondage to Evil Persons who now hold Her Majesty captive to their own Treasons; Evil Designs and Unlawful Purposes, contrary to Law;
Whereas a Claim of Right has been used in the past as with the Claim of Right of the Scottish Convention of the Estates;

Whereas, it is clear -

  • From the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings I, II and VII and the shameful deceptions that pass for official explanations that are not in accordance with the known Laws of Physics;
  • From abduction and torture and unlawful detention that is widely known to be practiced;
  • From the absence of Lawful Money in circulation anywhere on the planet;
  • From the widespread and pervasive practice of fraudulent finance contrary to Law;
  • From the evil practices of the State issued identity - "passports", restriction of the right to create or work, to buy and sell, to travel without hindrance about these Global Isles, surveillance, and other such practices contrary to Law;
  • From the declared and undeclared war on the very people of the united States of America and the world who are treated as "enemy combatants";
  • From false flag events that are used to foment war;
  • From the use of weapons of mass destruction, including biological, nuclear, depleted uranium, electromagnetic and geophysical weapons on the common people;
  • From the absence of Common Law courts in the English speaking countries;
  • From the absence of any challenge worldwide to these injustices from the United Nations, the Commonwealth or any Nation anywhere;
THAT the Rule of Law has been abrogated upon these Global Isles by the erstwhile Nations of the World and they have thereby forfeit their Mandate to govern the people;

Acts and Statutes enacted by erstwhile representatives of the people to maintain order via the authority that flows from the barrel of a gun have no Lawful force;

the Acts and Statutes that deprive the individual of their inherent rights to exist, move, create, and trade or dispose of their creations without causing harm or loss to any other individual or person and to thereby unfold their life, liberties and happiness are void ab initio and have no Lawful Force;

"loan contracts" which really are promissory notes circulated as if they were legal lender currency by the banks by fraudulent conversion are void ab initio and have no value;

humanity faces Armageddon itself as these traitors to humanity and the Rule of The Law foment war to disguise their folly;

the precedents and judgments of courts made under statutory authority with no lawful money in circulation have no Lawful Force;

I the founder, make this lawful Claim of Right to -


Restore the Rule of The Law;

Collect, identify, collate, publish and thus eliminate the methods of legal plunder that infest society ;

Protect the Inherent Lawful Rights and Powers of the Individuals who comprise "We, the People" of these Global Isles;

Serve as a repository of true Natural Law, justice and due process;

Elucidate the Inherent Natural Powers and Rights of the Individual;

Circulate Lawful Money and end debt slavery and Fraud;

Create the lawful processes that enable Individuals to claim and exercise their Inherent Natural Powers and Rights including their inherent powers, rights and claims to existence, creativity, expression, self-protection, property, voluntary lawful contract, silence, privacy, travel and residence, trade and commerce, religion and philosophy, justice and trial by a jury of peers, to assemble, meet and confer;
Free those Entrapped by Evil Persons and and their Evil System such as, Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Queen;
Restore the Law of the Land - Natural and Common Law;

And to do those Acts that achieve the purpose of the Foundation within the Rule of The Law.

I, a decent individual declare that I am aware that my Being is grounded in Truth, and that I live, move and Become upon these Global Isles on the third planet from our lovely Sun. I hereby consciously claim my inherent right to exist, create and dispose of my creations without causing harm or loss to any other individual or person and so do hereby proceed to unfold my life, liberties and happiness.

I, a decent individual, by my inherent power and right given by Nature or Nature's God, hereby create, establish and adopt the name RICHARD MILES for myself, and claim all my inherent powers and rights;

I, a decent individual, RICHARD MILES, by my inherent power and right given by Nature or Nature's God, hereby create, establish and adopt the PGP key 7B0A 46DC CA6A 9A2E 26AB 2DF8 F527 C2F5? 9983 1405 for founder @ as my signature and mark on this Notice of Claim of Right.

I, a decent individual, RICHARD MILES, the Founder, by my inherent power and right given by Nature or Nature's God, hereby found, create, name and constitute the Foundation of these Global Isles, "the Foundation", and adopt the PGP key 51E6 A555 6FD9 C33B 83AB 3595 31C3 59B3 E38B 3743 for foundation @ as the seal and mark of
the Foundation.


Verily my fellow countrymen on these Global Isles shall be those that live by Natural and Common Law - to live, exist, create and dispose of their creations without causing harm or loss to any other individual or person and thereby enjoy their life, liberties and happiness and build wealth and peace for themselves and their children.

The full force of Natural and Common Law shall be applicable at all times in all places and cannot be annulled by the declaration of emergency, war or other device by any State or entity.

PGP Signed on the 15th day of June, 2009
by Richard Miles



Saturday, December 25, 2010


Richard Gluyas From: The Australian December 24, 2010

THE ANZ Bank has sought court orders to block the Australian Taxation Office from accessing the confidential records of 13,000 customers of its Vanuatu operation in a dramatic escalation of the ATO's investigation into tax havens.

A high-powered legal team representing the ANZ, which has the largest Vanuatu operation of the four major banks, lodged Federal Court documents that effectively argue the tax office is engaged in a fishing expedition as part of the Project Wickenby crackdown on tax avoidance.

The bank says in its statement of claim that compliance with two December 17 notices from the ATO, which seek open access to customer data, would breach Vanuatu criminal law and put its licence to operate in the Pacific island nation at risk. It adds that each of the notices is "uncertain and/or oppressive".

The ANZ's chief executive for the Pacific region, Michael Rowland, said the bank was seeking court guidance on its obligation to comply with the ATO notices.

"ANZ abides by the legal and regulatory requirements of the markets in which we do business, including Vanuatu, and we treat customer information sensitively and respectfully," he said.

"We've been working with the ATO to resolve this matter for more than 18 months, and we have co-operated as much as possible with the ATO's request while meeting our obligations under Vanuatu law."

The ANZ has hired two QCs to press its claim, including Melbourne silk Alan Archibald. The case is set down for a directions hearing on February 17.

Last April, it was reported that the ATO had demanded that 57 financial institutions, including the four major banks, hand over the records of clients with offshore bank accounts held between July 2005 and June last year.

Project Wickenby - a $300 million multi-agency taskforce that includes the Australian Crime Commission - has enjoyed some successes on the revenue front, hitting its targets with tax bills worth $951.6m and recouping $229.5m. But there have been some high-profile failures, notably the collapse of the ACC's five-year criminal investigation into actor Paul Hogan and John Cornell.

The agency spent $10m on the Hogan probe, dubbed "Operation Youghai", which was more than half the $17.3m allocated to the ACC to investigate all Wickenby cases over the same period.

The ANZ has previously been dragged into another Wickenby investigation, "Operation Starlifter", which targeted participants in a $100m money-laundering scheme allegedly masterminded by accounting firm PKF Vanuatu's senior partner, Robert Agius.

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the money-laundering charge against Mr Agius last September, but there are two remaining charges relating to a $100m round-robin scheme.

The Australian reported in 2008 that the ANZ and Westpac, which also has a Vanuatu business, issued most of the accounts in Mr Agius's scheme.

Both banks were understood to have worked closely with the Australian Federal Police during the investigation.

The ANZ statement of claim said the current circumstances were different. Rather than identifying a particular customer who might have an Australian tax issue, the bank says the ATO has issued a generic inquiry.

It has demanded, under the first of two notices, information about ANZ customers in Vanuatu who fit one or more of four criteria, including Australian nationality or domicile, a residential or business address in Australia, or an account recorded in Australian dollars.

The ANZ statement of claim said the current circumstances were different. Rather than identifying a particular customer who might have an Australian tax issue, the bank says the ATO has issued a generic inquiry.

It has demanded, under the first of two notices, information about ANZ customers in Vanuatu who fit one or more of four criteria, including Australian nationality or domicile, a residential or business address in Australia, or an account recorded in Australian dollars.

The information sought from the ANZ's "global information warehouse" relates to the period July 1, 2008, to November 30 this year.

It includes the account number, any identifiers of the customer, nationality and domicile, and the tax file number or Australian business number of the customer or signatory.

Under the second notice, the ATO is targeting similar information from ANZ customers with accounts kept in any currency other than the vatu, Vanuatu's currency. The ATO notices mention 17 different types of accounts, but are not limited to those accounts, or to accounts held in Vanuatu.

The ANZ says it would breach Vanuatu confidentiality laws if it gave up the information.

It would also be a criminal offence if the bank surrendered information relating to international companies and trusts.

Furthermore, the bank would risk losing its banking licence.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010


by Gerald R. Thompson


Does the Bible speak to legal matters? Is there such a thing as a truly distinctive lonang jurisprudence? Is a legal philosophy based on the Bible a matter of subjective opinion or objective truth? And, if an objective lonang jurisprudence exists, is it relevant to modern nations?


Initially, every legal system must investigate, or at least presume answers for, these questions: Does law originate with God, nature or people? Are there any pre-existing laws which constrain us, or are we free to recognize any laws we wish? If there were no statute books or court opinions, would there still be law?

In the search for absolute ethical standards and fundamental legal rights, where can these be found apart from a "higher law" of divine, not human, origin? As long as people believe in the perfectibility of man, they will cling to the hope that humanity can eventually solve its own problems. But, isn't such a position inherently futile? Will perfection ever come from within the species? Instead of treating the question as a philosophical one, ask yourself: What does the evidence from history show?

  1. Herbert Schlossberg, in Idols for Destruction, stated that "Questions about justice are fundamentally religious." Can any legal system be morally neutral? To what extent is it possible for a legal system to avoid, at a fundamental level, declaring the rules of right and wrong behavior? Are rules of right and wrong inherently moral?
  2. Consider the relevance of a God-based view of law to any legal system:
    1. If no transcendent God exists, is law unavoidably arbitrary? Without God, who is there who can declare absolutely what is right or wrong, or why?
    2. Unless God is immanent (involved) in human affairs, how can His laws be relevant? Unless God actively enforces His laws as the great Sustainer of the universe, why should we obey the rules He prescribes for our conduct?
    3. Unless God has revealed His law authoritatively, how can we know any of it for certain? Unless God clearly and authoritatively revealed His law to us for the governance of society, how could He hold us accountable for its obedience? In other words, isn't even God under a duty to promulgate his laws?
  3. 1 Tim. 1:5-8 says, But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully.

    How can a legal system be grounded in God's revelation of law? Will all legal systems equally succeed or fail in conforming to lonang?

  4. Read the following verses.

    "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matt 11:27.

    . . . then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. . . . For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 1 Cor 15:24,27.

    Pilate therefore said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin." Jn 19:10-11.

    1. Does the right to rule people ultimately come from God, ourselves or from somewhere else?
    2. Is anyone above the law of God? What are the limitations on the right of one person to rule over another?
  5. Deut. 30:15-18 says, "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You shall not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it."

    Ancient Israel had the choice whether to accept God's law and receive its blessings, or to reject it and receive its curses. To what extent is this same choice available to nations today?

Early legal commentators, such as Cicero, Grotius, Montesquieu, Blackstone and Kent, believed that when God created the heavens and the earth, He imposed His will and laws upon the entire earth and its inhabitants. Such laws were believed to be applicable to all people, and discoverable by anyone through a well-reasoned observation of human behavior and experience, as confirmed or tested by the Bible.

These "laws of nature," as they were called, were not limited to the realm of the physical sciences. Rather, they were conceived as including laws of right and wrong human behavior. Furthermore, these laws were held to be absolute and eternal, never having been rescinded, and not subject to change.

This legal belief system was most popular, as can be expected, in pre-Darwinian times. It is obviously not the prevalent or accepted basis for legal philosophy today. But, in point of fact, this view of law was accepted in America for a longer period of time than the subsequent evolutionary view of law has been. So, perhaps it is worth examining to see what it was that captivated the legal community for so long.

  1. Psalm 19:1-4,7-9 says, The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world. . . . The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.
    1. Does the revelation of God in creation include a revelation of His will? Of His law? How does one relate to the other?
    2. What areas of life or aspects of creation, physical or spiritual, has God left ungoverned?
  2. Rom 1:18-21,26,28,32 says, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions . . .. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper . . . and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
    1. To what extent is the revelation of God in creation sufficient to inform people of His nature as well as His existence? Does this revelation have a moral quality to it, being something to which people can be held accountable?
    2. What is the connection between rejecting the knowledge of God from nature and the likelihood of engaging in unnatural behavior? To what extent is unnatural behavior also unlawful?
  3. 1 Cor. 11:14a,16 says, Does not even nature itself teach you . . .. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

    Is it possible to observe the created order and apply the use of reason so as to understand the rules of right and wrong behavior to which God expects people to conform?

  4. Prov. 6:6 says, Go to the ant, O sluggard, Observe her ways and be wise.

    Is it possible to discover righteous human behavioral patterns from a study of the animal kingdom? To what extent?


Aristotle, among others, took the position that much of the knowledge people have is innate within us. In Western tradition, this has generally been regarded as a question of conscience, or the imprint of God on the human heart (or mind). According to this view, all people carry within their hearts a knowledge of certain rules of right and wrong behavior.

This view has found expression not only in theological circles, but in legal thinking as well. The legal logic goes something like this: Because the law of the Creator is written on our hearts, every person is presumed to have knowledge of it, and no one can be excused from obedience to it.

  1. Read the following verses. See also, Jer. 31:33-34.

    For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them. Rom 2:14-15.

    "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them upon their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people." Heb 8:8b-10.

    1. To what extent does every person have a conscience, that is, a part of the law of God written on their heart?
    2. Is there any time when God would have written His creation laws on the hearts of the Gentiles without doing the same for the Jews? Is the promise of Heb. 8:8-12 for the Jews alone?
  2. Gen 4:8b-11 says, And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" And He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."

    Cain was punished for killing his brother Abel, even though no express rule prohibiting such action had yet been verbalized.

    1. Did God's unverbalized creation laws include a prohibition against murder? To what law was Cain held accountable for his actions?
    2. Did Cain know about the law to which he was held accountable? To what extent does God hold people accountable for breaking laws He has not revealed?
  3. Exodus 18:16 says, "When they have a dispute, it comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor, and make known the statutes of God and His laws."

    Moses claimed to have been able to make known the laws of God with enough specificity to resolve individual disputes before the Ten Commandments or the rest of Israel's laws were verbalized by God. Upon what legal rules could Moses have based his judgments? Are those same legal rules applicable to us today? Why or why not?


In addition to the revelation of law in the created order and the human conscience, early legal commentators generally recognized the Bible as the revelation of God's law in verbal form. Thus, it would have been professionally acceptable in former times to look to the Bible for the rules of right and wrong behavior by which we may know what conduct is lawful and unlawful.

Historically, the biblical revelation of law was variously referred to as the divine law, the revealed law, or the law of nature's God. However, the divine law and the law of nature are not identical. The law of nature has applied to everyone from the beginning of time, but the divine law was given at various times throughout history and in some cases applies to specific groups of people.

Further, the law of nature is evident to all people and can be known by a reasoned observation of the world, but the divine law is can be discovered exclusively from verbal revelation. Thus, as historically understood, divine law cannot be known simply by a reasoned observation of the creation or self-reflection, but is uniquely made known in the written word, specifically, the Bible.

  1. Refer again to Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18-32.
    1. Does the Bible support the view that all of God's law must come from the Bible to the exclusion of nature?
    2. To what extent are we expected to investigate nature as a means of learning God's ways and His laws? What is God's response to people who refuse to acknowledge what nature teaches?
  2. Matt 5:17-19 says, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

    To what extent, if any, is Christianity opposed to law? Did anything in the teachings of Jesus alter or abolish the law of nature (i.e., the laws of creation)?

  3. John 13:34 says, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another."

    Is this commandment a part of God's law? If so, is it a part of the law of nature, or the later revealed divine law?

  4. Numbers 35:29-31,33 says, "And these things shall be for a statutory ordinance to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it."
    1. Does the law of murder apply to all humanity or to just some part of it? Is the law of murder a part of the law of nature or is it based solely on the divine law?
    2. Is capital punishment prescribed in the law of nature or is it based solely on the divine law?
    3. Must the two prior questions be answered the same? How can you tell if a law of in the Bible is part of the law of nature or not?


* Copyright © 1995, 2006 Gerald R. Thompson.


What I am about to disclose should have far reaching international consequences for the Australian, New Zealand and Canadian Governments in particular. Not only are these governments illegitimate, but their entire Judicial Systems and Constitutions are totally unlawful, their governments fraudulent and their legislation invalid!

The information I'm about to disclose should also have consequences for the British government, which for 92 years has played a pea and shell political game that's about to be exposed as a huge fraud!

Many international treaties may well be NULL AND VOID! That’s right, under international law, the governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada don't have any legitimate authority to govern the inhabitants of those countries and their parliaments hold no lawful rights to represent Independent Sovereign Nations.

The questions for you are: What are their representatives doing in the Solomon Islands and what authority do they have to be here?

It seems fantasy is not confined to the pages of fairy tales. An essential component of all fiction is that the story is essentially false - a lie as it were - but depicted in such a way as to capture the imagination of the audience, sweeping them into a world of make believe as they observe, spellbound by the complexities of the storyline.

It’s about time your blindfolds were removed to allow you to see the truth and after reading this article, anyone that continues to allow this massive fraud and deception becomes a guilty party to it!

At this point, you will want me to prove these claims and ask if I have any proof. The answer is YES I DO and the proof is easily accessible to you all. The following information will relate predominantly to Australia, but what has to be remembered, is that New Zealand and Canada are also in the exact same position.


Estimates vary, but when World War I ended on the 11th of November, 1918, about 37 million were casualties: at least 16 million dead and 21 million wounded. The Allies had lost about 5.7 million soldiers and Germany, Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria about 4 million. Approximately 21 million from all sides were wounded. Almost 7 million citizens were dead.

Ninety-two years ago the world had experienced nothing like it. To this day they are still digging up WWI armaments in French fields!

During the latter stages of the Great War – The War to End All Wars – American President, Woodrow Wilson proposed the establishment of what became the League of Nations. Travelling to Paris in 1919 he shaped the Treaty of Versailles and effectively created the League – for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He collapsed in Colorado whilst touring America in 1919 as a result of his tireless efforts to change public opinion and have America join the League of Nations. He died in 1924. America never joined the League.

In a cynically brilliant but coldly calculated political manoeuvre the British government granted their former colonies freedom, independence and sovereignty, knowing full well that with cultural and economic ties as well as possessing the strongest navy, their former colonies would vote with Mother Britain – thereby enabling Britain to dominate the new League of Nations – which she did.


Almost a century ago in 1919 the recognised Australian population was less than 5.5 million living on a huge island at the arse-end of the globe and surrounded by Asia. With all their cultural, racial and strong family ties to Britain ('the home country') the government in this lonely European outpost, for practical reasons, decided to carry on as if nothing had happened. The New Zealand government did likewise.

Nobody noticed when on Wednesday the September 10, in that year, London born Australian Prime Minister, Billy Hughes stated in the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, “…By this recognition Australia became a nation, and entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. We had earned that, or, rather, our soldiers had earned it for us. In the achievement of victory they had played their part and no nation has a better right to be represented than Australia…”

When in 1921 Sir Joseph Cook, former Prime Minister to Australia took up the position of Australian High Commissioner in London, King George V welcomed “the representative of our ex-colony, the newly independent nation of Australia” - again no one noticed!


Now the problem was Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which states: “The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League...”

Sir Geoffrey Butler KBE, MA and Fellow, Librarian and Lecturer in International Law and Diplomacy of Corpus Christi College in Cambridge University stated, “It is arguable that this article is the Covenant's most significant single measure. By it the British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Canada, have their independent nationhood established for the first time...the Dominions will always look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of Independence.”

This became even worse in 1945 when Australia, New Zealand and Canada were all founding members of the United Nations (the body which superseded the original League of Nations). Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the United Nations Charter states, “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members,” and “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state...” A number of other UN Resolutions exist reiterating the importance of sovereignty and political independence.

Despite all this the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (UK) defines the Commonwealth of Australia as “a self-governing colony” (see Clause 8). Clause 2 of that British Act categorically states, “The provisions of the Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom,” a United Kingdom defined as “Great Britain and Ireland” (see: the Preamble). And by the way, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland hasn't existed since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 (ratified in 1922) and was formally relegated to history by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 (UK) so there is no sovereign who can legitimately make Australian vice-regal appointments – including Governors-General or Governors. There goes all Australian legislation from at least 1927!

As a free, independent and sovereign nation the parliaments of Australia can't pass laws unless and until a State Governor or Commonwealth Governor-General, themselves appointed by a distant, old and emotionally crippled Queen Elizabeth II, provides a vice-regal signature! Added to this the fact that the monarchs of Britain are constitutional monarchies, themselves appointed by the Westminster Parliament and the whole situation is a farce! It'd be like the American Congress and Senate having to obtain the signature of a President appointed by the Emperor of Japan but with the blessing of the National Diet (parliament) of Japan! This same situation exists in New Zealand and Canada! The rest of the world is catching on and using the information to their advantage!

The International Scene – Some Examples

Whilst the Japanese government is fully aware that the Australian government can't prove the Commonwealth of Australia is a nation it knows it has nothing to fear from that government's threat to take its anti-whaling case to the International Court of Justice. This year Australia's Antarctic waters will run blood-red again! The American government has scientists searching for natural resources on the Antarctic territories of Australia and New Zealand because those territories were given by the United Nations and neither country can prove it has the national standing (locus standi) to enforce its territorial rights!

Meanwhile, low calibre, spineless Australian politicians like Dr. Bob Brown, Parliamentary Leader of the Australian Greens would rather maintain the illusion of Australia's sovereignty, obtain his salary and protect his superannuation than do anything realistic to stop Japanese whaling in 'Australian' Antarctic waters. Likewise all of Australia's posturing, self-centred parliamentarians, before they can take their parliamentary seats, must take an oath or affirmation to a foreign monarch appointed by a foreign parliament half a world away in Westminster! This is mandatory and specified in 'their' constitution (see: section 42 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900).

But it gets worse – a whole lot worse. On the 11th of August, 2003 the 24th Governor-General to Australia, Major General Philip Michael Jeffery AC, CVO, MC was appointed to his position by a forged instrument. We know this because we were told by Baron Falconer, who at the time was British Lord Chancellor. Apparently an out of date Royal Seal was used and the public record clearly shows that Queen Elizabeth II wasn't anywhere near the place of signing as specified on the face of Jeffery's Appointment document! See: the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981 (UK).

Further to the subject of Governor Generals – as there have been no legitimate appointments in that regard, did Australian Governor-General Kerr have any authority to sack the Whitlam Government in February 1975? - He ‘allegedly’ received his first pay-off of $US200, 000.00 credited to his account number 767748 at the Singapore branch of the Nugan Hand Bank In December 1974, to do just that!

If the root is poisoned the fruit is poisoned! Perhaps this explains why the Chinese, Japanese and other governments have shown such interest in the documentation which appears at and why you should as well! The Chinese government was so impressed they copied the entire contents several times.


All Legislative Acts of the Australian, New Zealand or Canadian governments have absolutely no authority and are therefore imposed domestically by force upon the inhabitants of those lands and as a consequence of this revelation, those inhabitants are not bound by such laws. Imagine that! In the international sphere other governments are waking up. If you get into trouble in China and you're travelling under a New Zealand or Australian passport you'll know what Stern Hu or Matthew Ng have already experienced.

Just on that point, the Chinese know that none of their people who swear allegiance to Australia can actually be Australian citizens because to be a citizen you must be able to swear allegiance to a nation. The highest legislation in Australia is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 and it's a British Act – never really voted on by the majority of people living in Australia – and that constitution Act defines the Commonwealth of Australia as “a self-governing colony” (see clause 8)! This would be akin to Japan granting Solomon Island citizenship! How can British law grant any other citizenship than British citizenship?

In other words, for almost a century the governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada - aided and abetted by the polished reticence of the British parliament and a conniving establishment - have committed fraud and deception on a massive scale! The former colonies of Britain exist in a political No-Man's-Land.

The United Nations

The General Assembly of the United Nations – if that very expensive body is worthy of any respect whatsoever – should stop imposing sanctions on and belittling weak countries and for the first time rectify the gross, glaringly obvious human rights abuses of some of its most respected, 'democratic' Member States by:
  1. Establishing an International Tribunal to investigate, with a view to the confirmation of the allegations contained in this article and as a result have all Australian (New Zealand and Canadian) governments at all levels declared invalid under plain and long established international law.

  2. To establish within those countries International Criminal Tribunals to prosecute individuals who have aided and abetted the continuing breach of international law through the application of United Kingdom law within the territories of these sovereign and independent nation states.

  3. To implement such other procedures as are seen as necessary to uphold the Charter of the United Nations.

  4. To initiate and maintain procedures necessary to ensure the security of people residing (both individually and collectively) within the territories of those countries up to and until the successful implementation of constitutions agreed upon by way of plebiscites conducted amongst ALL mature peoples of those countries.

  5. And to declare the representatives of Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the United Nations General Assembly to be persona non grata until such time as representatives are nominated by the governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada which validly represent the sovereignty of their peoples.

The Solomon Islands

All passports issued to Australians and used in the Solomon Islands and throughout the world are a fraud – so in effect these passports are just pieces of printed paper until a legitimate Government is in place within Australia - Ditto New Zealand and Canada.

The interference of the Australian Government in the fall of the Sogavare Government and the deportation of former Attorney General Julian Moti can now be seen for what these always were - criminal acts carried out on behalf of thugs with absolutely no authority whatsoever!

Australian and New Zealand Police and Military personnel of RAMSI have no lawful right of impersonation and are all guilty of committing criminal offences. None of them should be here! What is their authority above brute force? After the public disclosure of this information, none can claim to be ignorant – after all, does it not go something like “ignorance of the law is no excuse”?

Yet here they all are, assuming to be able to tell the Solomon Islands and other Pacific Island Nations how to run their affairs, and have continued to implement their fraudulent, null and void 'laws' and to make those 'laws' part of the governing system in other countries – talk about in your face!

All judges purporting to hold authority conferred by the Independent Sovereign Nations of Australia or New Zealand are in effect committing fraud and the crime of impersonation. This should come as no surprise as their careers, income and superannuation depend upon maintaining the system – no matter how corrupt it is! Any person prosecuted by and/or convicted of a crime by any of those so-called prosecutors or judges have been victims of criminal acts perpetrated against them. Compensation is surely due.


The Australian, New Zealand and Canadian Governments are illegitimate and the inhabitants of those lands have the right to ignore, disregard and lawfully rebel against ALL 'laws' passed by those parliaments to ensure that criminal acts do not continue to be perpetrated against them, by those that have absolutely no authority. In this they will need help because just like the mafia, these governments have guns. Now do you see why there is such a push to disarm the population?

Could this be why the New Zealand Parliament are at this very time meeting behind closed doors to discuss just how they will try and legitimise themselves by creating their own constitution? I am sure by now they will realise the game is up.

This could also be why no rights and freedoms of the people are enshrined in any of the constitutions of Australia or New Zealand – being colonial constitutions the people these Acts applied to were covered by British human rights legislation - But not anymore! That is because they simply do not give a toss about protecting anyone that they have no authority to protect, yet they believe they have the authority to persecute, oppress, tax and continue to hold their serfs in bondage.

As an aside, New Zealand is in the unique position of having two political hot footballs called the Declaration of Independence 1835 and Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1940 (both recognised under international law) – you see in New Zealand (or the land commonly referred) the true Sovereign Nation is in fact the Maori Nation if you want to take it from a “legal” standpoint.

Another political minefield for the fraudulent New Zealand Government, is that it seems the only legitimate Defence or Security Force that exists in New Zealand (and given authority and recognition by the Maori Government of Aotearoa - who incidentally was given Authority in Waitangi by Te Whakaminenga O Aotearoa according to lore), is in fact, the New Zealand Armed Intervention Force and remains true to this very day! I bet that will upset them!

So what will the Solomon Islands and the world do now? Continue to allow this fraud to take place, or for the good of all people, do something about it?

Article 10 The Covenant of the League of Nations:

Charter of the United Nations:

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (UK)

The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 (UK)

The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981 (UK)

Stern Hu and Matthew Ng

Google either of their names or check

By Kelvyn Alp

Tuesday, December 21, 2010


Tempe and Redflex aren’t talking because, well, their talking points are now gone. Any justification either one had left for the ring of scameras found within that city can no longer be used.

Photo radar is now costing everyone in Tempe money for legal fees, regardless of whether they’ve been ticketed.

This is clearly about money, always has been and now the local media is having a different conversation than they were two years ago. The biggest change is the PR campaign by city officials and camera company lobbyists has transformed into a silence routine. They know they’re finished and are just attempting to “bury the lead.”

Unfortunately for them, they don’t have that option anymore. 3TV tried to get both sides to comment on their impending lawsuit and both declined.

It’s a good thing we all know what the score is!




Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Dees Illustration
Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Washington D.C., known more these days as the “district of criminals” commits so many crimes each day as a collective body that a moratorium on government should be declared until we can clean this nest of globalists, these kissers of corporate butts who seem more determined to protect their own private interests than protecting our country from obliteration by global cabals.

As congress moves forward with plans to end our sovereignty, as they collude with foreign interests to take our jobs, to destroy our culture and to subject us to international laws and agreements harmful to us as a nation, we need to remember who we are. We are not globalists; we are Americans. We are not “citizens” of some new world… We are not a collection of mindlessly identified numbers and codes, biometric identifiers, or mindless sheep that don’t understand what is being done to our nation.

We are the greatest society to have ever existed. WE ARE AMERICANS.

The greatest threat America faces on a day to day basis are those who masquerade as protectors and defenders of the American people. D.C. has long since ceased to be of any value to the public although corporations and the obscenely rich find a home away from home in this ten square mile district.

We are also standing on the edge of a precipice and if we don’t stand up and collectively demand a return to, and an affirmation of, who we are and what has bound us together for more than 200 years, we will be driven over the edge into an unimaginable abyss.

As congress continues its daily deluge of anti-American legislation, its un-American activities, bear in mind that just because congress said it, doesn’t make it so. Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected officials tell you that “it’s the law, you have to." If that law is arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void. Keep this in mind when the courts rule in favor of corporate interests knowingly violating the rights and protections afforded the people as described in the Constitution. Almost without exception, every law that has been passed by one administration and congress after another in the last twenty years has substantially violated and reduced the rights of Americans.

One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security] or other created crisis are justified or legal.

You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from encroachment by the government.

Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left. Her website is The PPJ Gazette

Sunday, December 19, 2010


By Brendan Carlin 19th December 2010

The Queen: There is anger at the Palace over the sell-off plans

The Queen: There is anger at the Palace over the sell-off plans

The Queen’s head could disappear from British stamps as part of controversial plans to sell off the Royal Mail, it was revealed last night.

Ministers are locked in frantic talks with Buckingham Palace to discuss how the monarch will be represented – if at all – on future stamps after the Government confessed it had failed to guarantee that the Queen’s image would survive.

Postal Affairs Minister Ed Davey admitted that current sell-off rules left future private owners, potentially including German mail operator Deutsche Post, completely free to stop using a representation of the monarch’s head which has appeared on every British postage stamp since Sir Rowland Hill invented them in 1840.

Liberal Democrat MP Mr Davey insisted he was ‘aware of the issue’ and revealed that negotiations with Buckingham Palace to close the loophole were under way.

But Royal insiders said that ‘anger’ at the Palace at the proposed sale had been heightened by the fear that it could be rushed through in advance of the 2012 Diamond Jubilee, when a range of special stamps is expected to be produced.

One said: ‘The Palace don’t like this privatisation at all but they are particularly keen to delay it until after the Jubilee if they possibly can. That could explain the delay.’

And Labour raised suspicions that the Coalition had deliberately kept restrictions on a future buyer as light as it could because it was ‘desperate’ to encourage foreign buyers to pay as much cash as possible for the mail service.

The Postal Services Bill to allow the sell-off, designed to raise up to £8 billion for the cash-strapped Government, is going through Parliament at the moment. It was debated in detail by MPs only last week.

First class Postage stamp

Symbol: The Queen currently appears on stamps in silhouette and profile

But extraordinarily, Ministers have failed to include a provision ensuring that the Queen’s head retains its historic position on British stamps – either in a full profile of the monarch or a small silhouette in the top corner of themed stamps such as the current Wallace and Gromit Christmas issues.

Britain is the only country in the world allowed to use the head of state’s symbol on its stamps, with every other nation required to use an abbreviation of the country’s name.

The glaring omission came to light after a senior Government source told The Mail on Sunday that ‘technically, future private owners would be able to chop the Queen’s head off stamps’.

He explained that because there was currently no legal requirement on the publicly run Royal Mail to use the symbol, officials had forgotten to include the provision in the privatisation legislation.

'This just shows how desperate they are to sell Royal Mail off as soon as possible'

‘It’s only a convention that we always use the Queen’s picture but if we’re flogging off a majority stake in the mail service to private operators, that’s the sort of provision we should be putting in the rules,’ he said.

‘It may be unlikely that a private firm would want to do it but it’s hardly the sort of thing to take a chance with.’

To add to the Coalition’s huge embarrassment, the favourite to buy Royal Mail is Deutsche Post – raising the spectre that a German company could preside over the removal of the world-famous British symbol.

Another bidder is expected to be the Dutch mail giant TNT.

Mr Davey last night confirmed that the draft legislation already contained provisions requiring a future private operator to get Royal approval before issuing new postage stamps bearing Her Majesty’s image – but no clause obliging them to use it in the first place.

He indicated that because everyone thought abandoning the Royal symbol would be ‘total commercial suicide’, no one had thought to veto it in the sell-off Bill.

‘It has always been the case, and always been the assumption, that no one would wish to issue a stamp without Her Majesty’s image on,’ Mr Davey said.

The Minister said that he himself had spotted the loophole in the summer and had warned the Queen’s officials of the problem.

Ed Davey

Head to head: Postal Affairs Minister Ed Davey said Government is working hard to close the sell-off loophole, but Labour's John Denham accused Government of deliberately making the privatisation rules lax to attract more buyers

But Labour, which opposes the sell-off despite attempting a part-privatisation of Royal Mail in the last Government, voiced suspicions that the sell-off rules were deliberately lax.

Shadow Business Secretary John Denham said: ‘They are not leaving glaring loopholes like this for no reason.

‘They think the fewer strings they attach, the more money they will get from a foreign buyer.

‘The fact that they have not bothered to protect the monarch’s head on our stamps just shows how desperate they are to sell Royal Mail off as quickly as possible and for as much cash as possible.’

Labour MP Nia Griffith, who has scrutinised the sell-off Bill in detail, last night said she had been ‘astounded’ to discover that the provisions did not guarantee the Queen’s symbol would appear on British stamps and called on the Coalition to close the loophole as soon as possible.

Government officials played down speculation that Royal Mail would inevitably be snapped up by a foreign bidder. They said it could also be sold by issuing shares for public sale in a repeat of the famous ‘Tell Sid’ privatisation of British Gas in the Eighties.

Last night, Buckingham Palace declined to discuss the details of the negotiations with the Government, but a spokesman said they had ‘no outstanding issues on the Bill from our side’.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010



By Daily Mail Reporter 14th December 2010

  • Beatrice Bolton yells 'I'll never set foot in a court again'
  • She is told off for chewing gum during trial

A judge unleashed a foul-mouthed attack on the British justice system
yesterday as she was found guilty of owning a dangerous dog and fined £2,500.

Beatrice Bolton, 57, stormed out of the court as the verdict was delivered screaming: ‘I’m going. It’s a ****ing travesty.’

Outside, the £140,000-a-year judge could be heard shouting and wailing.

Judge Beatrice Woodcock-Bolton with defence barrister Ben Nolan QC leaving Carlisle Magistrates Court. She stands accused of causing her dog to attack Frederick Becker.
Frederick Becker leaving Carlisle Magistrates Court. Judge Beatrice Woodcock- stands accused of causing her dog to attack him.

Bolton outside Carlisle Magistrate's Court. She was convicted of failing to control her German Shepherd, called Georgina, who charged at Frederick Becker, 20 (right), and bit into his leg while he sunbathed in his parents' garden

Later as the court adjourned for lunch Judge Bolton – who had gone back into the building – emerged from a side room but was clearly still fuming.

She yelled: ‘Do you want a statement? I’ll give you a statement. I have no faith in the justice system whatsoever.

‘I will never sit in a court of law again. How can he (the magistrate) say that? How can he bloody say that?’

The judge, who sits at Newcastle Crown Court, was then ushered back into the side room by her solicitor and family in a desperate attempt to calm her.

She later returned to court and was ordered to apologise for swearing. She muttered: ‘I apologise.’

Judge Bolton was brought before Carlisle magistrates’ court after her German Shepherd, Georgie, attacked a neighbour’s sunbathing son on May 31.

The three-year-old dog charged at Frederick Becker, 20, as he lay on the lawn in the garden shared by his family and Judge Bolton. It bit him on the leg, piercing his trousers and leaving a slight wound.

Mr Becker, a politics student, told the court he leapt to his feet when he saw the dog. If he had not, it could have bitten him on the face, he said.

The court heard that Judge Bolton and Mr Becker’s parents, stepfather John Malia and mother Anne, were friends for many years but their relationship deteriorated and there were ‘numerous’ police visits because of incidents involving the dog.

The Malias said they were ‘scared’ of the dog and had repeatedly asked the judge to keep it off their part of the garden, which is overlooked by their adjoining homes in Rothbury, Northumberland.

They described Judge Bolton as ‘the neighbour from hell’

Neighbour from Hell: Judge Beatrice Bolton, 57, stormed out of court after being convicted
Judge Beatrice Woodcock-Bolton's dog, 'Georgina Elizabeth Woodcock-Bolton'

Neighbour from Hell: Judge Beatrice Bolton, 57, stormed out of court after being convicted. She was also ordered to pay £275 to her dog’s victim, £930 prosecution costs and a £15 victim surcharge

Judge Bolton was originally charged with failing to keep her dog under control but this was reduced to allowing her dog to enter a private place where there were grounds for ‘reasonable apprehension’ that it would injure someone.

She was ordered to pay a £2,500 fine. The maximum penalty was six months in prison and a £5,000 fine.

She was also ordered to pay £275 to her dog’s victim, £930 prosecution costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

The magistrates made no order in relation to the dog.

In a further court outburst Judge Bolton, who at one stage was told to remove chewing gum by the court clerk, told her barrister that she could not pay.

‘I haven’t got money, any money at all,’ she said. ‘I’m in debt. My outgoings are exceeding my incomings.’

Magistrates agreed to allow her to pay half within the next six months and the rest six months later.

After the hearing Judge Bolton, who is expected to appeal, said: ‘I have been under considerable stress and anxiety. I have suffered panic attacks for several months and anything I did say I’m afraid was as a result of the specific position emotionally that I now find myself in.’

Last night a spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office said the judge’s behaviour in and outside court would be referred to the Office for Judicial Complaints.

He added: ‘It will be for the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor to
consider the impact of this conviction on her position as a judge.’


A Melbourne fella is facing dreadful harrassment from the police and their barristers. The police labelled him as a vexatious litigant on their database without advising him or giving him a chance to agree or disagree.
He has taken the police to court and has subpoenaed many officers in an attempt to clear his name. As he records all of his conversations with the police, he is in a position to successfully illustrate the disparities between the police evidence tendered in official statements and those that actually occurred.
As a result there has been an application sought by the police trying to prevent witnesses from appearing to give evidence in this trial early next year.
This application is tomorrow and if it is successful, this fella will not be able to produce crucial witnesses that he needs to clear his name.
I am issuing a call to all interested people to come along tomorrow afternoon and be a witness in the public gallery in support of this fella. Many of you know him from common-law meetings in this city, court hearings and the like.
It is harder for democracy to be willingly perverted by officials when there is a more members of our community present and as it stands, I shall be the only member of the community going along to offer support.
You can help by attending and/or spreading this call to others who can attend themselves. That action in itself will be a great help.
If you can attend we shall be meeting at the cafe next to VCAT @ 1.30pm for a hearing that is set down for 2.15pm.

VCAT is at 55 King St Melbourne 3000.

Thank you for your time and I hope to see you there tomorrow 16th December 2010.

Sunday, December 12, 2010


by Michael Byers Editor-In-Chief: the Mikiverse
I found this today whilst working and have a feeling that some of you will be most interested in this little symbol.

What do you all think about the title of Queen of Australia?


Wayne Flower From: Herald Sun & Michael Byers Editor-In-Chief: the Mikiverse.
December 13, 2010

A STATEWIDE blitz on reckless drivers has nabbed 1480 drink-drivers over a 17-day period.

Operation RAID saw police carry out 396,408 preliminary breath tests between November 26 and December 12, catching one drunk -more disingenuous figures from the Herald Sun. How many of these "drunk" people had violated o.o limits by having 1 or 2 drinks, and, were they drunk? And if 3 or 4 standard drinks takes you over .o5, then are these people drunk? Of course they are not. This is the Herald Sun employing emaotional hooks to lure you into the story- in every 267 tested.

The final figures confirm that a mere 0.37% of road users were drinking and a whopping 394,928 innocent people had their time wasted by revenue raising corporate policy police officers. This is a mammoth 99.63% of people. Yet, the Herald Sun AGAIN CHOOSES TO IGNORE this fact and instead tells us that one person in every 267 tested were caught.

Among the last drivers to be caught was a 42-year-old suspended driver who recorded a blood-alcohol level of 0.141 after trying to avoid a Kew booze bus last Saturday night. Isn't it interesting that the Herald Sun chooses a case that lends weight to their propaganda? Why do they choose an example from the shallow pool of a mere 0.37% and try to present it as the majority pool?

Road Policing Superintendent Neville Taylor said police were appalled by the number of drink-drivers caught. Do you think he said this with a straight face? Maybe he was apalled that they raised so LITTLE revenue?

"We couldn't have been any more public about this operation. At every opportunity over the past two weeks we have warned the public that we were holding this major crackdown on drink and drug-driving,'' he said.

"We have nearly 1500 people who have failed to hear this message - 88 drink drivers every day throughout this operation were taken off our roads.'' See how both the police and the Herald Sun are trying to use every type of trick to make out that there is a reason for them to continue to waste your time in their lustful pursuit of more money?

Among the worst areas for drink-drivers were Yarra (84), Port Phillip (68) and Dandenong (55).

As well as drink-drivers, the operation stung 53 drug drivers, 524 disqualified drivers, 921 unlicensed drivers, 5783 speeding drivers and 2154 drivers illegally using mobile phones. I wonder how many of those 921 people were exercising their lawful common law right to private travel?

Overall, 22,548 road offences were detected across the State. They have to raise revenue from somewhere given that they could only pursue less than 0.4% of nearly FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE FOR DRINK DRIVING CONTRACT BREACHES.

Supt Taylor said police were disappointed motorists had failed to get the message. Did anybody ask him about the 99.67% of people who had done nothing wrong, but, still were caught up in traffic log jams as police reduced 4 lane roads into 1 lane revenue collection points? How about the scores of passengers that needlessly had their time wasted? All I think we can safely estimate that over HALF A MILLION people had their time wasted, not to mention their presumption of innocence shattered, all so the police could nab 1400 people for drink driving.

"It's incredibly disappointing, but it shows we have our intelligence right through targeting the right areas at the right time,'' he said.




"By removing 1500 drink-drivers I have no doubt that our police have saved lives.''

I'm sure he his reading off a script. Easy when the corporate press doesn't question you or your actions in any way shape or form. This is why we need independent sources of news such as the Mikiverse.

Police have warned even more police will be out on the road in the lead-up to Christmas.

This is presented as if to imply that the police are undertaking this action as a response to the finished "operation". While the figures thoroughly debunk this fanciful notion, the fact is that the police always target the Christmas period as an income earning opportunity, not too mention the fact that they have already announced their desire to breath-test ONE MILLION people before the end of the year. With that logic, police will be trying to breath test just over 600,000 people in the next 18 days in a vain effort to raise revenue over the 0.3-1.5% that they always get during these revenue raising exercises.

"I have a strong message today, this is just the beginning of our Christmas period campaign,'' Supt Taylor said.

"We are out there, on all roads, at all times of day and night just don’t risk it.''


By Michael Byers, Editor-In-Chief; the Mikiverse.


For two weeks, Victoria Police Corporate Policy Officers caused traffic jams throughout Melbourne as they pursued the almighty dollar.

All under the guise of preventing drink-driving.

Well, the figures speak for themselves. 0.35% drink drivers caught in a two week money-blitz.

This figure has repeated itself time after time since the Mikiverse has started recording the figures.

Enough is Enough.

It is time that the State Government, the Roads Corporation -you know them as VIC ROADS- and Victoria Police come clean and admit the truth that these operations have nothing to do with curbing drink driving and everything to do with RAISING REVENUE.

This wanton desire for profit has led to the Police aiming to inconenience at least ONE MILLION PEOPLE before the end of the year with breath tests and countless knows how many more will be massively inconvenienced by the resultant traffic jams that waste everybodies precious time.

Present indications show that out of this disruption, there will be 3,500 people that will be caught drink driving.

Which leaves 996,500 innocent people.

Now ask yourself why doesn't the Herald Sun illustrate these figures for you?

Are they incapable?

Surely if I can work this out, then at least one person at the Herald Sun can too.


Peter Rolfe From: Sunday Herald Sun & Michael Byers Editor-In-Chief the Mikiverse. December 12, 2010

Bad start to Christmas: a row of cars parked by the West Gate Freeway after last week's booze bus blitz. Source: HWT Image Library Here we have documented evidence of the failure of the booze bus blitz. How many innocent people were inconvenienced this time, so the revenue raisers could presume 8 cars guilty of a contract infringement?

DRINK-drivers caught in booze bus operations have offered every excuse under the sun for their actions.Here is a nice emotionally laden start to this piece, designed as a hook to lure in unsuspecting readers. The phrase 'every excuse under the sun' is patently false to anyone who thinks about it logically, but it is a deliberate attempt to get you to agree with a particular point of view, which is a corporate point of view that is obligated to gain -or at least raise the appearance of- YOUR consent in order to operate.

Victoria Police opened the excuse book -who has an excuse book? Obviously, there is no physical item, but, it is a type of mental inventory or memory, used by people in authority to deal with those that they have authority over. Examples would include teachers hearing an excuse from their student, or a parent receiving an excuse from their children as to why they did, or did not fulfill a particular task. These people protect, nurture and punish as appropriate to aid our development. Therefore, the implication here is that Victoria Police are in a similar position to those who have some type of of authority over us and this is a position that the Police apparently believe themselves because they vocalise this belief continually in the corporate media- to give the Sunday Herald Sun -this foreign-owned corporate tabloid is positioning itself above us and alongside Victoria Police (who is a registered corporation itself) and therefore superior to you, the reader of this article- a insight into the minds of people caught driving under the influence. This second sentence reinforces the position undertaken in the first sentence which is to gain your agreement to the sentiments being expressed in this piece.

Weird, wacky and outrageous explanations have been offered by drivers young and old trying in vain to avoid the long arm of the law. The first sentence referenced the phrases "drink drivers caught" & "every excuse under the sun". The second features the phrase "Victoria Police opened the excuse book. Now, in the third sentence, we are given another emotionally laden sentence designed to hook us into an opinion. This time old & young drivers -i.e ALL drivers, because what driver is not young or old?- are both offering "weird, wacky and outrageous explanations" as well as "trying in vain to avoid the long arm of the law". Basically, this sentence is defining the driver as an intellectual inferior who can not even think up a decent excuse for their actions and have no ability to escape the clutches of the police who have somehow become "the law". Of course, the Herald Sun has received the 'excuse book' from the law, therefore, it is in a position of trust with the law.

A man pulled over in a car containing three mates told police: "I reckon I was the least pissed out of all of us, so I drove." After being prepared by the first three sentences, the excuses themselves were always going to fit the mould of the overall opinion of this piece, so we would be dissapointed if were expecting anything other than the ridiculous and the humourous.

A man pulled over with his wife by his side said: "My licence expires at midnight so I had to get the car home."

A teenager who exceeded 0.05 offered the unconvincing excuse: "I've only had one beer."

When a man was pulled into a booze bus operation on West Gate Freeway's Todd Rd on-ramp and was asked to produce his licence, he told officers: "No, they took it off me." Asked what he meant, the man said police on the freeway's Todd Rd off-ramp had confiscated his licence 90 minutes earlier. Four excuses hardly qualifies as "every excuse under the sun" now, does it? This last example acts as a bridge to the next portion of the piece which has nothing to do with the title of the piece, that being the disclosure of excuses offered by drink drivers.

As part of Operation RAID, a statewide -actually, this is a Herald Sun error. This was a national- booze blitz -Now we are into the heart of the matter. You have been prepared by having your emotions stoked and now you are being presented with the point of this piece which is to justify the intrusions that these revenue raising exercises create on the innocent person who have had their time wasted by being needlessly caught up in these corporate efforts to raise profit. Not only that, you are having your own ignorance being rubbed in your face by another corporate entity that is profiting off you. Please take note of the description of Operation RAID as being a booze blitz- between November 26 and December 9, police caught 1100 drivers over 0.05 at a strike rate of one in every 287 motorists. -Do you think that these figures are presented this way accidentally? 1 in 287 motorists is the best way to dress up the UTTER FAILURE OF THE CORPORATE POLICE/MEDIA/GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO JUSTIFY THEIR REVENUE RAISING EXERCISES AS A SAFETY FIRST OPERATION. In two weeks, Victoria Police inconvenienced -by my figures- 314,600 innocent drivers and their passengers to catch 1100 people. This means that 0.34843205574912894%!!!! YES. THAT IS LESS THAN 0.35% OF PEOPLE TESTED WERE DRINK DRIVING. It gets better. A STAGGERING 99.65156794425087% OF INNOCENT PEOPLE HAD THEIR TIME WASTED AND WERE FALSELY PRESUMED GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE UNTIL THEY PROVED THEIR INNOCENCE BY PASSING A TEST THAT ILLUSTRATED THEIR INNOCENCE- They detected 41 drivers under the influence of drugs in the same period at a strike rate of one in 38. What was the propagandistic description of Operation Raid? That's right. It was described as a"statewide booze blitz". Yet the proof of it as a revenue raiser is clearly illustrated by the figures that show that the Victoria Police Corporation issued a whopping 5013 infringement notices/revenue raising opportunities that had NOTHING TO DO WITH DRINK DRIVING. The real reason that the profit-driven-Police-corporation are targeting other revenue raising opportunities is because time after time over 98.5% of people are not liable for the revenue that the Victoria Police corporate officers are trying to raise.

They also caught 441 disqualified drivers, 718 unlicensed drivers, 1814 drivers using a mobile phone, 1013 disobeying traffic signs and signals and 986 failing to wear seat belts.

The information is hidden in plain sight, and like Pavlov's dog, you are being continually conditioned to accept the reality of your existence. And, they are laughing at you because they think that you are too dumb to work out the truth.

Saturday, December 11, 2010


Take our wost [sic] drivers' wheels away to save our lives


Repeat driving offenders' Cars would be confiscated under the radical road safety plan. Source: HWT Image Library

VICTORIA'S worst drivers would have their cars confiscated for life under a radical overhaul of state safety(?) 'laws'.

The changes are being driven by road crash victims and the state's peak motoring body.

Repeat drink drivers, hoons, 'unlicensed' motorists and people behind the wheel of unroadworthy cars would have their cars permanently confiscated under the 'bold' plan to tackle the state's road toll.

The RACV has drawn up a nine-point action plan to stop Victoria's road carnage, including a hard-line approach to impounding and confiscating the cars of "abhorrent" drivers.

In an Australian first, motorists convicted for serious alcohol, drug, speed and dangerous driving offences would have their vehicles confiscated permanently under the safer roads blueprint.

Money raised through sale of the vehicles would be used to fund TAC education programs for young drivers.

The proposal comes as tougher 'laws' against drug drivers come into action today. They will face automatic licence suspension for three months and be fined more than $350.

The State Government agreed last night to consider the strategy if approached by the RACV as part of new anti-hoon legislation expected in state Parliament next year.

Under the RACV plan, 'hoons' caught for the first time would have their cars impounded for two weeks instead of 48 hours.

Second-time offenders would lose their vehicles for up to three months and third- time offenders would have their cars confiscated for life.

Unlicensed drivers and motorists driving unregistered cars would face impoundment and vehicle confiscations for the first time.

RACV public policy manager Brian Negus said a tough message had to be sent to motorists that dangerous driving was not acceptable.

"If they know there is a zero-tolerance approach to bad driving rather than just a slap on the wrist it will help change their behaviour," he said.

Working Against Culpable Driving founder Penny Martin, whose teenage son Josh was killed in a car crash in 2001, welcomed the RACV initiatives and urged the Government to get tougher on culpable drivers.

"They shouldn't be given a second or third chance - the Government needs to get tough from the first offence," she said.

Transport minister Terry Mulder said the Government welcomed the community's ideas on how to improve road safety, but said the RACV should focus on reducing "hip-pocket pain for motorists by reducing fuel prices".

"I note the RACV has not outlined how any of its proposals would be paid for," he said. After a horror run of fatalities, Victoria's road toll for 2010 may not be as bad as first expected.

A lower-than-anticipated number of fatalities on the state's roads last month has police hopeful they can keep the death tally below 300 - a mark considered almost impossible a month ago.

There were 12 people killed on our roads last month compared with 21 in the same period last year. Road Policing Superintendent Neville Taylor said police were cautiously optimistic about a turnaround in 'poor driver behaviour'.

"It's still doom and gloom because in the best-case scenario the toll will come in at just under 300 people," he said.

"We were looking pretty grim when we got to October because we had the highest months of fatalities for the year - 37.

"But in November we've had the lowest total of fatalities for the year so we're doing everything we can to keep it as low as possible."

Police caught 13 drink drivers in a booze bus operation in St Kilda on Friday night, including a 37-year-old Kew man who recorded a blood alcohol reading of 0.11.

More than 315,000 drivers have been drink and drug tested by Victorian police since November 26 under a push to test a million motorists by the end of the year.

Supt Taylor said he was "astounded" Victorians still got behind the wheel after drinking, with every booze bus and breath-testing unit in the state wheeled out for the festive season.

After two years of record lows in Victorian road deaths, which saw 290 people killed last year and 303 in 2008, 280 have been killed so far this year compared with 264 at the same time last year.

In October Victoria's top traffic cop, Ken Lay, predicted the annual toll would be as high as 315.