Australian Tax Office is unlawful

A look into Corporate fraud in Australia, Stranglehold of Monopolies, Telecommunications Oppression, Biased Law System, Corporate influence in politics, Industrial Relations disadvantaging workers, Outsourcing Australian Jobs, Offshore Banking, Petrochemical company domination, Invisibly Visible. It’s not what you see, it’s what goes on behind the scenes.

(Excerpt from PDF below:  “The only mechanisms allowed to the Australian people to pass judgment on the Constitution were the referendums of 1898. The historical record is instructive. Across the four colonies taking part, 218,000 votes were cast for the draft Constitution and 110,000 votes were recorded against the proposition. However, the voting laws only gave the vote to persons with land in excess of 121 acres or with an income in excess of certain limits.

Multiple votes were allowed on the basis of larger land holdings or income with some persons having up to six votes. The census of 1901 showed Australia’s population to be 3.773 million. The result is that 4 per cent of Australia’s population voted for the Constitution, 2 per cent voted against it and 94 per cent were not allowed to vote at all. The contention that the Constitution represents the will of the Australian people is demonstrably false.” )


Monday, May 19, 2014

Australian Tax Office is unlawful – Wolter Joosse case

There are many court cases that are of great significance where the information contained within is beneficial to the general populous especially where a matter sets precedence.

Judges, magistrates are fully aware of their actions at every level of the Australian courts, so much so that some comments in the case are not documented, or struck out of the public record, under a so called excuse ‘for the greater benefit’ meaning not to the detriment of the ‘system’ not general populous, which are two entirely different things.

There is also another important point to take into consideration is that a case file that appears in an official ‘government’ website repository, may not necessarily be the exact same document as the original transcript or case. In order to confirm this, the researcher would have to site the original documentation, a time consuming exercise, and depending on the case sometimes very difficult to obtain the original works.

There are a fair few important matters in case law that one should be familiar with when ‘law’ is ones subject of preference.

The High Court of Australia deals with matters that ‘interpret’ the ‘Constitution’ in respect to the matter before the court.  An example of a few cases that are referred to as ‘landmark’ cases could be; The Engineer’s Case [1920] HCA 54, Mabo v Queensland [1992] HCA 23, Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30, Wakim [1999] 27, with plenty more as examples.

One important case with respect to the Australian Tax Office, existing as a ‘lawful’ (not to be confused with legal) entity, is the Wolter Joosse case in the HCA.

Keeping matters of this significance out of the public eye, striking out certain comments or even restricting access to the file is a good way of keeping the ‘sheeple’ in the dark.

At a particular point in time the Wolter Joosse case against ASIC was available at the url given (in the illustration below), where this is no longer the case.

See attached screen capture:

Joosse HCA Transcript NA

Even though the transcript of the document is no longer available at the above shown link, the 27 page transcript in pdf format is available for download Here: Unlawful ATO court transcripts

Another matter worth having when dealing with ‘authorities’ with regards to taxation.