Adriana Salteri – CCV – TENIX – OLBIA

See also:
Who Owns CCV?

For all to know and reply upon

Response from Proponent for letter received from Respondent’s automated corporate government, big business, computer generated extortion system:


To: Robert Salteri, Paul Salteri, Mary Shaw Salteri and Adriana Bianca Salteri (“you”)

Tenix Solutions

Olbia Pty LTD

Licensees of Trademark: CCV Civic Compliance Victoria

Address: Somewhere in paradise that the rest of the ignorant public are paying for .

(Actual Contact details to be confirmed)

Dear Robert, Paul, Mary and Adriana (Salteri),


Thank you for your form letter automatically generated by and downloaded from your intranet,  and printed and/or posted by some nameless, faceless person in an office somewhere. It is easy to know that it is just a computer-generated letter off your intranet because it contains so many basic factual errors. (NB: Mistakes made whilst Acting In Commerce)


  • As we all know, CCV etc is simply a registered trademark, no more, no less, that you and your family have been ‘given’ the rights to use to extort money from the unsuspecting motorist, under threat of severe financial, punitive and/or other various intimidation strategies if your demands for money are not met quickly and meekly.
  • ASIC and Justice Dept website pages and legal references document the above facts re CCV as nothing more than a trademark, beyond any possible denial from any quarter
  • No ‘trademark’, corporation or ‘family’ (Salteri) is above the legal and lawful Constitution of Australia. – Please refer to attached correspondence to Brendan Facey – If you do not understand please refer to your company’s legal department for understanding.
  • This is a formal request that, as the registered licensees of the trademark CCV and all variations, you are ultimately responsible for the demands that are being sent using Australia Post to make demands for payment for alleged ‘fines’ and ‘infringements’.  As such it assumed from your fervent activities in this regard, that you are indeed Acting In Commerce. As such, please provide Professional Indemnity Insurance details for all of “you” as per attached background document.
  • The fact that your automated computer process has sent this letter means that my personal information may have been shared by your company/ies with other businesses and vice verse  (ABN 32 790 228 959) without my permission. Certainly the form letter off your intranet confirms same and seems to indicate there has been a serious breech of The Privacy Act 1985 by the ‘trademark’ that is licensed to you.
Please refer to the following attached document outlining specific instructions and formal requests for information that you are legally and lawfully obliged to provide, as per ASIC, ACCC and other corporate and consumer laws and regulations.
See listings:

This is a great breakdown what Civic Compliance Victoria actually is and who it’s shareholders are-FT

Civic Compliance Victoria is the “body” that processes infringement notices, infringement warrants and fines within the State of Victoria. This article provides a description of exactly what Civic Compliance Victoria is (and is not), and the people behind CCV.

Civic Compliance Victoria

The State Government of Victoria website for fines states, “Civic Compliance Victoria (CCV) is an administrative body that is responsible for processing fines issued by various government agencies and authorities within Victoria“, and that, “all enforcement orders and infringement warrants issued by the Infringements Court are processed by Civic Compliance Victoria irrespective of the agency by which they were originally issued.” [1]

The fore mentioned website appears to be (grossly) misleading. In communications with the Department of Justice – State of Victoria it was communicated that:

Civic Compliance Victoria (CCV) is the name created by the State to provide one name for the integrated fines and enforcement system comprising the Traffic Camera Office of Victoria Police,the Infringements Court and the Sheriff’s Office. CCV has no ABN number and is not registered as a business as it is neither a business nor a company, nor a trading name. The name CCV is the intellectual property of the State of Victoria. [2]

This statement is confirmed by the IP Australia website [3]. The following trade marks are registered:

Registered Trade Marks for CCV
Number Trade Mark Name Registrant
933736 CCV The Crown in the Right of the State of Victoria
933737 CIVIC COMPLIANCE VICTORIA The Crown in the Right of the State of Victoria
1010971 CCV (logo) The Crown in the Right of the State of Victoria

Hence, Civic Compliance Victoria appears to be nothing more than a trade markregistered by The Crown in the Right of the State of Victoria.

The State of Victoria and Tenix

In communications with the Department of Justice – State of Victoria it was communicated that:

The State’s contractor, Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd, is licensed to use the names ‘CCV’ and ‘Civic Compliance Victoria’ in providing infringement management and enforcement services for the State.” [2]

In subsequent communications with the Department of Justice – State of Victoria it was communicated that:

… Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd is the only entity licensed to use the names ‘CCV’ and ‘Civic Compliance Victoria’“. [4]

Hence, the Department of Justice – State of Victoria has communicated that Tenix Solution IMES Pty Ltd has exclusive license to use the CCV trade marks.

Civic Compliance Victoria - Trade Mark Relationships

Further information about the relationship between the State of Victoria and Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd can be obtained from the following sources:

  • Infringement Management and Enforcement Services Project – Deed of Charge, signed 26 July 2007 (available via ASIC).
  • Infringement Management and Enforcement Services Agreement; start date 29 July 2007 to 30 October 2012 (Contract 015-07-08) [5].

The estimate value of the contract is listed as $332,100,000 ($332.1M). Please note that the contract available via the website has sections redacted and is not the complete document.

The reference in the contract to license of the trade marks is located in section 51.18 of the agreement; part of that section is presented (bold font emphasis added by editor):

51.18 Licence to use the Trade Marks

(a) With effect from the Commencement Date, the State grants to the Contractor for the Term a non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to use the Trade Marks in Australia solely for the purposes of the Contractor fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement.

(b) The State may from time to time during the Term impose in writing, reasonable requirements regarding the use of the Trade Marks, and the Contractor must comply with those requirements.

(c) Where the Trade Marks appear in any written material (including any electronic material) published by or on behalf of the Contractor, unless otherwise authorised by the State:

(i) the Trade Marks must appear with the ® symbol (or, if the Trade Mark is not yet registered, the ™ symbol); and

(ii) the Trade Mark must be accompanied by the following footnote: The [insert trade mark] trade mark is used by [insert Contractor's details] under licence from the Crown in Right of the State of Victoria.

(d) The Contractor must comply with any standards, directions and specifications notified in writing by the State from time to time during the Term as to the appearance, colour, size and positioning of the Trade Marks and the footnote referred to in clause 51.18(c)(ii) and allow the State to inspect its premises and items using the Trade Marks at any time.

(e) The Contractor must not use the Trade Marks in a manner which is prejudicial to the State or likely to prejudice the distinctiveness of the Trade Marks or the validity of any registration for a Trade Mark. This provision will survive the expiry or termination of this Agreement.

(f) The Contractor must not at any time during the Term use the Trade Marks in juxtaposition to any other trade mark, embellishment or device without the prior written consent of the State.

Note 1: Section 51.18(a) may conflict with advice provided by the Department of Justice – State of Victoria.

Note 2: The author is unaware of any updates to this agreement, thus the contractual terms may be out of date.

Who is Tenix?

Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd is a registered company in the Commonwealth of Australia (ABN 47 126 390 378) [6]; the ultimate holding company is Olbia Pty Ltd (ABN 64 000 305 304) [7]. Further company information can be obtained via ASIC which will validate this fact; part of the company extract is provided as evidence [8]. The company structure/hierarchy is presented.

Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd Company Structure (to Olbia Pty Ltd)

Hence, Tenix Solution IMES Pty Ltd is owned by Olbia Pty Ltd.

Who is Olbia?

Olbia Pty Ltd comprises of eight shareholders, four individual people and four companies; the shareholder structure is presented (information obtained from ASIC Company Extract [9]).

Olbia Pty Ltd Shareholders

Without further investigation, it may be (wrongly) assumed that each of the four company shareholders are owned or controlled by the respective individual shareholders (Paul Salteri, Robert Salteri, Mary Victoria Shaw, Adriana Bianca Gardos); the website provides information that Paul Salteri is a director of Pasagean Pty Ltd and Adriana Bianca Gardos is a director of Clurname Pty Ltd [10] [11].

The four individuals who are shareholders of Olbia Pty Ltd are children of the late Carlo Salteri; Carlo Salteri died in 2010 [12].

Salteri Family

Hence, Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd, the company that issues infringement notices and infringement warrants is a family-owned company of the Salteri family. According to the BRW Rich 200 list, the Salteri family was ranked as the 7th wealthiest family in Australia ($1.18B). [13]


In summary, based on the evidence provided:

  • Civic Compliance Victoria and CCV are trade marks.
  • CCV is not a corporation, entity, government department or administrative body.
  • Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd has (exclusive) license to use the CCV trade marks.
  • Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd has a five year contract with the State of Victoria valued at approximately $332.1M.
  • The ultimate holding company of Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd is Olbia Pty Ltd.
  • Olbia Pty Ltd is owned by the billionaire Salteri family.

Liberal and Labor Parties Steal From Taxpayers, Launder Money

How the Liberal Party and Labor Party steal from taxpayers and launder the money

by Shane Dowling

This week the Liberal Party were caught stealing from taxpayers and laundering the money through a Liberal Party owned company called Parakeelia. After that you would think things could not get worse but in the last 24 hours the Liberals have had to sack a candidate for owning brothels and another candidate is refusing to […]

Read more of this post




Secret Deal To Conceal Corruption During Election Campaign

Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten do secret deal to conceal corruption during election campaign

by Shane Dowling

There is a powerful prima facie case that points to Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten doing a deal not to raise each other’s corrupt past during the election as well as the corrupt and criminal conduct of their respective political parties. The obvious reason for the deal to conceal the corruption during the election is […]

Read more of this post



Nick Di Girolamo – Briber Uses Defamation Case To Conceal Crimes

Nick Di Girolamo who bribed a Premier with a $3000 gift uses defamation case to try & conceal crimes

by Shane Dowling

Liberal Party crony Nick Di Girolamo, who cost former NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell his job after being caught bribing him with a $3000 bottle of wine, is now suing Fairfax Media claiming he was defamed because their articles implied he was corrupt etc. The man is obviously a nutcase of monumental proportions as he was caught […]

Read more of this post



Malcolm Turnbull’s 2016 Election Bribe For Media Mates

Malcolm Turnbull’s 2016 election year bribe for his billionaire media mates

Malcolm Turnbull has just given the billionaire media owners of Channel 10, 7 and 9 a $50 million election year bribe with a reduction of TV license fees which was announced in the budget on the 3rd of May. This is the third election in a row that the TV licence fees have been slashed […]

Read more of this post




Update · 75% of Australians Say Yes to Royal Commission into Bad Banking System

See also: Call for Royal Commission Into Australian Banking

75% of Australians say yes to Royal Commission into Bad Banking System

Denise Brailey

Dowerin, Australia

20 APR 2016 — Its is clear that Australians have all been impacted in some form by bad banking practices. Australian Bankers have been acting as a Cartel of 17 to the ruinous financial rip-offs perpetrated on their own customers. Three decades of de-regulation has caused over $200 billion of losses re developer/bank driven ponzi scams.

Another $300 billion is caught up in unaffordable, unverified Ponzi Financing scams and sub prime lending. The 17 Mobsters are in control of the entire fraud, enveloping the construction, real estate and banking sectors. The PM is an ex banker with Goldman Sachs.

Our Corporate Regulatory Chief is an ex Banker with Societe Generale. The guy who was appointed to the last Financial Inquiry was one of the specific ex Bankers with Commonwealth Bank. The more the Government denies the people a Royal Commission the angrier the ordinary Australians are.

As a consumer group we have more members needing help as ripped off borrowers, than there are politicians in Canberra. The PM is in denial as if in a timewarp. The Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten judged the mood of the people and there will be plenty of swing voting at the next election.

Bring It On! We will achieve the Royal Commission we have all lobbied for many years.


CBA, ANZ, NAB Fraud Investigation

Success against CBA, ANZ and NAB, and a fraud investigation by police

On 19/11/2015, at 9:19 AM, Chris Shannon <> wrote:
Congratulations Max! Seems more and more people are starting to have wins now. Who ever said, ‘you can’t beat a bank’?

Forwarding on to our email list as requested.

Best regards,

Chris Shannon

——– Forwarded Message ——

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:51:31 +1000
Subject: Success against CBA, ANZ and NAB, and a fraud investigation by police

Hi all,

I hope this email provides hope and optimism for those who have battled against the banks, particularly those who are currently involved in disputes.

I contacted many of you in February 2014 when I advised that the two maladministration matters against CBA were successfully resolved in our favour. Since then, success has been achieved against ANZ and NAB for the same conduct of maladministration. Further, a Federal civil claim of misleading and deceptive conduct against the CBA employee had been filed and settled, and a police investigation for criminal fraud is underway against this same employee (which has been in progress for two years).

The full story is available here:

If you could please like and share this article as well as the Bank Reform Now Facebook page (run by Dr Peter Brandson), that will help increase support for consumers against the banks’ unscrupulous conduct.

If you wish to contact me by phone, please let me know and I will happily call you and provide you my number.

I look forward to your support.
If you don’t wish to receive any more emails from me, please let me know and I will remove you from this mailing list.

Kind regards,

Max Andersen

Brisbane, Qld


CBA’s Ian Narev IT Computer Bribery Case

Was Ian Narev ‘in on it”? CBA IT Computer Bribery Case

Subject: Was Ian Narev ‘in on it”? CBA IT Computer Bribery Case
Date: 9 May 2016 10:26:22 PM AEST


If you’re following the Commbank I.T Contract Bribery Case, you’ll know that Ian Narev was asked to sign off a contract that’s tainted with bribery allegations before

a) a Grand Jury against Eric Pulier,

b) a civil court in Delaware in Computer Science Corp v Pulier, and

c) criminal proceedings by the Federal Police’s Commander Linda Champion and NSW Cybercrime Inspector Katsogiannis

against CBA IT Managers Jon Waldron and Keith Hunter.

Hunter and Waldron were a stones throw from Narev.  If he was ‘in on it’ there’s lots of laws in the USA and Australia that could apply to him personally.

Therefore you might like to email and and federal police at and ask them to investigate if Narev was “in on it”.

Make sure you cc lots of people in the groups so that one day the copies can go to a Royal Commission. Also feel free to ask to follow up on the complaints.

And no, we don’t give out names and numbers. Please google “scribd sting ace” for the screenshot of 7News’ coverage of a bribery case they say was a FBI Sting.  Narev is one step away from the Board of people like Ashursts and their Gadens Clan. We want lawyers and bankers and managers to answer to real law enforcement.

Please feel welcome to google “Bloomberg Business Inside a $5.7 billion antitrust trainwreck”. In that case of Reserve Bank Information,  undercover operatives stung colluding lawyers for Mastercard and Visa. Arrests and Jail for 3 are already Ordered. We’re tackling the banking culture ‘differently’. So if you can nudge things along with CBA please email and medcraft and the ABC and let’s see if we can get the US to lean on the AFP and ASIC and APRA to look into whether the Board & Management & Lawyers complied with laws that apply to Global banking.

Members in the Supportive Residents & Carers Action Group Inc are already registered for a share of a reward (if any)  if the US imposes a Fine on CBA. Members should email and ask for $100,000 compensation for telling the “stingers” more than enough to get the US involved in some cases. Again, keep us in the loop with bcc emails, and any buzz off letters with go to the SEC and a Royal Commission.


Tel 1-209-6038733.


Aussie Speeding Fines – May 2016

An absolute MUST READ update – irrefutable proof that our informaiton works, the utter stupidity of those in charge and info on important, upcoming live events!

- Intro

- The absolute stupidity of those in charge

- The Police have their own problems

- Our upcoming seminars with the Know Your Rights group

- Latest Testimonials and Feedback

- Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards


- Intro

Wow! It has been a very busy month or so since we last wrote to you and a lot has happened in that time.

Of greatest importance is the abundance of extremely powerful testimonials that we have received, including a precedent-setting win in the County Court just this week by one of our Members. You can read the full details of his success, as well as that of many others, in the Latest Testimonials and Feedback section towards the end of this e-mail.

We have also received a heap of media articles that show just how completely out of touch and insane the powers-that-be have become, as well as some great confirmation, from the police themselves, that speed cameras do not work!

So, there’s lots of really great information to cover again in this month’s update but, before you get started, we want to warn you that we haven’t pulled any punches in this update and some of if it pretty “in your face” so, as long as you’re prepared for that, get comfortable and read on …..

The absolute stupidity of those in charge

We often “have a go” at the police and complain about them using underhanded tactics to enforce ridiculous, ineffective and unlawful “rules”. We have reported previously on police hiding in bushes to nab motorists, we have explained how they are trained to create false readings through slip, sweep and cosine errors and we have covered the generally over-the-top practices they employ to simply generate revenue for the government.

Admittedly, they are just “doing their job” – despite the fact that the Nuremberg Trials proved that was not a valid excuse – and we continually encourage all law enforcement personnel to watch this short but powerful “Message to Police” video - – and to leave their respective State police forces, if they no longer agree with the jobs they are being forced to do.

But, at the end of the day, like in any business – which, of course, is all this revenue raising is to them, just a business – the buck stops at the top, with the politicians that order the police to do their dirty work.

So, we thought it would be important for us to give you an idea of the thinking process of those in top positions in our country, just so you can see who you’re supporting if you, or someone you knows, buys into the “if you don’t speed then you have nothing to worry about” crap – or, of course, similar sentiments.

So, to begin with, we have Bill Shorten, the illustrious leader of the opposition party who recently caused a severe head on crash, that required someone to be hospitalised, because he thought it would be a good idea to pull over his entire convoy of cars on the side of a dangerous stretch of road, in order to have a meeting about that section of road being dangerous!

What the???

Yes, you read that correctly and you can read the full story here -

Seriously, what’s next? Will Malcolm Turnbull stop an army of cars in the middle of a dangerous intersection to discuss how that intersection is dangerous???

Please make no mistake about it, these are the people who are spending millions of your hard earned tax dollars to convince you to “elect” them into power to run our country!!!!

Okay, so now, hopefully, you’re clear on who we’re dealing with.

So, then you have these guys giving orders to the police departments around the country to “target low level speeders”, to hide in bushes and to install and/or utilise more speed cameras. These, and other equally useless strategies, cannot possibly have any positive bearing on the road toll because they don’t work!

But then, the media releases articles such as this - - that exclaim that the police are baffled by the high road toll.

Come on people, it’s not rocket science! If you really believe that reducing speed is going to reduce accidents – which, we have proven many times is not the case – then how is hiding in a bush going to cause people to slow down? How is sending someone a fine in the mail 3 to 4 weeks after they were supposedly “speeding” and thus, “driving dangerously” going to stop that?

It can’t and it won’t!

The reason for the high number of deaths and crashes is not “baffling” at all – in fact, it is very simple – it is a lack of focus and attention on the road – because people are so worried about getting a BS fine – and it is as a result of long term lack of training and education on how to drive properly.

If you want to read about strategies that will really have a positive impact on the road toll, be sure to read over our Vision for the Future page - - so you can see what we are ultimately trying to achieve.

We just don’t know how to make it any clearer to people. The article said that the police were focussed on “speeding drivers” and they even called the process “Operation Go Slow” yet there were a horrendous number of deaths and crashes. If that doesn’t prove to you that “speed” has almost nothing to do with the road toll then we really don’t know what will.

- The Police have their own problems

So, apart from the fact that the police are seemingly “baffled” by logic and common sense, they are also struggling with a few other issues.

On the one hand, you have police spokespeople spouting that “Every k over is a killer” and “speed kills” and then the cops turn around and do this –

It is important to note from the outset that this article conveniently “forgets” to mention one teeny, weeny little detail – the street that this occurred on is a 50 km/h zone!!!

We welcome any member of the police – especially someone from one of the many Crash Investigation Units around the country – to please explain to us how a skilled driver, who has completed an advanced driver training course – as all police do – rolls a car at 50km/h!

Now, the article makes it clear that the police were not involved in a pursuit at the time and because police are upstanding members of the community and always set a good example for fellow motorists – plus all the crap they keep spouting about “speeding” – we “know” that they wouldn’t possibly have been exceeding the speed limit so would someone – maybe even the officers involved – like to contact us and explain what the hell happened here!

Then, on the other hand, you have police admitting that speed cameras don’t actually save lives and do, indeed, exist simply to raise revenue -–police-union.html

Specifically, the WA Police Union are questioning the powers-that-be as to why they are being forced to place cameras in spots that raise significant revenue but have little or no impact on road safety or the road toll.

The fact that they openly admit that “75% of fatal crashes are not related to speed” should hopefully remove any doubt that anyone may still have that all speed cameras are plain and simply “revenue raising cameras” and nothing more!

Sadly, Acting Police Minister John Day, is as deluded and out of touch with reality as Bill Shorten, if he honestly believes that “majority of people supported measures such as cameras to target dangerous drivers”. We respectfully suggest that he might like to crawl out from behind his desk and actually talk to members of the motoring public to see what they really think!

What is even more interesting is that there was a similar media article released on the same subject - - that has slightly different points that further erode the position of the powers-that-be that “speed kills”, “speed is the biggest killer on our roads” or any of that kind of rubbish.

In fact, the WA Police Union President says that he knows why people are cynical about cameras – maybe John Day should speak to him so he can set him straight on what people really think about speed cameras.

The Police Union goes on to admit what we said in the previous section, that a motorist receiving a fine in the mail weeks after the fact is not a deterrent and, in fact, all it does is pisses people off and creates a distinct dislike for the police.

The strangest bit is that the Road Safety Minister and  Road Safety Commissioner then both admit that speed is only “a” factor in just 25% of accidents, which is much closer to the true figure of just 5% that we detail in the Crash Statistics file on our Vision for the Future page – - and which is significantly less than the figures that are bantered around by the media, the police and the government most of the time.

Poor old delusional Mr Day needs to go off and check his facts properly again though because his suggestion in this article, that fatalities have dropped since more cameras were used, simply bears no resemblance to reality. There are more cameras installed each and every year around the country and the road toll has increased in most States, including WA.

The bottom of this page - - shows that, despite there being more cameras than ever before over the past 4 years, the road toll is WA has yo-yoed between 161 and 182, virtually no difference to the figures from 10 years prior – when there were far fewer cameras and the road toll figures ranged from almost identical figures of 164 to 180.

So, with all due respect Mr Day, either put up or shut up – go and spend some more tax payers dollars to create some figures that back up you completely false and ridiculous claims but, in the meantime, don’t take us for fools and stop spouting your crap to the media – no-one’s taking you seriously anymore!

- Our upcoming seminars with the Know Your Rights group

And, just to finish of this month, we want to let everyone know that the next Know Your Rights seminar and workshop will be held in Adelaide next weekend – the 28th and 29th of May – and they have also just announced their long-awaited Melbourne events, which will be held on the 25th and 26th of June.

If you enjoy the information that we provide in relation to traffic fines then we know you’re going to love the information that is presented at the Know Your Rights live events – which includes dealing with fines, challenging the ATO, understanding the “Strawman” concept, the power of the Commonwealth Constitution and much more!

Unfortunately, due to dwindling numbers around the country these events will be their last events. The last Melbourne event they held sold out and, given that this will be their last ever live event, it is almost certain that those events will sell out again.

Please read the e-mail below from the guys at the Know Your Rights group and be sure to check out their Seminar page - - for full details on what is covered at those events, details of how to book your ticket(s) and even testimonials from previous attendees.

Hi Guys,

If you could pass the following onto your database, that would be much appreciated.

We are desperately trying to wake up the average, apathetic, footy-transfixed Aussie and teach them about their rights and we need your help!

Are you sick of busting your butt at work day in and day out, only to give a huge portion of it away to the tax man?

Are you sick of being fined for ridiculous things such as 3 and 4 k’s over the limit, stopping to pick someone up in a shopping centre and the like?

Are you sick of paying exponentially increasing council taxes and rates?

Do you get the general feeling that something “isn’t right” with the current system but you’re not quite sure what it is or what to do about it?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions then you need to attend one of our upcoming Know Your Rights seminars and advanced workshops, which are being held in Adelaide on Saturday and Sunday, the 28th and 29thof May and on Saturday and Sunday, the 25th and 26th of June respectively.

These events have had rave reviews around the country but, unfortunately, it appears as though the general population is just not ready to “wake up” yet so these will actually be our last live events. Having said that, these will be truly life-changing events for anyone who chooses to attend and we urge anyone who has even the slightest interest in learning about their rights to come along.

All your questions will be answered at these empowering full day events and you will learn the following from Australian speakers who actually have proven success in these areas, in this country:

How to defeat all types of unjust and unlawful traffic fines – including speeding, parking, red light, un-registered vehicle etc.

How our Commonwealth Constitution applies to you and how to use it to your benefit.

Why local councils are un-Constitutional and what you can do about it.

The fraud committed by the banks, how to fight back against it and how to lawfully discharge outstanding debts.

The difference between “lawful” and “Legal” and how the government has introduced private laws that attempt to subvert our Constitutional and Common Law rights.

The Strawman concept – how the government has corporatized your name in order to “do business” with you and how to recognise that and benefit as a result.

How to protect your assets and your income using trusts and private foundations and how to legally ensure that you have no future tax obligations.

What the future holds for Aussies if we don’t all learn about our rights and start fighting back!

To find out more about what we will cover at these incredible full day events, to read and see what others have said about past events and, to book your tickets, be sure to go to our Seminar page - - and take action now!

Remember, those who keep doing what they’ve always done will keep getting what they always got – do something different today!

We look forward to seeing you at one of our upcoming events.

- Latest Testimonials and Feedback

As we mentioned at the start of this e-mail update, we have been absolutely inundated with testimonials and feedback from Members who have successfully used our information to defeat their unjust and unlawful fines.

We can’t possibly fit them all into this one update but we wanted to share some of the most powerful ones because we know that there are still people out there who doubt or question the effectiveness of our information and the following collection of e-mails alone – let alone the other five pages of testimonials that we have on our website – should definitely put any such doubts to rest.

Our first is actually two separate e-mails from the same very proactive member who has had some fantastic success over the course of the past month. His first e-mail relates to his success in having a parking fine dismissed and having costs awarded in his favour as well.

Hi guys,

Another parking fine victory.

Briefly. My wife drove herself to hospital in panic during a massive haemorrhage emergency. She parked in car park next to hospital. Was admitted and the car stayed where it was for two days. Upon retrieving the car I found an infringement from Whittlesea council Victoria on the window.

I wrote a letter with a note from the hospital saying what had happened. The reply I got was a disgrace, typical Council bullshit. I started the 3 step process and as always did not use the templates word for word I used them as a guide. Letters went back and forth for 12 months and I finally elected to go to court.

Went to court last Friday. Met with the council representative and told him unless he is withdrawing I do not want to speak to him. Called up by Magistrate, Magistrate asked my wife for her plea and she stated. ‘Guilty but asking you dismiss the case due to circumstance’

When my wife laid out the circumstances, the magistrate was disgusted and immediately dismissed the case. My wife asked for costs due to stress. Council objected stating the weren’t told this story and if they had been they would of withdrawn.

My wife held up original letter that we sent explaining the situation. Magistrate stated she was disgusted by this Councils attitude and awarded costs of one days wages being $80.

hahahahaha cop that council!!

Now it’s onto the speed camera fine appeal in the County Court in May.

Paul – Vic.

And, as that e-mail refers to, his second victory was a major win on appeal in the County Court just this week. We understand that, at the time of writing this e-mail, he is speaking to various media outlets about the hugeramifications of this win for all motorists and we hope to have more to report on this in our next update. In the meantime, this is what he had to say about his latest victory using our information:

Hi guys, We Won!! Below is what I’ve written on the ASF Facebook page.

County Court Melbourne Victory 18/05/2016.

Firstly thank you to ASF for pointing me in the right direction and providing a stepping stone to more research. Your ASF book has been pivotal to having this speeding fine dismissed. Secondly, this was not a case of me trying to get out of a speeding fine, i was not speeding PERIOD. I was willing to fight tooth and nail because i know in my heart i was not speeding. Ok the case today.

As advised by ASF i researched the Road Safety Act, National Measurement Act, State Law and Australian Federal Law extensively. 

Firstly i asked the Judge if this matter was a criminal matter, he said yes, i stated with all crimes there must be a corpus delicti is that correct? He said yes. I asked if the court may proceed against me, without proof of a corpus delicti. At this point i noticed i got his un decided attention. He looked at the prosecutor and stated. “Very interesting argument” I jumped in with Your Honour, I move the court to dismiss the charges on the basis there is no prima face case against me. He looked at me and nodded silently for about 3 seconds and then said, just a minute, you’re putting forward an argument i have not dealt with for quite some time, I’m not dismissing the argument but i need to establish a few things with the prosecutor. From this point the next 20 minutes was taken up by the judge grilling the prosecutor about Corpus Delicti and how the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that I am challenging his evidence. I felt I had the upper hand and the Judge on my side at this point. Following this the prosecutor convinced the Judge that the photo and certificate were in fact Corpus Delicti blah blah blah. Judge stated on that basis he is not willing to dismiss but you have my attention. BINGO!!

I objected to the evidence presented by the prosecution because it does not meet the requirement of Australian Federal Law or the National Measurement Act. I showed the Judge that if State Law is inconsistent with the NMA then the Federal Act and Regulations take precedent. I showed the certificate presented by the prosecution under Section 83 of the Road Safety Act is inconsistent with certification requirements of the NMA and NMR.

The prosecution stated they will be relying on the Road Safety Act 83A to tender the evidence. I objected and stated to the Judge that section only applies if there is no evidence to the contrary and Ii fully intend to provide evidence to the contrary by way of sworn testimony that I was not speeding and as I have not yet had an opportunity to provide that evidence, I submit that section is not relevant and will be prejudicial to my case. The Judge at this point asked me if I had a copy of the Act. I obliged and passed it onto the clerk. Again the next 25 minutes was taken up by the judge reading the Act.

When the Judge finished reading the relevant parts of the Act he stated. This is the worse rules or Acts ever put on paper, it is the messiest thing I have ever seen and have always despised it. He spoke to me about the Act in detail and in length and asked several question regarding the Act and the NMA, he then said he is going to allow the prosecutor’s evidence but has noted my objection as an excellent argument that several of my high court Judges would find very interesting. From this point forward i am interested in hearing your testimony.

From this point forward I was confident I had the judge on my side. I gave my testimony followed by the passenger in the vehicle, the prosecutor asked his questions and that was that.

Dismissed due to evidence to the contrary being mine and my passengers sworn testimony that i was not speeding. We provided testimony of why the day and date in question was relevant and easily remembered, as we travel this very road, this very date, every single year for the past 10 years to go on our annual fishing trip to Eden NSW. We provided testimony that we both looked at the speedometer before going under the Wellington Road Bridge East Link and we provided testimony why we felt the need to do that.

The Judge then stated “It would be a sad day in the state of Victoria when we believe a machine over the testimony of two upstanding citizens of the community”. You’re Excused.

So my advice to everyone:
1. Forget the Magistrates court, the Magistrate and his decisions are worth a pinch of shit, the real case starts at County. 

2. Research and know your topic. Don’t just use what ASF have provided. You need to know this stuff because you will be asked about it.

3. Be polite but fight tooth and nail. Remember the system is a corrupt revenue raising machine and when you question it, you will be asked to elaborate on facts of the NMA and law. If you don’t know, forget it, you will lose.

Well done guys, couldn’t of done it without you

Paul – Vic.

Please take note of what he says and do not be concerned or disheartened if you take a case to court and lose, as we have said many times, the Magistrate’s Court is just your “trial run” and this case proves it.

Our next is from yet another very pro-active Member who has won a number of cases using our information. Many of you will recall the extensive paperwork that he provided to us last year – that we have now uploaded to our Advanced membership website - - that many people have found very handy. Well, he was at it again recently and, as you can see from the e-mail below, he has now racked up another victory using our information.

Hi everyone,

Today I received written advice from the Courts Administration Authority SA in relation to my (false) arrest last year and subsequent court appearances.

In February I received a letter from the Magistrates Court advising that the hearing was to be on a certain date and that “you are required to attend”.

I replied back to the Registrar, in her private, unlimited commercial liability, and rebutted that we are “you” and that she should send the notice to whoever “you” is for their attention. Failure to respond within 7 days would provide full legal accord and satisfaction of all claims against me.

The response today from the CAA is that they have no record of any convictions or fines against me. 

So I’m pretty happy with the result and hope that that’s the last of the matter (if they try anything else now they endanger their registrar to legal action).

The reason I’m writing is to thank each and every one of you for your support, advice and conviction to keep going with this matter. I’d never have had the courage to do this in the past but with your help and support I am extremely happy!


Wayne – SA

Our next is from a Member who successfully had not one, not two, but three speed camera fines withdrawn after using our 3 step process:

Good morning Aussie Speeding Fines,

Many thanks for your support and educating me as to the ways the Monarchy raise revenue willy nilly and try to represent whatever it is they claim as law.

Attached is a letter I recently received from them that states that all of the offences (3 Multanova fines, rear facing camera photos of my vehicle on 3 different occasions in a month)  have been withdrawn. I applied the 3-step process and included all 3 case numbers together to be all dealt with as a whole and they bent over for me.

Below is a link to their submission for my win with them;


Dear Sir,

Re: Charge of Exceed the Speed Limit in a Speed Zone, Infringement Numbers xxx, xxx & xxx

Information has been received regarding the above mentioned charges. These matters are listed at Fremantle Magistrates Court on 22nd August 2016.

As part of the review process undertaken when preparing the papers for prosecution, it was decided the matters should be withdrawn.

WA Police will not be proceeding any further regarding these matters.



Senior Constable 9485

Prosecutions officer


Once again, many thanks and I will forever recommend and be a lifelong member of Aussie Speeding Fines, cheers.

Andrew – WA

And, finally, our last and possibly most powerful e-mail is from a member who was facing over $200,000 worth of fines had them significantly reduced to just $12,000 – which is a huge win in anyone’s books – and, to top it all off, he’s only going to be paying that off at $50 a week anyway!

Hi guys,

Thanks for you recent advice, it was much appreciated.

Just to let you know I have been toe to toe with CCV and IMES for a good 18months. Long story short, on Thursday I went into court 1 hr before my hearing and spent 1hr and 20min auditing all the alleged Infringement Warrants. It has taken me 2 months to finally be granted permission to view the original warrants.

I entered court and explained to Magistrate unless an agreement can be reached today on my terms I will appeal to supreme court based on question of law. My argument is all Infringement Warrants I reviewed did not contain a name or signature of an Infringement Registrar pursuant to sect 80 of Infringement Act and sect 150 & 151 of Evidence Act 1995. I noted all warrants presented as “original” were all issued on Sheriff Office stationary, not Infringement or Magistrate courts, as required. Therefore, these are invalid and cannot be accepted as evidence. 
Magistrate Bolster did not deny or even argue this point, he in fact stated, “I see where you are going with this.” He stood the matter down at 12:30. I was called back into court at 4:15pm, and note the entire court complex was closed and not a person in sight.

He offered a reduction and payment plan of $50 to payback $12000 instead of $202k. He said do you accept. I accept.

So thanks for your help again.

Cole – Vic

So, as you can see, it has been a massive month of wins for our Members and we hope the fact that we continue to update our numerous Testimonials pages, each and every month, will convince those who would normally just blindly “pay up” to stop and think before doing so and choose to challenge their fines instead. Remember, you have nothing to lose by challenging your fines and everything to gain!

Please remember that there are plenty more e-mails like that on our Testimonial’s pages - - and many of you will note that our old page has now grown to five full pages and continues to grow each month because we regularly receive stories of success, just like these, from our Members.

- Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards

So, now you can see how powerful the Aussie Speeding Fines information is, what can you do to help us get our invaluable, licence saving information into the hands of every motorist before they get a fine?

First and foremost, if you’re not yet a Member or you know someone who isn’t then please go to our Memberships page - - and join up now.

Please note that E-book Membership - – is what you will need to access the step-by-step strategies for defeating your fines and Advanced Membership - – is what will allow you to access the most up-to-date, more advanced arguments, strategies and techniques for defeating your fines. The Advanced Membership website also contains copies of all of the manufacturers manuals for every speed detection device currently used in Australia, as well as some very powerful court cases and paperwork that you can download and use yourself.

Then, if you would really like to help us spread the word and get our invaluable, licence saving information into the hands of every motorist in the country, then please be sure to join and/or visit our Facebook group and get your friends to join as well. We now have a direct Facebook link on the top right hand side of our Home page or you can just use this link-

And, if you haven’t yet done so, please spare 10 seconds to click “like” on our fan page -!/pages/Aussie-Speeding-Fines/433275636708829 - we have well over 6,000 Members on our Group page but only just over 2,000 “likes” and we really want to raise that to be on par with our Group numbers ASAP.

Many of you will have also noticed the Paypal “Donate” button just above the Facebook link. The team at Aussie Speeding Fines work tirelessly day and night, 7 days a week, answering everyone’s e-mails, continually researching to find new ways to defeat unjust fines and preparing these weekly e-mail updates. So, any financial support you could offer, no matter how small, is always very much appreciated.

And finally, if you really want to help make a difference, just e-mail us your postal address and we will send you out some business cards and/or bumper stickers – completely free of charge – that you can then place on your car/truck/van and/or hand out to friends, family and work colleagues.

As always, we thank you all for your continued support and we appreciate all the Members who have taken the time to e-mail us with the latest media article they come across as well as their stories of their success so please, keep them coming!

Stay safe out there,

The Team at Aussie Speeding Fines



Bronwyn Lawrey – ‘Senior Sheriff Officer’

 See also: Brendan Facey  ABN: 32 790 228 959
Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Bronwyn Lawrey – Acting as ‘Senior Sheriff Officer
Ph (+61) 428 511 496
Courtesy Notice DJBF13A Bronwyn Lawrey* “Hi Bronwyn, Your third invitation of 18 May 2016 to call you is ALSO declined.  PLEASE NOTE: You do not have permission to contact me.  All Rights Reserved. Please review your invoice at” *Bronwyn LawreyPh 0428511496 21.04.2016
*Bronwyn Lawrey-Acting In Commerce

Rupert Murdoch bribing Australian Crown Prosecutor?

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp caught bribing Australian Crown Prosecutor for news stories

by Shane Dowling

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation are heading for another major scandal regarding bribing government officials and this time it is in Australia and involves NSW Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen. Murdoch’s News Corp has a long history of bribing government employees for stories which was exposed with the UK phone-hacking scandal which also revealed the bribing […]

Read more of this post




CBA’s Brendan French – Bank fraudster?

Commonwealth Bank’s Brendan French. Is he Australia’s biggest bank fraudster?
by Shane Dowling

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s senior executive Brendan French, who is one of Australia’s biggest fraudsters, recently won a defamation case against a whistleblower. This is quite amazing given that it is French’s role at the Commonwealth Bank to cover-up multi-million-dollar fraud and theft by Commonwealth Bank staff and others and Brendan French should be [READ MORE]




Australian Taxation Office

Registered Business # CIK#:
Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Chris Jordan
CINK70654142 Invoice1
Robert Ravanello
TJCD000012Letter from Robert Ravanello-ATO-Asst Commissioner Dec 2015CN – Robert Ravanello
Notice – Robert Ravanello
(Aust Post Reg ID 942121051014)
INV#3 TJCD000012
Erin Holland
09042013_1 Inv6032013-1
Michael Monaghan
Inv1 TJCD000012-MM

See also: 
Australian Taxation Office – Illegal?
Australian Taxation Office
Australian Government Misleading About Taxation
Australian Tax Office is unlawful
John Zukerman, Probe Group, ATO Illegal


Brendan Facey – Sheriff VIC

Registered Business # CIK#: DUNS #:
ABN:  32 790 228 959
The Corruption of the ‘Sherrif’s’ office
STATE OF VICTORIA – DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE T/a Speech & Drama Teachers Association
Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Brendan Facey Courtesy Notice DJBF13A Brendan Facey
Letter to Brendan Facey – 1st Formal Request for Professional Indemnity Insurance Details and listed CC’s – Please scroll down to bottom of page for full list
-List of Alleged Matters
-Referenced Information
-Attachments (4mb)
-Outline of Submissions – Att 15
Aust Post Registered Mail Article ID 515022295018 – Recorded as being received 18 March 2014
Brendan Facey 2nd Formal Request for Professional Indemnity Insurance Details (summary) Aust Post Registered Mail Article ID 509872531013 – Recorded as being received 7 April 2014
Brendan Facey 3rd Formal Request for Professional Indemnity Insurance-Brendan Facey Aust Post Registered Mail Article ID 508447433011
Brendan Facey Brendan Facey-Invitation Declined
Mandi Bickham
Ph (+61) 0429 661 841
Mandi Bickham - Notice Courtesy Notice DJMB13A Mandi Bickham
Mrs Mandi Bickham
Ph (+61) 0417 386 451
Jen – 0417386451 - Notice
Bronwyn Lawrey
Ph (+61) 428 511 496
CN DJBF13A Brendan Facey
(Bronwyn is liable as an agent of B Facey)
BronwynLawrey-Sheriff VIC
MAGISTATES COURT OF VICTORIA ICC 1567407391“This matter has not been litigated in a court of competent jurisdiction, therefore ‘you’ CANNOT pursue any alleged debt”


To: Brendan Facey – Acting as ‘Director’ for IMES     

CC Adam Tomison – Director – Australian Institute of Criminology
CC Amanda Stevens – Mayor Port Phillip Bay
CC Andrew Holden – Editor In Chief – The Age
CC Ann Bressington – SA Parliament – Legislative Council
CC Bill Shorten – - Leader of the Opposition
CC Bruce Dyer – Corporations Committee, Business Law Section
CC Colin Neave – Commonwealth Ombudsman Ombudsman *
CC Daniel Andrews – Leader of the Opposition VIC
CC David Mason-Jones – Journalist
CC Denis Napthene – Premier Victoria
CC Geoffrey Robertson QC
CC George Brandis QC -  Attorney General
CC Gerard Brody, CEO- Consumer Action Law Centre
CC Glenn Rutter – Manager – Melbourne Magistrate’s Court
CC Gordan Lewis  – SPEED camera watchdog
CC Heidi Victory – Minister for Consumer Affairs
CC Jen – Sheriff’s office – Mob: 0417 386 451
CC John Keeves – Law Council of Australia,  Business Law Section
CC John Rolfe – Public Defender
CC Kim Wells – Minister for Police and Emergency Services VIC
CC Lynne Bertolini – Freedom Of Information Officer Commissioner
CC M Hoyle – CCV
CC M Tewolde &Vu Huynh
CC Mandi Bickham – Sheriff’s office – Employee Badge # 2490
CC Megan Levy Breaking News reporter – The Age
CC Michael Keenan MP
CC Michael Mibbons – Infringements Registrars
CC Office Of The Victorian Privacy Commissioner
CC Rebecca Power – Horizon, Tenix et al
CC Reporters –
CC Reporters – The Herald Sun
CC Robert Clark – Attorney General Victoria
CC Robert Doyle – Mayor – Melbourne City Council
CC Scott Charlton – Citylink, Transurban et al
CC Senators – Australia – Emailed to various
CC Stephen Hartney – Mayor – Bayside City Council
CC Tim Wilson – Australian Human Rights Commissioner
CC Tony Abbot – Prime MInister – For The Constitutional Monachy
CC Warwick Gately AM- Electoral Commissioner VIC
CC Sgt Phil Wild – Victoria Police Badge #17312 C/-

Please also refer to the following docs as per links above

1) List of Alleged Matters    2)  Reference Information
3) Attachments                     4)  Outline of Submissions

To: Brendan Facey – Acting as ‘Director’ for alleged SHERIFF’S OFFICE;
Under the banner of the alleged DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE VICTORIA
444 Swanston St, Melbourne VIC 3000
ABN:  32 790 228 959

Dear Brendan,

Thank you for your recent pro-forma letter that you took off your intranet, date stamped 18 Feb 2014.

On February 6th 2013, SPEED camera watchdog, Gordon Lewis said: “If the motoring public was to have confidence in Victoria’s traffic camera system then it had to be as transparent as possible.”

However, on November 6th 2013, he criticised the secrecy which has surrounded the police official warning policy surrounding which speeding motorists can get off with warnings instead of fines, saying, “it was unsatisfactory that a major part of Victoria Police’s official warning policy for speeding motorists had been kept secret for years”.  Exactly 12 months later, he confirmed to the Herald Sun that, “In my view the most important word in the road safety camera system is transparency”.

Further, John Roskam of Institute of Public Affairs said, “Tim Wilson’s appointment offers the Australian Human Rights Commission an opportunity to prove it can do something which it has so far failed to do, namely defend the human rights of individuals against attacks on those rights by the state.”

Therefore, in the quest for transparency, truth and accountability, this letter and NOTICE has also been forwarded to the above list of individuals and various others in the community, To Whom It May Concern.

Continue Reading →

12 Countries Sign TPP! No ‘Debate’

By Mike Masnick

About an hour ago, representatives from 12 different nations officially signed the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) agreement in Auckland, New Zealand. The date, February 4th (New Zealand time) is noteworthy, because it’s 90 days after the official text was released. There was a 90 day clock that was required between releasing the text and before the US could actually sign onto the agreement. The stated purpose of this 90 day clock was in order to allow “debate” about the agreement. Remember, the entire agreement was negotiated in secret, with US officials treating the text of the document as if it were a national security secret (unless you were an industry lobbyist, of course). So as a nod to pretend “transparency” there was a promise that nothing would be signed for 90 days after the text was actually released.

So… uh… what happened to that “debate”? It didn’t happen at all. The TPP was barely mentioned at all by the administration in the last 90 days. Even during the State of the Union, Obama breezed past the TPP with a quick comment, even though it’s supposedly a defining part of his “legacy.” But there’s been no debate. Because there was never any intent for an actual debate. The 90 day clock was just something that was put into the process so that the USTR and the White House could pretendthat there was more “transparency” and that they wouldn’t sign the agreement until after it had been looked at and understood by the public.

Of course, the signing is a totally meaningless bit of theater. The real fight is over ratification. The various countries need to ratify the TPP for the agreement to go into effect. Technically, the TPP will enter into force 60 days after all signers ratify it… or, if that doesn’t happen, within two years if at least six of the 12 participant countries ratify it and those six countries account for 85% of the combined gross domestic product of the 12 countries. Got that? In short, this means that if the US doesn’t ratify it, the TPP is effectively dead. The US needs a majority of both houses of Congress to approve it, similar to a typical bill. And that’s no sure thing right now. Unfortunately, that’s mainly because a group of our elected officials are upset that the TPP doesn’t go far enough in helping big businesses block competition, but it’s still worth following.

Inevitably, there will be some debate during the ratification process, though there are enough rumors suggesting that no one really wants to do it until after the Presidential election, because people running for President don’t want to reveal that they’re happy to sell out the public’s interest to support a legacy business lobbyist agenda. But, even that debate will likely be fairly limited and almost certainly will avoid the real issues, and real problems, with the TPP.

Either way, today’s symbolic signing should really be an exclamation point on the near total lack of transparency and debate in this process. The 90 day window was a perfect opportunity to have an actual discussion about what’s in the TPP and why there are problems with it, but the administration showed absolutely no interest in doing so. And why should it? It already got the deal it wanted behind closed doors. But, at least it can pretend it used these 90 days to be “transparent.”

Articles by: Mike Masnick

US, Japan, Canada, Australia and 8 Other Countries Sign Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) would be horrible for Americans and the people of the world.

But most politicians are thoroughly corruptNeither the Democratic or Republican parties represent the interests of the American people. Elections have become nothing but scripted beauty contests, with both parties ignoring the desires of their own bases.

So today, 12 countries – Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia      Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, United States and Vietnam – signed the TPP.

They never followed through on their promise of an open and lively debate.

TPP still can be stopped … if the legislative bodies of the signatory nations refuse to ratify it. Can we stop this frankenstein monster?

US, Japan, Canada, Australia and 8 Other Countries Sign Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement was originally published on Washington’s Blog

Joel Archer – Lion Finance

Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Joel Archer BWLFJA13A-REMAIL Cover Letter Dec 2014
Acting In Commerce – JOEL ARCHER
Joel Archer-LION Finance WBC-R
Joel Archer-LION Finance WBC2
Joel Archer Invoice3
Joel Archer Statement3
David Liddy - Independent, Non-executive Chairman
MATTHEW THOMAS – Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer
PAUL FREER - Chief Operating Officer
ADRIAN RALSTON - Chief Financial Officer
KYLIE LYNAM - General Manager, Human Resources

JULIE TEALBY - Company Secretary
MARCUS BARRON - Chief Information Officer

See also:

TOP 20 SHAREHOLDERS At at 31 May 2014
Rank Name Shares %
2. ANKLA PTY LTD 11,098,805 8.56
10. BNP PARIBAS NOMS PTY LTD <DRP> 2,321,984 1.79
11. AMP LIFE LIMITED 2,161,111 1.67
12. GARRETT SMYTHE LIMITED 1,093,922 0.84
13. MR WILLIAM WALTER KAGEL 1,000,000 0.77
18. NOWCASTLE PTY LTD 780,532 0.60
20. RIPELAND PTY LTD 739,142 0.57
TOTAL: 72,783,790 56.11

Dun & Bradstreet -Telstra & ATO

Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Gareth Jones Gareth Jones-CN-DNB-GJ (5mb) Gareth Jones DnB 07.05.15 Incls:
*Affidavit from ATO Officer Antony Wallace
*Top 10 Facts about ATO
*Court Evidence ATO is not a Legal Entity
*Extract – Letter from TaxPayers to ATO in March 2011
* Request for PII details “Acting In Commerce


CEO – Gareth Jones. 

Dun and Bradstreet – Operating in Treason, Fraud and Slavery. 

This parasite in our community ‘alleges’ to have rights and jurisdiction over YOU.   FALSE.
How does it think it acquired that?
It broke the Law and is using you as a debt slave to generate a profit for itself.
It is wholly false in it’s presumption that you are willingly embroiled in it’s debt slavery game.
Rather, you are engaged in it’s debt slavery game under duress, since any attempt to create a people owned currency, as opposed to the current PRIVATELY owned currency, does result in assassination.  Just refer to the history of JFK or Abraham Lincoln.
And if one needs access to community resources that have fallen into corporate hands they must agree to contracts under duress to access such resources.  These contracts have nasty parasites lurking in them like Dun and Bradstreet.
Which Maxim of Law does Dun and Bradstreet break to carve out it’s filthy existence from the cobbled slave streets of old London:
1.Doctrine of Privity
A valid contract (if one exists) is a private relationship between the parties who make it, and no other person can acquire rights or incur liabilities under it.
2. Scope of Doctrine. The Doctrine of Privity has two aspects.
a. No one can acquire rights under a contract to which he is not a party.
b. No one can incur liabilities under a contract to which he is not a party. 
CONTRACT LAW is one of the most clear cut and unambiguous LAWS that there is.  In many cases the LAW and more specifically CONTRACT LAW  insisted upon to be written, that even a lay man, would and could understand it.  Thus it is a very solid foundation of LAW.
Let’s see, who is the current nut case occupying the position of CEO for Dun and Bradstreet and inevitably earning far too much money for committing acts of treason, fraud and slavery in community. That would be Gareth Jones.
So today 17.8.15, Dun and Bradstreet entered my life after Telstra SOLD my account to them, like I am it’s peasant slave and it can just do that.  So what might Dun and Bradstreet think it has right to do to my life.   Well let’s take a look below.  The list of HARM and INJURY, is impressive despite a long track record of a weekly payments with Telstra.  Ho Hum Telstra, you are the subject of many other posts of your fraudulent contracts that allegedly grant Dun and Bradstreet access to enter my life.   How irresponsible are you, and how willing to engage in breaking the law for your fake, fraudulent status as a private corporation with private profits, shareholder dividends and grossly overpaid CEO.   Telstra was a community resource.  It is gross fraud to allege to be able to sell it back tot he people who already owned it.
So let’s see what costs Dun and Bradstreet have racked up today, 17.8.15 attempting to extort business out of me WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
1) A phone call from 08 8010 7000 at 12.25pm AWST, attempting to create joynder to the legal fiction thus deeming me a slave: $1 000 000
2) A txt message at 1.10pm AWST alleging to have very important business to discuss with me: $1 000 000
3) An email delivered to my inbox at 12.59pm AWST telling me:
a)  my services had been suspended, which they hadn’t.
b) demanding full payment from me, despite multiple communications recorded into Telstra between myself
and the entity I agreed to do business with, i.e. Telstra.
c) despite a weekly payment plan in place and consistently followed
d) threat of late fees and disconnection fees
e) threats to remove my number altogether
f) threats that Telstra will take further action
Fee for issuing threats to harm:  $5 000 000 
And follows is the ludicrous privacy statement of this psychopathic pirate in our community. 
But first, 
4) I have no recollection of giving my Power of Attorney to this parasite, thus rendering me to be it’s 
slave and thus free to be treated in the above manner.   And yet it seems to be in possession of my 
Power of Attorney.  How did that occur?  Through slight of hand and zero transparency, thus deeming this deceptive contract with Telstra null and void.  $1 000 000  
5) If D & B’s existence and alleged authorities were buried in my agreement with Telstra then it has acted in FRAUD, 
and has colluded with Telstra with intent to deceive and to harvest not only data about me, but profit from me, 
whilst granting itself the right to harm me. 
This is blatant slavery.  $5 000 000

Privacy Statement  – Sections in RED, highlight corporate psychopathic slave mentality of alleged power, that has merely been stolen. 

Dun & Bradstreet (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 006 399 677 (D&B) has collected personal information about the individual to whom this letter has been addressed (You) from the organisation named on the other side of this letter who has instructed us to contact You (Our Client).

= Harvesting data without consent:  $2 000 000

D&B collects personal information about You for the purpose of carrying out debt collection activities, including instituting legal proceedings on behalf of Our Client. If some, or all, of your personal information is not collected by D&B, D&B may be unable to assist with resolving this matter and enforcement action may be escalated by Our Client. 

= Threat to harm based on a private legal system of treason, fraud and slavery    $5 000 000

Your personal information will be stored for the purpose of data matching and future debt collection activities. D&B will also collect, hold and use personal information for planning and research purposes, but for these purposes it uses and produces aggregate or de-identified data.

Use of my personal details without transparent, wet signature agreement 
= theft and slavery.  $2 000 000

D&B will usually disclose personal information about You to our Client, Courts, Tribunals and organisations D&B instructs to do things on its behalf (such as process servers, mailing houses and lawyers). 

= Delusional perception of ownership and rights over an individual.  = slavery. $5 000 000

Dun & Bradstreet (New Zealand) Ltd is a related company that does things on behalf of D&B. New Zealand has similar privacy laws to Australia. Information about debtors is never sent outside Australia and New Zealand. D&B does not use call centres on other countries for collection purposes.

Generally, D&B will allow You to access information D&B holds about You by contacting D&B on telephone number 132 333. D&B will aim to provide access to such information within a reasonable period after the request is made. Where permitted by law, D&B may charge you a fee in certain circumstances.

Alleging to hold superior claim over personal details than the individual and extorting funds for access to details.  $2 000 000

Sometimes D&B will refuse to give you access to information (e.g. you have not verified your identity). If it does it will provide you with the reason for its decision.

For more information about how you can access your personal information held by D&B, how you can seek the correction of such information, and D&B’s complaints handling procedure, view our Privacy Policy at

6) So in light of that, let me be 100% clear to D&B.   
a) I have no wet ink signed contract to do business with you. 
b) You have zero Power of Attorney in any matters related to me and are commanded to exit my environment immediately and ‘unrecorded’ any data you believe you have the privilege to hold. 
c) You may not harm me in any way without the fees here, actioned against you. 
d) You are wholly fraudulent in our communities and exist by breaking the Law. 
e) Refer to the other published matter referencing your conduct with a focus on Telstra behaviour. 
f) All data is published on the net for community education so that others may not be held to account for your FRAUD. 
Total Pending:  $29 000 000

Australian Govt To Steal Trillions in Super


What follows is the most important research I’ve published in my whole career.

If you have money in super — and want to ensure it STAYS your money — it could be the most important research you ever come across.

I warn you: some of the evidence you’ll see here — extracted from obscure ‘Consultation Papers’ and buried Treasury Reports — will shock you and probably anger you.

You won’t believe it.

You’ll think we’ve made these documents up.

We haven’t.

The government is coming for you super.

You need to see this evidence for yourself and make your own decision.

And, if you even just half agree with its conclusions, share it with everyone you care about.

Then, think about enacting some of the protection measures that are covered in the second half of this report.

To discover The Genesis 47 Plan now, click here.

Kris Sayce signature
Kris Sayce
Publisher, The Daily Reckoning

Dear Reader,

Well, our Genesis 47 Plan report has caused a bit of a kerfuffle already.

I’ll properly scan my email inbox when I’m back in the office tomorrow.

But I’ve already read an email from a reader who called my predictions for a super wealth grab ‘garbage.’

He then asked his local MP about it, who promptly told him my prediction is ‘gibberish’ like some ‘Dan Brown novel.’

Well, it’s highly unlikely a Member of Parliament would say ‘You know what? He’s right. That $2 trillion in super isn’t actually yours, it’s Australia’s. Australia is a financial wreck. And that money is going to help us out a LOT. Sorry.’

Look, I haven’t produced this report to rile you up and deliberately provoke.

I’ve put it out to at least get you thinking about scenarios and possibilities the mainstream media is ignoring. If you still think the scenario of superannuation confiscation by the government is absurd after reviewing all the evidence laid out here, fine. I’ve still fulfilled my responsibilities as the only financial publisher in Australia who can freely explore these ideas.

If our questioning of the sanctity of Australia’s super system so outrages you that you wish to re-evaluate your subscriptions with us, that’s fine too. I’m willing to take a financial hit here on a matter of principal. What I see coming is too important to your future wealth to stay quiet about…even if it results in losing customers.

It couldn’t happen here syndrome

I would wager there were a good many Americans who once thought the spectacularly unpopular Wall Street bailouts ‘couldn’t possibly happen here.’

When told after the bailouts that, seven years on, the main culprits behind the crash would still be in business and making a killing, Americans would have also said: ‘Hell no! Not here. This is America. Land of the just!’

You saw what happened in Cyprus — basically the seizure of all bank assets over €100,000.

‘No way could that happen!’ Most Cypriots would have scoffed if you floated this idea.

‘I wake up one day and my business is bust because our savings has been electronically transferred to the government overnight? Whatever! What have you been smoking?’

What this report sets out to show you is that it CAN happen here.

In fact, I am convinced it WILL happen here.

If you haven’t read it yet, please do. If it doesn’t convince you that a concerted plan to steal at least a portion of your super savings is underway, I suspect nothing will.

If this report does convince you — or reinforce your convictions — then take action now.

First, spread to word.

The more like-minded Australians who are aware of — and are vocal about — this plan, the harder it will be for the government to execute it.

Second, put some measures in place to protect yourself. These are also covered in this report. If you’re pushed for time, scroll down to the Exodus Initiative section (which contains some practical things you can do) at the end.

Click here to read.


Kris Sayce signature
Kris Sayce
Publisher, The Daily Reckoning

All content is © 2005–2016 Port Phillip Publishing Pty Ltd All Rights Reserved
Port Phillip Publishing Pty Ltd holds an Australian Financial Services Licence: 323 988 | ACN: 117 765 009 | ABN: 33 117 765 009
All advice is general advice and has not taken into account your personal circumstances. Please seek independent financial advice regarding your own situation, or if in doubt about the suitability of an investment.
Calculating Your Future Returns: The value of any investment and the income derived from it can go down as well as up. Never invest more than you can afford to lose and keep in mind the ultimate risk is that you can lose whatever you’ve invested. While useful for detecting patterns, the past is not a guide to future performance. Some figures contained in this report are forecasts and may not be a reliable indicator of future results. Any potential gains in this letter do not include taxes, brokerage commissions, or associated fees. Please seek independent financial advice regarding your particular situation. Investments in foreign companies involve risk and may not be suitable for all investors. Specifically, changes in the rates of exchange between currencies may cause a divergence between your nominal gain and your currency-con verted gain, making it possible to lose money once your total return is adjusted for currency.




Aussie Speeding Fines Jan 2016

- Intro

- Proof in the media that more people are fighting their fines

- The truth about speed cameras

The Police are starting to speak up against speed cameras

- Troubling news for Victorian motorists

 - Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards

- Intro

We trust that you all enjoyed some kind of a break over the Christmas/New Year period and managed to spend some quality time with family and friends. We are super excited about what 2016 holds for our Members and, as you will see from the articles below, the year has already kicked off with some great results.

More and more people are waking up to the fact that the current system of purported “road safety” is simply about revenue raising and, as you will read soon, more motorists than ever before are choosing to fight back against the current corrupt and ineffective system, which is great news.

We genuinely believe that we are at a serious tipping point – on one hand, the governments and their goons are going to extraordinary lengths to try and extract every last dollar that they can from people and finding new ways to fine motorists and collect those fines. But, on the other hand, as we noted above, more people than ever before are fighting back and “the system” is really starting to feel the consequences of that.

As we have said many times before, it is simply a numbers game – there are many times more of “us” than there are of “them” and, as soon as we all starting fighting backcollectively, we will bring the system to its knees. We look forward to playing our role in ensuring that 2016 is the year that happens.

So, to find out what great  successes have already been achieved at this early point in the year – as well as examining some of the issues that we still face – be sure to read on and help us spread the word by passing this e-mail around to everyone you know.

And, don’t forget to check out our closing Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards section to find other ways that you can help get the message out to fellow motorists and make this our most successful year ever.

Proof in the media that more people are fighting their fines

As we noted in our Intro, more people than ever before are fighting back against unjust and unlawful fines. In fact, so many people are now doing so that even the mainstream media is reporting on it, as you can see in this article –

As the article states, more and more motorists, each and every year, are choosing to fight their fines and, last year, that number was almost 73,000, which is fantastic news. The problem is that Victoria Police issued 2.9 million traffic infringements and there were a further 1.68 million parking tickets issued so why did only 73,000 motorists challenge their fines when over 4.5 million fines were issued???

Those figures mean that only 1.5% of people who received a fine actually challenged it in court – that is simply not good enough! We believe that figure should be as close to 100% as possible – now, realistically, that is never going to happen but let’s at least start by aiming for double figures and see what kind of an impact that has on the system!

Be sure to refer to the story in our last official e-mail update of 2015 that details how the NSW government is spending $20 million to try and cut the backlog in their court system - - which is, at least in part, a result of so many people challenging their fines and helping to fill up the courts. Just imagine the impact we could make if 10%, 20% or if 50% of people challenged their fines!!!

Remember, our e-book – “Speeding Fines What You REALLY Need to Know” – teaches you everything you need to know to successfully challenge your fines, from the moment you receive a fine in the mail or get pulled over, right through to taking a matter to court and beating it there. The book is laid out in a very simple, easy to follow, step-by-step format that thousands of motorists have been using now – since 2007, when we started – to beat their fines.

We would urge you to spend some time reading through our five full pages of Testimonials - - to see for yourself just how many people have successfully used our information. Then, if you haven’t yet done so, be sure to join up as an E-Book Member - - and grab your own copy of our licence-saving e-book, in either digital format or hard copy.

And remember, as an E-Book Member, you are not only getting the information in our book, you are also getting almost 30 pre-written letters that you can use to respond to any fine you receive and you get 24/7 e-mail support from our team as well, to assist you with any questions you may have along the way. There is a small one-off fee to become an E-Book Member and, once you are, you get regular e-mail updates and e-mail support completely free for life!

So, join up now, encourage your friends, family and work colleagues to do so as well so that, at the end of this year, the media is reporting a massive spike in the number of people that are challenging their fines and we start hearing more stories about the issues that “the system’ is facing as a result.

- The truth about speed cameras

We have had a page up on our website for many years now that has information on why speed and red light cameras should be removed from service and we even have a petition that you can sign to help achieve that outcome -

We have recently received a few more articles, which we intend to upload to that page, that provide even further information on the problems with speed cameras. The first is a great article that asks the very powerful question, “Are speed cameras killing us?” -

This article clearly silences the government propaganda that “Speed Kills” or that “Speed Cameras Save Lives” – as we’re constantly told – and, although the article is a year old, the increase in the road toll in Victoria occurred again last year, as this article details -

So, despite more cameras being installed across Victoria, and more fines being issued in Victoria each year, the road toll has continued to increase over the past 2 years! The road toll is also currently up in NSW and we are just awaiting figures from other States as we write but don’t believe that any State has seen any significant reduction in the road toll last year. So, why does the government continue using speed cameras if they have been proven not to“save lives”? Because they make a hell of a lot of money. As the “Are Speed Cameras Killing Us? article” states, revenue from speed cameras alone, just in Victoria, is almost $300 million!!! If you were in government and raking in that much money, would you remove them? Of course not!

So, as we have said a million times before, the only way to put an end to this madness and have these cameras removed is by getting everyone to challenge every fine they get. Then, the government will be faced with the fact that speed cameras are making little or no money and the road toll is continuing to increase and then, they will have to take notice of the strategies and ideas that we have detailed on our Vision for the Future page -

The closing lines of the “Are Speed Cameras Killing Us?” article perfectly mirrors what we have had on our Vision for the Future page for over 8 years now – let’s focus on improving driver training and education, removing drunk and drug affected drivers from our roads and let’s stop focussing on “speeding” and, instead, concentrate on the factors that truly affect “road safety”.

We received another great article that, once again, proves that speed cameras are all about revenue raising. The opening line of this article - - details a fact that many of us can relate to (depending on your age). For many years we drove very happily and very safely without ever receiving a fine but, since the introduction of the insidious speed camera program, many drivers have received numerous fines, especially over the past 5 years or so.

Be sure to take note of some key statements throughout that article, such as the reference to an 800% increase in accidents when cameras were installed in a town in California or how simply lengthening the time an intersection’s light remains red can improve safety at zero cost and without the need for red light cameras.

The point that should excite all Aussie motorists is the fact that the city councils in Los Angeles and Houston have voted overwhelmingly to shut the speed and red light camera programs because they have proven that the cameras simply don’t work and, since they are no longer making money for those councils, there’s absolutely no point keeping them. We need to ensure that our cameras, right here in Australia, also stop making money – by people challenging their fines rather than blindly “paying up” – and that is how we will have them removed here too.

The Police are starting to speak up against speed cameras

In our earlier Proof in the media that more people are fighting their fines section, we detailed the fact that the mainstream media is now reporting on the fact that more and more people are choosing to challenge their fines and that is great news. Even better news is the fact that ex-police officers are now starting to speak up about what a complete scam the current system of “speed detection” aka “revenue raising” really is.

There was a great article posted right at the start of this year called “The Speed Camera Swindle” and you can read it here - This article was written by an ex-police officer, who was certified as a Class 1 Advanced (Police) Driver so we dare say that he is pretty well qualified to comment on this subject.

He starts by explaining that, quite obviously, overt cameras are going to cause people to slow down, yet covert speed detection practices – whereby you are simply sent a fine in the mail a few weeks after the fact – cannot possibly cause people to slow down or save anyone’s life. This fact was highlighted in the “Are Speed Cameras killing Us?” article in our previous section.

He goes on to say that despite the use of covert cameras increasing, the standard of driving has decreased because covert cameras clearly do nothing to modify driver’s behaviour at the time that they are actually driving. He goes onto to mirror what we have said for years, that it is focus and attention that are the keys to true road safety.

He also talks about the fact that speeds limits are set too low – ie. arbitrarily set and then artificially lowered in order to “catch” more motorists. This lowering of limits causes frustration and anger and that is yet another factor in accidents. So, the reality is that governments are actually causing the very accidents that they preach they are trying to stop!

As he correctly states, we need to be focused on driving safely not on driving below some arbitrarily set speed limit, just so we don’t get a fine! He also makes another point that we have made many times over the past 8 years, regarding the Government “budgeting” an amount of revenue from speed cameras, despite them telling us that they are an effective deterrent and cause people to slow down. He points out that the WA government has “budgeted” for income of almost $98 million from cameras this year but surely, if camera truly worked they way the government claims they do then they should be budgeting zero income!

His closing lines, about covert cameras having little effect on road safety, the fact that cameras exist purely to raise revenue and the on-going brainwashing of cizitizens really does say a lot,especially coming from an ex-police officer with his training and experience.

Thankfully, he is not the only police officer saying these kinds of things. We received a fairly strongly worded e-mail this week from Owen Godfrey – another ex-police officer, who heads up the No Speed Cameras party in SA – His e-mail was in response to some so-called “statistics” that were released in regards to the road toll in South Australia and we have included a copy of that e-mail for you below:

Michael Cornish from the MAC needs to check his maths.

For the 2015 road toll statistics I counted 4 drivers between 16 and 24 years involved in fatalities in the metro area and 10 in the country.

To me that’s 14% NOT 18% that is statistically relevant for the 12% of people in this age range considering that many of the youngest people are not yet driving.

It is also interesting to note that a 10 year study by two academics at Monash University concluded that there was absolutely no correlation between the use of mobile phones and accidents.

Of course dialling a number or texting is not only unsafe but also irresponsible so maybe the nanny state can just back off a little.

The current system of education by prosecution is NOT working, it never has and it never will.

The only outcome is that it rips off more illegitimate money from a fine-weary public for no benefit to the road toll.

Everybody who has bothered to study the facts realise that the reduction to the road toll in the last 20 years has been due to factors other than speed cameras and laser guns.

This disgusting Government insults our Police with disgusting changes to their worker compensation rights and then expects them to be their illegitimate tax collectors whilst sullying their integrity.

He raises some very important points – such as reminding people, once again, that proper driver training and education is key to reducing the road toll and the fact that the current speed detection program and subsequent fining and punishing of drivers simply isn’t working.

Again, it’s important to remember that this is coming from an ex-police officer who used to issue fines to people himself but he only did so if they were driving dangerously, not just for exceeding some recently reduced speed limit by a few km/h.

- Troubling news for Victorian motorists

Sadly, it’s not all good news this week though. We just came across this article - - which details the fact that 17 new cameras are soon to be rolled out across Victoria.

So, despite everything that we have covered in this e-mail up til now, despite all the statistics, facts and professional opinions that say that cameras do not work in reducing the road toll, the Victorian government has decided to ignore all of that and introduce even more new cameras this year.

The article contains the usual government propaganda suggesting that “We know that speed is one of the leading cause of accidents and the significant level of road trauma” yet they can’t actually point to any statistics that would back up this claim and we have clearly provided plenty of evidence, just in this one e-mail update alone, to refute that statement.

We find it very interesting that Police Minister Wade Noona says that “most people do the right thing but too many people are still speeding and running red lights.” Now, this statement would clearly suggest that “speeding” therefore, is doing the “wrong” thing so, why is it that Victori’as top cop, Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton was caught speeding recently. And, he wasn’t caught speeding by just 1 or 2 km/h over the limit, he was caught doing a “whopping” 8km/h over the limit!

Please keep in mind hat this is the same Chief Commissioner that supports the “Speed Kills” and “Every K over is a Killer” mantras. So Mr Ashton, are you able to direct us to the 8 people that were killed as a result of you exceeding the speed limit by 8km/h?

No? Can you direct us to even one? Was anyone even injured?

Then how about you start telling the truth and stop spouting the crap to the media that you did when you were caught! Seriously, what’s with the, “I am embarrassed and diassppointed to find I have gone above the speed limit.” garbage?

Now, maybe if he said he was embarrassed and disappointed that he was caught, we could understand it but we will eat our words if he is genuinely embarrassed and disappointed to find that he exceeded the speed limit when it was clearly set too low – it is a brand new 4 lane freeway with a limit of only 100km/h – and almost everymotorist has drifted above the posted limit at some tiem or another in their driving lives and they are certainly not embarrassed or disappointed about doing so.

Mr Ashton, you are a joke and you do not deserve to hold the position of Chief Commissioner if you are going to lie to the public, lie to your fellow officers and lie to yourself like that! Please remove yourself from that office before you do yourself, or others, some serious harm with your lies!

The reality is that his following statement actually backs up everything we have said in this e-mail update. He admits that his speeding “was as a result of a lapse in concentration” which “highlights the need for constant attention behind the wheel” – that’s right, “constant attention” to where you are driving not constant attention on your speedo!!!

He evn goes onto to say that “Maintaining focus on the road at all times is critical; a moments distraction on the road can lead to tragedy” – we agree wholeheartedly and that is exactly what we have said throughout this e-mail, motorists should be focussing on the road in front of them and not on their speedo. They should be paying less attention to what “speed” they are doing and more attention to actually driving safely.

Of course, he finishes off with his ridiculous and baseless propaganda about how even a few km/h over “matters” yet he provides absolutely zero evidence to back up this false and misleading claim!

We are working with some other groups at present and hope to put out an open video letter to the Chief Commissioner asking him to meet with us so that we can put an end to the BS propaganda and start discussing true road safety initiatives. We will let everyione know as that project progresses and we will be asking you to help us ensure that video goes viral oince we have completed it.

And, speaking of helping us to make things go viral, please be sure to read our final section to see what you can do to really help us spread the word and bring about some realchange this year.

- Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards

So, now you can see how powerful the Aussie Speeding Fines information is, what can you do to help us get our invaluable, licence saving information into the hands of everymotorist before they get a fine?

First and foremost, if you’re not yet a Member or you know someone who isn’t then please go to our Memberships page - - and join up now.

Please note that E-book Membership - – is what you will need to access the step-by-step strategies for defeating your fines and Advanced Membership - – is what will allow you to access the most up-to-date, more advanced arguments, strategies and techniques for defeating your fines. The Advanced Membership website also contains copies of all of the manufacturers manuals for every speed detection device currently used in Australia, as well as some very powerful court cases and paperwork that you can download and use yourself.

Then, if you would really like to help us spread the word and get our invaluable, licence saving information into the hands of every motorist in the country, then please be sure to join and/or visit our Facebook group and get your friends to join as well. We now have a direct Facebook link on the top right hand side of our Home page or you can just use this link-

And, if you haven’t yet done so, please spare 10 seconds to click “like” on our fan page -!/pages/Aussie-Speeding-Fines/433275636708829 - we have well over 6,000 Members on our Group page but only just over 2,000 “likes” and we really want to raise that to be on par with our Group numbers ASAP.

Many of you will have also noticed the Paypal “Donate” button just above the Facebook link. The team at Aussie Speeding Fines work tirelessly day and night, 7 days a week, answering everyone’s e-mails, continually researching to find new ways to defeat unjust fines and preparing these weekly e-mail updates. So, any financial support you could offer, no matter how small, is always very much appreciated.

And finally, if you really want to help make a difference, just e-mail us your postal address and we will send you out some business cards and/or bumper stickers – completely free of charge – that you can then place on your car/truck/van and/or hand out to friends, family and work colleagues.

As always, we thank you all for your continued support and we appreciate all the Members who have taken the time to e-mail us with the latest media article they come across as well as their stories of their success so please, keep them coming!

Stay safe out there,

The Team at Aussie Speeding Fines

Aussie Speeding Fines

P.O. Box 7322
Beaumaris, Vic.


Registered Business # CIK#: DUNS #:
Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Patrick Snowball SCPS13ASee Also
For Withdrawal of Alleged Claim
AAMISK5-E1 Estoppel 1
AAMISK5-E2 Estoppel 2
Mark Milliner AAMIMM13A AAMISK5-E2 Estoppel 2
Sushil Kumar AAMISK13A
Andrew Matthews SCAM13A AAMISK5-E2 Estoppel 2

Aust Associated Motor Insurers – AAMI

Registered Business # CIK#: DUNS #:
Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Patrick Snowball SCPS13AAAMI Correspondence
AAMI Withdrawal of ‘Claim’
AAMISK5-E1 Estoppel 1
AAMISK5-E2 Estoppel 2
Mark Milliner AAMIMM13A AAMISK5-E2 Estoppel 2
Sushil Kumar AAMISK13A
Andrew Matthews SCAM13A AAMISK5-E2 Estoppel 2

The Port Arthur Massacre Conspiracy

by Joe Vialls
[The Port Arthur Massacre]




At 12.40AM on the 4th Feb 1999 in New York City, four plain clothes police officers accidently shot an unarmed black man on the stoop of his building as he reached for his wallet. The police mistook the man’s action as reaching for a gun and fired 41 shots from a distance of about 12 ft (3 meters) with 9mm semiautomatic pistols each holding 16 bullets in the magazine. The man, Amadou Diallo, died from gunshot wounds after being hit only 19 times.

If the NY Police are such lousy shots perhaps they should try to find the real Port Arthur shooter to give them some lessons. Read why Martin Bryant couldn’t have been the shooter at Port Arthur.
“Throughout history – it has been true that the lone assassin has been behind many mass killings. But in recent times he has also been not so alone…….governments and intelligence agencies have been known to prey on and use simple and sometimes ill people to massacre innocent victims in order to gain greater control of the masses. Investigative journalist Joe Vaills has painstakingly put together the evidence that the young man, Martin Bryant, did not, if at all, act alone during the murderous rampage at Tasmania’s Port Arthur……in fact according to the video evidence, this was physically impossible.”The Strategy
The following is the entire works of Joe Vialls, an independent investigator with thirty years direct experience of international military and oil field operations. I have been given written permission by Mr Vialls to publish this unedited information on this site in the interests of justice. However if you are not a fair minded person and refuse to believe anything but what you have already read in the pulp fiction tabloids then my advice is to click onto another page now because what follows is not a fiction story, these are facts based on scientific investigations from which you can draw your own conclusions, as I have. If you have any further queries on this investigation please contact the author direct –
Joe Vialls
45 Merlin Drive,
Western Australia, 6062


In early 1984, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was murdered while on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London. From the moment she was shot, the media misled the British public into believing that Fletcher had been shot by the Libyans, who were subsequently expelled from the country in a fanfare of negative publicity.

It was not until 1995 that this author managed to prove by entirely scientific means that WPC Fletcher could not have been shot from the Libyan Embassy at all, but was shot from the top floor of a nearby building staffed by American multinational personnel.

Was the massacre in Port Arthur a completely spontaneous act carried out by a single nut-case with unbelievable efficiency, or was it a repeat of Yvonne Fletcher’s callous murder, deliberately designed to distort public perception and direct maximum hatred against a particular group of people? All of the available hard scientific evidence suggests that it was.

When investigating cases like Yvonne Fletcher’s murder or the massacre at Port Arthur it is critically important to adhere to scientific proof and avoid eyewitness accounts and media hype like the Black Plague. Eyewitnesses do not lie intentionally, but as any honest psychologist will tell you the accuracy of their testimony is limited by many factors including stress, suggestive police interrogators, and peer pressure.

The more controversial the case the higher the need for absolute scientific proof, because if the investigation reaches a conclusion which conflicts with the officially accepted story, the media will attempt to trash the credibility of the investigator himself, who in these two cases happens to be me. For four years while investigating the murder of Yvonne Fletcher I was gently harassed, visited by members of British Intelligence from London, cordially invited to sign the Official Secrets Act, then threatened when I refused to comply.

Some readers might wonder why I am including so much detail about a murder in London when this story is supposed to be about Port Arthur. Well, it is about Port Arthur, but there are a number of disturbing similarities between the two cases, especially in terms of media behavior at the time of each atrocity, and the use of faked video footage to reinforce the official story of the day. So please bear with me for a few paragraphs.

In 1992 when I first decided to investigate WPC Fletcher’s murder, the most serious obstacle I encountered was the British media, who for nearly a decade had knowingly nurtured a lie so horrific that it almost defeats the imagination. Yvonne Fletcher, they claimed, was murdered by a low velocity bullet fired from the Libyan Embassy located behind her on her left-hand side, with the gunman firing downwards from a first floor window at an angle of fifteen degrees. As any amateur can confirm, that means the bullet entered the left side of WPC Fletcher’s back at a shallow angle of fifteen degrees and then continued through her body tissue towards the right- hand side of her body. Right? Wrong… The bullet entered WPC Fletcher’s upper right back at sixty degrees then sliced down through her rib cage, turning her vital organs into a bloody pulp before exiting her body below the left rib cage.

With Yvonne Fletcher’s exact position recorded by a television camera when the shots were fired there was no room for doubt. It was an absolute scientific impossibility for that shot to have been fired from the Libyan Embassy, and the steep angle of entry of the bullet limited the firing point to one floor of only one building: the top floor of Enserch House, an American multinational building staffed by personnel with documented links to the American CIA. Without the critical video footage from the television camera I would never have been able to prove how she was killed or by who, but fortunately for me the footage still existed in 1992, and television cameras are inanimate objects incapable of lying. If proof appears to exist on video there are only two possibilities: the scientific truth, or deliberately faked video footage shown to the public for special effects or in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Interestingly and with profound implications for Port Arthur, fake video footage was put to air by the BBC “for the first time ever” many months after Yvonne Fletcher’s murder, in what appeared to be an attempt to cement the lies and calculated deceptions about her death forever in the minds of the British public. The public failed to ask why this apparently critical footage had not been presented at the coronial inquest into Yvonne Fletcher’s death: which it was not, but fell hook, line and sinker for the blurred images and sound track, which apparently recorded eleven sub-machine gun shots being fired from the Libyan Embassy. The amateur footage run by the BBC in 1985 was given to one of its reporters by a member of the Metropolitan police force.

During 1995 I used the immutable laws of astronomy and physics to prove the amateur footage a total fake. Analysis of the angle and position of the sun’s shadow falling across the front of the Libyan Embassy was checked using astro-navigation techniques and direct reference to the Greenwich Observatory, Britain’s foremost authority on times and dates derived from the sun- line, a technique used for centuries to tell the time with great accuracy using garden sun-dials. Unfortunately for the BBC who broadcast the amateur footage “for the first time ever”, absolute science proved the sun-line on the amateur footage incorrect for 10.19 am on the 17th April 1984, the time and date on which Yvonne Fletcher was murdered. Indeed, the scientific evaluation proved the amateur footage was not even filmed on the same day Yvonne Fletcher was shot. Those who created that fake footage and then broadcast it were not engaged in a mere media re-interpretation of events, but were accessories after the fact to the murder of an unarmed English policewoman doing her duty on a London street.

After four long years of research and investigation designed to expose the real truth of what happened that day, and after as consultant to the responsible film-maker, Britain’s Channel Four aired part of my scientific proof in a special edition of “Dispatches” , its flagship current affairs program, on the 10th April 1996. Unfortunately, three months earlier the film-maker became incredibly agitated about my absolute scientific proof from Greenwich that the amateur footage was faked, removed me from the production process of a film based on my own copyright story, barred me from the film credits and then incorporated the fake footage as a legitimate part of the film, minus the incriminating sun-line, which proved in absolute scientific terms that what British television was putting to air for a second time since 1985 was totally false and deliberately misleading!

It became swiftly apparent, that although the media was prepared to throw tiny scraps of truth to the public, gross deceptions, especially those generated by erstwhile colleagues in the form of fake video footage designed to manipulate public opinion, were strictly off limits. So it is on the subject of fake video footage and its potential for incredible impact on the viewing public that we finally turn to Port Arthur. Some readers may by now be shifting uneasily in their seats, racking their brains and wondering exactly when and where it was that they were also suddenly shown amateur footage “for the first time ever” on television in Australia. It was on a Wednesday in October 1996, the night before Martin Bryant was due to be sentenced for his alleged role in the Port Arthur massacre.

Many months after the massacre took place, but only hours before the Tasmanian judge was due to make a decision that would effect Martin Bryant for the rest of his life, an Australian TV network suddenly presented the public (and of course the judge) with dramatic amateur video footage shown “for the first time ever”. The reporter told us the man on the video was Martin Bryant on the day of the massacre, going about his business of slaughtering the good people of Tasmania, caught on camera by interested amateur photographers who seemed unmoved by the dangers of high-velocity bullets. Unlike most of the other survivors, these folk did not run away, but hunkered down like battle-hardened war correspondents coverings the end of World War II from an unprotected thoroughfare in the middle of Berlin. They were also very discreet the day after the massacre, when the world’s tabloid media descended on Port Arthur like a pack of ravenous dogs, snapping and growling for any picture they could get hold of in order to meet their respective deadlines in London and New York.

At that point in time the “amateur footage” was worth half a million bucks no questions asked, for this was a world media event and no-one had any pictures. Perhaps the amateur photographers had no need for huge amounts of cash, or perhaps at that early stage their footage had not yet been fully prepared, which was certainly the case after Yvonne Fletcher’s murder in London. The amateur footage run by the Australian network in October 1996 was given to one of its reporters by a member of the Tasmanian police force.

There are so many irregularities on this supposedly genuine video footage, which was accepted as evidence against Martin Bryant in the Tasmanian court, that only a few of the more obvious will be included in this story to help drive the message home. The rest have been carefully collated, and it will give me considerable pleasure to detail each and every one of them personally before a properly convened Royal Commission. If a Royal Commission is not called to fully investigate the methodology used in the massacre, and if Martin Bryant is not called to give evidence, then the people of Australia had best get used to the fact that what little remains of our representative democracy died with the thirty five innocent civilians who were ruthlessly and needlessly murdered at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.

Most readers will remember that at the time of the massacre there were a few clouds in the sky but the sun was shining and casting shadows on the buildings, as shown by the footage from some of the genuine video cameras recording at the correct time, indicated by the timing clocks displayed in the corner of the video footage itself. One or two of these genuine amateur video cameras recorded the sounds of several shots, complete with multiple echoes, proving that the shots in question were being fired outside rather than in an enclosed space such as the Broad Arrow Cafe. But the video footage allegedly showing Martin Bryant running down the road was filmed under an overcast sky, which was the first indicator that something was terribly wrong with this so-called evidence. Who the hell changed the weather at point-blank notice?

Because he is running directly away from the Broad Arrow Cafe with a bulky package under his arm the assumption is that the package contains a Colt AR15, the weapon known to have killed 20 victims in the cafe at a rate of one every five seconds. Problem! Scaled against the man’s height and surrounding objects the package he is carrying is a maximum of 22inches long, a full ten inches too short for the Colt AR15 which measures 32 inches with its butt fully retracted, and more than ten inches too short for either of the other two weapons claimed to have been found in his car; a Belgian FN 7.62-mm Paratrooper and a combat shotgun. So who is this man running down the road, and why is he not carrying any of the weapons allegedly used in the massacre?

At this stage it would be nice to be able to determine whether or not the man really is Bryant, by comparing an accurate right hand profile of Bryant with the video itself. Unfortunately Bryant is the least photographed man in the world today and all attempts to get hold of a photograph of him have failed. For a while I toyed with the idea of asking Martin Bryant’s lawyer to get one for me, but then he too had his camera and film confiscated by prison officials. One wonders why the Australian authorities are so anxious that no pictures of Bryant be allowed outside (or even in) the prison. They would do no obvious harm, whether the man is Bryant or not, a few frames on this sequence make a mockery of any suggestion the prized footage presented to the Tasmanian court was meaningful evidence against Martin Bryant. What they show is a blonde man still running down the road towards the coach park clutching his package, while in the upper left corner of the same frames three men can be clearly seen standing directly outside the entrance of the Broad Arrow Cafe, out of which the blonde man has just run after murdering 20 citizens. One man is standing to the left of the entrance casually leaning on the balustrade with one hand; the second is standing casually on the right smoking a cigarette, and the third is standing directly in front of the door filming the running blonde man with a video camera. To suggest this in any way incriminates Bryant is not only ridiculous, but also quite impossible with the blonde man allegedly in the middle of a massive killing spree.

Just these points alone prove in scientific terms one of two entirely critical scenarios. If the blonde man is Martin Bryant but unarmed, what is he doing role-playing with three men directly in front of the Broad Arrow Cafe?

It is scientifically impossible for the three men not to be involved, so this option proves beyond doubt that Martin Bryant did not act alone, but was manipulated or directed at the crime scene by others whose identities are not yet known. If the blonde man is not Martin Bryant then the only alternative is that a team of unknown men carried out the massacres and then set up a reconstruction on film using a blonde look-alike, to ensure that Martin Bryant would later be convicted. In absolute scientific terms there are no other explanations at all, no matter how much the media might wriggle and squirm in its attempts to ensure the pathetic “Lone Nut” legend remains intact.

If sufficiently panicked, the police might claim that Martin Bryant was merely helping them with a reconstruction to assist with their future inquiries, which was filmed and then accidentally released to the Australian television network. But he couldn’t have, could he? Martin Bryant was badly burnt at Seascape and spent weeks afterwards heavily sedated in Hobart Hospital under armed guard. Of course he may have been induced to help with a reconstruction before the massacre started, but it seems unlikely the police would be prepared to discuss such a blood curdling possibility. Science can be frighteningly efficient at times because, believe it or believe it not, science has just proved in absolute terms right in front of your startled eyes using court evidence that Martin Bryant could not, under any circumstances have acted alone, and may possibly not have acted at all, other than in an orchestrated ‘Patsy’ role.

Which one is true depends on which of the two alternative scenarios detailed above are correct, but there are absolutely no other scientific life-rafts for the sinking media to grab hold of. Remember this is not unsubstantiated hearsay evidence from frightened eyewitnesses used by the media to hype up its mythical version of events. It is absolute scientific proof which cannot be questioned or refuted. Most readers like a story to have a beginning, a middle, and a coherent end. Science can and has provided an accurate outline of the first two but it cannot provide the third.

As an investigator I insist on dealing only with hard facts because it is the only way to avoid being swept along by the avalanche of compulsive lies put out by the media on a daily basis, and there are no hard facts available to answer the question “For God’s sake why?” In any criminal investigation it is opportunity, motive and method. Just about anyone had the opportunity to attack those civilians in a remote spot like Port Arthur on a Sunday without fear of being caught or punished in any way. Where method is concerned any expert combat shooter could have killed 20 unarmed civilians at five second spacings and wrought havoc in the general area, although the words “expert combat shooter” should be noted with care.

Though Australia has tens of thousands of skilled sporting shooters it has very few combat veterans, and even fewer special forces personnel trained to kill large numbers of people quickly in an enclosed space like the Broad Arrow Cafe, which is roughly the same size as mock-up rooms used for practicing the rescue of hostages being held in confined spaces by armed terrorists. It is hard to kill quickly under such circumstances for a number of unpleasant reasons, including the fact that shot people tend to fall against other people, shielding the latter from subsequent bullets. Targets therefore have to be shot in a careful sequence with split-second timing to maximise kill rates. Whoever was on the trigger in Tasmania managed a kill rate well above that required of a fully trained soldier, an impossible task for a man with Martin Bryant’s mid-sixties IQ and his total lack of military training, which is an interesting but largely unimportant observation because we have already proved in absolute scientific terms that Bryant could not have acted alone. That leaves us looking for the motive, which is impossible to determine with any certainty, though it is reasonable to cross link this to Yvonne Fletcher’s pre-meditated murder in London purely in terms of cause and effect.

The effect of Yvonne Fletcher’s savage and very public murder caused public hatred to be directed against the Libyans, who were subsequently deported en-masse from Britain despite the fact they were in no way responsible for her death. The only visible cause and effect that can be laid at the door of the Port Arthur massacre is that the effect of the obscene action caused public hatred to be directed against Australian sporting shooters, who like the Libyans were innocent of any crime at all. Directly linked to this was a massive funded campaign to disarm the Australian people in spite of significant external threats to our national security. If this was indeed the motive, Australia and its people have been violated in the worst possible way by sworn enemies of our great nation, with likely long term consequences too awesome to contemplate.

It is just not right to simply accept the status quo as it exists today in Port Arthur, because to do so implies that Australians have thrown in the towel and admitted defeat on the strength of a single savage action in our smallest State.

The only way to avenge our dead in Port Arthur is to force a Royal Commission on the matter and drag witnesses kicking and screaming into the dock, including certain members of the Tasmanian police force. Failing that, funding should be sought for an independent investigation leading in turn to a book providing the real facts about the chain of events at Port Arthur, a copy of which should be provided for every home across the land.

All Australians must be made aware of the real and shocking circumstances in which their fellow citizens died, because knowledge is the only weapon we can use to guard against future lethal charades on Australian territory. Realistically it would probably take years to find the massive sum needed for such a wide-ranging initiative but there is a positive need for action now, if only to put the Prime Minister on the back foot and convince him there is no longer any need to wear ‘boron carbide body armour’ when attending public meetings. Perhaps the independent Honourable Member for Oxley could find the time to ask the Prime Minister a few meaningful questions in Parliament?



“In this his ultimate demonstration of combat shooting skill the shooter fired one sighting shot at a fast-moving target of unknown speed from an unsupported free- standing firing position, the most difficult of all; instantly and accurately compensated for vehicle speed and weapon recoil with the same blinding speed as the computer gunsight of an F14 Tomcat, then disabled both driver and vehicle with shots two and three. This man might have been an indispensable asset stopping speeding car-bombers in Beirut, but his professional skills were far too conspicuous for Port Arthur.”

Part one of this report proved in absolute scientific terms that Martin Bryant could not have acted alone at Port Arthur and hinted strongly that he may not have acted at all, other than in an orchestrated ‘patsy role’. Part two uses military science to prove that Bryant could not have been responsible for the murders at Port Arthur or on the Arthur Highway, though he may have fired 250 wild shots from Seascape during the siege, every one of which failed to hit a target; a dramatic and strikingly obvious reversal? of the real shooter’s devastating performance at Port Arthur during the afternoon of 28 April 1996.

The initial reaction of most readers to the reality that Martin Bryant killed no- one at Port Arthur but was deliberately set up as a patsy is a combination of horror and complete disbelief. Are we to believe that a bunch of planners sat round a table and arranged the premeditated murders of 35 Australians? Unfortunately the answer is yes. All of the hard evidence at Port Arthur bears the distinctive trademark of a planned “psyop”, meaning an operation designed to psychologically manipulate the belief mechanisms of a group of people or a nation for geopolitical or military reasons.

Because of their illegal nature, psyops are never formally ordered by governments, but are discreetly arranged through multinational corporations and others. Some psyops ordered during the last forty years are known to have been carried out by independent contractors hired from a small specialist group, staffed mostly by retired members of American and Israeli special forces.

Patsies are normally used as decoys, deliberately inserted into the psyop to deflect attention away from the specialist group, allowing the latter time to extract safely from the operational area while the patsy takes the blame, But the planners leave tell-tale signs and occasionally make critical mistakes. It is a little-known fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was proved a patsy when a New Zealand newspaper printed a story about his guilt several hours before he was accused of the crime in Dallas. The planners put the decoy story on the news wires too early, forgetting the crucial time difference would allow the New Zealand paper to print the story long before Oswald was even accused. It was a single planning error, but one that proved in absolute scientific terms that Lee Harvey Oswald was deliberately set up as a patsy.

As part one of this report proved, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher’s murder in London during 1984 was a psyop where the intended patsies were four million Libyans. The operation was successful and resulted in Tripoli being bombed by an ‘outraged’ President Reagan in 1986. The next blatant psyop was Lockerbie, when on 21 December 1988 Pan American flight 103 exploded in mid-air killing all 259 passengers and crew. Although very recent scientific evidence not yet in the public domain proves conclusively that the Libyans could not have been responsible, they were nonetheless blamed for the atrocity. The principal affect of those two psyops on the Libyans were sanctions designed to prevent them updating defensive weapon systems capable of protecting their resource-rich nation. Since 1984 Libyan defense capabilities have steadily declined, leaving its people and resources increasingly vulnerable to external attack and thus possible conquest.

By a strange coincidence Australia is also a resource-rich nation, with overall reserves more than twenty times as valuable as those in Libya, but with only half the defense capability. In some ways this was not an insurmountable problem until 1996 because unlike Libya this nation has always had huge numbers of sporting shooters traditionally used in time of war to both train and supplement our miniscule armed forces. Not any more. Since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve forearms have been pulped instead of stored by the Federal Government, leaving our nation and people terribly exposed to just about anyone interested in taking over the natural resources jewel in the southern hemisphere crown.

To hell with multinational global ambitions. This is Australia and we need to restore our reserve capability in order to keep this country the way it is. The first thing we have to do is prove once and for all time that Martin Bryant was used as a patsy to cover the objective of the Port Arthur psyop, which effectively undermined our national security. In fact I am going to prove that now but doubt the Federal Government will be interested in the hard scientific facts, or in correcting the multiple gross errors made immediately after the massacre tool place. The harsh and unpalatable truth about Port Arthur will have to be forced on the Australian Government by the Australian People.

Martin Bryant, an intellectually impaired registered invalid with no training in the use of high powered assault weapons, could not under any circumstances have achieved or maintained the incredibly high and consistent killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate which were bench marks of the port Arthur massacre. Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best special forces shooters in the world, His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself for what he was: a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top twenty such specialists in the western world.

Over the years television viewers have been subjected to such a barrage of Rambo-style television programs that most now believe every time Sylvester Stallone points a gun and pulls the trigger, twenty bad guys immediately fall down dead from lethal shots to the head or heart. Unfortunately this Hollywood media rubbish is hopelessly misleading and in no way reflects the difficulties involved in killing large numbers of people quickly, regardless of whether those people are armed or not, and regardless of the ranges involved. For a number of reasons explained later, killing efficiently at close range in crowded and confined spaces presents the shooter with far more complex targeting problems than those associated with conventional open-air combat scenarios.

Media claims that those killed in the Broad Arrow Cafe were shot at point- blank range where ‘Bryant’ could not possibly have missed are complete rubbish. Point- blank range is where the muzzle of the weapon is held against the body of the target, In the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter fired at an average range of twelve feet, where a tiny aim-off error of three degrees is enough to ensure that a bullet completely misses a target the size of a human head.

Readers are invited to prove to themselves just how small an error that is, by laying two twelve-foot long pieces of string flat on the floor alongside of each other, with the far ends four inches apart. That helps put things into perspective, doesn’t it?

Scientific terms such as killed- to-injured ratio and kill-rate are enough to bore most readers to death, but in order to fully comprehend the enormity of the media lies about the massacre, and expose the planned nature of the operation it is essential information. The killed-to-injured ratio is used to calculate reliably how many injured survivors should be expected for every person killed for a given number of rounds fired. Even assault rounds as powerful as those fired by the Colt AR15 can only ensure a one-shot kill if the target is hit in the head, a six by six inch target: or in the heart, a ten by ten inch target. Together these areas form between one fifth and one seventh of the over-all body target areas, so for every person killed there will be between five and seven injured, expressed as “1 to 5” and “1 to 7”.

The records show that a total of 32 people were shot in the Broad Arrow Cafe, so at best we would expect 4 dead and 28 injured, or at worst 6 dead and 26 injured. These are very reliable military figures based on hard science, but the actual figures in the Broad Arrow Cafe were 20 dead and 12 injured – an incredible inverted ratio of 1.66 to 1, or nearly two dead for every one injured.

Special forces train continuously for months on end to achieve a ratio as high as this, which lies far beyond the abilities of regular soldiers, and is an absolute scientific impossibility for an intellectually impaired registered invalid.

Media apologists desperately trying to protect their obscene “lone nut” legend will scream foul at this point and claim that flukes happen. No they do not. About seven months ago a trained Israeli soldier went beserk in Hebron and fired a complete thirty-shot magazine of ammunition from an identical Colt AR15 into a crowd of Palestinians at the same range. His thirty high velocity bullets injured nine and killed no-one at all. This Israeli example helps to drive home the absolute lunacy of crafted media insinuations that Martin Bryant was a registered invalid who suddenly metamorphasized into the lethal equivalent of a fully trained and highly disciplined US Navy ‘SEAL’.

Next we come to the kill-rate which refers to the speed at which people are killed, thereby reflecting the skill, co-ordination, and accuracy of the shooter. It is accepted by all the authorities in Tasmania that immediately after the shooter entered the Broad Arrow Cafe he killed his first 12 victims in 15 seconds, a claim apparently opposed by some sporting shooters in Tasmania because of the seemingly impossible speed and lethal efficiency. This is a very reasonable objection so long as those shooters remain media-fixated on Martin Bryant, but there is nothing impossible about such a high kill-rate at the hands of a top special forces shooter operating at peak efficiency.

The first thing special forces do when entering an enclosed area containing superior numbers is lay down very fast accurate fire designed to kill as many hostiles as possible, thus gaining absolute control of the area in record time and minimizing the risk of injury to themselves; and because hostiles frequently wear body armour protecting the heart area, special forces are trained to aim instinctively for the smaller head target. Following these unpublished protocols precisely, the shooter at Port Arthur gained absolute control of the Broad Arrow Cafe in fifteen seconds flat, killing most of his victims with a single shot to the head.

To even suggest that Martin Bryant, whose proven weapons handling experience was limited to a single-shot Webley Osprey air rifle could have caused this carnage is absurd. When the shooter entered the Broad Arrow Cafe full of people sitting at tables and fired the first shot, everyone inside reacted instinctively to the huge muzzle blast (noise) of the AR15, but each reacted in a different way, some just turning their heads while others moved physically, temporarily obscuring yet more diners and shielding them from the line of fire. At the same time the barrel of the AR15 was recoiling upwards through about five degrees of arc as it cycled another round into the breech, throwing the muzzle off target.

In a millisecond the cage was full of targets moving in at least ten different directions while the muzzle of the AR15 was still recoiling upwards from the first shot. But despite the enormous difficulties and the complex target trigonometry involved, the shooter controlled the recoil and shot 12 moving and partially obscured targets at the rate of one every 1.25 seconds. Nor did he trip over any obstructions, indicating that this professional shooter’s face was seen in the Broad Arrow Cafe by staff some time earlier, during his final reconnaissance when he studied the layout to ensure no hiccups occurred during the operation. There were no hiccups. Ninety seconds after entering the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter departed, leaving thirty two Australians and others lying on the floor, twenty of them dead.

All of these hard scientific facts were deliberately excluded by the frenzied media pack and not one attempt was made to establish the real identity of the shooter. Long blonde hair did not prove that the shooter was Martin Bryant, and the media somehow forgot to remind the Australian public that long wigs are the most common form of basic disguise ever used. In the Broad Arrow Cafe a long wig would also have been necessary to conceal the ear protection worn by the shooter. Firing more than thirty high velocity AR15 rounds in that hollow confined space produced as much concussive blast as a pair of stun grenades; sufficient concussion to severely impair the shooter’s spatial orientation (and thus aim) unless wearing ear protectors or combat communications headphones. Readers are cautioned not to try proving this point themselves if they value their ear-drums and long-term hearing ability.

Official accounts are hazy about what happened next, but it is confirmed that most of those killed thereafter were shot with the Belgian FN, a heavier assault weapon which has a completely different weight and balance from the Colt AR15 and fires a round producing more than twice the recoil.

But despite switching between weapons with very different handling characteristics, and shifting from close to intermediate range, the shooter constantly maintained an awesome inverted killed-to-wounded ratio. Overall the massacre produced 35 dead and 22 injured for a final killed-to-wounded ratio of 1.60 to 1, almost identical to the 1.66 to 1 ratio in the Broad Arrow Cafe. To say the shooter was consistent would be the understatement of the year.

In layman terms, in an average shooting the 35 people who were killed at Port Arthur should have been accompanied by between 175 and 245 injured survivors; very similar ratios to the American McDonalds and other random massacres. Instead there were only 22, the trademark of a highly trained combat shooter. It is only when accurately analyzed in this cold scientific way that the monstrous nature of the media story can be exposed for what it really is: a creative lie every bit as loathsome as that fashioned by the British media when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot in the back from an American multinational building during 1984, but where the media grovelled obsequiously in front of powerful international patrons and lobbies and conspired to pervert the course of justice by blaming the Libyans instead of the Americans.

The professional shooter in Tasmania presented us with a final display of his unquestioned prowess when tourist Linda White and her boyfriend Mick approached Seascape Cottage on the Port Arthur road in a small four-wheel drive vehicle, shortly after the massacre in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Both saw the shooter aim and Linda White felt the wind of the first round as it passed her cheek and shattered the driver’s window next to her head. The shooter corrected his aim and the second round hit Linda White in the arm, just to the right of the heart target area, The third round killed the engine and stopped the vehicle.

In this his ultimate demonstration of combat shooting skill the shooter fired one sighting shot at a fast-moving target of unknown speed from an unsupported free- standing firing position, the most difficult of all; instantly and accurately compensated for vehicle speed and weapon recoil with the same blinding speed as the computer gunsight of an F14 Tomcat, then disabled both driver and vehicle with shots two and three. This man might have been an indispensable asset stopping speeding car-bombers in Beirut, but his professional skills were far too conspicuous for Port Arthur.

In the view of this author these were the last shots fired by the professional before he (or they) smoothly extracted from the Tasman Peninsula and then from Australia, leaving the patsy Martin Bryant down the track at Seascape holding the baby.

The trail to Seascape Cottage had been meticulously laid. In Martin Bryant’s car at the tollbooth was a combat shotgun, a bag of ammo for the Belgian FN and, very conveniently, Martin Bryant’s passport. Then there was Linda White’s disabled four wheel drive on the Arthur Highway and a stolen BMW burning in the grounds of Seascape to mark the way, and just in case all these clues were not enough for the Tasmanian Police, an anonymous caller to police headquarters in Hobart advised the authorities that the man holed up in Seascape was probably Martin Bryant. Short of erecting a pink neon sign reading “THIS WAY TO PATSY” the professional or professionals seem to have thought of everything.

There were no eyewitnesses who could positively identify Martin Bryant at Port Arthur because an Australian newspaper circulated his photograph nationwide, thereby totally corrupting any and all police lineups, photo boards, or controlled shopping mall parades.

All the eyewitnesses could legally claim was a “tall man with long blonde hair”, which was no impediment to the media who tried and convicted Martin Bryant in less than two days, in one of the most blatant and disgusting displays of media abuse ever seen.

So Bryant the patsy was firmly in place and Seascape was swiftly surrounded by armed police from Tasmania and Victoria, most of whom must have been very puzzled as the siege continued through the night, If we are to believe media reports (difficult, I know) Martin Bryant fired 250 rounds during the siege period but hit nothing at all, which is exactly what one would expect of someone whose prior experience was limited to a Webley Osprey air rifle.

If the professional shooter had fired 250 rounds from Seascape Cottage during the siege, his awesome killed-to-wounded ratio would have resulted in a police funeral cortege stretching from the Tasman Peninsula to Hobart.

It is beyond doubt that many of the armed police noticed Bryant’s wild undisciplined performance at Seascape bore absolutely no resemblance at all to that of the deadly shooter at port Arthur and some must have told their senior officers about it, though it seems they were ignored or simply told to shut up. The media had its man, the feeding frenzy was in full swing and the police were not going to be allowed to spoil a lucrative politically-correct story by telling the truth.

Unfortunately media versions of events had some flaws so basic that to mention them on national television was an insult to the intelligence of every Australian citizen. We were told in most reports that Bryant had three weapons, one of which, the Daewoo combat shotgun, was left in the boot of his Volvo near the tollbooth. The reports tell us that Martin Bryant then took the Colt AR15 and Belgian FN assault rifles down to Seascape with him and used them along with other weapons found in the house to fire those 250 shots at the police during the siege. Oh, really?

Bryant’s last telephone conversation with the police was around 9 pm on 28 April and his next contact was when he stumbled out of a fiercely burning Seascape Cottage unarmed and with his back on fire at 8.37 am the following morning. Police confirmed that Bryant came out unarmed, and also confirmed that by then the fire, exacerbated by exploding ammunition, was burning so fiercely that they were completely incapable of approaching the building to see if anyone else was still alive. Seascape rapidly became an inferno as the entire structure collapsed on the ground in a pole of white-hot debris, which of course included the charred and twisted remains of the Cold AR15 and Belgian FN assault rifles allegedly fired from inside the building by Martin Bryant, destroyed not only by the searing heat but also by the exploding ammunition.

So how can it be that on a Channel 9 programme shown in November 1996 a Tasmanian police officer was able to show all Australians two immaculate assault weapons allegedly used by Bryant at Port Arthur. Where did the police obtain those pristine weapons we were shown on national television? The real shooter probably left them lying neatly on the ground near Seascape and the patsy, before departing at speed for the Devonport ferry terminal.

In order to present even a shell of a case against Martin Bryant the prosecution needed valid identification by witnesses, but all eyewitness statements were corrupt. In addition they needed the weapons used in the massacre ballistically, cross-matched to bullets found in the victims at Port Arthur, either in Martin Bryant’s possession or bearing his fingerprints. They had neither.

Nor were Bryant’s fingerprints found at the Broad Arrow Cafe where he is alleged to have eaten lunch immediately before the massacre.

In an unprecedented move, fully-edited fake video footage obtained direct from America was entered as evidence in an Australian court against an Australian citizen Martin Bryant. In short there is no case for Bryant to answer with regard to Port Arthur, though he must still explain why he was at Seascape or, more to the point perhaps, tell us who talked him into going there when he did.

Bryant did admit to taking the BMW but from a different location, and without knowing why, and possibly setting fire to it later at Seascape, but vehemently denied any involvement at Port Arthur.

His limited confession fits the known hard scientific facts exactly, and for many months after his arrest despite the severe disadvantage of his intellectual impairment, Bryant kept to his story in the face of tremendous pressure from police interrogators and psychiatrists to admit the enormity of his alleged crimes. He continued to refuse to do so and at the formal hearing on 30th September 1996 pleaded not guilty to all seventy two charges.

At that precise point in time the prosecution knew it had a very serious problem. Martin Bryant was refusing to roll over and there was absolutely no hard evidence at all linking him to the murders at Port Arthur, a fact that would very quickly become obvious if the case was allowed to proceed to trial in front of twelve alert Tasmanian jurors. About the only thing that might save the day was a false confession of the kind beaten out of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four by the British police, but by then Bryant was in prison where his screams might attract attention. With the media pack outside its doors baying for blood, government had to do something but had few options. Perhaps heavy pressure could be exerted on a third party to extract a confession from Bryant?

Shortly afterwards, according to Tasmanian reporter Mike Bingham, Martin Bryant’s mother Carleen, unable to face the stress of a public trial, paid a visit to Bryant at Risdon Prison and told him that if he did not plead guilty, she and his (Bryant’s) younger sister Lindy would commit suicide and he would never see them again. Bingham later wrote that he doubted this was the reason for Martin Bryant then changing his plea to guilty on all charges, but who does Bingham think he is kidding apart from himself?

Bryant’s mum and sister were probably the only people in the world who would still talk to him, and he had just been told that if he didn’t plead guilty they wouldn’t be talking to him ever again, and furthermore he would also be directly responsible for their deaths, Carleen Bryant’s threat achieved in days what the police interrogators and psychiatrists had failed to achieve in months. Martin Bryant love his mum and sister and wanted to see both of them again, something that would only happen if he could stop them committing suicide. Clearly Martin Bryant pleaded guilty to save the lives of his mum and sister.

If Bingham’s claim is correct applying such enormous psychological pressure was mental cruelty, every bit as coercive as the physical abuse handed out to the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four by the British Police. But because Martin Bryant was a registered invalid with impaired intellectual functions, the way that psychological blackmail was used to force a false confession out of him was almost certainly as illegal as the physical methods used by the British police, leaving the way open for Bryant to withdraw his false confession and lodge an appeal.

Just like Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Martin Bryant was a perfect patsy. Both had lively imaginations but few friends, and to a large degree both lacked credibility because of their inability to defend themselves eloquently in front of the media. Lee Harvey Oswald very quickly became a dead patsy incapable of saying anything at all, and it is highly likely the same fate was planned for Martin Bryant. If Seascape had been located in California or Texas, Martin Bryant would unquestionably have been shot dead the split-second he left the building. It was only the iron discipline exercised by the Tasmanian and Victorian police special operations groups at the scene which allowed Martin Bryant to be taken into custody alive. All of those armed officers deserve the highest praise for their restraint in what must have been perceived as an extremely dangerous situation.

It is beyond doubt that those who planned the psyop are uneasy about Martin Bryant’s continued existence and would sleep better at night if he should suddenly drop down dead. With this in mind, any good-natured crims enjoying an extended sabbatical in Risdon prison who read this report are asked to keep an eye on Martin Bryant and do what they can to ensure that he doesn’t accidentally commit ‘suicide’ or slip on a bar of soap and break his neck. No need to go over the top by ordering huge buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken, but a cheerful wave or a friendly smile now and then might be enough to let him know that you know he didn’t kill those women and children at Port Arthur, and that at some time soon all Australians are going to need whatever help he can provide in tracking down the ruthless professionals who cold-bloodedly murdered 35 unarmed Australian citizens, in what will eventually be recorded by historians as one of the most obscene psyops conducted anywhere in the world.

Reversing the psyop illusion will not be a walk in the park, but a battle for truth in broadcasting, where another creative media illusion like that put to air after the massacre at Port Arthur will immediately result in equally creative prison sentences for the magicians who reverse the truth on television for eighteen million Australians. It is a battle we must win for the sake of our children and for their children in turn, and if in the end we are forced to take legal action against government in order to obtain justice, then we must find the funds to do so.

Logic indicates that a limited number of Australian citizens or residents colluded in the massacre, if only in terms of forward reconnaissance and setting Martin Bryant up for the professionals.

We need to find out who they were and we need to find out who funded the psyop. The Federal Police must be asked to investigate the subversive groups who used huge lobby power immediately after the psyop to undermine our national security. The 400,000 reserve weapons pulped were fully-funded by the taxpayer and should at the very least have been placed in military reserve stock for use in time of national emergency. Once greased, such weapons need no maintenance and we had plenty of secure storage space for them. There are no excuses for lobbyists and politicians who wittingly undermine Australian national security.

This is far from the end of the story but it is all that I will be publishing until an intensive independent investigation into the massacre is carried out in Tasmania. There are at least eight other gross errors surrounding the mass murder, any one of which has the potential to savagely damage government, and another thirty lesser points, but each and every one must be verified in absolute privacy. If my investigation into Yvonne Fletcher’s murder in London taught me anything at all, it was simply that the premature release of critical information serves only to allow time for media apologists to think up highly creative ways of minimizing its impact on the public.

If the Federal Government is to be forced into action, it must be presented with a case so complete and so utterly damning that immediate action will be its only recourse short of being thrown out of office by a large bunch of very angry Australians. Anyone wishing to pursue the matter beyond this point should read the item “Port Arthur – What Next?” printed alongside this report.

Many years ago Oscar Wilds said “Literature always anticipates life. It does not copy it, but moulds it to its purpose.” In 1988 Australian newspapers reported New South Wales politician Barry Unsworth’s claim that there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania.


Since part one of the story was published I have received a number of letters from the public, mostly sporting shooters, correctly sensing they were set-up and asking what to do next. It is a very good question. Forget appeals to media and forget judicial reviews of events. The media will ignore you, and any judicial review controlled by government will be manipulated into an orchestrated whitewash closely akin to the Warren Commission in Dallas.

As a first step, pressure should be exerted on your federal and state representatives to ask formal questions in Parliament. This will result in your demands for action being recorded in Hansard, which is important because recalcitrant politicians hate unwanted matters recorded in official documents. Include copies of parts one and two of my report, and refer to them in writing, thereby removing your elected representative’s ability to later argue that he or she had no idea what you were talking about. Ram the harsh reality of Port Arthur down the gullets of every fat-cat in Canberra until they start gagging on the facts.

If Australian sporting shooters wish to clear their collective names they will have to agree to a strategy which reverses the psyop illusion at Port Arthur. Ultimately civil legal action will almost certainly be needed to shake Canberra out of its terminal apathy and its blatant subservience to minority lobby groups.

Time is the biggest enemy. If the Libyans had known about the American PSYOP shortly after WPC Fletcher’s murder in London and had swiftly mounted a civil action against the British Government, considerable embarrassment would have ensued, perhaps enough to stall the attack on Tripoli and the downing of Pan Am 103. But they took no aggressive legal action, and twelve years of subtle media reinforcement later, are nowadays viewed in the west as a nation populated entirely by terrorists. Always remember the media turns fiction into fact as readily as it turns fact into fiction.

Riding piggyback on the atrocity at Port Arthur, the lobbies and politicians are currently setting up Australian sporting shooters as internal redneck terrorists, and if no aggressive defensive legal action is taken I can confidently predict that within months or years another psyop will be executed in Australia; this time using semiautomatic handguns and revolvers aimed at introducing legislation that will outlaw all such weapons for ever. Do you really want that? No, you do not, and there are four million other sporting shooters like you with more than enough collective voting power and funding to stop it happening.

As par tow of the report suggested the first objective must be that of proving Martin Bryant was innocent of the murders at Port Arthur, This is critically important because until that is achieved his presence in prison will be used as “proof” that firearms are too dangerous to be held by those members of the public who in time of war train and supplement our defense forces.

How you feel about Martin Bryant personally is not an issue. Like him or not, Bryant is currently being held aloft by politicians and lobbies as a psyop ‘flag’ proving the legitimacy of their legislation, which undermined Australian national security.

Proving Bryant innocent will remove that flag completely, and with it the justification for introducing the illegal legislation in the first place. Critically, at the same time it will prove by default that Australia was attacked by an armed external interest group, opening the way to repeal the legislation on the legitimate grounds that Australia needs more rather than less defensive weapons in the community to withstand future attacks on our nation and people. The Swiss defense model is an excellent example of what all sporting shooters should strive to achieve.

Before that, an independent investigation must be carried out in Tasmania to prepare the legal bullets for the lawyers to fire at the Federal Government in Canberra. If you want to win, those bullets are going to have to be solid silver and obtaining them will be expensive. Investigating matters that government does not want investigated can be extremely difficult and expensive as I found out with Yvonne Fletcher’s murder in London. In the end the cost of that investigation alone ran to many hundred thousand dollars, and similar costs can be anticipated if the mass murder at Port Arthur is to be investigated properly.

Somehow or other funds will have to be raised, and though I am a more than adequate investigator I wouldn’t have a clue where to start raising finds of this magnitude. Logic suggests that a 200,000 strong demonstration in Sydney or Brisbane where everyone throws two dollars in the pot would be a good place to start but, again, I am no expert. Whoever organized the 120,000 strong demonstration in Melbourne last year is invited to contact me if he has the time; and if any philanthropic multi- millionaires reading this item wish to short-circuit the process by chucking in a few semi-trailer loads of banknotes, that’s OK as well.

Finally, I must point out that so far as I have personally funded the investigation work into Port Arthur and have received no payments for the publication of copyright report or from any other source.

This was done willingly, because every Australian has the right to know that government and media alike have conspired to pervert the course of justice in the case of the mass murder of thirty five Australian citizens on Australian sovereign territory, but I cannot justify spending any more of our limited family finds on the matter. Therefore anyone writing to me in future who would like to receive a reply is asked to enclose a post office money order made out to “J. Vialls”, sufficient to cover the cost of computer disposables, stationary, and postage.


In the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, government went to great lengths to ignore or suppress all evidence suggesting that the official story of the day was unsubstantiated rubbish. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Wendy Scurr and husband Graeme, residents of the Tasman Peninsula. who with others fought to bring very serious distortions of the massacre to the attention of government and media, but were ignored. This report includes information Wendy, Greame, and several of their colleagues are determined that all Australians should know about: Critical information the Tasmanian Government, and several bureaucrats, are equally determined will never see the light of day.


Wendy Scurr is a forthright lady with a sound track record of helping others at the “sharp end” of ambulance operations. During her twenty years with the St Johns Ambulance, and ten years with the Tasman Ambulance Service, as a volunteer ambulance officer, Wendy has seen and done just about everything, attending accidents and incidents so gruesome most people would prefer not to be given full details. As one of the first Port Arthur staff members to enter the Broad Arrow Cafe after the massacre, the carnage came as a shock, but Wendy’s extensive prior experience enabled her to cope admirably with the injured and the dead.

Wendy Scurr also thinks and reacts like lightning. Within minutes of hearing the shooting start in the Broad Arrow Cafe, she rushed into the nearby information office and placed a call to police headquarters in Hobart. Not amused by the initial police reluctance to believe she was telling the truth, Wendy simply shoved the handset outside the door- way and told them to listen to the shots over the phone. Police logged her call at 1.32 pm, a point of considerable importance later on in this report.

It is obvious that anyone with the ability to react so quickly and pass information so accurately would be a prime asset to the police who swarmed over Port Arthur later in the day. Knowing that Wendy made that first critical telephone call and then entered the Broad Arrow Cafe to help the injured should have drawn the police to her like a magnet, but curiously did not do so. She offered the police additional information about the sequence of events but says her interview was abruptly terminated. On 15th October 1996 Wendy received a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions stating she would not be required to give evidence at the trial of Martin Bryant, though it is hard to imagine anyone better placed to provide an accurate account of events that day.

It was the start of a long frustrating battle to get some of the more controversial aspects of the massacre out into the open, a battle Wendy, Greame, and several others initially lost because of government determination to adhere to the “official line” agreed with the media. That official line included the gunman being inside the Broad Arrow Cafe for 90 seconds rather than the four to five minutes Wendy and her colleagues counted, but excluded the fact that several people were shot dead behind a door that would not open. The official line also excluded the fact that the only two policemen on the Tasman Peninsula were decoyed to a remote location just before the massacre started, And what about the startling news that out of the 20 fatalities in the Broad Arrow Cafe, 19 died from the effects of a shot to the head, fired from the gunman’s hip without the benefit of a laser sight? Excluded of course, because the government would be unable to stop the avalanche of public comment on this impossible performance by an untrained left-handed novice like Martin Bryant.

The only personnel available to stop or interrupt the slaughter were two policemen, one stationed in Nubeena 11 kilometers from the Port Arthur site, and the other at Dunalley, a small town to the north with a swing bridge capable of isolating the Tasman Peninsula from the rest of Tasmania. Shortly before the massacre both policemen were sent to the coal mines near Saltwater River, an isolated location on the extreme western side of the Tasman Peninsula, in response to an anonymous caller reporting a large stash of heroin, On arrival they found only glass jars full of soap powder, and reported this via the police radio net.

A harmless time consuming prank perhaps? No. Reliable sources in Hobart state that this was the only drugs decoy ever attempted on the Tasman Peninsula since police records began, and meaningfully point out that leaving glass jars of fresh soap powder was a very professional touch that backfired. Why would anyone assume the soap powder was heroin and place an emergency call to the police without checking the contents first? And why did the caller insist on anonymity? Greame Scurr makes a valid point that it would be hard to select a more suitable remote location if specifically decoying the two policemen away from the Port Arthur historic site and Dunalley. A single glance at a map of the Tasman Peninsula proves his observation to be absolutely correct.

Within minutes of the two policemen reporting their position at the coal mines, the shooting began in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Wendy Scurr made her call to police headquarters at 1.32 pm, and there was then a short but understandable time lag before the police comprehended the sheer magnitude of the situation at Port Arthur and ordered their Tasman colleagues to proceed to the crime scene.

It is unlikely they left the coal mines before 1.36 pm and were then faced with a 30 minute drive to Port Arthur. By the time the officers arrived the operation was over, and both men were then pinned down by erratic gunfire from Seascape.

There was another sound operational reason for the decoy. Wendy Scurr is familiar with the emergency plan for the area and says that in the event of a major incident, the swing bridge at Dunalley would be closed to traffic, to prevent more vehicles straying onto the Peninsula and causing complications. It is a sensible plan, and the command to operate the swing bridge and isolate the Peninsula would normally first be directed through the police officer at Dunalley. But once the bridge was closed to traffic, it would also prevent anyone from leaving the Peninsula, including those involved in executing the massacre at Port Arthur. However, with the Dunalley policeman pinned down by erratic gunfire at Seascape, the bridge remained open to traffic after the massacre, and several people are known to have left Port Arthur and escaped across that swing bridge before the police could stop them. To this day their identities remain a mystery.

One of the most serious disputes centered on how long the gunman stayed in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Wendy Scurr and several colleagues were the best placed to make an accurate time estimate but they were repeatedly rebuffed. Why? Would it really matter if the gunman was there for four or five minutes rather than 90 seconds?

Well, yes it would if trying to reinforce the absurd “official line” that an intellectually-impaired invalid with a tested IQ of 66 and severely limited cognitive functions was the man on the trigger. People with intellectual disabilities are not known for their tactical skills, tending instead to move from one task to the next in an unbroken sequence, Only a professional would wait until the coast was clear before leaving the Cafe.

About the last thing that any professional would do is risk being tripped over outside the Broad Arrow Cafe by a large crowd of nervous tourists blocking his escape route. We know that the gunman was traveling light with only two 30-round magazines for the Cold AR15. He had already fired 29 rounds in the Broad Arrow Cafe, leaving only 31, far too few rounds to reliably carve a path through a large undisciplined mob of unpredictable panic-stricken tourists. A professional gunman would also calculate that if he left the cage too soon, he might accidentally be filmed by one of the many amateur video cameras in use at Port Arthur that day.


The risks were too high and so the gunman waited for the right moment to leave the cafe, with the Tasmanian Government and media later helping to cover up this embarrassing time lag by repeatedly ignoring Wendy Scurr and her colleagues, and by deciding they were not required to appear in the Supreme Court as witnesses.

Was Wendy Scurr taking a wild stab in the dark with her time estimate? No she was not. Everything at Port Arthur ran like clockwork, especially the guided tours. The staff were punctual to the point of obsession and never left the assembly point outside the information office and cafe after the precise departure time.

When the shooting started there were about 70 tourists still waiting for their tour, which made the time 1.29 pm at the latest.

Wendy’s call to the police was logged three minutes later at 1.32 pm. Then she went outside to look for cover in the bush behind the buildings, This took at least another minute, giving a minimum total elapsed time of four minutes and more likely five. As several other colleagues present on the day also attest, the elapsed time was much longer than the “official” 90 seconds.

It was not until most of the milling tourists had dispersed from the area that the gunman emerged from the cafe, firing snap shots to keep the few remaining tourist’s heads (and video cameras) down while he ran towards his next targets in the coach part. The gunman’s professional tactics worked exactly as intended, and the only amateur video claiming to show “Bryant” at Port Arthur that day, has been scientifically proven a deliberate forgery.

Similar vague photos and video convicted an innocent man

Unfortunately, Wendy and her colleagues’ determined stance did not sit well with the official line being promoted by the Tasmanian Government and media, and steps were taken to include the matter in: “An Inquiry by the Director of Public Prosecutions into The Door at the Broad Arrow Cafe and Related Matters.” Where the critical elapsed time is concerned the DPP addresses the time the gunman was in the cafe shooting (based on amateur video audio), but does not address the possibility that the gunman may have lingered for other reasons. Though part of Wendy’s claims in particular are included verbatim in the body of the report, she is not mentioned by name, although other witnesses favouring the official line are. No doubt such a pointed omission is quite legal, but nonetheless seems most discourteous.

The locked door behind which many people died is the main topic of the report, which fails to reach any convincing conclusions due to an over whelming mass of conflicting data. On the balance of probability it seems likely the door failed to open because it was in poor condition, but unfortunately no-one can prove in absolute scientific terms that the door was not deliberately tampered with on the day of the massacre. The expert locksmith employed by the Inquiry to examine the door lock was unable to do so with the lock correctly in place, because someone unfortunately ordered the partial demolition of the Broad Arrow Cafe, including removal of the suspect door, before the Inquiry commenced.

There is one ambiguity in the report where the DPP states: “I was briefed by the police about the status of the doorway on the afternoon of the 28th April 1996 and informed that the door was locked for security purposes against petty theft.” This sentence either means that the DPP was briefed by the police during the afternoon of the massacre itself, or that the DPP received a briefing at a later date referring to events on the 26th April. In an attempt to exclude the possibility of direct political contact with the police on the afternoon of the massacre, I called the office of the DPP at 11.05 am on 13th November 1997 and asked for clarification of this single point. His staff said the DPP was out to lunch, repeated my telephone number back to me, and promised to pass my request to him when he got back. For whatever reason, the Director of Public Prosecutions did not return my call.

A copy of his report was forwarded to Wendy and Greame Scurr with a covering letter including the request: “It would be appreciated if you would treat the report as confidential.” Why? The Inquiry was conducted in order to clarify matters for anyone concerned about events at Port Arthur. Much the same thing happened to the court transcripts of Bryant’s pre-sentencing hearing in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, which are extremely hard to obtain.

Despite Federal Members assuring their constituents that the information is freely available in Hobart, that is not the case. New South Wales farmer David Barton wrote to the Tasmanian Supreme Court asking for a copy of the transcripts, and was told in part:- “The information provided to you by Mr Truss [A Federal MP] is not correct….a transcript may only be provided to a person who, not being a party, has ‘sufficient interest’. Should you wish to correspond further I ask you to explain to me why you contend you have ‘sufficient interest’….”

This is not encouraging for those who wish to know what happened at Bryant’s pre-sentencing hearing in November 1996. The events at Port Arthur had a run-on affect on the injured, on the relatives of the dead, and on hundreds of thousands of sporting shooters, most of whom would much prefer full disclosure.

As a direct result of this excessive secrecy there are very few Australians aware of the awesome performance demonstrated by the gunman in the Broad Arrow Cafe, with the normal excuse being the politically-correct line that disclosing full details would lead to more distress on the part of the relatives of the dead. Unfortunately, this is also an extremely effective way of silencing dissent on the part of those who might take a very different view of events in the Broad Arrow Cafe. All Australians have the right to know what happened that day, and a brief summery follows, It is a very unpleasant matter and those readers with a weak stomach or a nervous disposition are advised not to read beyond this point.


The gunman rose from his chair at one of the tables in the Broad Arrow Cafe, removed the AR15 and spare magazine from a sports bag, immediately killing Mr Yee Ng with a shot to the upper neck, and Miss Chung with a shot to the head. Swivelling on the spot and firing from the right hip, the gunman fired at Mr Sargent who was wounded in the head, then killed Miss Scott with a shot to the head. The gunman continues through the Broad Arrow, next killing Mr Nightingale with a shot to the upper neck and Mr Bennet with a shot to the upper neck, with the latter bullet passing straight through and hitting Mr Ray Sharpe in the head with fatal results. Next Mr Kevin Sharpe was killed by a shot to the head and was also hit in the arm, with shrapnel and bone fragments from the second intermediate strike on Mr Kevin Sharpe then apparently wounding Mr Broome, and possibly Mr and Mrs Fidler.

Still firing from the hip the gunman swivelled and killed Mr Mills and Mr Kistan with single shots to the head, with shrapnel and skull fragments from those shots apparently wounding Mrs Walker, Mrs Law, and Mrs Barker. Again the gunman turned, shooting and wounding Mr Colyer in the neck, before swiveling and killing Mr Howard with a shot to the head. Next he shot Mrs Howard in the neck and head with fatal effect. The gunman turned back, killing Miss Loughton in the back. Moving towards the rear of the building the gunman shot Mr Elliot in the head, causing serious injuries.


The above sequence is the best the forensic scientists could deduce from the crime scene and there may be small variations, but in the final analysis they matter little, What does matter is that at this precise juncture the gunman had killed twelve victims and wounded a further ten in 15 seconds flat, using only 17 rounds fired from the right hip. Such a staggering performance is on a par with the best combat shooters in the world, and two retired counter-terrorist marksmen ruefully admitted they would be hard pressed to equal such awesome speed and accuracy. Both agreed that attributing such a performance to an intellectually-impaired invalid with an IQ of 66 and severely limited cognitive functions, amounts to nothing less than certifiable insanity on the part of Bryant’s accusers. In military terms a fatal shot to the upper neck counts as a head shot, so for all practical purposes those who died during the first 15 seconds were killed by head shots fired with lethal accuracy from the gunman’s hip.

Next the very professional gunman moved towards the area of the souvenir shop and killed Nicole Burgess with a shot to the head, then shot Mrs Elizabeth Howard through the chest and arm with fatal consequences. Swiveling around, the gunman killed Mr Lever with a shot to the head, and killed Mrs Neander with another shot to the head, Temporarily distracted, he fired back into the cafe area and wounded Mr Crosswell. Turning again he shot Mr Winter twice, killing him with a shot to the head. On his way back to the souvenir area the gunman wounded Mr Olson, then proceeded to the kill-zone near the locked door where he killed Mr Jary, Pauline masters, and Mr Nash, all of them with single shots to the head.

At this stage the gunman had killed twenty and wounded another twelve with a total of 29 rounds. He then stopped firing and changed magazines in a most professional way. The magazine fitted to the AR15 held 30 rounds total, so by changing magazines after firing only 29 shots the gunman ensured that he still had a live round in the breech in case anyone moved, enabling him to kill that person instantly if caught unawares. Such professionalism is well kown to counter-terrorist personnel. Critically, the gunman then waited motionless in the Broad Arrow Cafe with a fully loaded magazine, which brings us back to the differential between the verified time estimate of four to five minutes, and the inaccurate official claim of 90 seconds.

It is easy to see why government and media continued to rebut Wendy Scurr and her colleagues’ insistent claims about the elapsed time and the door that refused to open. Either or both had the potential to open a Pandora’s Box with catastrophic results, for there was no way the Tasmanian Government could openly and honestly investigate these matters without running the risk of “accidentally” proving that its villain of choice, Martin Bryant, was innocent of all charges. In addition, the drugs decoy and the stunning accuracy of the gunman in the Broad Arrow Cafe had to be swept under the carpet, before informed members of the public had the chance to realise the “lone nut” massacre was in reality a highly planned paramilitary operation with geopolitical motives, designed from the outset to undermine Australian national security.

Typical vague images that convicted an innocent man.

In the view of this author, and others, the 5,56-mm Colt AR15 was deliberately selected for three specific reasons, one of which was its known ability to inflict horrific and highly visual injuries at close range, caused by its low-mass bullets travelling at extreme velocity. The nature of those wounds caused revulsion among police, emergency service workers and medical staff, thereby assisting the immediate drive by anti-gun lobbyists to have all semi-automatic weapons outlawed. As the leader of the National Embalming Team wrote: “Approximately 90% of all deceased persons had severe head trauma. The bullet wound was normally inflicted to the head with the resultant smaller entry wound and larger exit wound. Some of the deceased persons had an entry wound with no exit wound, the result of this was an explosion of the skull…..” Despite her thirty years of ambulance experience, Wendy Scurr still remembers being shocked when she accidentally trod on shattered skull fragments, before being confronted with a human brain lying in a bowl of chips.

In the medium to long term the lobbyists and international power brokers will be unable to sustain their claim that Martrin Bryant was the villain, because there is simply too much hard evidence proving the “official line” to be a criminal scam. Some American video evidence submitted to the Supreme Court has already been scientifically proven a forgery; deliberately submitted to the court in order to secure the conviction of Martin Bryant on all counts, in the event that he continued to plead “Not Guilty”. Due to the seriousness of this offence, copies of the scientific proof have been sent by registered mail to departments which should take active steps to have the material reviewed and struck out of evidence, and then urgently implement strategies to ensure the future integrity of Australian national security.

If steps are not taken, more registered mail copies will be sent to more departments, allowing the author to compile a list of those government departments determined not to take steps to protect Australian national security and the lives of Australian citizens, even when provided with absolute scientific proof that they must do so. Details of the scientific proof itself, and a full list of those Government departments which refuse to take adequate steps to secure the future defence of Australia, will be published in full during late 1998.

Anyone willing to help with the expensive printing and registered mail costs, should send a post office money order to me at 45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020, made out to “J.Vialls”.

All of this is unlikely to worry those lobbyists, public servants, and members of the media who nowadays believe their own propaganda that the police have literally hundreds of eyewitnesses who will step forward in a flash to positively identify Bryant at Port Arthur. Unfortunately for all of the above, Wendy and Greame Scurr have contacted dozens of key witnesses present at Port Arthur on the day. At the time of going to press, neither had managed to find a single witness prepared to state that he or she could positively identify Martin Bryant either carrying or firing a weapon of any kind at Port Arthur on the 28th April 1996.

Oh dear…. The only video positive identification was forged, and all of those eyewitnesses we were told about failed to positively identify Martin Bryant at Port Arthur after all. How can this be?

Basically by means of the Tasmanian Government sitting on the real evidence, while pumping vast quantities of misinformation to an eager but thoroughly inept media. There is now also convincing hard evidence that the gun control proposals accepted by Police Ministers in May 1996 were prepared before the massacre, by an ideological senior bureaucrat with United Nations connections. As the truth about the massacre and the pre- determined gun controls slowly but surely percolates through the Australian community, the backlash against both coalition and Labor MPs will be savage. The Australian people will not tolerate being deliberately misled by their own elected representatives, especially on a matter of such overwhelming importance to national security.

Detective writer Arthur Conan-Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes series, once wrote: “When you have ruled out the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.” We know that it was impossible for intellectually-impaired Martin Bryant to suddenly metamorphosize into the lethal equivalent of a highly trained counter-terrorist marksman, so we also know that Martin Bryant was not responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur.

Though improbable, the truth is that a pre-meditated operation was launched at Port Arthur with the express intent of murdering sufficient innocent citizens to set a new world record. The motive should be obvious, at least to anyone who has recently watched more than $300 million of tax-payers funds being spent on removing defensive weapons from the hands of Australian citizens.

The author is an independent investigator with thirty years direct experience of international military and oilfield operations.

Footnote: My thanks to Greame Scurr, who used his full power of attorney to relay Wendy’s evidence and supporting documents to me. Greame is still striving, as he always has, to achieve justice for the staff at the Port Arthur historic site, now that the fickle media caravan has moved on and forgotten them.

Readers will remember that in the immediate aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, politicians developed collective verbal diarrhoea in the House of Representatives as they joined the feeding frenzy designed to undermine Australian national security by removing defensive weapons from the hands of the public. Nowadays all that has changed, and despite serious questions about the mass murder and the murderers remaining unanswered, the collective verbal sphincter has locked tight, presumably on government orders.

Recently the Federal Member of Wide Bay, Warren Truss, used the letters column of the South Burnett Times to attack my independent investigation into the Port Arthur massacre, which used military science to prove that Martin Bryant was incapable of killing the victims in the Broad Arrow Cafe. In his letter, Mr Truss tried to explain his reasons for refusing to ask questions in the House of Representatives on behalf of his constituents.

So that Truss and other Federal Members can be better informed, and thus able to do their duty to their constituents by asking meaningful questions in the House about the sequence of events at Port Arthur, I am providing these additional critical points:-

On the day of the massacre, the only two policemen on the Tasman Peninsula were decoyed to a remote location at Saltwater River by an anonymous caller reporting a big stash of heroin. There was no heroin, and four minutes after the two policemen reported their arrival at Saltwater River by radio, the shooting started in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Alas, the drive from Saltwater River to Port Arthur is a minimum of thirty minutes, rendering local armed police assistance impossible in a mass murder that lasted only seventeen minutes from start to finish. Research shows this to be the only drugs decoy ever used on the Tasman Peninsula.

Of the twenty murdered on the Broad Arrow Cafe, nineteen died from the effects of a fatal shot to the head by the Colt AR15, which the shooter fired from his right-hip at an average range of 12 feet without the benefit of a laser sight. Overall, only 29 rounds were used to kill or injure a total of 32 people. Such accuracy and speed is appropriate to the top 1% of expert counter-terrorist marksmen, but is an absolute scientific impossibility for an intellectually-impaired registered invalid. Alas, Martin Bryant always fired his Webley Osprey air rifle from the left shoulder, because he is and has always been a left handed shooter.

Bryant was evaluated using a range of clinical psychology tests, the result of which were tendered to the Court. Those results are enough to convince any first-year psychology student that Bryant was so intellectually and cognitively impaired that he completely lacked the neuro-phsysiological ability to carry out the complex high-speed Port Arthur operation. Alas, the psychiatrists ignored their own definitive scientific test results, choosing instead to ramble off into a misleading surrealistic twilight world of entirely unproven psychoanalytical mumbo-jumbo.

Examining whether Bryant might or might not have disliked his class mates at school, or whether he might or might not have had a desire to shoot people during his formative years, become red herrings when faced with the harsh reality that the definitive scientific tests prove Bryant neuro-physiologically incapable of meaningfully participating in the massacre. The real shooter is still very much at large and must be brought to justice as swiftly as possible. Clearly this will not happen until the public finally discard the absurd psychiatric fairy tale that an intellectually-impaired young man with a tested IQ of 66 and severe cognitive limitations, suddenly and entirely magically metamorphosized into the lethal equivalent of one of the world’s most highly trained counter-terrorist marksman.

In sworn statements to police, eyewitnesses Roganovic and Horrocks confirmed that the shooter exited through the front door of the Broad Arrow Cafe carrying a weapon, while a third witness confirmed the weapon was held in the shooter’s right hand. Alas, this testimony is in direct conflict with forged video footage obtained direct from America by the Tasmanian Police Service, who entered it as evidence in the Supreme Court against Martin Bryant.

The American footage was clearly designed to give the false impression that Martin Bryant was responsible for the massacre, but that footage has been proven a forgery scientifically, using a standard TV editing suite, available to anyone in the television industry or to any forensic scientist.
Just how much hard scientific proof is required to move a Federal Member into asking questions in the House of Representatives on behalf of his constituents I do not know, but Mr Truss might do well to focus on the last point which deals with tendering false evidence to the courts for the express purpose of securing a conviction. This is an extremely grave offense which (in Western Australia) carries the penalty of strict life imprisonment. Truss and his colleagues have it in their power as MPs to raise the matter in the House of Representatives, and to demand that it be formally investigated by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO. The inevitable result would be a mistrial because of the false evidence tendered, allowing Martin Bryant to finally have his day in court before his peers, as the law provides.


In this series of reports the author has continually claimed that military science proves intellectually-impaired Martin Bryant was incapable of conducting the incredibly efficient massacre at Port Arthur, though some details of military science are classified and have not been released to the public.
The recent mass shooting in the Thurston School Cafe in Springfield, Oregon USA, makes the release of sensitive information unnecessary. A direct comparison between Springfield and Port Arthur proves once and for all time that the shooter in the Broad Arrow Cafe on 28th April 1996, was not Martin Bryant, but a highly trained professional marksman.

When the military needs to prove a scientific point one way or the other, it invariably tests that point for real, either in combat or by artificial simulation. A good example of this was the recent reaction of the US military to Federal Government claims that the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City was blown up by a 2000 pound low- explosive ammonium nitrate weapon, allegedly parked outside the front door of the building by young Timothy McVeigh.

Knowing the ammonium nitrate claim was impossible rubbish, United States Air Force explosives experts at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, promptly constructed a three story test building out of the same materials used in the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma. Then they placed the correct equivalent explosive charge at precisely the same distance from their test building and stood back briefly to admire their “simulator”. And what a simulator it was! When the massive charge was detonated on camera the results were exactly as the explosives experts had forecast: the huge open-air blast barely scratched the front face of the building, proving for all time that the White House, FBI, and others in Washington, had deliberately and continually lied about the explosion in Oklahoma City, and of course about “patsy” Timothy McVeigh as well, for political reasons.

The comprehensive results of these scientific tests were printed in a report titled the “Eglin Blast Effects Study” (EBES), a copy of which was forwarded by the commanding general to Senator Trent Lott, majority leader of the US Senate. In a covering letter the general urged Senator Lott to resist White House calls to bring in new counter- terrorist legislation, which if passed would have given federal agencies such as the FBI and BATF new draconian powers over American citizens.

You didn’t read about the EBES in your newspaper? This is not surprising, because Eglin’s scientific work would have destroyed the Government’s lying hype about Oklahoma at a single stroke. And so it is with Port Arthur. The military, this time special forces, could easily prove that Martin Bryant was incapable of achieving the stunning kill rates exhibited in the Broad Arrow Cafe, but are unable to do so because the required facilities i.e. simulators used to train counter-terrorist marksmen in enclosed space operations, are shrouded in secrecy for obvious reasons.

The SAS, GSG9, and others are not enthusiastic about public demonstrations. But a recent mass shooting in Springfield, USA, provided a chillingly live simulation of enclosed space operations in a cage very similar to the Broad Arrow. In order to understand how a simulation on the other side of the world proves Port Arthur a pre- meditated covert action conducted by experts, it is first necessary to gain a basic knowledge of enclosed space simulators. Special forces simulators are normally used to literally simulate an environment in which counter-terrorist marksmen might be required to operate, usually a room or rooms of known dimensions, containing both terrorists and hostages. Immediately on entry the special forces marksmen must kill or disable the terrorists but leave the hostages unharmed: a task calling for split-second timing and accurate point shooting. In a murky simulator where the difference between life and death can be as little as 1/10th of a second there is no time to use gun sights.

Point and shoot, point and shoot. With luck the terrorists will die from bullet wounds to the head, but if the counter-terrorist marksman makes a single split-second error of judgment he will surely die instead. To evaluate scientifically whether an amateur like Bryant could equal the very high killed-to-wounded ratio (KTIR) achieved in the Broad Arrow Cafe, the instructors would arrange dummies inside the simulator in the same configuration as the victims on the day. Next an unskilled amateur would be equipped with a Colt AR15, two clips of ammunition and other essential items, before being told he had “X” seconds from point of entry to shoot dead twenty of the victim dummies with single shots to the head, and wounds twelve more, with only 29 rounds. This would be quite impossible for the amateur, as the simulation would prove scientifically.

The biggest drawback would be the amateur’s complete inability to point shoot instinctively, essential in this enclosed environment. The shooter in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur demonstrated all of the qualities of a trained counter-terrorist marksman but made no amateur mistakes. Always in motion and point shooting from the right hip with devastating accuracy, he killed twenty of the occupants with single shots to the head and wounded twelve more, firing a total of only 29 rounds. Using known techniques reported by witnesses, he ensured his own safety from attack by turning on the spot and staying outside grappling range. It was an awesome display of expertise, even by special forces standards. That he was point shooting from the hip is beyond question. The Colt AR15 allegedly used in the massacre was fitted with a wide-angle telescope sight designed for the Armalite AR180, mounted on the AR15 so crudely that it completely obscured the “iron” sights on top of the weapon. Thus the iron sights could not be used at all, and the range was much too short to use the telescopic sight. Remember that the shooter knew this before he entered the Broad Arrow Cafe, so must have been supremely confident in his point shooting ability. Sadly, his confidence was more than justified. To accuse intellectually-impaired Martin Bryant of this stunning performance was quite absurd, a point clearly shared by police interrogators on the 4th July 1996, who openly queried Bryant’s shooting skills, with special reference to point shooting i.e. firing the Colt AR15 from the hip:-

Police: “And ahh, did you ever practice shooting from the hip?”

Bryant: “No never.”

Police: “Did you get pretty accurate?”

Bryant: “No not really.”

Naturally enough the police had no access to counter-terrorist simulators and probably lacked the firearms experience to work out that Martin Bryant was completely incapable of executing the gross crimes of which he stood accused.

But unknown to police at that time, two years later 15 year-old Kip Kinkel was to stage a mass shooting in an identical environment, firing a semi-automatic weapon of the same calibre (5.56-mm). Kinkel’s performance in the Thurston High School Cafe was exactly what any expert would expect from a random shooting event, and proves that Bryant could not have caused the terrible carnage in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Again sadly, Kip Kinkel provided the perfect “live” cafe simulation needed to prove Martin Bryant’s innocence at Port Arthur.

Kinkel’s choice of a cafe for his mass shooting may well have been influenced by the massive international publicity about the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania, and he may have expected to achieve the same spectacular results. His extensive weaponry further indicates a possible “copy cat” event.

Kip Kinkel was carrying a 5.56-mm Ruger semi-automatic rifle with several full clips of ammunition, plus two loaded handguns and a large hunting knife. In addition police found a sizable quantity of loose 5.56-mm rounds in his haversack. Multiple weapons and bags of loose ammo were notable media “features” at Port Arthur. Within seconds of entering the school cafe and opening fire on his fellow students, Kinkel must have realised that he was simply not in the same class as the professional shooter at Port Arthur.

Despite firing fifty one rounds, nearly twice as many as those fired in the Broad Arrow Cafe, Kinkel killed only two and wounded another twenty one. Of the two dead, only one was hit in the head. Nor did he have the expertise to keep his fellow students at bay. While fumbling a clip-change on the 5.56-mm Ruger he was overpowered and brought to the ground. Killer Kinkel had done his murderous best, but it was a best that fell far short of the very professional massacre in the Broad Arrow cafe two years before. In the Broad Arrow Cafe twenty were killed and twelve wounded, while in the Thurston School Cafe two were killed and twenty-one: wounded. So in the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter scored an incredible inverted killed-to-injured ratio (KTIR) of 1.66 to 1, on a par with the best special forces counter-terrorist marksmen in the world.

In the Thurston School Cafe, Kinkel scored a KTIR? of 1 to 10, entirely in accord with random shootings worldwide. Remember once again that every one of the twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe was killed with an accurate single shot to the head, an almost impossible achievement. No doubt psychiatrists and other government apologists will cry “foul” at this point and trot out all kinds of inane academic excuses for the differential in performance between Springfield and Port Arthur. In reality no excuses exist. Kinkel was bought firearms and encouraged to use them by his parents. Bryant was denied firearms and discouraged to use them by his parents. Kinkel was thus a proven experienced shot while Bryant was not.

Kinkel was 15 years old and Bryant had an assessed mental age of 13 years at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, giving Kinkel a two year intellectual edge over Bryant. Any academic or politician still willing to believe that Martrin Bryant executed the massacre in the Broad Arrow Cafe, should as a matter of urgency visit his or her nearest hospital for immediate psychological assessment. A side issue that has raised its head from time to time since the author started writing reports on Port Arthur, is that Martin Bryant was taking the anti-depressant drug “Prozac”, which in some magical way managed to convert him from an intellectually-impaired invalid into the crack-shot equivalent of a US Navy SEAL. While there is some evidence available that Bryant was prescribed tranquilizers long before the massacre, no evidence has emerged on Prozac, though interestingly, the Murdoch press announced that Kip Kinkel was subjected to the drug by his parents: “They were coping with his bouts of anger by giving him Prozac.”

There is no doubt that Prozac is a highly controversial drug, with more adverse reactions reported to the FDA than any other drug since that regulatory agency was formed. It is also known that one of the reported adverse reactions is “rage”, but rage alone cannot turn an average citizen into special forces marksman material. So while Prozac and others drugs capable of inducing acute adverse reactions may alter brain chemistry to the point where the recipient wants to kill people, no drug on earth can teach the recipient how to kill people. Prozac may or may not have played a part in triggering Kip Kinkel’s killing spree, but it is a red herring in the case of “patsy” Martin Bryant, who was completely incapable of conducting the Port Arthur massacre. Horrific though it was, Kip Kinkel’s performance in Springfield proved Bryant’s innocence completely, but this is unlikely to kick-start Australia’s politicians into action. Most in Canberra stopped worrying about our national security decades ago, deciding instead to sign multiple United Nations “conventions” on behalf of all Australians, without bothering to explain to the voters that 99% of these conventions violate Australian sovereignty. To the average politician in Canberra nowadays, Bryant and Port Arthur are of no importance as he or she grovels before yet another lobby group holding the international purse strings.

Weapon class: Semi-auto Semi-auto
Weapon calibre: 5.56-mm 5.56-mm
Spare ammo clips: Yes Yes
Extra weapons: Yes Yes
Total rounds fired: 29 51
Total fatalities: 20 2
Total head shots: 20 1
Total injured: 12 21
Shooter disabled: No Yes
Killed-to-injured: 1.66 to 1 1 to 10

Now might be the time for a gently warning. Even the most friendly media polls indicate that a significant minority of Australians are fed up to the back teeth with fat-cats in Canberra feathering their own nests while ignoring Australian national security. When the truth about the Port Arthur operation finally fights its way up to greater public consciousness, as it most surely will, many of those complacent fat-cats will find themselves at the back of a very long dole queue. The only way to delay the inevitable is to order a Royal Commission into Port Arthur. Quickly.

New evidence proves Martin Bryant innocent

The new photographic evidence to hand proves Martin Bryant is innocent and increases the demand for a properly constituted Royal Commission.

As seen on next page

The fresh evidence coming to light in these photographs prove beyond doubt that the evidence submitted by the Tasmanian Police to support the conviction of Martin Bryant on the charges of murder at the Broad Arrow Cafe was false, and in fact prove Martin Bryant could not have been the blonde man in their photographic evidence.

The police evidence is so blatantly incorrect that, as a result of my investigations and with copies of these photos, I have sent the letter below to the Commissioner of the Tasmanian Police Service.

22nd September 1998
Richard McCreadie
Commissioner Tasmanian Police Service
GPO Box 308C
Hobart, Tasmania 7001

Dear Mr McCreadie,


During the last year I have examined the evidence in the case of The Queen v. Martin Bryant, and am writing to advise you that irrefutable hard scientific evidence exists proving that Bryant was not the famous ‘blonde man’ on the video footage tendered to the Supreme Court by the Tasmanian Police Service. Obviously the true identity of the blonde man must now be swiftly established, following which he must either be charged with 36 counts of murder, or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or perhaps both.

You may find this scientific evidence difficult to believe after the hysterical media conviction of Martin Bryant in 1996, but the Port Arthur case is no more extraordinary than that of British policewoman Fletcher, which I investigated for four years starting in 1992. WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered outside the Libyan Embassy in London on the 17th April 1984, and for twelve years 80 million Britons sincerely believed the media myth that Fletcher was killed by a single shot fired by a “Libyan Assassin” located within the Embassy itself.

The hard scientific evidence proved otherwise. WPC Fletcher was killed by a shot fired from an American multinational building located further to the west, and her case is now the subject of an official review by the Metropolitan Police Service. That review is based on fresh scientific evidence uncovered by my independent investigation.

The attached photographic evidence shows a blonde man standing by a yellow car in the bus park at Port Arthur, allegedly Bryant changing weapons after killing twenty civilians in the Broad Arrow Cafe, and two more in the vicinity of the Trans Otway bus. Immediately beyond the blonde man is a large white boat, but as the two photographs on the right prove scientifically, the white boat was not anchored or moored in or near that position at any time on the afternoon of 28th April. In turn this proves in irrefutable scientific terms that the amateur video of the blonde man could not possibly have been filmed on the same afternoon as the crime, but on another date entirely, most probably the 27th or 29th April. It matters not if a dozen boat owners now come forward and swear their boats were present on that particular mooring at Port Arthur on the afternoon of 28th April 1996, hard science will prove every one of them a liar.

Because it is a matter of documented record that Martin Bryant was in Richmond with girlfriend Petra Wilmott on the 27th, and in Hobart Hospital with third-degree burns on the 29th, it is proven in irrefutable terms that he (Bryant) cannot be the blonde man standing by the yellow car with a surfboard on its roof rack. Also, as the car the unidentified blonde man is standing next to was verified by your officers as having been driven by the murderer, Martin Bryant clearly cannot be the guilty party. Having monitored the recent media performance of some of your commissioned officers, it seems possible that you might also be tempted to deflect attention away from this seminal scientific evidence by use of misleading references to “hundreds of eyewitnesses”, “forensic evidence linking Bryant to Port Arthur”, and last but not least Martin Bryant’s “confession”. In my view any such move would be a significant error.

It is already public knowledge that the Tasmanian Police Service does not have a single valid positive identification of Bryant at the Port Arthur historic site provided by a witness in a manner required by low i.e. from a line-up or from a Rogues Gallery of photographs. It is also known there is no fingerprint or DNA evidence available which links Bryant directly to the Port Arthur site, or to either of the two weapons alleged to have been used in the mass murder. The motor vehicle and sports bag owned by Bryant and allegedly found at or near the crime scenes are not valid evidence because both are highly portable items which were not in Bryant’s possession when arrested. Both items may well have been stolen for the express purpose of incriminating him. This is not a new technique, but one that has been used around the world on hundreds of occasions.

Where Bryant himself is concerned, there seems little doubt we are looking at the most gross abuse of human rights in recent Australian history. After this intellectually-impaired young man pleaded ‘not guilty’ in the Royal Hobart Hospital to the initial holding charge of one murder, he was denied remand prisoner rights and effectively held in solitary confinement without access to media reportage until his police interrogation on 4th July 1996. Despite his intellectual impairment, Bryant was not provided with independent advice by the Office of Public Guardians, but was left alone to defend himself against a team of highly trained experts including your own interrogators. Worse, Bryant’s designated “defence” lawyer was denied access to his client during the interrogation. Although Martin Bryant managed to plead not guilty for months on end, it is not hard to comprehend the confusion and fear he must have felt because of these cruel and inhumane practices.

At no time has Bryant confessed to the crimes at Port Arthur, which is not surprising bearing in mind the irrefutable fresh scientific evidence which proves he was not the blonde man on the video tendered to the Supreme Court. No man can provide a detailed confession about a series of crimes in which he played no active part. The fact that Bryant eventually said “guilty” seventy two times at the pre-sentencing hearing on 6th November 1996 has no real meaning, because we have no way of knowing his state of mind after being so cruelly treated for a period of 192 days. What we do know with certainty is that after being similarly harassed and abused in England, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were eventually freed on appeal.

As Commissioner, I believe it is now your duty to open an investigation with the express objectives of identifying, arresting and charging the unknown blonde man on the amateur video footage. Indeed, the future credibility of the Tasmanian Police Service may depend on your prompt action in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

“Deadly Deception at Port Arthur”

A limited number of A4 copies of this composite photographic evidence are available at cost, each custom-printed at high resolution in full photo colour on high gloss paper. Price includes stiff packaging and express mail costs anywhere on the Australian continent.

Send $15.00 to:
Joe Vialls
45 Merlin Drive
Carine, Perth
Western Australia 6020
Any extra funds derived from the sale of these composites will be ploughed straight back into the ongoing expense of the Port Arthur investigation i.e. stationary, postage, computer disposables and so on.


Alleged Port Arthur gunman Martin Bryant. Photo on the left was used by the media to convince you of Martin Bryant’s “guilt”. Photo on right taken from a different angle, shows identical three men on balcony of the Broad Arrow Cafe, and the man alleged to be Martin Bryant running down towards the bus park at Port Arthur in the presence of a police helicopter. This frame was shot at 2.45 p.m., one hour and fifteen minutes after the mass murder was over! This damning photographic evidence by itself proves Martin Bryant was deliberately set-up, wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. Remember, a camera cannot lie.

Notes on fresh photographic evidence
For many years specialized computer software has existed which is quite capable of altering electronic image data so accurately, that in the hands of an expert, video footage can be altered so subtly that evidence of the resulting forgery is difficult and sometimes impossible to detect. Fortunately for law enforcement and justice, expert forgers can be careless, as was the case with the forged video footage tendered to the Supreme Court of Tasmania in R v Martin Bryant, some of which is shown on the above collage.

The eight small frames across the top of the collage were claimed by the Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecutions to show “Bryant” running away from the Broad Arrow Cafe immediately after the mass murder. This claim was later reinforced by the former head of the Port Arthur taskforce, Deputy Commissioner Jack Johnson, who was quoted verbatim in the Melbourne Sunday Age on 28th August 1998 stating: “The tourist video showing Bryant fleeing the cafe has been authenticated.” Both men were wrong.

Under magnification, each frame of the video shows that the face of the running blonde man at all times points towards the camera, with no horizontal, vertical, or twisting motion of the head, and no change in facial expression. All these factors are anatomical and physiological impossibilities for a fast-running human figure, proving that the single “still” photograph of Martin Bryant’s head was electronically superimposed on the torso of a different running man, sequentially on each individual video frame. At higher magnification, pixel distortion between the superimposed head and the original torso confirms this analysis scientifically.

The author recently secured authentic tourist video footage of this same running man taken from a different angle, which provides a fingerprint-exact match with every item of his clothes, with every step he takes as he runs down the road towards the bus park, and with every aspect of the three men standing on the balcony of the Broad Arrow Cafe behind him. The real owner of the running torso has black hair and has already been identified. With the exact date and time of the authentic tourist video known, this evidence will be reserved for Bryant’s appeal before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, or a properly convened Royal Commission, whichever comes first.

The large and inset frames on the collage are explained in detail in the text blocks below them, which provide irrefutable scientific proof this man is not Martin Bryant. There are further significant scientific errors which may be of interest to readers.

Alleged Port Arthur gunman Martin Bryant. Photo on the left was used by the media to convince you of Martin Bryant’s “guilt”. Photo on right taken from a different angle, shows identical three men on balcony of the Broad Arrow Cafe, and the man alleged to be Martin Bryant running down towards the bus park at Port Arthur in the presence of a police helicopter. This frame was shot at 2.45 p.m., one hour and fifteen minutes after the mass murder was over! This damning photographic evidence by itself proves Martin Bryant was deliberately set-up, wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. Remember, a camera cannot lie.
The blonde man standing by the yellow Volvo in the bus park is wearing a dark-blue donkey jacket, in stark contrast with the running man, who is dressed only in a shirt. Other frames of this blonde man by the yellow Volvo prove he is wearing shoes of a completely different colour to those of the man running away from the Broad Arrow Cafe, as shown in the eight small frames on the collage.

It is an established fact that immediately after exiting the Broad Arrow Cafe, the shooter fired a minimum of five 5.56-mm NATO rounds directly towards the Trans Otway coach shown in both left frames. Despite the five 166 decibel muzzle blasts, each the awesome audio equivalent of a gas gun used to clear entire airfield perimeters of birds, a large flock of seabirds remained sitting apparently undisturbed on the wheelhouse and foredeck of the large white boat in the background during the period when the shooter transited between the cafe and the Volvo. This is impossible if the footage was filmed at the time of the mass murder on 28 April 1996, because these birds would have taken fright at the first muzzle blast, flying directly away from the camera, which is filming from the general position of the Broad Arrow Cafe i.e. from the same direction the five rounds were fired.

As shown on the two frames provided from this sequence, the flock of seabirds are only frightened later by the sound of a single shot fired from the right-hand side of the video camera, and immediately respond by flying off sharply to the left. If backtracked to its only credible source, this single shot must have been fired from the vicinity of the penitentiary ruins: the large building in the centre of the aerial photo shown on the right. At no time on 28 April 1966 did the shooter venture any further south-east than the bus park immediately below the Broad Arrow Cafe, a fact borne out by the forensic evidence, proving this single shot must have been fired by another man on a different day.

Though further evidence is not needed, more forgery and thus deliberate deception can be seen on the frames of the blonde man by the Volvo. If you look carefully you will see a thin white “halo” running from the left of the frame across the top of the parked cars, around and above the head of the blonde man, then across the top of the parked cars to the right, before turning upwards and following the exact line of the edge of the triangular camper roof in the upper right foreground. This “halo” contains no pixels at all, proving scientifically that the still foreground including the blonde man and the cars has been “cut and pasted” into the background showing the moving birds, boat, and distant hills. In other words two entirely different videos were merged together to create a special effect. The obvious question is why would the forgers go to all this trouble?

At the time of the mass murder the Port Arthur ferry “Bundeena” (shown at top centre of the large frame of the right) was lying alongside the jetty next to the bus park. But at 1530 hrs that afternoon the Bundeena was moved out to her mooring and left there unused for at least a week. So if the forgers filmed their blonde man on (say) 29 April, the Bundeena would have been clearly visible on her mooring in the background, instantly proving that the footage was not filmed at the time of the mass murder. So the forgers filmed the white boat (an Alaskan sport fisherman) at a different location and then “merged” it into their custom still foreground of the unknown blonde man. Unfortunately for them their work was technically incompetent, and forgery can easily be proven in any court of law by state-of-the-art image manipulation computer software of the kind used by the author.

As of this date the Tasmanian Attorney General and others have put up spirited resistance to any formal inquiry into this fresh scientific evidence, but it is unlikely they will be able to maintain this undignified posture for very much longer. When fresh scientific evidence is submitted there is a legal requirement that it be properly investigated.

“Experts have deluded themselves into believing that science has grown much too complicated to be understood by anyone but a fellow expert. They also believe that progress can only be made by one of their own – a scholar who carries the proper credentials. However, to believe this, they are very ignorant of the history of their own religion. When any group fails to supply its own criticism, there will inevitably be some nasty outsider, like me, willing to do it for them.”
Rene, Mensa Lectures 1990

FORWARD by Ned Wood
This was the missing link that puzzled me. Bryant’s mother, Carleen, didn’t come to the rescue of her son. Was it because she too was convinced that he was guilty?

The media even tried to make out like his family had deserted him. A Tasmanian journalist claimed that “she, (Carleen Bryant), told Martin that unless he confessed to the crimes, she and his younger sister Lindy would commit suicide”.

These were words that might be uttered by a very emotional woman who was convinced her only son was capable of the horrible murders before he was even found guilty. Strange words indeed from a mother…..but as Joe Vialls points out, Carleen vehemently denies the claim and as the saga continues we find out how senior police, brought this woman in for questioning before Martin Bryant was even identified.

She has been refused visits to see her son who, as yet, has never been tried for the Port Arthur Massacre, only accused before a hearing and sentenced after his “not guilty” plea was denied in order to avoid a trial by jury. A trial which would surely have found him “not guilty” because to this very day there has not been a single soul identify Martin Bryant as the killer. Hundreds of witnesses would have had to have given testimony at a trial which would have exposed the inadequacies of the justice system in this country and proved that not only could Bryant not be identified but that he was incapable of the deed.

A crime which has been hailed as one of the worst in our history has never been properly investigated by the police, never been tried by a jury and to this day cries out for a Royal Commission to answer the leading question…..

who was the man with the long blond hair?


On 28 April 1996 at Port Arthur in Australia, some of the best combat shooters in the world used a total of only 64 bullets to kill 35 people, wound 22 more, and cripple two cars. The first 19 victims in the Broad Arrow Cafe each died from a single 5.56-mm bullet to the head, all fired in less than 20 seconds from the right hip of a fast-moving combat shooter.
This awesome display of marksmanship was blamed on an intellectually impaired young man called Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all. In the months and years following Martin’s arrest, much of the public and private strain fell on his widowed mother Carleen.

This is a very small part of Carleen Bryant’s profoundly disturbing story.

Tasmanians are a hardy breed and Carleen Bryant is probably one of the hardiest of them all. Her idea of “taking a break” this year was to navigate her camper van alone from Tasmania to Western Australia with only a CB radio for company, drive half way around WA looking at the sights, then drop in on us for the afternoon before starting back eastward across the Nullarbor Plain. Not being a radio buff, she was disappointed that her CB “wasn’t working too well” but a quick twist of the squelch knob fixed that, and Carleen slowly accelerated out of Perth, happily listening to about twenty truckies chattering incoherently over her CB loudspeaker on channel nine.

Life has been hard for Carleen, probably hardest of all when she realised that her son Martin needed speech therapy as a child, and other remedial help later which led to an invalid pension. As a mother she handled difficult situations well enough but her husband Maurice found it much harder. He was a devoted husband and father and a highly organised man, but Carleen says “it was more difficult for him. Martin was his son and fathers expect their sons to be normal.”
Hard though Maurice tried over the years he slowly but surely became depressed and “mentioned” suicide on a number of occasions. Then without warning in 1993 Maurice took his own life at the family farm at Copping, but long before his death had already taken steps to minimise its impact on Carleen and their children. Carleen was dreading all of the paperwork after his death “because Maurice always looked after that’, but was astonished to find all of the documents she needed placed in a single neat pile where she could easily find them.

Even more astonishing, months earlier Maurice had transferred the Hydro account from their joint names to Carleen alone, ensuring things would run automatically after he died. “Maurice was a very thoughtful man” Carleen says, which indeed he was.

Life then continued as normally as possible until 8 p.m. on the evening of 28 April 1996 when two burly plain-clothes police officers knocked on her door in Hobart and asked, “Do you have a son called Martin Bryant?” When Carleen said yes, the officers took her down to headquarters and bombarded her “with questions about Martin’s big house in Newtown and his trips overseas”.
But despite being at Police Headquarters during the exact period when a telephone conversation was allegedly in progress between her son at Seascape and police negotiators in the same headquarters building, Carleen was not asked to assist police by identifying her son’s voice. She says that at that point in time she did not know the conversation was taking place, but was later provided with the name of the person who “assisted” police by identifying her son’s voice at 7 p.m. the same evening, a name she provided for the author in confidence. But Carleen says it made no sense because this particular person “hadn’t spoken to Martin since he [Martin] was twelve years old and would not know what his voice sounded like anyway.”

Shades of JFK

Bearing in mind that even the police marksmen in position around Seascape did not discover Martin Bryant’s identity until he stumbled out of the building with his back on fire the next morning, how was it possible for Carleen to be asked detailed questions about her son’s large house and his obscure overseas trips, at Tasmanian Police Headquarters more than twelve hours before he first stumbled out of Seascape into the arms of waiting police? Carleen’s version of events, if chronologically correct, proves that at least one stratospherically-placed police officer in Hobart was already well ahead of the game. Though this sequence appears to indicate direct police involvement in the mass murder itself, there is a more likely explanation which Carleen was not aware of before she visited Perth.

Shortly after the murder of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, a Christchurch, New Zealand morning newspaper printed a detailed story it received on the New York news wire about Kennedy’s “assassin” Lee Harvey Oswald. There was a major problem with this news story, because at the time the New Zealand newspaper went to press in Christchurch, Lee Harvey Oswald had only just been arrested in a Dallas cinema for the alleged murder of a Texas policeman called Tibbet. Several more hours passed before Dallas police even accused Oswald of the murder of President Kennedy. So the Christchurch newspaper inadvertently printed an impossible story, a concocted lie “seeded” onto the New York news wire too early by the real murderers, who forgot that international time zones and thus real-time would allow the New Zealand newspaper to print their pre-arranged cover story hours before the events happened. That single critical planning error proved conclusively Lee Harvey Oswald was only a fall-guy, a patsy arrested and charged on cue by the unwitting Dallas Police Force. It was impossible timing and too many background details which proved conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, and the same impossible timing and background details prove conclusively that Martin Bryant was used for identical purposes. While Carleen was being interrogated at Hobart Police Headquarters at 8 p.m. on 28 April, all the terrified staff and survivors at Port Arthur knew for sure was that the shooter was a man with long blonde hair. There are thousands of men with long blonde hair in Australia, each equally likely to be the man on the trigger, so there was no innocent way police could possibly have already singled out Martin Bryant or obtained knowledge about his obscure overseas travels. So between the time of the mass murder at 1.30 p.m. and Carleen’s interrogation at 8 p.m., someone very carefully pointed the finger, and “seeded” Tasmanian Police Headquarters with an impossible amount of personal information about her son, many hours before he was first positively identified stumbling out of Seascape the next day. Ever since that frightening interrogation more than three years ago, Carleen Bryant, mother of the accused, has been denied a copy of, or even access to, the telephone tape alleged to contain a long rambling conversation between her son and police negotiators. Why?

Nothing could prepare any mother for what happened next. When Martin was transferred from the Royal Hobart Hospital to Risdon Prison as a remand prisoner, Carleen had visiting rights but no privacy with him at all. She was shocked to see her son, badly burned in the Seascape fire and still in great pain, bound to his wheelchair by leather straps. Martin told her that he had asked to have the painful restraints removed but was refused. When Carleen asked who refused, her son nodded towards the prison officers, one of whom then leaned towards Carleen and said “you cannot discuss the [Risdon Prison] staff”. Carleen, suitably intimidated, fell silent. In fact under the Prisons Act a remand prisoner can be restrained on the orders of the Prison Superintendent, but only if under escort outside the prison, or if he poses “a significant danger to others”. By no interpretation could an entirely passive intellectually impaired young man with third-degree burns to his back and left side, isolated behind bullet proof glass, be considered a significant danger to others. But at that time Carleen Bryant did not understand the prison rules and was unable to help her son ease his pain. Nowadays the only coherent reason for Martin’s illegal restraint is obvious. Prison officers and psychiatrists, in the manner of the Spanish inquisition, were determined to intimidate and physically punish intellectually impaired Martin Bryant until he finally “confessed” to a series of crimes in which he played no active part. That such obscene and barbaric treatment is illegal under Australian and international law, and justifiably condemned by Amnesty International as both physical and psychological torture, does not appear to have impeded the Tasmanian authorities at all.

It was only at this point while describing the treatment of her son in Risdon Prison that Carleen’s composure slipped for a second and she shed a tear or two. “He was so terribly lonely” she said, briskly wiping the tears from her cheeks before continuing. It was a cry from the heart of a mother who had been unable to help her son in distress, a cry that went home on this author as surely as a razor-sharp knife.

Next Carleen discussed Martin’s actual injuries, because those reported by the media were wholly inconsistent with the official story of the day, i.e. that Martin Bryant had set fire to Seascape, panicked, then fought his way out of the blazing building. Carleen didn’t know exactly why I was asking, but confirmed that the burns were restricted to “his back and left hand side”, pointing to her own left side to illustrate exactly where. “Were there any burns at all to his face, chest, arms or hands?” I asked. “Oh no, none at all” Carleen replied confidently. As any fireman will confirm, the official story of the day is mission impossible. Any person fighting his way out of a burning building does so head-first so that he can see where he is going, arms and hands held high to protect his face from the flames and to deflect burning debris away from his body. It is an instinctive survival response that we all use in life-threatening fire situations.

Minor first-degree burns are enough to make anyone retreat from a fire immediately, the split-second that nerve endings send warning impulses to the brain. Despite this known fact, Martin Bryant remained inside Seascape until burning debris had caused horrific third-degree burns to his back and side, but not to his face, chest, arms or hands. How? The only possible scientific answer is that Martin was lying face-down, either comatose or drugged, and remained that way as burning debris from the first floor above (where the fire started) fell onto his back until the intense pain finally forced him back to consciousness. This is confirmed by video footage of Martin leaving the building, stumbling along like a dazed drunk. Those readers asking themselves “but who else could have started the fire if Martin Bryant was unconscious and the only man left alive inside Seascape, and how did they do it?” might like to consult standard Army manuals under the chapters headed “incendiary devices” and “radio detonators”.

Carleen continued to visit Risdon Prison and made little lists of questions she wanted Martin to answer, but most of the time felt so intimidated by officials that some of the more important questions remained unanswered. She says constant bombardment by officials pushing the story that “Martin did it” started to make her believe her son may have been responsible for the crimes, but for a number of very substantial reasons could not work out how he could have physically committed them.
Although “Martin was making money cutting lawns and selling his crayfish”, Carleen added “Maurice did not approve of guns and took Martin’s air rifle away. He [Martin] did not know how to shoot properly and never owned any real guns.
Carleen was also mystified by the “cache” of weapons allegedly found inside a piano at Martin’s house by police several days after the mass murder. “When he was away on trips I used to go round there, clean the place up and poke around as mothers tend to do” she says, “Martin knew this and he also knew I didn’t approve of guns. He would never have dared keep any in the house.” Carleen Bryant is not the only person mystified by this impossible evidence.

Soon after the mass murder, two journalists from a prominent newspaper illegally entered Martin’s house searching for clues. Their search included the piano in question, which contained only piano parts. Planting false forensic evidence after the crime to “prove” guilt is far from new and has occurred many times in the past, including the last high-profile case the author investigated, which was the murder of Policewomen Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London during April 1984. The Libyans were wrongly accused of shooting her, and after the Libyan diplomats left the Embassy to return to Tripoli, a specialist army clearance team was sent into the building to search for booby traps or other weapons.
The team carried out one of the most intensive searches in British Army history, from the basement of the building to the roof, but found absolutely no trace of guns, ammunition, explosives or any other incriminating materials. So imagine the Army’s stunned amazement when one week later the Metropolitan Police Service announced that its members had just found two loaded handguns, machine gun spare parts, and more than three thousand rounds of ammunition inside the Libyan Embassy!

It is beyond doubt that a person or persons unknown illegally entered and “seeded” the Libyan Embassy with damning false evidence, sometime during the week separating the army and police searches.

For Carleen things got worse at Risdon Prison, but she vehemently denies the claim of Tasmanian journalist Bingham that “she told Martin that unless he confessed to the crimes, she and his younger sister Lindy would commit suicide.” in Carleen’s view by that late stage any intervention of this sort by her would have been unnecessary. “The continual pressure [from officials] brainwashed Martin to the level where he may have started to believe he was guilty.” This is hardly surprising. Stalin’s communist thought-police in Russia crafted false beliefs like these into an art form, and could eventually convince even the most intelligent of men they were guilty as charged or they wouldn’t be in Lubianka Prison in the first place, would they?

Carleen’s last visit to her son was during November 1997, when she was told by prison officials and psychiatrists that “Martin no longer wants to see you, which is his right”, but at no time has Carleen been able to establish this message actually came from her son. Martin could, for example, have told her face to face but did not. He could also have told her over the telephone but did not. Finally although not a fluent writer, Martin could have sent her a brief note, but did not do so. Outraged by this procedure Carleen says she called the prison and asked “what about my rights as a mother?” Her question went unanswered and the line was disconnected. Neatly manoeuvred into a subservient position by the Tasmanian authorities, Carleen was then circumstantially forced to ask a prison psychiatrist, whose name she provided in confidence, what she should do next, “Write to him” was the answer and Carleen proceeded to do so, at least once and sometimes twice a month.
Still she received no word from her son and during a later visit to the named psychiatrist, Carleen asked what had happened to her last letter. The psychiatrist flicked through his clip board and found her opened letter to Martin near the bottom of his papers. “I sent that three weeks ago” Carleen protested, to which the psychiatrist merely said “sorry”.

It is highly relevant here to ask why any psychiatrist should still be communicating with her son and handling his mail. After all, the crux of the psychiatric evidence against Martin Bryant was that he was “fit to plead”, i.e. of sound mind. A prisoner of sound mind has rights, one of which is the right not be to forced to act as a guinea pig for psychiatrists busily writing learned papers for local or international psychiatric journals about a crime he could not have committed. Had Martin Bryant been found to be of unsound mind and incarcerated in a mental hospital instead, one might reasonably expect such close psychiatric attention, but not inside Risdon Prison as a convicted felon serving life imprisonment.

The psychiatrists will probably defend their intrusive and manipulative position by claiming “Martin Bryant asked to speak to us.” No doubt he did, after contact with all other prisoners and visitors was first effectively severed, i.e. de-facto solitary confinement. No man including Martin Bryant is an island, and all normally need periodic verbal interactions with others to remain sane in the long term. If the only other humans you are allowed to meaningfully interact with are psycho-scientists, the chances are you will eventually ask to speak to them.

The bizarre behaviour of the psychiatrists involved in the Port Arthur case has presented their profession with an impossible credibility problem. Setting aside meaningless psychiatric mumbo jumbo and double talk, the act of entering a historic site and killing or wounding fifty-seven citizens is perhaps the ultimate hallmark of absolute insanity, rendering the perpetrator permanently unfit to plead. Indeed, it is difficult for most normal people to imagine a more insane act. So when Tasmanian and Victorian psychiatrists declared Martin fit to plead, i.e. sane, at the same time they acknowledged he could not have committed the crimes.

Nowadays Carleen Bryant wonders why the police did not go to the trouble of properly verifying her son’s new guilty pleas in early November 1996 using standard police procedures. Many people plead guilty to crimes they could not have committed, a situation that routinely presents police forces around the world with a big problem, especially if the guilty pleas are entered by a person who is intellectually impaired or otherwise mentally deficient. Standard procedure in these circumstances is to take the suspect out to the crime scene and ask for details of exactly how he committed the crime(s), i.e. where each victim was standing, what sex, how many bullets, where the weapon was reloaded, etc etc., all recorded on continuous (Time-stamped) video.
The Victorian Police Service observed this standard procedure meticulously in the case of Julian Knight at Hoddle Street during 1987, as did the New South Wales Police Service after a street shooting in Wollongong in 1998. Both suspects provided ample accurate details at the respective crime scenes on continuous video tape without prompting by police, and both were then properly and fairly dealt with. Nearly three years after Martin inexplicably changed his pleas to guilty in November 1996, the Tasmanian Police Service has still not verified his guilt using this standard procedure, and its continued refusal to do so can realistically be taken as proof of Martin Bryant’s innocence.

When Carleen left Tasmania some weeks ago she was unaware that others had recently spoken out on behalf of her son, most prominent being Brigadier Ted Sarong DSO OBE, the former head of Australian Forces in Vietnam and one of the world’s leading experts on counter-terrorist techniques and their application. In an interview with Frank Robson in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April 1999, Brigadier Serong makes it plain that Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur. “There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance” he says. “Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am”. He continues “Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant … if it was someone of only average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more wounded. It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made me open my eyes first off.” Brigadier Serong believes more than one person was involved and directly infers that the mass murder at Port Arthur was a terrorist action designed to undermine Australian national security. “It was part of a deliberate attempt to disarm the population, but I don’t believe John Howard or his Government were involved. Howard is being led down a track. He doesn’t know where it’s leading, and he doesn’t much care…”

Some readers might consider that as a soldier Brigadier Sarong is not qualified to comment on police matters, but they would be wrong. In addition to his acknowledged military achievements he also raised, trained, organised and directed a police force larger than all the police forces in Australia combined. After returning to Australia, as he notes in his book Defence of Australia Analysis: “I did gently but firmly decline a suggestion that I be Victoria’s Chief Commissioner of Police.” Brigadier Ted Serong is thus far better qualified to comment on the chain of events at Port Arthur than the current commissioner of the Tasmanian Police Service, who commands a total force of less than one thousand men, none of whom has any knowledge of international terrorism or practical experience of counter-terrorist techniques.

Having broken the ice and had her say in this report, might Carleen now move on to bigger and better things, perhaps an article in the Melbourne Age or maybe even a television interview with the fabled Ray Martin? She says not. “After it happened I had all those [media] trucks parked at the end of my street for a week, they wouldn’t leave me alone and kept asking for pictures.” Even now Carleen Bryant remembers one persistent female reporter who simply refused to take no for an answer. “She kept jumping over my front fence” Carleen says, “then she would walk around the outside of my house, tapping on the windows and calling out my name.” Carleen feels only pity and contempt for all members of the local and international media who so brazenly vilified her son and nearly destroyed his and her lives.

As I stood by the side of the Great Eastern Highway in Perth waving goodbye as Carleen’s camper slowly accelerated towards Kalgoorlie at the start of her lonely 2,000 mile trip back to Tasmania, I must admit to feeling a little sorry for the Tasmanian Government and other officials when they are finally forced to release her son Martin, which they must. Bound by his oath as protector of the public interest, the Attorney-General in particular is obliged to fully investigate all fresh evidence promptly and openly or face serious legal sanctions. There are no political escape clauses whatever. The longer the Attorney-General tries to bury fresh evidence under the parliamentary carpet in Hobart, the more severe those legal repercussions will be.

The only offence Martin committed on 28 April 1996 was that of being gullible enough to be lured to Seascape by others under false pretences. Though certainly unwise behaviour, gullibility is not yet a felony punishable by strict life imprisonment. When Martin Bryant is released, the Tasmanian Government and other officials will have many people to answer to: First the millions of Australians deliberately misled into believing that thirty five of their own countrymen were slaughtered by an intellectually impaired young man when they demonstrably knew this was a blatant lie; then perhaps to Martin Bryant himself who they treated as sub-human and discreetly tortured behind the dark forbidding walls of Risdon Prison. If the Tasmanian Government and other officials find these unpleasant prospects daunting, I can assure them there is something far worse looming on the horizon: Eventually they will also have to answer to Martin Bryant’s angry mum. Rather them than me…

At 8 p.m. on 28 April 1996, less than seven hours after the mass murder at Port Arthur, Martin Bryant’s mother Carleen was suddenly taken to Tasmanian Police Headquarters in Hobart. Unknown to Carleen, in another part of headquarters at exactly the same time, police negotiators were allegedly engaged in a long conversation with a man at Seascape they later claimed was her son. Despite being Martin Bryant’s closest relative, at no time was Carleen asked to identify his voice, and she has never been allowed access to the telephone tape. Hard evidence suggests that a senior police officer ruthlessly ordered Carleen Bryant’s forced visit to headquarters that evening, in order to later “authenticate” the impossible premature police identification of her only son, Martin Bryant.

Copyright Joe Vialls, 16 June 1999, All Rights Reserved 45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020

Police and security services have standard procedures for every situation they are likely to encounter, especially sensitive situations where armed offenders and hostages are involved. Though the prime objective of any hostage negotiation team is obviously to “win”, i.e. resolve the crisis without anyone getting hurt, there are standard techniques used throughout, aimed at giving the active negotiator an edge as quickly as possible.

One of the most important is obtaining a positive identification of the offender, enabling agencies to swiftly locate enough background details to provide an insight into his behaviour, and time to contact relatives for assistance where necessary. As every trained negotiator in the world knows, an emotional hostage-taker is likely to respond far more positively to the pleas of a close relative than to a complete stranger.

As a mother Carleen Bryant would have been ideal in this role, the person most able to pacify her son and ask him to lay down his arms. However, Carleen could only achieve this if the suspect at Seascape was really her son. If police believed the voice on the phone from Seascape was that of Martin Bryant, why did the senior officer who ordered Carleen’s interrogation deliberately isolate her away from the radio room? Sadly, there are no innocent answers to this critical question.

Police were very short of personnel that Sunday, and the three experienced plain-clothes officers involved in Carleen Bryant’s transportation and interrogation that day should have already been at Port Arthur. So exactly who was the shadowy senior officer responsible for holding back these three experienced officers, then ordering them to take Mrs Bryant to headquarters, where she was swiftly isolated and used so effectively to cement the official story of the day? Only an open Royal Commission can provide these and other essential answers.

Media reports distorted truth.

Few people in Australia and overseas realise that Tasmanian reporters were told within six hours of the mass murder that the “lone-nut” responsible was a man called Martin Bryant, then holed up at Seascape, and in the rush of excitement that followed they completely forgot to ask where this impossibly accurate information came from. Diligent independent investigation revealed most never gave it a second though, either at the time or over the years that followed. As one senior accredited reporter tried to explain:

“There’s nothing suspicious about that. Mr Martin, the son of the Seascape owners, told police he thought it might be Bryant because he’s heard about the man with long blonde hair and the yellow Volvo, and Martin Bryant had apparently threatened his parents over a farm purchase some years earlier.”

Times DO NOT add up

However, it was not until about 8.30 p.m., when details of the vehicle’s registration came through, that police finally knew the identity of the person they were dealing with.”

Next we have “Martin Bryant’s passport had also been found in the Volvo abandoned by the toll booth… “No it had not, at least not at the time the official story claims. The only police present at Port Arthur at 6.30 p.m. were the two young police women taken off the beat in Hobart, and possibly an Inspector Warren of later Bryant interrogation fame, Coroner Ian Matterson and his team of forensic examiners did not arrive at the crime scene(s) until much later.

As Ian Matterson recalls “On arrival at the Police Forward Command post set up at Taranna we were advised that the Port Arthur historic site had still not been rendered safe for entry by our team and we waited until 7.30 p.m. before we received the all clear” … “On site at 8.05 p.m.

Coroner Matterson then started an examination of each crime scene, starting with the bus park below the Broad Arrow Cafe, then the Broad Arrow Cafe itself, followed by the scene at which the Mikac family died, before eventually arriving at the tollbooth and the yellow Volvo. Though Ian Matterson does not provide a precise chronology for this period, it is reasonable to assume he spend at least thirty minutes at each crime scene, meaning he reached the Volvo around 9.40 p.m. at the earliest. He notes “On a road hump near the toll gate and beside a yellow Volvo lay an adult male. Inside the open boot of the Volvo could be seen firearms and a small white gun shooting target that appeared to have been used.” So the earliest that Martin Bryant’s passport could have been found was 9.40 p.m., three hours later than claimed in the official story.

Let us be generous and assume that either Matterson or Warren fossicked around in the Volvo and found Martin Bryant’s passport at 9.40 p.m. That was exactly one hour and forty minutes AFTER Martin’s mother, Carleen Bryant, was frog marched to police headquarters in Hobart.

Because of Carleen Bryant’s inexplicable treatment that night, we are forced to assume that the as-yet unidentified senior officer at headquarters decided to hold these three experienced officers back for use as her escorts and interrogator, but how could he possibly have known in advance this would be necessary? Obviously he did know, and dispatched his three plain-clothes men to Mrs Bryant’s house in Hobart nearly two hours before Martin’s passport could possibly have been discovered in the Volvo at Port Arthur.

Carleen was completely isolated from the radio room, and at 8 p.m. was “bombarded with questions about Martin’s big house in Newtown and his trips overseas.” The officer went on to ask whether her son owned a yellow Volvo with roof racks, which she said he did. He then asked whether it had a surfboard on top. Carleen responded “I don’t know”. This activity outside the direct chain of command then provided “corroborative evidence” that Martin Bryant was the shooter at Seascape,

This then forms the last part of the official story: “However, it was not until about 8.30 p.m., when details of the vehicle’s registration came through, that police finally knew the identity of the person they were dealing with.” The registration details did not “come through” as seductively suggested by the official story, but were already deep inside the Tasmanian Police Headquarters building itself, unwittingly provided in person for the three plain-clothes officers at 8.30 p.m. by Martin Bryant’s trusting mother.

Puzzled, I asked “At that time, had police broadcast any appeals over the radio for information on men with long blonde hair and yellow Volvo cars?” There was a short pause “No, actual details were kept to the minimum” he replied. “Did Mr Martin tell you [the media] that he’d given police this information?” A longer pause, “No, we saw him standing outside police headquarters and thought it was him.”

“Well then, did the police tell you [the media] that Mr Martin had provided headquarters with this information?” A pencil could be heard tapping on the desk at the other end of the telephone line. “No they didn’t in fact. Until then the only suspect on the police white board in operations was an aboriginal, who apparently wanted a helicopter ride to South Australia. Martin Bryant’s name was added to the white board later.” These media claims were all unsubstantiated rubbish. The Bryant family sold their seaside shack near Port Arthur nearly four years earlier and Martin Bryant’s last visit was more than two years before the shooting, at which time he had short instead of long blonde hair, and drove a Honda not a Volvo. Mr Martin Jr. did visit headquarters on 28 April but not about Martin Bryant. As police media liaison officer Geoff Easton writes “A young man called at the Public Inquiries counter and asked for me. He was to tell me he was a relative of the Martins, the owners of Seascape, and that he had a cache of weapons stored there, and, in his own words, ‘Shitloads of ammo mate!’”

Planted identification?

Wherever the “instant” identification came from during that afternoon it was not from Mr Martin Jr., nor anyone at Port Arthur. Nobody at the historic site could have provided the identification because not one of the staff or survivors had been interviewed by police, and were still in fear of their lives. Though two police SOGs [groups of armed policemen] were dispatched from Hobart at 3.57 p.m. and 4.04 p.m. respectively, they never reached Port Arthur. As Chief Executive Craig Coombs notes “At this stage, about 5.30 p.m., the day was drawing to a close. We were assured there was a group of SOGs arriving by helicopter” … “I commandeered 3 four wheel drive vehicles and had them ready to transport the SOGs to secure the [Port Arthur] Site. Driving the vehicles to the edge of the oval, we waited for the helicopter to arrive. The helicopter contained two young policewomen who had come off the beat in Hobart.”

Understandably in the circumstances, the two young policewomen off the beat in Hobart did not conduct group or individual interviews. This gaping black hole in the evidence did nothing to deter other reporters hell bent on reinforcing the “official” story. In a book which brazenly uses unproven anecdotal evidence to demonise Bryant, its author tries to explain this impossible identification by claiming “Around 6.30 p.m. a call to Hobart headquarters from a member of the public in Hobart suggested that a man called Martin Bryant could be the man holed up in Seascape because he had an obsession about the owners, David and Sally Martin.” He continues “Martin Bryant’s passport had also been found in the Volvo abandoned beside the tollbooth at the entrance to the historic site. However, it was not until about 8.30 p.m., when details of the vehicle’s registration came through, that police finally knew the identity of the person they were dealing with.”

Again this media claim was unsubstantiated rubbish, predictably similar in parts to the rubbish provided for the author by accredited senior reporters, but this time with the imaginative additions of a passport and vehicle registration. We will now prove point by point that the official story of the day was a fairy tale, a creative lie designed to protect members of the police and others who would otherwise be terminally embarrassed by their access to impossible quantities of accurate information about Martin Bryant at an impossible time, and face prosecution as a result.

A REAL terrorist incident.

The claim “a member of the public in Hobart suggested that a man called Martin Bryant could be the person…” has already been partly dealt with, but further explanation is necessary to destroy it completely. At the time of this alleged call Tasmanian Police Headquarters was in uproar, with officers solely concerned about how many shooters were involved, and at how many locations. This is proved by Assistant Commissioner Luppo Prins, who writes “The Police command structure for management of the Port Arthur incident was essentially along the lines of a SACPAV terrorist incident.” Forget the word “essentially”. At that time and until the next morning police operated rigidly along these lines to contain the real terrorist incident they were facing, including interaction with the Crisis Policy Centre in Canberra, briefings for the duty Federal Minister and Prime Minister, and the deployment on Tasmanian territory of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation’s Technical Surveillance Unit. Though there were doubtlessly many calls to headquarters from the public about Jack Smith, Harry Evans, Tom Spratt or Martin Bryant being the likely culprits, police would have filed the lot for examination at a later date. Dozens of excited members of the public call at the height of nearly every major emergency, but unless a caller offers hard evidence directly related to the crime scene, all calls are filed until much later because police are far too busy with the current operation, especially when that operation is of the full-blown SACPAV terrorist variety. To even suggest the two words “Martin Bryant” would have caused officers to suddenly stop in their tracks and say, “Of course, it must be young Martin from Newtown!” is both absurd and operationally impossible.

Next we have “Martin Bryant’s passport had also been found in the Volvo abandoned by the toll booth… “No it had not, at least not at the time the official story claims. The only police present at Port Arthur at 6.30 p.m. were the two young police women taken off the beat in Hobart, and possibly an Inspector Warren of later Bryant interrogation fame, though it is unclear how Warren could have reached Port Arthur when the heavily-armed SOGs could not. At 6.30 p.m. all police, staff and survivors were hiding, and no one was poking around in the dark interior of a yellow Volvo surrounded by dead bodies. Coroner Ian Matterson and his team of forensic examiners did not arrive at the crime scene(s) until much later. As Ian Matterson recalls “On arrival at the Police Forward Command post set up at Taranna we were advised that the Port Arthur historic site had still not been rendered safe for entry by our team and we waited until 7.30 p.m. before we received the all clear” … “On site at 8.05 p.m. I conversed with Inspector John Warren, the officer in charge of the major crime scene.

Having assessed no person had, at that stage, been apprehended and charged with any offence arising from the deaths on the historic site, I advised I would take over the area as a coronial site with the operation to be conducted in tandem with his major crime investigation.”

Coroner Matterson then started an examination of each crime scene, starting with the bus park below the Broad Arrow Cafe, then the Broad Arrow Cafe itself, followed by the scene at which the Mikac family died, before eventually arriving at the tollbooth and the yellow Volvo. Though Ian Matterson does not provide a precise chronology for this period, it is reasonable to assume he spend at least thirty minutes at each crime scene, meaning he reached the Volvo around 9.40 p.m. at the earliest. He notes “On a road hump near the toll gate and beside a yellow Volvo lay an adult male. Inside the open boot of the Volvo could be seen firearms and a small white gun shooting target that appeared to have been used.” So the earliest that Martin Bryant’s passport could have been found was 9.40 p.m., three hours later than claimed in the official story.

Even this discovery time may be premature, because Matterson continues “Attempts by police photographers, ballistic experts, investigators and the forensic pathologist to commence their investigation were hampered by a lack of suitable light. Whilst there was an urgent need to commence the investigation and remove all the bodies, it was agreed the need to ensure a precise investigation of the highest standard of both bodies and exhibits made it imperative to wait until first light the following morning.” A single dark blue passport is a small low-visibility object, which would normally take a very long time to find under a hefty pile of firearms, targets and ammunition.

Let us be generous and assume that either Matterson or Warren fossicked around in the Volvo and found Martin Bryant’s passport at 9.40 p.m. That was exactly one hour and forty minutes AFTER Martin’s mother, Carleen Bryant, was frog marched to police headquarters in Hobart by two burly plain-clothes officers and interrogated by a third, all of whom should have been down at Port Arthur investigating the worst mass murder in Tasmanian history. Remember that the Tasmanian Police Service was stretched to the limit, evidenced by it sending two inexperienced young policewomen off the Hobart beat down to Port Arthur, to protect hundreds of terrified survivors still in fear of their lives.

Because of Carleen Bryant’s inexplicable treatment that night, we are forced to assume that the as-yet unidentified senior officer at headquarters decided to hold these three experienced officers back for use as her escorts and interrogator, but how could he possibly have known in advance this would be necessary? Obviously he did know, and dispatched his three plain-clothes men to Mrs Bryant’s house in Hobart nearly two hours before Martin’s passport could possibly have been discovered in the Volvo at Port Arthur.

Based on known standard procedures used by all police forces when faced with a SACPAV terrorist emergency, the senior officer in question was certainly not in the operations centre, i.e. the direct line of communication from main switchboard to radio room etc., because all activities in these areas are strictly controlled for the duration of the emergency, with no opportunity at all to subvert proceedings. Carleen was completely isolated from the radio room, and at 8 p.m. was “bombarded with questions about Martin’s big house in Newtown and his trips overseas.” The officer went on to ask whether her son owned a yellow Volvo with roof racks, which she said he did. He then asked whether it had a surfboard on top. Carleen responded “I don’t know”.

This activity outside the direct chain of command then provided “corroborative evidence” that Martin Bryant was the shooter at Seascape, corroborative evidence that could later be used to blur over fatal errors in the grossly premature and thus impossible timing of his initial identification. This then forms the last part of the official story: “However, it was not until about 8.30 p.m., when details of the vehicle’s registration came through, that police finally knew the identity of the person they were dealing with.” The registration details did not “come through” as seductively suggested by the official story, but were already deep inside the Tasmanian Police Headquarters building itself, unwittingly provided in person for the three plain-clothes officers at 8.30 p.m. by Martin Bryant’s trusting mother.

That Carleen Bryant was kept strictly outside the official chain of command is proved by the fact that direct identification of her son could have been established in a few seconds, simply by her listening to the conversation then in progress between police negotiators in the radio room and the suspect at Seascape. If it was Martin she would have been able to provide direct identification immediately, and quite possibly have talked him out of the building, thereby greatly minimising risks to others. The use of close relatives for exactly this purpose by police and other negotiators has already been explained. Therefore the only valid reason for keeping Carleen outside the chain of command was that someone either knew or suspected the man on the telephone was not her son, and had no intention of allowing her to discover this. Carleen herself reinforces this view when commenting on the person used by police to “identify” the voice on the telephone from Seascape: “he hadn’t spoken to Martin since he [Martin] was twelve years old and would not know what his voice sounded like anyway.” It is perfectly reasonable to claim that the impossibly early “positive identification” of Martin Bryant was leaked to the media by the same senior officer responsible for setting Carleen Bryant up at police headquarters later the same day, a sequence that must have required a lot of advance planning.

What will remain unclear until a Royal Commission examines all the evidence, is how the senior police insider became involved in this atrocity in the first place. Was he unwittingly tricked into a series of reckless acts by the group directly responsible, or was he in a vulnerable position and open to blackmail? Alternatively, he may have been a witting player who actively assisted with the chain of events for his own ideological reasons. Obscure but more likely is another ploy, one that has been used before on covert operations. The insider may have been sucked in by a proposed plan of action which appealed to his patriotism or sense of duty, and only found out too late that the plan had gone much further than he had agreed, thereby compromising him and ensuring his permanent silence.

In the case of the premeditated murder of Policewoman Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London during April 1984, a senior officer foolishly allowed himself to be influenced by powerful outsiders, members of the secretive private “club” to which he belonged, who suggested a limited operation in which Fletcher’s bare legs would only be lightly peppered with shrapnel, producing a bit of blood for the TV cameras and generating sufficient public outrage to have the nasty Libyans deported from Britain for ever. When instead of being lightly peppered with shrapnel, Yvonne Fletcher was almost cut in half by a high velocity assault bullet fired from an American multinational building, the compromised senior officer understandably felt quite unable to approach his Commissioner and confess “It wasn’t supposed to go that far…” From start to finish at Port Arthur and Seascape, all information provided for the media was filtered by Tasmanian Police Headquarters in Hobart. In addition, by mid-afternoon an air exclusion zone was in place to prevent media aerial photography, and the police forward command post at Taranna actively stopped all members of the media from approaching any of the crime scenes.

Police were in total control of the flow of information at all times, and it would be futile at this late stage for officials to claim that some mysterious civilian outsider burgled police headquarters, scribbled Martin Bryant’s name on the operations white board, then ordered two sworn police officers to drive across Hobart to fetch Carleen Bryant. The hard facts prove that this sequence of events could only have been planned and executed successfully by a senior officer with direct access to police headquarters’ facilities and personnel. Three years after the event, the official story is now proven a fairy tale, an impossible myth, so how did most Australians and the rest of the world fail to spot the gross errors? The answer lies in the same sort of clumsy sleight-of-hand that inexperienced magicians use when cutting their professional teeth at children’s birthday parties.

(Remember me telling you about my first suspicians when the Sunday Telegraph printed this photo of Bryant only days after the incident?
They highlighted his eyes to make him look crazy and were never reprimanded for this flagrant disreguard for the due process of law which elliminated any line up identification process. To my knowledge it has never been done before. People in this country are usually concidered innocent until proven guilty….not so with Martin Bryant…..Ned)

Story Continues……

Though a photograph of Martin Bryant was printed in the Tasmanian newspaper on the morning of 29 April, with no explanation of how the newspaper miraculously obtained such a recent photograph of him in time for the newspaper’s deadline, the photo was not shown in mainland Australian or international newspapers until the morning of 30 April, a full 24 hours later. So by the time 99% of us saw the famous picture of Martin Bryant with his artificially-enhanced staring blue eyes, he had already stumbled out of Seascape, been arrested and formally identified, and was receiving treatment for third-degree burns in the Royal Hobart Hospital. Nothing suspicious about that is there?

In light of this, why the frantic haste to put Martin Bryant in the frame when the facts prove he would certainly have been positively identified at Seascape early the next day at the latest, dead or alive? At first glance it seems a dangerous and unnecessary risk, but in operational terms it was essential. Any small group “operating behind the lines” is terribly vulnerable to accidental discovery and capture, an unacceptable risk that can be greatly reduced by prearranging a decoy incident designed to distract the attention of the enemy, thereby enabling the small group to escape detection. An example of this was a four-man special forces group in the Middle East tasked with the assassination of an especially brutal terrorist leader, who was unfortunately surrounded by about two hundred of his own armed men. So the SF group waited until nightfall and placed explosive charges at a nearby fuel tanker and more distant ammunition dump. First they blew the fuel tanker by radio detonator, then 30 seconds later the ammunition dump. Terrorists started running frantically towards these “obvious” attackers, while the four-man SF group quietly moved in behind them and killed the boss. By the time the terrorists returned and discovered their boss had two small holes in his head, the group was already more than ten miles away.

Martin Bryant was an obvious decoy, allowing the professional group time to extract safely before anyone got suspicious. Of critical importance here is the fact that decoys must be used at the time of the operation, not 24 hours later, hence the need for Bryant’s “instant” identification at Seascape. We already know that intellectually impaired Martin Bryant was in no way responsible for the shooting at Port Arthur and elsewhere that day, during which some of the best combat shooters in the world used only 64 bullets to kill 35 people, wound 22 more, and cripple two cars. The first 19 victims in the Broad Arrow Cafe each died from a single 5.56-mm bullet to the head all fired in less than 20 seconds from the right hip of a fast-moving combat shooter.

As experts including former Vietnam military commander Brigadier Ted Serong, and SAS counter-terrorist shooters agree, this awesome display of combat marksmanship was an impossible feat for Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all. The fact that we missed the critical errors at the time does not absolve us from shared responsibility for Martin Bryant’s plight today. We simply cannot sweep it all under the carpet and try to forget that an innocent man is in prison for a crime he could not have committed, nor the fact that taxpayers might still be employing an accessory to mass murder at Tasmanian Police Headquarters. It was we the Australian people who unwittingly allowed corrupt officials and the media to pull the wool over our eyes, and it is only we the Australian people who have enough collective power to right those wrongs. Our objectives must be to secure Martin Bryant’s release, and ensure the conviction of the unknown senior police officer. To achieve these objectives we must first force an appeal on behalf of intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, and a Royal Commission into the Tasmanian Police Service. This will not happen all by itself, so get off your backside, grab the nearest pen and start writing to your Member of Parliament.

Not tomorrow or the next day or the day after that. Do it now. Martin Bryant has already been in prison far too long, and needs to go back to his mum for a home-cooked meal.

“Journalists say a thing that they know isn’t true, in the hope that if they keep saying it long enough it will be true.” Arnold Bennett (1867-1931)

Very few members of the public realise that absolutely no hard forensic evidence exists linking Martin Bryant to Port Arthur, or to any weapon used in the mass murder. Indeed, in the opinions of two prominent Queen’s Counsels, Bryant would have been released from prison if strictly illegal sensory deprivation had not been used to extract his false guilty pleas in November 1996.

Do not mistake guilty pleas for a confession, because in the latter Bryant would be required to provide detailed information on the mass murder that he did not have. Pleas are far simpler. All Martin Bryant was required to do was stand in the dock and say “guilty” seventy-two times, not a difficult task for an intellectually impaired young man with an IQ of 66.

But these simple guilty pleas then technically enabled the Tasmanian Justice Ministry to confiscate Bryant’s sizeable fortune and other property, before locking him in a dungeon and throwing away the keys.

If these obscene procedures had been used in faraway China, Cuba, Colombia or a dozen other countries, the democratic (sic) Australian media would have been first off the blocks, screaming with self-righteous outrage about the “human rights abuse” of the accused, and denial of a fair trial before his peers.

Unfortunately, human rights are used solely as a lobby tool to manipulate foreign nations, proved beyond doubt by hysterical Australian media behaviour in Tasmania during April 1996. Reporters vied with each other to tell you how “terrible” Bryant was, and never once mentioned that in a so-called democracy, remand prisoners are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

This disgusting behaviour by the media proved that unlike prisoners in China and Cuba, luckless prisoners in democratic Australia have no human rights at all.

Though the media must accept the lion’s share of the blame for Martin Bryant’s contrived and very public “trial by television” there were other more shadowy figures who goaded the media on, long after the mass murder. A handful of public servants, politicians and police officers, hyped-up false evidence in order to keep Bryant in the frame, most in an attempt to save their own miserable “reputations” and jobs.

A large part of this false evidence was aimed at convincing the public that police had literally hundreds of eyewitnesses who identified Bryant at Port Arthur. In fact, to this day the Tasmanian Police Service does not have a single legally valid eyewitness identification.

At a more subtle and dangerous level, there were veiled hints of hard forensic evidence linking Martin Bryant to Port Arthur, including convincing displays by police officers holding up semi-automatic weapons on television.

The inference was obvious: Bryant was holding a smoking gun when apprehended by police, with his fingerprints all over the weapon and its ammunition.

Leading on from this first gross untruth, it was hoped the public would assume a second gross untruth: that the bullets and fragments found at Port Arthur would match “Bryant’s Guns” as displayed on national television.

It was all a pathetic rort. Martin Bryant was not apprehended with a smoking gun, there were no fingerprints on the guns and ammo displayed by police, and the bullets, fragments and cartridge cases found at Port Arthur did not provide a perfect match with the weapons displayed on national television.

Some of these points were accurately reported by the author in 1997 and early 1998, then in December of that year the Australian Police Journal decided to print an article by Sergeant Gerard Dutton, titled “The Port Arthur Shooting Incident”.

Dutton took over as Officer in Charge of the Tasmania Ballistics Section in 1995, and had eleven years ballistics experience at the time the Port Arthur mass murder took place. Though his article is flagged “ballistics evidence” on every page of the APJ, there is no discussion of guided projectiles in flight. Most of the eighteen-page article is a chronology of events at Port Arthur from a police perspective, with repeated references to the two weapons allegedly used in the mass murder by “Bryant”.

Because of the latter weapons content it might have been more accurate to flag each page of Sergeant Dutton’s article “Forensic Firearms Identification”, the correct term used by forensic sciences for this work.

This report is not intended as a thesis on forensic science, but there is a need to explain briefly in general terms how firearms examiners go about proving that an individual bullet was fired by an individual weapon. The word “individual” is extremely important here, because in the Port Arthur case, it means proving scientifically that the bullets and bullet fragments found at Port Arthur were fired by the exact weapons found by the police at Seascape Cottages, and subsequently shown to the public on television as “the murder weapons”. Not fired by a similar weapon or class of weapons please note, but only by the weapons displayed by police.

There are two stages in this process. First the firearms examiner checks to confirm that the bullets, cartridge cases and weapons all match in the general sense, known in the trade as “Class Characteristics”. For example, in the case of the 5.56-mm bullets and cartridges found at Port Arthur, would they fit the Colt AR-15 weapon found at Seascape? The answer is yes, but those bullets and cartridge cases would also fit thousands of other Colt AR-15s not found at Seascape, and many other different brands of firearm chambered for the same 5.56-mm round. No one including the author is disputing the simple class identification made by Dutton, but it is utterly meaningless in terms of individually matching the bullets and cartridge cases at Port Arthur with the weapons found at Seascape. To do this requires the second part of the process, predictably called “Individual Characteristics”.

No two weapons manufactured are the same. Every single one has marks in the barrel and breech, and on the action, that are unique. And because weapons are made from exceedingly hard “tool grade” steel, these unique marks leave unique impressions on every bullet and cartridge case cycled through them, all of which are made from softer metal than the weapon itself. Using special microscopes, firearms examiners try to match the unique impressions on the fired bullets and cases found at the crime scene, with unique impressions on test rounds fired from the suspect weapon or weapons in the laboratory.

This is more easily explained with pictures shown here, which are from America, not Port Arthur.
Exhibit 1 shows typical rifling marks left on the soft metal of bullets, and exhibit 2 shows matched striations on two bullets, one from the crime scene and another fired in the lab. Now the cartridge cases:

Exhibit 3 shows matching breech marks,

while exhibit 4 shows matching ejector marks.

With the exception of exhibit 1, which is included to show the variations in rifling marks on otherwise identical bullets, all other exhibits show “Individual Characteristics”, sufficient to satisfy any firearms examiner that the bullets and cartridge cases under examination were fired by the suspect weapon.

Sergeant Dutton’s eighteen-page article on “ballistics” includes many photographs, but not one of them shows individual characteristics matching the bullets and cases at Port Arthur with the weapons at Seascape. Without individual characteristic matches, the weapons are no more valuable than scrap iron, and absolutely useless as evidence against Martin Bryant.

The pristine weapons from Seascape you were shown on national television, only got that way because the Tasmanian Police Service borrowed many spare parts from the New South Wales Police firearms library. Before their startling resurrection to nearly new condition, both weapons were very badly damaged, a critical fact the Australian television networks rather artfully forgot to tell you.

How the weapons got that that way is of considerable importance in tracking down those really responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.

If we are to believe the media and Tasmanian Government, the Colt AR-15 serial number SP128807,

cycled and fired a minimum of 35 rounds faultlessly at Port Arthur and other crime scenes. Then, inexplicably, the AR-15 allegedly had an “accident” at Seascape Cottage, which destroyed part of the rifling in the barrel, most of the breech, and part of the receiver – the moving part of the weapon which includes the firing pin and extractor claws for the cartridge cases.

This was attributed to a “faulty cartridge” which exploded in the breech.
Oh, really, and how did it do all that damage in a weapon proofed to withstand 55,000 p.s.i?

In Sergeant Dutton’s own words, the damage caused by the burst cartridge showed “Amazingly high chamber pressure”, and “I had never seen a cartridge case that had been subjected to so much pressure that it caused brass to extrude substantially into apertures in the bolt face.”

What would normally be needed to cause this kind of damage is too much of the correct powder in the cartridge case, or a different much faster-burning powder or explosive in the cartridge case. Because the correct power in this particular cartridge case fills it right up to the neck, it could not have been the first example, i.e. too much of the correct powder.

This leaves us with a different much faster-burning powder or explosive. With such powders the grains are typically much smaller, allowing a greatly increased flame front, and thus the ability to increase pressures at a far higher rate. Special Forces put this knowledge to good use if they wish to destroy enemy artillery pieces behind the lines. A sizeable chunk of C3 plastic explosive is strategically placed inside the breech of the artillery piece, then later detonated, destroying the breech and rendering the weapon useless.

What this process achieved with the AR-15 at Seascape was so much damage to the barrel, breech and receiver, that forensic “Individual Characteristic” matches could not be made with the fired bullets and cases found at Port Arthur.

Now why on earth would you do that, if the AR-15 in question really was the same one used at Port Arthur, then afterwards positioned neatly next to alleged gunman Martin Bryant in Seascape, ready to be collected and identified by the local constabulary the following morning?

Martin Bryant (or his body), and a weapon that could be individually matched to the bullets and cases at Port Arthur. Perfect! But only if the gunman at Port Arthur really was Martin Bryant, which we now know he was not.

Best to look at the effect of the damage in reverse then. What the explosion and resulting damage really achieved, was preventing police and others from proving that this particular AR-15 was not the weapon used at Port Arthur, but merely a decoy designed to draw attention towards Bryant.

As Arthur Conan-Doyle once wrote: “When you have ruled out the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.”

There is one other critical point of evidence about the “exploding” AR-15. When the charge in the cartridge detonated, the resulting blast was sufficient to blow the bottom of the magazine right off, and cause severe damage in the immediate vicinity of the trigger, where Martin Bryant’s finger would have been if he was handling the weapon at the time. Most explosions of this kind neatly amputate a finger or two, and shred the skin on the rest of the hand. In addition there is very significant marking of the flesh by firearms discharge residue (FDR for short), caused by microscopic particles of burned or unburned propellant impregnating the flesh at high velocity.

When Bryant was taken into custody he had severe burns to his back and left-hand side caused by the Seascape fire, but no injuries or serious burns to his hands, and no trace of FDR. So Bryant did not fire the Colt AR-15 found at Seascape Cottage, end of story.

The other weapon displayed so enthusiastically by police was a Belgian FN-FAL serial number G3434 in 7.62-mm calibre,

but alas, this weapon was also severely damaged before the NSW police firearms library helped out with copious spare parts.

Unlike the AR-15, found in Seascape itself, the FN-FAL was recovered from the roof of an outhouse some distance from the main building.
This in itself is decidedly odd, with Martin Bryant allegedly in the cross-hairs of an entire highly trained Special Operations Group all evening and all night. How is Bryant supposed to have put it up on the roof?

There was no exploding cartridge in the breech of the FN-FAL, but by a rare coincidence beyond the calculations of most actuaries, the effect of the damage was exactly the same as that inflicted on the AR-15. The barrel, breech, and receiver were damaged beyond hope of making “Individual Characteristic” matches with bullets and cartridge cases found at the various crime scenes. So, once again, police and others were unable to prove the FN-FAL was not one of the weapons used at Port Arthur.

It is the FN-FAL rather than the AR-15 which provides absolute scientific proof the two weapons were merely dummies designed to deflect attention away from the guilty parties, probably dumped at Seascape as stage props long before any of the shooting started.

Despite being terminally damaged, nearly all of the AR-15 components were located close to the weapon in Seascape, though the pistol grip was missing and was never found. However, the FN-FAL lacked a major component called the “return spring tube assembly”, plus its butt plate and magazine. These are all large items impossible to miss in thorough forensic searches of crime scenes. The forensic teams went over every crime scene with a fine-tooth comb several times, leaving no stone or even a blade of grass unturned.

I have resisted the temptation to provide the exact size of the return spring tube assembly because I do not have precise, technical details to hand, but believe me when I say it is big.

Many years ago I field-stripped and reassembled FN-FALs dozens of times, and can assure readers the assembly is a minimum of six inches long, with the large springs inside made of tempered steel.

Without its return spring assembly (and magazine), the FN-FAL cannot fire at all, proving the damaged weapon found at Seascape played no part in the Port Arthur mass murder. Evidently it had been carefully “damaged” at a location a considerable distance away from either Port Arthur or Seascape, before the mass murder took place.

This of course proves that the mass murder was a pre-meditated crime, one that Australian counter-terrorist personnel must solve if we are to prevent further attacks on this nation. Exactly how they go about this is their concern, but counter-terrorist personnel are reminded that their pay packets are generously filled each month by Australian taxpayers, not by international lobby groups in Canberra and Hobart.

A good starting point for counter-terrorism would be to hunt for the real 5.56-mm and 7.62-mm weapons actually used at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996 to kill or wound fifty-seven civilians, and dead-block the Daihatsu Feroza driven by Linda White.

We now know the weapons used were not the crippled AR-15 and FN-FAL found at Seascape, and we also know the shooter was not Martin Bryant, because he was completely contained by SOG personnel throughout the entire period in the same Seascape compound as both crippled weapons.

Find the real weapons used and they will hopefully in turn lead you to the real shooters, though the trail is now cold. Either way, it is now time for the authorities to stop pussyfooting around, and get on with a serious counter-terrorist investigation.

There are those in power determined that a serious investigation should not take place, and recently went out of their way to discourage me in particular.

Some months ago my 21 and 18 year-old, children inexplicably failed their police “integrity checks”, essential here in Western Australia for anyone wishing to get a decent job.

Stunned by this I lodged an official complaint, and then made several discreet inquiries. Eventually I was told that a powerful federal politician had persuaded a police unit in Canberra, to flag me in the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence computer as a “security risk”, which is a bit rich bearing in mind my former (very high) security clearances with NATO.

Because my work on Port Arthur focuses solely and openly on protecting Australian national security, logic and security protocols dictate it is not I, but the powerful federal politician who poses a significant security risk to this nation.

Once the illegal false data about me was entered into the BCI computer, there was a trickle-down effect on my children, who were then found guilty of associating with a known security risk – their own father!

Fortunately there are officials in Western Australia with very high ethics, and the entire sordid mess was sorted out in less than two weeks. My children now once again have positive integrity status, and I have the name of the powerful federal politician who tried to destroy the credibility of this family. The politician in question is advised not to try this again, or members of the public might start wondering
exactly why he chose to take this illegal action in the first place.

The author wishes to acknowledge the expert assistance of a leading American firearms examiner, who for the present prefers to remain anonymous


Mrs Carleen Bryant has been allowed her first contact visit with her son Martin, more than three years after he was first arrested and charged with the mass murder at Port Arthur.
Martin was very pleased to see his mum and was quite forthcoming during the visit, but for the present at least Carleen prefers that full details not be published. This is understandable because premature release of the information could lead to a renewed shock wave of media vilification against her son, designed to suppress what he has always maintained is the truth about Port Arthur.

A comprehensive report will be published later.

In the meantime, you might like to ponder on a society which allows an intellectually impaired young man like Martin to be locked away and tortured by means of sensory deprivation, without raising the slightest murmur of protest. Have we all lost our way, or has the media finally achieved the mind-bending abilities attributed to it by George Orwell in his book?

Those who prefer to sit on the sidelines and let this obscene travesty of justice run its course, should always remember that the same thing could happen to their fathers, brothers or sons.
Since the blatant but failed attempt on Martin Bryant’s life in December 2000, the mainstream media and other interest groups have gone into overdrive, attempting to deflect public attention away from the core scientific evidence that proves his innocence. The methods vary but the objective appears to remain the same: use unacceptable hearsay testimony and inaccurate guesswork to overwhelm the existing hard scientific evidence, thereby denying Martin Bryant the trial he has not yet been allowed.

As any competent police detective will confirm, hearsay evidence and guesswork are instant death to any serious inquiry, leading investigators and readers into numerous blind alleys from which there is little chance of escape. For example, suggesting the mass murder was “probably” planned to take place on the Isle of the Dead near Port Arthur, or on board a ferry on its way to the Isle of the Dead, deflects away from the reality that the principal crime scene was the Broad Arrow Café. At the same time this approach indirectly implies a specific form of advance planning that can never be proved in scientific terms. Great material for a “whodunit” crime novel perhaps, but useless and confusing within the confines of a serious mass murder investigation.

Attempts have also been made to “stretch” the time the shooter actually fired inside the Broad Arrow Café, and the total number of rounds expended. This is a far more damaging claim, leading as it does to the inevitable image of a slower clumsy shooter, one that might more easily be compared with random killers like Kip Kinkel in Springfield, or Michael McDermott in Wakefield.

Though known to be a proficient shooter, Michael McDermott used a total of seventy-seven rounds to kill just seven of his work mates trapped in their office at Edgewater Technology. As with Kip Kinkel in the school canteen in Springfield, most of McDermott’s rounds missed their targets completely, resulting in bullet and fragment holes all over the room. Not one of McDermott’s seven victims was hit in the head or upper neck, unlike the first nineteen victims in the Broad Arrow Café during April 1996. Each of the latter was coldly dispatched with an expert single shot to the head,

After the bodies at Springfield and Wakefield were removed, both crime scenes bore all the hallmarks of a major military engagement: ejected cartridge cases by the score, and dozens of expended whole bullets and fragments that missed their targets buried in the walls, ceiling and furniture. Springfield and Wakefield were forensic gold mines, littered with enough exhibits to keep the crime labs busy for months.

This was certainly not the case in the Broad Arrow Café at Port Arthur. As the official forensic diagram compiled by the New South Wales Police scientific team shows in great detail (see picture), there were only 29 ejected cartridge cases, and a total of seven bullet fragments. We know that all 29 bullets hit their intended targets because we have the post mortem results for the victims, and we also know that fragments from three of those same bullets injured a further three victims, resulting in 32 dead or injured for only 29 shots fired.


The forensic diagram also shows limited damage to the floor and furniture, but it must be remembered this damage does not include any residual bullets, bullet fragments or bone chippings. So far as the investigation is concerned, the damage serves only to illustrate the likely course or direction of travel of a bullet, or bullet fragment, or bone chipping, and cannot be meaningfully “added” to the seven existing bullet fragments in order to provide a more dramatic expanded total.

The fragments require further explanation. Due to the unusual mass and velocity combination of the 5.56-mm NATO (.223 Remington) round at close range, bullets do not stay intact when striking hard targets, as they would normally do in the case of the old .303 Lee Enfield round of World War 2 fame. On contact with the hard bone of a human skull for example, the old 150 grain .303 bullet would create an entry wound, then use its mass [weight] and resulting inertia to continue through the skull and punch a larger exit wound through the rear.

Though the .223 Remington round used at Port Arthur has the same overall kinetic energy as a .303 Lee Enfield at the point of impact, it lacks the mass and inertia needed to continue through hard bone because it only weighs 55 grains. The massive kinetic energy expended at the point of impact with hard bone, causes the little.223 Remington bullet to fragment, in turn frequently causing the skull to explode due to a sudden increase in internal hydrostatic pressure. The result? Bullet fragments and bone chips continuing on from the primary target to injure further victims.

This ugly characteristic of the .223 Remington round at close range, has been proved on hundreds of occasions during the last three months in Palestine. Children hit in the shin or knee by identical rounds fired by Israeli soldiers and settlers, invariably have their legs amputated, because the shattered mess of bullet fragments muddled up with hundreds of bone chips, makes effective remedial surgery impossible.

Where Port Arthur is concerned, remember that unlike the Hoddle Street and other open-air murders, the mass murder in the Broad Arrow Café took place within a completely confined space, thereby restricting residual evidence to the same confined area. To prove this mass murder was the same as (or even vaguely similar to) the random events at Springfield and Wakefield, would require at least two dozen bullet holes and associated 100 – 150 bullet fragments to validate the comparison.

There were none of these items, and because the mere seven fragments found in the Broad Arrow most probably originated from the same three frag through-shots that injured victims 30-32, the crime scene was almost spookily clean. This, shrieked the lack of evidence, was the work of a man who never missed his targets. It may have been this very lack of visible evidence that led to the Tasmanian Government order for the premature destruction of the internal structure of the Broad Arrow Café. Not to “hide evidence” as some have speculated, but rather to hide the more damning total lack of evidence or artifacts: evidence and artifacts that would later be required in court to validate the “lone nut” and thus “random” shooting.

Anyone trying to subtly deflect away from the harsh reality of the expert shooter in the Broad Arrow, might imply that the thorough official forensic diagram was later “altered” or “forged” to fit the evidence submitted in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. This is not only an insult to the entire New South Wales Police scientific team, it is also hopelessly irrational. Any attempt at forgery down the line would be aimed at significantly increasing the “evidence” in order to enhance the illusion of a “lone nut” random event. The New South Wales Police scientific team did not forge, alter, or delete anything. By generously placing its official forensic diagram in the public domain, the scientific team has provided you the reader with the official means to prove the Tasmanian Government’s story of the day was, and remains, an impossible lie.

The alleged extended “total shooting time” in the Broad Arrow Café is easy to rebut. The audio tracks of two amateur video cameras filming at the time of the shooting accurately recorded the incredible speed of the shots, and were later submitted to the Supreme Court of Tasmania as evidence. The author has copies of these videos, both of which were subjected to extensive testing by audio experts using sophisticated computer audio analytical programs. There is not the slightest trace of forgery or editing breaks on either tape, both of which prove the astonishing rate of fire of the expert combat shooter. at Port Arthur. There is not an amateur shooter in the land who could get even close.

Alternative views on Port Arthur are encouraged, because it is the democratic right of every individual to speak his or her mind on any subject. In this context it matters not whether the speaker is a New South Wales farmer, a Victorian security guard, or a Port Arthur survivor obliged to ride the harsh and emotional roller coaster of extended psychiatric hypnosis in Melbourne, Victoria, at Tasmanian Government expense. No matter who might decide to take the stand, he or she is entitled and encouraged to speak independently on the matter.

The down side is that those who care about Australia and Australian national security should be very careful with their selection of words, especially at this late stage with the Federal and Tasmanian Governments known to be severely shaken by the reality that their best efforts have failed to quash the Port Arthur “conspiracy”. In some cases the public might be tempted to question the underlying motives of those who seek to mislead their audiences, and subtly deflect away from the known hard scientific facts.

Remember. Collectively as Australians we allowed government to imprison an intellectually impaired young man for a series of crimes he could not possibly have committed. At the time we all stood by meekly and allowed this to happen while raising not the slightest objection to Bryant’s severe abuse while on remand in Risdon Prison, nor to the fact that he should have been provided with a qualified guardian to protect him from his own lawyers. It is time to forget personal ego trips and “control” of the Port Arthur story. Martin Bryant needs a trial and he needs it now, before someone somewhere has time to arrange another “accident” in his lonely cell.


Academic calls for “mass murderer” DNA analysis
* Copyright Joe Vialls – April 2001 – All Rights Reserved, 45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6062On Sunday 9th December, Martin Bryant’s mother Carleen phoned to say she was disturbed to hear that authorities were demanding that Martin undergo full DNA analysis, in a bid to find out what makes a mass murderer tick. Obviously concerned about her only son’s welfare, Carleen Bryant continued nervously “I suppose this means they will want to interrogate him [Martin] all over again.

At the time of her telephone call, Mrs Bryant was staying with friends on the mainland, and the information on Martin and his DNA was relayed by a contact in Hobart who had just read The Sunday Tasmanian. Perhaps luckily for Martin and his mother, the information provided by her contact in Hobart was incomplete. For the present at least, Martin is not about to be tied down so that his blood can be forcibly extracted, or once again be subjected to the modern Australian equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition.

The call for Martin’s DNA apparently originated from Professor Paul Wilson of Bond University in Queensland, touted by The Sunday Tasmanian newspaper as a leading criminologist. Wilson claims”There’s a lot of interest in the whole area of genetic pre-disposition to crime”…”especially with DNA technology advances, there is a big argument for looking at Bryant, it’s a unique case.”

Martin Bryant is certainly a unique case, but examining his DNA will not help at all in identifying mass murderers. As most readers are already aware, hard scientific evidence exists today proving that Bryant never visited Port Arthur on 28th April 1996, and therefore cannot possibly be a mass murderer.

Presumably Professor Paul Wilson has not yet been advised that nineteen of the twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Café were killed with single shots to the head fired from the gunman’s right hip. In total only 29 rounds were fired in the Café, killing twenty and wounding another twelve. This was a staggering technical achievement, a feat so far beyond the known capabilities of an intellectually impaired invalid like Bryant, that it beggars the imagination.

Compare this deadly accuracy with the performance of experienced Irish Loyalist gunman Torrens Knight, who in company with one other, used a total of 120 rounds to kill eight and injure another eleven in the Catholic Rising Sun pub at Greysteel, Northern Ireland, during 1993. Only two of the victims were hit in the head, and most of the rounds missed completely, burying themselves in the furniture and walls.

Anyone deluded enough to suggest that intellectually impaired Martin Bryant was three times as accurate as two of the top Loyalist shooters in Northern Ireland, should probably make an appointment with his or her psychiatrist as a matter of urgency.

Predictably perhaps, the Tasmanian Police Service does not appear keen to participate in any new DNA adventures where Bryant is concerned. According to the newspaper, a police representative said that the “CrimTrac” database uses only junk DNA for identification purposes which does not contain any detailed genetic information. Any detailed examination of Bryant’s DNA might bring to light the embarrassing fact that no DNA matches were made between Bryant and the Broad Arrow, nor between Bryant and the expended shell cases found on the floor.

Put bluntly, the Tasmanian Police Service has no scientific evidence at all linking Martin Bryant to Port Arthur. Today, nearly five years after the event, TasPol has still not conducted the routine procedure of walking Bryant around the crime scenes to “validate” his seventy-two guilty pleas extracted under duress during November 1996.

In the view of this author, some senior Tasmanian Police Officers would probably be prepared to walk over broken glass in their bare feet, rather than conduct another interview with Martin Bryant, this time properly recorded on dual videos not subject to the various “breakdowns” claimed during his initial police interview in July 1996.

More interesting than Professor Wilson’s comments, are remarks the newspaper attributes to forensic psychologist Ian Joblin, who submitted a 30-page clinical psychological evaluation of Bryant to the Supreme Court of Tasmania, based on four days of interviews. Mr Joblin may be better known nationwide to the public for his work as clinical psychological counselor to the “notorious” and high-profile John Freidrich, Chief Executive of the doomed Victorian NSCA during the early nineties.

Readers may recall that after trying desperately to dig himself out of the mess he eventually found himself in, John Freidrich a.k.a. “Iago”, allegedly by shot himself through the back of the head with a handgun – twice. Police recorded a verdict of suicide, although no suicide note was ever found.

“The Sunday Tasmanian quoted Mr Joblin as saying that anxiety and stress after Port Arthur may have affected Bryant’s demeanour during those four days of interviews and it was time for more research. “I’d like to see him again to compare notes” Joblin said, “To try and understand …. five years later.”

If these quotes are accurate, then we have a truly extraordinary situation. Out of his own mouth, the only forensic psychologist to interview Bryant appears to be suggesting that his reports may have been different if Bryant was not under stress after Port Arthur, though straightforward stress can have nothing to do with it.

At the time of these interviews Bryant was in agony from third-degree burns to the back and side, suffered when Seascape caught fire. There can be few stresses more powerful than those induced by third degree burns. If the quotes in The Sunday Tasmanian are not accurate, Mr Joblin should ask the newspaper to print a retraction.

Quite obviously neither Mr Joblin or anyone else has the right to talk to convicted felon Martin Bryant without his consent, and because Bryant is an intellectually impaired invalid, any applicant would also need to seek consent from his guardian. Because the Tasmanian Government and Supreme Court blatantly failed to provide Bryant with a guardian, the only person at this late stage who can lay claim to this position is his own next-of-kin and mother, Mrs Carleen Bryant. Mrs Bryant has confirmed for me that Mr Joblin has not approached her on this matter.

One can reasonably ask why all of the sudden renewed interest in Bryant after five years of almost total neglect, but the answer is obscure. Perhaps the best clue is that Risdon Prison suddenly received a large number of written apologies for Martin Bryant in the week leading up to “Martin Bryant Sorry Day” on 22nd November, two weeks before the newspaper was published.

The apologies were signed by ordinary Australians, all seriously concerned that Bryant had not received a trial, and wishing him well. By all accounts, this sudden rush of mail to Risdon led to a limited number of panic attacks around the Australian establishment, especially withinTasmania.

Within days of the same event, the author suddenly received multiple inquiries from the mainstream media asking for interviews, with at least one caller showing considerable ingenuity. Because we have a silent telephone line, Radio 2UE managed to find the telephone number of the house across the road here in Perth, and asked its owner to walk over and ask me to call the John Laws Programme in Sydney. Apparently Mr Laws wished to speak to me on air about “Martin Bryant Sorry Day”.

My response to a producer of the John Laws Programme, was that I could see no point in going live to air on the matter, unless a format could be devised which provided ordinary people with the background, i.e. why we had to arrange “Martin Bryant Sorry Day” in the first place.

After thinking about the options, I suggested that John Laws find a commissioned Tasmanian Police Officer to go head-to-head with me on live radio, thereby providing an opportunity to convince the Australian public once and for all time that there is absolutely no evidence linking Martin Bryant to Port Arthur. On the flip side of the coin, it might provide an opportunity for a major Australian media star to put me down completely, and thus rid the poor harassed Australian politicians of an arch “Conspiracy Theorist”.

But I would only be put down if I failed to convince Australian listeners that my independent investigation was accurate, and the Tasmanian Police Service investigation of 1996 inaccurate. A calculated risk by any media standard. To be fair, the producer seemed quite enthusiastic and said she would pass on my offer to John Laws. Then she told me John Laws was going on holiday, and then of course there was Christmas. Oh well, maybe we can talk about it again in the New Year.

Regardless of who wants to interview whom about what, the sudden resurgence of interest in Martin Bryant is the single most important factor. No matter whether it is academics and doctors who wish to use him as a human guinea pig, or the media and others who might prefer to vilify him all over again, his name has once again been put in front of ordinary Australians. And so it should be.

Our initial collective lack of concern for an intellectually impaired young man tortured into admitting guilt for a mass murder he did not commit, shames Australia and Australians as no other single act could. We owe it to ourselves to ensure that Martin Bryant receives the trial he is entitled to in law.

Australian Officials Recklessly Endanger Martin Bryant’s Life

Vialls Investigations


During 1996, Martin Bryant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania. According to Attorney General Ray Groom, Bryant was the “most dangerous man in Australia”, who would be detained inside a custom-built Risdon Prison hospital cell “for the rest of his natural life”.

During the same time frame, television networks and newspapers alike ensured that Martin Bryant also became the most hated man in Australia. Much emphasis was placed on Bryant allegedly shooting a child hiding behind her mother’s skirt’s, then shooting another helpless child cowering behind a tree. According to the hysterical media, here we had the very worst kind of prisoner: Not only a mass murderer, but a ruthless child killer as well.

Australians nationwide were and are still taught to hate Bryant with a passion, to the point where dozens spray foul graffiti over the Tasmanian hospital walls, and tens of thousands mutter how they will kill Martin with their bare hands if they ever get the chance. Impossible of course, but is it? Quite suddenly since 21 June 2003, and apparently due to an inexplicable policy reversal, the public have already been given two chances to kill Martin Bryant, and will be generously provided with more chances in the future.

On Saturday 21 June 2003, another prisoner hit Martin in the face. In the words of Prison director Graeme Barber, it was “Just an incident between himself and another inmate who have lived in that environment together for the past few years.” Prison inmates concur with this statement, but then suddenly, Martin Bryant, most dangerous and hated prisoner in Australia, was bundled into a prison bus and driven to the Royal Hobart Hospital for a “check up”. Typically this journey takes between 15 and 20 minutes each way. One day later, the Australian media openly reported the details.

Exactly two weeks later, on Saturday 5 July 2003, another prisoner threw cleaning fluid in Martin’s face. Normal eye irrigation was initiated, as it would be in any other industrial situation. But then instead of following the normal procedures [any antidote for the known chemical followed much later by a vision test], Martin Bryant, most dangerous and hated prisoner in Australia, was bundled into a prison bus and driven to the Royal Hobart Hospital for a “check up”. As with the first incident, the Australian media openly reported the details one-day later.

Compare these two startling breaches of security with far more serious injuries that “happened” in December 2000. On that occasion Martin Bryant was suddenly frog-marched to the distant remand wing of Risdon Prison, where he was found some time later with serious stab wounds. One particular wound in his thigh had cut down almost as far as the femoral artery, and required ten stitches. Martin Bryant, most dangerous and hated prisoner in Australia, was NOT bundled down to the Royal Hobart Hospital for a “check up”. A doctor was called to the hospital and repaired Martin on the spot. This is proper procedure for a high-risk prisoner.

To summarize, Martin Bryant has been incarcerated inside Risdon Prison without a break since early 1996, a period of more than seven years. In all that time he has been subject to incredibly high security, and never been allowed outside the walls. Then all of a sudden, starting on 21 June 2003, security is removed to the point where he is driven in a bus to the Royal Hobart Hospital along an insecure route, not once but twice in two weeks, for trivial injures inflicted by two different men. The media widely report both incidents. Why?

The most likely answer to anyone with ant-terrorist experience, is a genuinely chilling scenario that should be of concern not only Martin Bryant, but also to the prison officers who escort him, and to their wives and families. Bryant is the only man alive who can tell the Australian people in open court exactly what happened to him in the days and hours leading up to his arrival at Seascape Cottages, and who was involved in luring him there. Hard forensic evidence has already cleared him of any presence at Port Arthur. As pressure grows for Martin Bryant to be given his day in court, he becomes a greater and greater risk to the professional killers who were really behind the horrific mass murder at Port Arthur. They would sleep a lot easier if he were dead.

Killing Martin Bryant inside the prison has so far proved impossible, though it must be said that at least one attempt has already been made. Such a killing would also result in an undesirable inquiry which might or might not implicate one or more members of the staff. Best to do the job outside then, thereby severing all possible links to officialdom, and to any “fellow travellers” in the Tasmanian political establishment. So how can it be arranged?

This is bog-standard stuff for professionals, and considerably easier than robbing an armored car loaded with cash or bullion. First establish a pattern, which in this case means inflicting minor injuries on Bryant, thus enabling him to be sent to the Royal Hobart Hospital several times for “check ups”. This procedure also sets precedents, making it seem perfectly normal for Martin Bryant to be shuttled backwards and forwards in a prison bus, despite the fact this only started a few weeks ago in June 2003. Make sure the newspapers relay this revised Orwellian “normality” to the Australian public.

Study the behavior of Bryant’s escorts when they make the first trip to the Royal Hobart Hospital. They will be jumpy of course, because this is the first time the most dangerous and hated prisoner in Australia has been allowed outside the prison walls in seven years. Discreetly study the speed of the bus, traffic lights, and road intersections. Check intercept points, monitor police and any other relevant radio frequencies.

During the second [and possibly third] dummy runs to the Royal Hobart Hospital, run another check on the escorts. Getting used to it, more normal now. Escorts relaxed and cracking jokes, no longer paying attention to their surroundings or possible risks. Fine-tune operation for next, final, trip from Risdon Prison.

Exactly which methods and means will be used on the day is a matter of speculation, though it seems certain that under the circumstances “saturation” will be ordered, i.e. a terminal job for all on the bus, leaving no witnesses and ensuring swift efficient exfiltration. Remember that the people who organized and carried out the ruthless murder of 35 people at Port Arthur in April 1996, will not be worried about killing a mere handful of completely insignificant prison officers in order to silence Martin Bryant. Nor will they lose any sleep over grieving wives and children.

The Orwellian media will tell you that “vengeful” members of the public launched a “completely unexpected” attack on ‘hated’ Martin Bryant as he left the Royal Hobart Hospital to return to Risdon Prison. There will then be a massive police search, but no offenders will ever be caught. The widows and children will try to get on with their lives, though severely hampered by hopelessly inadequate compensation. You will go back to sleep, reassured that “the killer” is dead.

If Prison Director Graeme Barber wishes to prove me wrong, or wants to make me look stupid, there is one certain way of doing it, and I will have no objections. It is simply this: Keep Martin Bryant safe inside Risdon Prison until a trial can be forced for him, and order your subordinates to provide the required care which has been visibly absent these past few weeks. If all else fails and the next “incident” is a broken arm or leg, pick up the telephone and call for professional counter-terrorist assistance, plus armored vehicles to take your charge to the Royal Hobart Hospital.

So Mr Barber, you have been warned of the risks – in advance. If Bryant is allowed outside Risdon prison again, and just happens to die one way or the other, guess who will be the responsible person?

Joe Vialls

Brave New World of Bank Bail-Ins Jan 1st

Brave New World of Bank Bail-Ins As Of January 1st

On January 1st, 2016, the new bail-in regime became law putting at risk the deposits of savers and companies in the EU.

EU countries join the UK, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand in having plans for bail-ins in the event of banks and other large financial institutions getting into difficulty. It is now the case that in the event of bank failure, personal andcorporate deposits could be confiscated.

The bail-in architecture was seen in the Cyprus bank bail-ins that were seen in 2013. Then, deposits of over €100,000 were confiscated in “haircuts” in order to bail out banks in Cyprus.  Now the exact same principles that were used in Cyprus – which we were told was unique and a one off – are going to apply to all of Europe.

Bail-ins and the risks they pose have largely been ignored in most of the media. In one of the very few articles on bail-ins in recent days, Hugh Dixon of Reuters Breaking Views has looked at bail-ins but has focused on the “political risks” rather than that posed to savers and indeed company depositors:

The European Union entered a brave new world of bank “bail-ins” at the start of 2016. Europe has wasted so much taxpayers’ money on bailing out bust banks in recent years that it is right to try to get investors to help foot the bills in future. However, the tough new regime carries big political risks.


The article, ‘EU enters brave new world of bank bail-ins’, is interesting despite ignoring the financial and economic risk of bail-ins –  they would likely be very deflationary in a world already beset by deflation – and can be accessed here

Exposing Corporate Criminals – B Facey

Is this person Victoria’s greatest criminal? In Victoria, Australia there is a person by the name of Brendan Facey claiming to be a sheriff.

In order to become a sheriff, one must be appointed, lawfully with all the checks and balances in place, which will be put aside for the moment.

There are also other people working out of the ‘Sheriff’s Office’ in Victoria that claim to be sheriffs.

These people claiming to be sheriffs are actually glorified debt collectors and have no lawful authority as ‘sheriffs’ whatsoever.

A (Victorian) sheriff is supposed to be (lawfully) appointed by the Supreme Court of Victoria, and must function for the court exclusively.

Any letter to the prospective client will show that the letter from the “Sheriff’s Office” is addressed from 277 William St Melbourne, also the same place where Tenix Solutions and Civic Compliance Victoria (CCV) reside at.

Sheriff Template letter:

The apparent signatory at the bottom of the correspondence is Brendan Facey, where the actual signature is computer generated.


Brendan Facey is also an employee of the Department of Justice as a Director of “Infringement Management & Enforcement Services” GPO Box 123 Melbourne 3001, with the current street address of 40/80 Collins St. Melbourne, 3000.

DoJ (IMES) letter signature:

This can be confirmed with any letter from the Department of Justice & Regulation, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services, where [he?] signs the document as a Director, (of) Infringement Management & Enforcement Services (totally different signature than from the ‘Sheriff’s Office’), contrary to his Supreme Court of Victoria appointment as a ‘sheriff’.

Once you ask any so called sheriff the lawfulness of their appointment, they refuse to comment.

If they are actually masquerading as officers of the crown (as indicated by the badge) and they are NOT lawfully sworn in, then they are committing a criminal offence.

Remind them of this next time you speak to a ‘sheriff’.

NB/. The actual validity of law in Victoria is put aside for the purpose of this article.

Letter To Brendan Facey

Letter to the sheriff – Brendan Facey

The Australian government together with various other corporations are involved in a nationwide fraud, where the ‘customers’ are everyday Australians.

The extent of the fraud can be mind boggling to the ‘lay person’, but a well known fact within the legal and political circles.

Key aspects of Australian society, from the tax office (ATO), council rates to parking / traffic / driving infringements have all been collected fraudulently by the various ‘businesses’, also including the operations of the ‘Sheriff’s Office’.

Many individuals are involved (read committed to) in the exposure of the corrupt dealings of the Australian government, and its related entities, which also includes the police force.

The incarceration of an individual, seizure of assets, or even the selling of one’s home via fraud and deception, will not preclude others from acting for or on the behalf, exposing the corruption, and eventually dealing the same financial blows that have been used against the general populous.

The corrupt system deals with matters of this calibre through the magistrates and high court judges, by shutting down any opposition, in full contempt of the law.

When the ‘defendant’ brings up matters that the police have been caught out in fraud, the magistrate then answers back, that this is not the issue, therefore supporting the police corruption, ‘erring’ therefore acting ‘unlawfully’.

The following attachment (pdf) is a letter to the so called Victorian Sheriff – Brendan Facey….

Genworth LMI

ABC/ACN # CIK#: Genworth and Westpac
Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Chris Orton – Recoveries Officer/Skip Tracer
Orton, Chris (Genworth)
CN- ChrisOrton-Gen-CO1
Inv1 Chris Orton
Notice 1 - Chris Orton 24082015-1
PII - ChrisOrton- Professional Indemnity Insurance
Notice 2 - Chris Orton 21092015-2
Notice 3 - Chris Orton 21092015-3
Ellie Comerford – CEO
Inv1 EllieComerford
Notice of Irrevocable Estoppel by Acquiescence
PII - Ellie Comerford- Professional Indemnity Insurance
Graham Kell – ‘Recoveries Officer’ Inv-GK1
Kylie McCartney-Lofts CN-KylieMcCartney-Lofts-Gen-KML1
Inv1 KylieMcCartneyLofts
PII - Kylie McCartney-Lofts- Professional Indemnity Insurance

PM Adviser: Climate Change UN Hoax

Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.


The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order – provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change scepticwith a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

 “The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN..

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.

Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.









Email PM



Larry Pickering Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

Fri 23 Oct 2015 11:12:23 pm/828 COMMENTS

For each layer of abuse the Royal Commission peels back, there’s yet another more horrific layer ready to unfold… but the Commission is not game to go there. For instance, I reported here a couple of years back about where Qld’s 35th premier, Rob “Bubbles” Borbidge, fits into the gallery of paedophile rogues.

Rob Borbidge, (he was Premier Newman’s first choice as Governor) and his mates had an after-hours predilection for under-age boys, and his “mates” were none other than ex-Chief Justice, and now the Newman anointed Governor, Paul “Daphnis” de Jersey and the then Federal Court Judge, John “Doggy” Dowsett.

The group BLAZE, an acronym for “Boy Lovers and Zucchini Eaters”, received much scrutiny from the NSW Wood Royal Commission and the NCA. The Commission’s report is available on the net, so for those who say Pickering makes this stuff up because he is a bankrupt and can’t be sued, it would do them well to carry out a little research themselves into the multiple former commission and inquiry reports… and I am not a bankrupt and even if I was I could still be sued, so people are welcome to sue me, but they don’t and won’t for fear of what else will be exposed.

You’d be surprised at what else my solicitor holds.

A recent British report noted that children are being abused, “on an industrial scale”. Lord Justice George Fulford, adviser to the Queen and Privy Counsellor, is a founder of the outrageous “Paedophile Information Exchange” group known as PIE.

Justice Fulford claimed in an article that the PIE organisation, (now under investigation in the wake of the Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris scandals) was merely a way for paedophiles to, “make friends and offer each other mutual support”.

But PIE, is openly advocating child sex be legalised down to the age of four. (Yeah, four, I had to read it again too.) These paedophile groups are not confined only to gay lobbyists but there is certainly a predominance of them who are pushing for the legalisation of child sex.

In Australia there are over 44,000 homeless children either in foster care, State care or on the streets… almost all will be abused at some time.

Almost all children in Islamic groups will also suffer some type of abuse. Almost all tribal Aboriginal children will suffer what we call abuse, where old men “educate” young girls and old women “educate” young boys. Where does “culture” separate itself from assumed decency?

As reported earlier, a former Qld Government Speaker claims to have had in his possession a copy of a video, provided by the Parliamentary Service Staff, showing Rob Borbidge entering the Annex building with one of his “friends” and in the company of two young “boys” dressed in high heeled shoes and blonde wigs.

It is believed that a copy of the video, which was in the possession of the Speaker, is now in a secure location.

Borbidge also wrote some very compromising “love letters” to young boys on official Opposition letterheads, which is an indication of how safe these people feel in their protected pursuits. The former Speaker declared, “There are three in existence. I have recovered two, but there’s still one getting around out there somewhere.” The two letters are also now in a safe location.

Still nothing has been subpoenaed by the current Royal Commission.

In December of 1984, police raided two male brothels, Brett’s Boys at Kelvin Grove and House of Praetorian at Coorparoo.

Copies of credit card receipts were kept in Police Commissioner Terry Lewis’ safe. These documents were seized by Fitzgerald Inquiry investigators. The source for this information was a solicitor representing one of the corrupt cops who was brought before the Fitzgerald Inquiry.

According to this source, Lewis’s safe contained credit card receipts for “Brett’s Boys” brothel. The receipts detailed the services as “laundry” and the credit cards were specifically described as AMEX and were noted as official “parliamentary expenses”. Nothing of that material has been subpoenaed either.

In the Kimmins Report it was claimed that boys were supplied to “Brett’s Boys” from a Philippine source. But there was another source of young boys who were bound for the paedophile networks.

At the recent Carmody Commission of Inquiry a witness by the name of Fred Feige made mention of a senior officer in the Department of Family Services, Mr Donald A. C. Smith, who it was alleged, was apportioning out young boys to the offending groups on weekends. No charges have been laid there either.

At the current Federal Royal Commission into “Institutional Responses” to Child Sexual Abuse, one witness would be happy to expand on this information. He has not been summonsed to appear and is not likely to be. He would have claimed that he was abused by one particular paedophile who was part of a group. This group was involved in an early 1980’s court case which is known as the “Case of the Three White Volvos”.

Each member of this group drove a white Volvo. The particular paedophile in question was alleged to be ABC radio announcer Blair Edmonds.

Another member of this group was Justice Underhill (known as “Justice Underpants”) who died last year. It is interesting to note who gave the eulogy at Underhill’s funeral. It was Justice Kirby who also gave the eulogy at former Governor General, Sir Zelman Cowan’s, funeral.

Cowan was also a paedophile according to Police Intelligence records and he is the GG accused of in Heffernan’s latest nameless revelations.

If you don’t believe a wall of protection surrounds the worst of paedophilia in high places, consider this: On March 12, 2002, Senator Heffernan again used parliamentary privilege to accuse Justice Michael Kirby of using a Commonwealth car to cruise the notorious “Darlinghurst Wall” where it was alleged he was seen soliciting sex from underage males.

Heffernan also accused the eminent judge of being unfit to hear cases involving child sex charges. He claimed the judge had “regularly trawled for what they call ‘rough trade’ at the Darlinghurst Wall”, and said he had personally interviewed several of Kirby’s former “rentboys”.

He also claimed that the judge often used taxpayer-provided Comcars to pick up a young male from Kings Cross and take him to the judge’s home.

Justice Kirby, a declared homosexual with a long-term partner, strongly denied the claims.

But the Comcar driver’s job record from April, 1994, showed that Justice Kirby was picked up at the Law Courts at 7pm and taken to Rose Bay. The trip, which according to the driver was via Darlinghurst, took 50 minutes.

At 11pm the car returned to Justice Kirby’s home and went back to Darlinghurst, this time only taking 20 minutes. According to an annotation, the judge “did not travel” on the return journey. (It is against Comcar rules for the designated passenger to send a guest alone.)

The document does not identify who travelled on the judge’s account. At the time, Justice Kirby was president of the NSW Court of Appeal. He was appointed to the High Court by Keating in February of 1996.

There was a second document, a statutory declaration from a man, now 29, sworn in August, 2000.

It says, “I have given written statements to the Child Protection Enforcement Agency about my sexual encounters originating from the Wall in Darlinghurst with Michael Kirby. I know Michael Kirby is a judge.

“On several occasions he took me to a unit in Darley Street at the end of the ‘Wall’. At the times Michel Kirby picked me up from the Wall, I was a young male prostitute and heroin addict. I told Michael Kirby this.”

Unfortunately for Heffernan, Standing Order 193 prohibits privileged disclosure of “imputations of improper motives or personal reflections” on sitting judicial officers. Heffernan hurriedly withdrew his claims rather than serve a jail term, he was promptly censured by the Senate and John Howard’s Coalition Government forced his resignation as a Parliamentary Secretary.

Graham Richardson’s political bed partner at the time, Fia Cummings, wrote in The Age of March 17, 2002: “The man who signed the declaration is believed to have also given evidence to police about solicitor John Marsden, but Justice David Levine rejected the man’s evidence in the Marsden case on the basis of factual errors.

“The man was among several interviewed about Justice Kirby in 1998 by the NSW police strike force ‘Cori’, formed to investigate Franca Arena’s paedophile claims.”

Ms Cumming also reported that Senator Heffernan’s interest in Justice Kirby was triggered by an approach from a concerned Comcar driver in late 1997.

Her advice that the scandal, “Appears certain to end the career of either Senator Heffernan or Justice Kirby” has been proved wrong.

Just how high this bloody wall of protection is surrounding the “elite” is anybody’s guess.

ALP sycophant, Philip Adams, gave the eulogies at the funerals of Big Bob Collins who suicided rather than face paedophile charges and at the funeral of known serial “rough-house” offender, SA Premier, Don Dunstan, who had internally injured a young boy to the extent that the poor boy was airlifted back to a Filipino hospital rather than risk admission to a local hospital here.

Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in January, 1987 received a delegation from two investigators into paedophile claims and, during a four hour meeting, the investigators disclosed in detail the sordid backgrounds of D’Arcy, Borbidge and Ahern. Bjelke, according to reports seemed unmoved. As far as Borbidge and Ahern are concerned, again nothing has happened.

Family Services official, Donald A. C. Smith (known as “The Gatekeeper”) had the final say on which children received weekend passes from orphanages and youth detention centres. This was well known but again no charges have been laid.

The current Gillard Royal Commission into paedophilia was designed to throw light on Abbott’s catholic “mate” George Pell, although there is no evidence that Pell himself dabbled in paedophilia.

Pell is accused of protecting paedophiles by keeping them hidden in alternating parishes.

The Commission has concentrated so far mainly on religious “institutions” and has not encroached on the networks within Parliaments, the judiciary, high-profile corporations, well-known television celebrities or Muslim or Aboriginal communities.

We should be discovering the awful extent to which innocent and mostly homeless children, or children in State care, have been abused, but we are nowhere near that extent! Some horrific tales leak out from within the entertainment industry that cannot be verified as police are suddenly told, without reason, to drop their investigations.

If only the Commission’s terms of reference could be broadened from the Gillard Government’s limited “institutional responses” caveat, we might see some big names, including an ex-Prime Minister in the dock (and most know who that is).

As long as some groups remain protected from the law then paedophiles will be attracted to those groups… and that is clearly what has happened and it is still happening. Things are changing in the UK.

But don’t hold your breath down under

Who is the former Australian Prime Minister–judges who are paedophiles?

“Every Commonwealth attorney-general since Philip Ruddock (2003) had seen the list”.

This indicates a PM before 2003 … all the clues lead to Howard  Keating  Hawke ! … UPDATE !

Have you already forgotten the ALP’s heavyweight Bill Collins attack on the former Governor General, Bill Hayden for stating that Paul Keating was not a poofter as the young man he was seen having lunch with was his son!!!

Have you forgotten that once Paul Keating left office he separated from his wife?

Now who was the Malaysian Opposition leader to Dr Mahatir who was goaled and had the nick-name of Keatings bumboy? Abraham or something similar.

Forget Bob Hawke, even before he left Hazel he was banging his biography writer Blanche. Forget Malcolm Fraser, he was far too monotonous, and as for that ‘Little’ Johnny Howard he still has his wife who was sterile due to a condition a girl gets from being too promiscuous.

That only leaves good old Paul Keating with his piggery and residing in Indonesia. … Andrew S MacGregor

Abbott+Brandis had a secret meeting with paedophile protector Cardinal Pell … Why ?

Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan claimed in Parliament on Tuesday (19/10/15) that he has a police list of 28 prominent people that includes a former Prime Minister and current judges that are suspected of being paedophiles.

This is dynamite and an issue that will not go away until it is dealt with in full in an open and public manner.

There is enough detail in Senator Heffernan’s allegations to make them very credible. Some of the details are:

The list “formed part of police documents that had been “signed off” by Gary Crooke, QC, the former senior counsel assisting NSW’s Wood royal commission into police corruption in the 1990s. Mr Crooke declined to comment when contacted by Fairfax Media on Tuesday.”

The list includes a former Australian Prime Minister, judges, members of the legal fraternity and others.

Every Commonwealth attorney-general since Philip Ruddock had seen the list”. This seems to have been confirmed by Philip Ruddock (2003) and Former Labor Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus.(2013)

Senator Heffernan “accused former royal commissioner Justice James Roland Wood of refusing to investigate lawyers who had allegedly attended a Kings Cross “boy brothel”.

The name of the club was Costellos and was a known “boy brothel” attended by members of the Sydney legal fraternity. (Click here to read more)

Former Royal Commissioner Wood denied the allegations by Senator Heffernan, but not outright.

“Mr Wood could not recall if the alleged list had been raised at the 1995 commission but said: “I reject that we failed to investigate anyone that fell within our terms of reference.”

That is a very weak denial by Mr Wood and allows him plenty of wriggle room to change his story later down the track if needed.

Former Australian Prime Ministers

“In October 2012, Labour MP Tom Watson stood up in the British House of Commons and lobbed a grenade – metaphorically speaking.”

“Tapping a sheaf of paper in his hands, he told the Prime Minister that police had – or used to have – a file of evidence containing “clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10″.” (Click here to read more)

Tom Watson’s 2012 address to the UK parliament sparked a number of inquires that continue as of today. Then there is the Jimmy Savile scandal which resulted in the ongoing paedophile investigation Operation Yewtree which also helped catch Rolf Harris.

Then there is Prince Andrew’s links to a paedophile network and allegations he is a paedophile. (Click here to read more) With what is happening in the UK and given Senator’s Heffernan’s police list it is very conceivable that there is a paedophile ring at the highest levels of government in Australia.

Suspected paedophiles is the judiciary / legal fraternity. Some examples are:

Suspected paedophile Judge Garry Neilson

In July 2014 I wrote an article titled: “Has Judge Garry Neilson outed himself for being a paedophile given he implied incest and paedophilia are OK?” (Click here to read more)

In December 2015 I wrote a follow-up article: “Premier Mike Baird & Chief Justice Bathurst fail to act on paedophile supporter Judge Garry Neilson” (Click here to read more)

So where is it at now? Judge Garry Neilson received nothing more than a reprimand and continues to work as a judge. (Click here to read more) That’s the judicial and political system at work protecting their own.

Paedophile protector and former NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith. Currently a barrister

In 2012 Greg Smith who was then the NSW Attorney-General attacked the credibility of child victim of Father Finian Egan who is Mr Smith’s friend. Greg Smith said she was only after money in an attempt to defend Father Egan. I wrote an article titled“Protecting paedophiles the judicial way. Justice Ken Taylor and the Attorney General Greg Smith.” (Click here to read)

Father Finian Egan was convicted of being a paedophile in 2013 and sentenced to 8 years jail with a minimum of 4 years for abusing numerous girls.

Tony Abbott and George Brandis

In July 2015 I wrote a post titled: “Tony Abbott and Brandis both secretly met with paedophile protector Cardinal George Pell. Why?”  The title says it all and raises many questions.

In just the 3 examples above we have numerous people with serious questions to answer which should be done at a judicial inquiry specifically for the legal fraternity. Some of those questions are:

  1. So why did Greg Smith attack one of the victims in an attempt to defend a paedophile and should Greg Smith be allowed to work as a barrister?
  2. Why has Premier Baird allowed Judge Garry Neilson, who at best is sick and demented, to continue to work as a judge?
  3. Given the list Senator Heffernan has relates to alleged paedophiles in NSW why has Premier Baird been totally silent on the issue?

Then there is regular stories in the media about paedophiles getting reduced sentences, suspended sentences and bail when they have pleaded guilty.

The judges and prosecutors who do this or allow it to happen need investigating.

A dangerous game for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull if he fails to act

The matter cannot be swept under the carpet and has to be investigated as it won’t go away until it is dealt with the same as it hasn’t gone away in Britain. If PM Turnbull tries to cover it up then he owns it and is part of the problem. To be left as it is will smear the name of all former Prime Ministers and eventually at least one or two of them will demand an inquiry you would think.

There is a lot more to come in this story. It’s just a matter of time.

Tony Abbott and Brandis both secretly met with paedophile protector George Pell Why?

Federal Attorney-General Senator George Brandis QC secretly met with known paedophile protector and alleged paedophile Cardinal George Pell in May this year. It was only reported on Monday (20/7/15) because Brandis has spent the last 3 months trying to conceal it.

It is almost identical to Tony Abbott lying in an interview in 2004 on the ABC’s 7.30 Report about a secret meeting he had with George Pell before the 2004 Federal Election.

George Brandis should have never been anywhere near George Pell for many reasons. Not the least of which is that Pell is a sick and perverted person and a key witness at the $500 million Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

It causes major headaches for a lot of people including Prime Minister Tony Abbott who is also a long-time friend of Cardinal Pell. I find it impossible to believe that George Brandis would have met with Cardinal Pell without Tony Abbott’s knowledge and approval. Be that as it may, Prime Minister Abbott certainly knows about the meeting now and has said nothing which also suggests he has known for a long time.

The problem will not be going away as many sexual abuse victims are very upset about it and George Pell is due to give evidence at the Royal Commission again sometime before Christmas. It is guaranteed that Pell will be asked about the May meeting with Brandis when he is next at the Royal Commission and that will raise further questions for Brandis and Tony Abbott.

Channel Ten Report on Monday 20/7/15

(Click anywhere on the above video to watch)

Channel 10 have a slightly longer report on their website where at the beginning they talk about Pell being accused of protecting paedophiles and at the end about Brandis’ office “only disclosing the lunch after persistent enquiries from Channel 10″. (Click here to watch)

George Brandis knew he should not be meeting with George Pell

It is not like George Brandis did not know Pell was a witness at the Royal Commission. Pell already gave evidence in March and August last year and was put on notice in May this year that he would be required for further evidence later this year.

Also, when the Royal Commission makes recommendations to the government Brandis will be having a substantial say in what recommendations they will implement. As a QC Brandis is fully aware that he should never have met with George Pell for legal reasons such as perceived bias.

Tony Abbott’s friendship with George Pell and the Liberal Party connection

In September 2013 I wrote the below in an article :

“Tony Abbott and George Pell have a history of working together in politics. Before the 2004 election Tony Abbott gave an infamous interview on the ABC’s Lateline where he was caught lying and deceiving in relation to a meeting with George Pell. A couple of days after the meeting George Pell was a signatory to a letter criticising the Labor Party.” (Click here to read more) Below is the video showing Tony Abbott lying.

(Click anywhere on the above video to watch) (For the longer transcript version click here)

Given Tony Abbott has previous history of telling a lie trying to conceal a meeting with George Pell did he tell George Brandis to try and conceal his meeting with Pell?

Questions that need to be answered regarding the George Brandis / Cardinal George Pell meeting

What does Abbott know about the meeting? What did Brandis say to Pell at the meeting? Did Brandis say to Pell that there is no need for Pell to worry as any negative recommendations by the Royal Commission against Pell and the Church will be swept under the carpet? Did Brandis pass on any messages to Pell from Tony Abbott at the lunch or pass on any message to Tony Abbott from Pell after the lunch?

Give credit where it is due

It must be noted that in September 2014 at the request of the Royal Commission the Federal Government led by Prime Minister Tony Abbott extended the Royal Commission for 2 years until 2017. (Click here to read more)

Alleged paedophile George Pell and his support for paedophile priests

Confessed paedophile Gerard Ridsdale and his supporter George Pell go to court

This article is not about George Pell and his recent actions are well-known so I won’t go too in-depth but his background is highly relevant to the article so I will cover a few parts. George Pell supported serial paedophile Gerard Ridsdale even when he was facing criminal charges as the above photo shows.

I wrote an article in March last year regarding Pell’s evidence at the Royal Commission which starts off:

“Cardinal George Pell, who was investigated in 2002 for sexually assaulting a 12 year-old-boy in 1961, gave evidence yesterday (24/3/14) at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It is a bit rich to call what came out of George’s mouth “evidence” given almost every second word would have to classified as perjury.” (Click her to read more)

(Click anywhere on the above video to watch)

Another article I wrote in September 2013 which has a lot of background information is titled Tony Abbott and his friend Cardinal George Pell. Perceived bias for the Royal Commission into child sex abuse (Click here to read)

Is George Brandis a paedophile?

As we now know paedophilia goes to the highest levels of government in England so when members of parliament act as strange and in the circumstances that Brandis has I think it fair to ask the question about them.

Brandis is divorced with 2 children and his own sexuality is the subject of rumour or at least that is what the Sydney Morning Herald said in an article in 2013.

“Those who know him well insist occasional gossip about Brandis’s sexuality is baseless.” And “Don Markwell says he and Brandis have discussed sex only once in more than 40 years of friendship.” (Click here to read more)

I would like to know what those rumours are and whether or not a dodgy meeting with Pell is relevant.

The only rumour that I know of is that George Brandis is gay and was caught in bed with another man at university. If that is true who cares and he wouldn’t be the first gay person to get married and have children. But maybe the other rumours are a lot more than that.

Why George Brandis met with Cardinal Pell and why he tried to cover it up is unknown so all we can do is speculated to try to get to the truth and so we should as it is disgusting and needs to be exposed.

There will be suspicion about anyone who meets with George Pell. Even worse if they are the Federal Attorney-General

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church are protecting paedophiles on a huge scale. Now and in the past. I wouldn’t go anywhere near George Pell in a million years unless it was to try to expose his criminal conduct further.

George Brandis as put the credibility of the $500 million tax payer funded Royal Commission in jeopardy. Brandis having lunch with Cardinal George Pell has given credibility to a person who will go down in history as one of the biggest paedophile protectors the world has ever seen.

Time for action

Tony Abbott and Brandis need to come clean now. The longer they wait the worse it will become. The above story is dynamite waiting to go off and it will sometime in the not too distant future I expect.

If this was a court case afoot the first question people would ask is: Has George Brandis and/or Tony Abbott interfered in the administration of justice. The Royal Commission isn’t a court case but it is the next best thing and people will be wondering for a long time if Brandis and/or Abbott have interfered with it. At least until they say what happened at the meeting with Brandis and Pell.

Please help promote this post and use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below.

You can follow this website by free email notification at the top right of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article published.

This website is independent and reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation


Wed 11 Dec 2013 12:00:27 pm/348 COMMENTS

Not many things can surprise me. I’ve been around a long while and have done just about everything so, after broaching the subject of paedophilia and having had a thousand wicked stories of child abuse hit my desk, I sat here gobsmacked thinking all this just can’t be true!

So I rang everyone I knew, and some I didn’t know, who worked in the field of broken lives. “Surely this can’t be true?” I asked.

“Can I talk off the record?”, was one response. “You don’t know the half of it”, was another. “Just don’t go there, Larry.”

I was actually being told by people who should know that it was indeed true.

So, in disbelief, I put up a poll on Pickering Post asking: “Have you ever been indecently interfered with as a child? YES or NO.” I thought maybe 3 or 4 percent would say yes.

For 24 hours the YES answer has been hovering around a staggering 30 per cent.

There is no reason for thousands of people to lie about something that would have adversely affected their lives.

There is something seriously wrong here but the polling seems to confirm what is on my desk and in my inbox.

No sooner do I think, “Well, that information MUST be a load of bullshit”, a mountain of corroborating evidence from credible sources follows it! My nose for bullshit is obviously faulty.

I don’t let my three youngsters near churches or scout halls or that dodgy bloke up the street, so I have done my job. Crumbs, have I? I clearly haven’t!

This canker permeates every level of society, it knows no demographic.

The judiciary, parliaments, the aristocracy, the entertainment industry is riddled with it, there is no corner where a child is safe from these extremely clever predators.

What is it in the (mostly male) genetic makeup that craves sexual dominance over an innocent child? Time for some lateral thinking:

Historically, parts of Europe, all of the Middle East and much of the Asian sub continent openly practised this bastardry.

It is commonplace among Aboriginal and probably most African tribes.

South American cultures included their children in sacrificial ceremonies.

Sophisticated networks and cells of paedophiles still operate freely within the West. There are influential groups here in Australia advocating under-age sex be legalised.

These people are not from disadvantaged or oddball groups… they are names, big names, household names!

They are intelligent people and smart enough to avoid prosecution.

They dabble in the occult and use LSD to ensure a child can never be a credible witness.

Royal Commissions may well pinpoint myriad instances of child abuse, but try prosecuting the perpetrators.

It’s not that easy when the child has been mentally manipulated and thirty years later the criminal is dead.

How many little lives are being ruined tonight?

Larry Pickering Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

Larry Hannigan’s Australia

“We are all an involuntary part of a social revolution, where political parties feel entitled to take ownership of our individual rights to real and personal property, and where our civil and political rights are abused and overridden by the many politically created entities within the Australian Government System.”
Nothing on this website is offered as legal advice.


Forced Child Marriages In Australia

Forced child marriages in Australia: ‘they’re being groomed from the moment they’re born’

Jasvinder’s sister, Robina, committed suicide by setting herself on fire. Picture: supplied.

AT JUST eight years old, as she innocently spent her days between school and her family home in England, Jasvinder Sanghera’s parents secretly promised their young daughter’s hand in marriage to a strange man in India.

Jasvinder was none the wiser. She was just a little girl with only innocent things on her mind.

But as the years rolled by and she watched her older sisters pulled out of school when they reached their teens and sent off to marry men they had only ever seen in a single photograph, she started to realise her destiny had already been sealed.

“I watched at least two of my seven sisters being taken out of a classroom to marry men in India,” Jasvinder told  Jasvinder said her sisters “disappeared” but that no one questioned their disappearance.

“My sister Robina was missing from her education for nine months and suddenly returned and was put in my year to catch up. But she was someone’s wife, she had a wedding ring on her finger and wasn’t allowed to wear western dress or integrate.

“I was born in Britain but my father was from India … the professionals were too afraid to ask the question for fear of offending … no one wanted to be called a racist.”

The moment Jasvinder had been dreading most finally arrived one day when she returned home from school, aged 14.
Her mother asked her to sit down in the lounge room.

“My mother presented me a photograph of a man I learned I had been promised to at the age of eight,” she said.

“I said ‘I’m not marrying a stranger, I want to go to school, I was born in Britain’.

“My mother made it clear none of that mattered in the place I was going and that she had only sent me to school because of the law.
“I protested and as a result I was taken out of school and held prisoner in my home.

“My parents put padlocks on my bedroom door and my mother, father and sisters all watched the door to make sure I didn’t leave home until I agreed to the marriage.

“I was missing school but I knew if the teachers called my parents would just give an Oscar winning performance and say I was unwell, or being educated at home or abroad.

“I attempted suicide once, I took an overdose, but they wouldn’t let me go to the hospital for medical attention.

“They gave me coffee and walked me up and down and made me put my fingers down my throat until I was sick because of the fear I would tell someone.

“In the end I agreed to the marriage while planning my escape.”

When Jasvinder was 16, she overheard her mother on the phone booking her ticket to India to marry the man she had never met.

“I ran away,” she said.

“Forced marriage means you are giving your child to a stranger to rape on their wedding night.

“I was missing my family and I wanted to go home, because I’d lost everything I’d ever known.

“I rang them and wanted them to say ‘we see your point, come home, you don’t have to marry this stranger’.

“But instead, when I rang, my mother said ‘you either come home and marry who we say or from this day forward you are dead in our eyes’.

“I told her I would not marry and she said ‘I hope you give birth to a daughter like you and then you will know what it’s like to raise a prostitute’.”

Jasvinder said going against her family was a difficult choice to make.

“My family disowned me,” she said.

“It wasn’t just my parents, it was aunties and uncles and such a wider network.

“Imagine never seeing a family member ever again, even though they’re alive, and feeling it was your fault.

“They make you feel you’re the perpetrator.”

Despite the difficulties she experienced, Jasvinder, who now has three children and a grandson, has never regretted her decision to escape.

“My children will never inherit that legacy of abuse because of that decision I made when I was 16,” she said.

One of Jasvinder’s older sisters, Robina, wasn’t so lucky.  Robina was severely abused physically and mentally by her husband who left her “black and blue”.  Trapped in a forced marriage and told by her parents that she’d be disowned if she left, Robina set herself on fire and committed suicide.
Forced Marriages

Jasvinder set up an organisation, Karma Nirvana and hotline in her sister’s honour for victims of forced marriage and honour killings in the United Kingdom. She has become an international advocate and author of three books on forced marriage and is currently in Australia to speak on about her experiences in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney.

Jasvinder said forced marriage involving children was rampant around the world and also present in Australia.

“We get victims in Australia calling my hotline all the time seeking support, it’s only been set up for British citizens, but there isn’t a helpline in Australia except for a police one that a lot of people are too scared to call,” she said.

“It’s a widespread issue in Australia we just don’t see young children being groomed by their parents to marry strange men because we’re oblivious.

“The reality is many of them are being groomed from the moment they’re born.

“The children are usually married in nonlegal ceremonies or taken to their parents’ home countries to marry the men their relatives choose for them and we look at their families thinking they appear protected and don’t notice anything else because we’re not looking for it.”

Anti Slavery Australia director, Jennifer Burn said she was currently assisting “about 70 clients”, all victims of human trafficking, many aged under 18 years.

“They are fairly representative of the men and women who have been trafficked to Australia from the Asia Pacific region,” Ms Burn told

“We are seeing an emerging caseload involving Australians who might be in a forced marriage situation.”  Ms Burn said there were “no reliable statistics” on forced marriage in Australia.  “Forced marriage is a slavery-like practice,” she said.

Ms Burn said many underage forced marriages were conducted “outside of the Marriage Act”.  “They might be cultural or religious marriages,” she said.

“We have obligations in international and Australian law to prevent forced marriages and to protect those involved.”
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has investigated 20 matters of suspected forced marriage in Australia from January 1 to September 30 this year.

Eight were in NSW, seven in Victoria, four in Queensland and one in South Australia

Eleven of the investigations involved persons under the age of 18 years.

“No charges or convictions have been recorded out of these investigations at this time,” an AFP spokesman said.

“Forced marriage matters can be particularly challenging to investigate and prosecute for a number of reasons”.

“Investigations are lengthy and complex; Prosecutions rely heavily on victim testimony but victims and witnesses can be reluctant to give evidence due to fear of reprisals and shame, and; the clandestine nature of the crime type results in apprehension by witnesses/victims in making initial contact with authorities,” the AFP said.

Earlier this month the Herald Sun reported foreign clerics had been visiting Australia to illegally marry off under-age girls, according to allegations raised with the Federal Government.

The AFP investigated allegations of 42 forced marriages, including 32 involving children, between March 2013 and August this year. Seven child bride cases were in Victoria.

It is understood the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is considering charges in a number of cases.

And allegations were raised with the Attorney-General’s department early this year that clerics had been “entering Australia in order to conduct marriages of under-age girls”, according to documents released under Freedom of Information laws.

The AFP’s human trafficking team said it had no such evidence, but would not clarify if any of its 42 inquiries involved such allegations.

The visas of up to 20 clerics have been cancelled in the past 2.5 years for fear they would disrupt community harmony or incite violence, or because their credentials were bogus.

Since 2013, 140 religious worker visas have been cancelled or withdrawn.
According to the FOI documents, marriages of so-called “jihadi brides” to Islamic State terrorists could be nullified.

“Australia’s existing forced marriage offences capture a range of marriage and marriage-like relationships, and can apply where the victim is taken overseas to be married, or where an Australian citizen or resident is involved in forcing a person to be married overseas,” a briefing states.

“The existing and amended offences could apply to so-called ‘jihadi brides’ if they did not consent to a marriage because of coercion, threat or deception (under the existing offences), or because they did not understand the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony (under the amendments).”

Forced marriage offences carry a jail term of up to four years, or seven years if the victim is under 18, and 25 years if a minor is trafficked overseas.

The AFP encourages victims of human trafficking or those that have information regarding human trafficking to contact the AFP on 131 AFP (131237) or email

Who Really Owns This $200trill Debt?

Who really owns this $200 trillion debt?

By Vern Gowdie in the Gold Coast

A relative calm has descended on the markets. The Dow is down a little. Gold up a little. Bond rates holding steady.

But what lurks beneath the apparently calm surface?

Santos are laying off staff…again. Why? High debt levels (about $9 billion) and lower revenues mean it’s time to reduce overheads.

Do you think Glencore and Santos are the only commodity companies in the world dealing with this issue? No. This situation is being played out in boardrooms all over the world.

The decisions of Glencore, Santos et al are the boulder in the pond. These layoffs, shutdowns and cutbacks create a multiple ripple effect throughout the economy.

We are seeing the first signs of the debt defaults.

Which leads me to an email we received from a reader.

I read with great interest the predictions of doom and gloom by almost all of your so called expert commentators.

What I have not seen is any explanation of what the consequences of a national default would be.

Who is the Australian national debt owed to and what happens if we default ?? No one I know can tell me. Can you ??’  Subscriber, T.L.

Thanks TL for the email. Please allow me to correct you when you use the label ‘so called expert commentators.’ Personally I do not consider myself an expert commentator.

My nearly 30 years’ experience in financial markets taught me, above all else, to know and appreciate my limitations. One of those limitations is that I will never fully understand everything related to the markets…The web of interconnectivity in financial markets is beyond the comprehension of all but a handful of people and I am not one of them.

This is why I only commit my capital to ‘vanilla’ investments…ones I can make a considered risk analysis on.

In relation to doom and gloom, you can only call it as you see it. If a teenage boy is given a bottle of rum and the keys to a turbo-charged Porsche, would you suggest we ignore these facts and assume he’ll arrive home safely? Or do you point out the dangers and the probable outcome of hard liquor and speeding?

Conversely, when the world experiences the severe debt crisis and I think it represents an excellent time to buy deeply discounted assets, will I be labelled a ‘Pollyanna’?

Investing is a lot like driving — there are times when you can make great progress; there are times to slow down; and there are times to pull over to the side of the road and wait. Failing to observe the road conditions and the behaviour of those around you can lead to fatal outcomes. The market warrants the same level of respect.

The views I express in The Daily Reckoning and my advisory newsletters are a combination of the following:

  1. Appreciating the basics (you cannot print money to cure economic ills and you cannot borrow indefinitely without repercussions)
  2. Personal experiences (what works and what doesn’t)
  3. The thoughts behind what guides my personal investment decisions.

I fully accept that my approach to joining the economic and investment dots may not be how things pan out. We are investing in a world without precedent. Never before in the history of money has there been such a concerted effort to manipulate the value of financial markets and investor behaviour (forcing savers to abandon bank accounts in search of yield).

Anything is possible in this world…for a while at least. Ultimately imbalances are always corrected. This is a fact. It’s just unclear exactly when. In the interim I’ll wait and invest my portfolio in a very defensive position in accordance with my views.

To answer your question on who we owe our debt to and what happens if we default, you have to stand back and look at this from a global perspective.

Australia’s debt — government, corporate and household — is but one link in the global debt chain.

A debt chain that is, according the McKinsey Report released in February 2015 titled ‘Debt and (not much) Deleveraging’, now topping US$200 trillion.

The following is an extract from The Gowdie Letter published in September 2015 on the problem I see with the record level of global debt:

So who owns the US$200 trillion debt?

The simple answer is just about everyone, including taxpayers, investors, superannuation members.

Who OwnsThe Debt

The Australian Office of Financial Management publishes a Public Register of Government Borrowings. The table is too difficult to reproduce for this newsletter. But you can go here, then scroll down and click on: Table 1: Beneficial Ownership by Country of Residence of Australian Government Securities and State Government Securities Guaranteed by the Australian Government – Face value ($ million) [XLSX 20KB]

The table shows you in general terms who owns Australia’s debt.

Towards the bottom of the table you’ll see ‘Domestic custodian and nominee companies’ own $256 billion of the $380 billion of government debt.

Domestic custodian and nominee companies are entities for superannuation funds, managed funds, private wealthy individuals/families and possibly shelf companies for overseas interests.

The purpose of including the table is to illustrate the diversity of debt ownership here in Australia. This diversity is replicated in other countries.

Let’s say that the Future Fund invested $1 billion in Puerto Rican debt and had to write this amount off. In this case the ultimate beneficiaries of this fund — public servant pensions — wear the loss.

What we have is a situation where individuals, corporates, investment funds and governments have lent US$200 trillion to households, corporates, governments and the financial sector.

The question is, are all those borrowers good for the money?

My guess is not all of them will be able to honour their debt obligations in a world where growth is slowing or going into the negative.

What people forget is: crises happen at the margin.

The subprime lending crisis was the match that led to the GFC bushfire.

According to estimates, the total amount in subprime loans was US$1.3 trillion.

A research paper from University of North Carolina titled ‘Subprime Mortgage Crisis’ stated:

“By October 2007, approximately 16% of subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) were either 90-days delinquent or the lender had begun foreclosure proceedings, roughly triple the rate of 2005.By January 2008, the delinquency rate had risen to 21% and by May 2008 it was 25%”

One quarter of subprime loans — US$325 billion — were in arrears in May 2008. This rather piddly amount of defaults was enough to cause tens of trillions of dollars to be wiped off share and property values around the world.

This is what I mean by things happening at the margin. You don’t need every dollar of the US$200 trillion debt pile to default to create economic and market chaos. All we need to see is maybe 5% default, or US$10 trillion. That’s 30 times the dollar amount of subprime defaults.

So who will default? I don’t know. But what I do know is not all those borrowers are investment grade, and when things get tight, they’ll buckle. And when one buckles another will buckle…and so on.

For every dollar that is defaulted on, a superannuation fund, pension fund, or individual lender is on the other side writing off that debt.

If you lent someone a $1 million and they say ‘sorry, ain’t got it’, you might have to rethink what life looks like…cut back on your expenditure. This contraction in expenditure becomes deflationary, which in turn puts a greater squeeze on those with debts. Defaults increase. Expenditures decrease. And around we go.

Another example of crises happening at the margin is in the share market.

The average daily turnover on the Australian share market is around $4.5 billion. The total value of the Australian share market is roughly $1.5 trillion.

As a percentage, daily turnover equates to 0.3% of the market’s value. This means 0.3% set the price for the remaining 99.7%.

When the market is in panic mode, turnover may double or even treble — this still means 99% of shares ARE NOT sold and just 1% can cause the market to plunge 10, 20 or even 50%.

The same holds true for an economy. The 1920/21 recession — the worst in recorded history — saw the US economy contract by 18%. This still meant 82% of the economy was functioning.

Crises happen at the margin. We do not need to see all the US$200 trillion go up in smoke, only some of it.

Don’t over-think who owns what and try to connect all the dots. You’ll just get in a muddle.

Stand back, look at the big picture and be guided by what history has demonstrated time and time again about what happens when there is too much debt in the system.

You do not have to be an expert to appreciate that every single debt crisis in history has ended badly. Why would you bet your capital against a different outcome this time?

Especially when you consider this debt issue has crept into every single corner of the developed and developing world.

When the debt default dominoes start to fall, the impact is going to be felt all around the world…including Australia — and more specifically, our heavily indebted household sector.


Vern Gowdie
Editor, The Daily Reckoning


One Thing Liars Hate

One Thing Liars Hate is  the Truth

By Vern Gowdie in the Gold Coast

Perhaps ‘interest’ rates are so named because there is so much ‘interest’ in which direction they go.

And there is no greater interest in interest rates than in the US. In the high stakes poker game the Fed is playing with the economy, the question is will they ‘raise’ or ‘hold’?

Currency Wars author and Strategic Intelligence Strategist Jim Rickards, outlines in the essay below how the Fed have wedged themselves between a rock and a hard place.

The Fed is literally damned if they do and damned if they don’t raise rates.

This reminds me of Sir Walter Scott’s quote: ‘O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!

The Fed is the master of deception — they’ve deceived generations into believing they can live beyond their means indefinitely. The Fed has facilitated this lie by creating — out of thin air — a seemingly never-ending supply of cheap credit.

They have deceived investors into thinking there is some mythical downside level in asset prices that will not be breached and if it is, they have the almighty power to reflate those values.

This lie has been lived for so long thanks to the continuous re-pricing of interest rates. As debt levels increased, the price of debt decreased.

Over the past 35-years interest rates have fallen from 18% to 0.25% The Fed has run out of rope. The truth about the global economy is gradually being revealed. The one thing liars hate is the truth.

And as Jim so eloquently points out, the time is coming when the Fed will pay the price for their deception…loss of credibility or catastrophe, choose your poison.

I await with interest for this day of reckoning.

It’s a great read. Enjoy.


Vern Gowdie
Editor, The Daily Reckoning


The Price of Interest Rate Manipulation
By Shae Russell, Editor, Strategic Intelligence

The Fed will not raise interest rates. That’s something I’ve said for a long time.

This statement is familiar to subscribers of Strategic Intelligence. It sounds exactly like something, their strategist, Jim Rickards would say.

In fact, it’s exactly what he said to the ABC on the Monday night before the Liberal party changed leaders.

As most Aussies were tweeting ‘libspill’ memes, Jim was chatting to The Business about the implications of the looming Federal Reverse Bank meeting this week.

I highly recommend you watch the interview.

Now, this interview took place before the September Federal Open Markets Committee. When you watch the interview, it’s clear that Jim was confident there’d be no rate increase from the Fed that month.

However, he did discuss something called the ‘October Surprise’.

Now the Fed meets eight times a year. But they only hold a press conference four times a year. As a general rule, the Fed tends to raise rates at the same time a press conference is scheduled.

After this last meeting, the Fed won’t have another press conference until December this year.

Yet, as Jim explains in the interview, last year the Fed had a teleconference practice run during the Northern hemisphere spring.

The markets — and most in the mainstream for that matter — wouldn’t expect it because there’s no scheduled press conference. Hence, the October surprise.

At the time, Jim felt the Fed may risk saving face and dump an October Surprise on the US market.

In saying that, he believes any rate rise this year is unlikely. 2016 is still a possibility, however, as Jim explained to subscribers of Strategic Intelligence on Wednesday, the Fed have until March 2016 if it’s dependent on economic data.

While Jim’s telling you to look out for the unexpected, he reckons the Fed missed the boat to raise rates.

They could have done so gradually over 2010 and 2011. If the central bankers had used this opportunity to raise rates, there’d be room in the US economy to tighten monetary policy today.

The fact is, they didn’t.

Today the US is faced with frail economic numbers. Jim says the ‘Employment rate has come down, but labour force participation is lousy. The labour force declined last month and real wages are going nowhere. In fact, monthly job creation is going nowhere. If you look at the data behind the happy talk, the [economic] data is very weak in the US.

As a result, Jim believes the Fed has five choices.

  1. Fire up those printing presses and start printing money once again.
  2. Establish negative interest rates. Although Jim thinks this move is highly unlikely.
  3. ‘Helicopter money’. This is where the US runs bigger budget deficits and the Fed buys the bonds. Money printing with a purpose, Jim calls it.
  4. The Fed changes its forward guidance. Since spring the Federal Reserve has put the ‘market on notice’ that a rate rise could happen at any moment. Jims says the Fed could change the talk to being ‘data dependent’ rather than this tough talk we get now.
  5. And the ultimate tool — currency wars. That is, cheapen the dollar at all costs. The problem — as Jim explains in the interview — is that this move will put pressure on countries like Australia and China that are trying to weaken their currencies.

In saying that, the Fed might have these choices, but Jim doesn’t see the Fed using them at this point.

However, the biggest take away from the ABC interview is what happens if the Fed doesn’t raise rates after all the tough talk.

Jim sees it coming down to either causing a meltdown in the US and emerging markets by raising rates, or accepting that they lose their credibility.

The Fed have to choose between their credibility or a catastrophe. People are saying if they don’t raise rates, when they’ve been talking it up for so long, they’ll lose their credibility. However the data is weak so if they do raise rates they’ll cause a catastrophe.

Pushed on the point further, Jim tells the ABC: ‘They will have to leave their credibility in shreds to avoid a catastrophe. This is the price of manipulation.


Shae Russell
Editor, Strategic Intelligence

Ed Note: the above article first appeared as a Strategic Intelligenceweekly update (16 September 2015)

Know Your Rights Group 

Update 8 October 2015:

This is just a very quick e-mail to remind you that we are working with the Know Your Rights group to help inform and educate people about their rights across a broad range of topics and wake them up to the truth in regards to what is really going on in the world.

If you enjoy our regular e-mail updates, the information that we have in our licence-saving e-book – “Speeding Fines, What You REALLY Need to Know” – and the information that we have on our Advanced Membership website, then we know you are going to love the information that the Know Your Rights group present at their full day seminars.

Their next seminar is on in Adelaide next weekend, Saturday, the 17th of October, and they will then be conducting their major, end-of-year seminar in Melbourne on Saturday the 28th of November. You can find out the full details of the topics that they cover, as well as booking your tickets, via their Seminar page - You can also read and view some video testimonials from previous attendees at the bottom of that page too.

These are fantastic, full-day events, that run from 9am until 5pm and, if you have any interest in your rights and going above and beyond what we share with people in our e-book, then you will want to do whatever you can to get to one of those upcoming events.

We have included an e-mail from the group below which includes brief summary of what these events are all about:

“Hi Guys,

We are desperately trying to wake up the average, apathetic, footy-transfixed Aussie and teach them about their rights and we need your help!

Are you sick of busting your butt at work day in and day out, only to give a huge portion of it way to the tax man?

Are you sick of being fined for ridiculous, insignificant actions– going 3 and 4 k’s over some arbitrary speed limit, stopping to pick someone up in a shopping centre and the like?

Are you sick of paying exponentially increasing council taxes and rates?

Do you get the general feeling that something “isn’t right” with the current system but you’re not quite sure what it is or what to do about it?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions then you need to come along to one of our upcoming Know Your Rights seminars. Our next event is in Adelaide on the 17th of October and that will be followed up with our major, end-of-year event in Melbourne on the 28th of November. All your questions will be answered at these life-changing, full day events and you will learn the following from speakers who actually have proven success in these areas:

How to defeat all types of unjust and unlawful traffic fines – including speeding, parking, red light, un-registered vehicle etc.

How our Commonwealth Constitution applies to you and how to use it to your benefit.

Why local councils are operating un-Constitutionally and what you can do about it.

The fraud committed by the banks, how to fight back against it and how to lawfully discharge outstanding debts.

The difference between “lawful” and “Legal” and how the government has introduced private laws that attempt to subvert our Constitutional and Common Law rights.

The Strawman concept – how the government has corporatized your name in order to “do business” with you and how to recognise that and benefit as a result.

How to protect your assets and your income using trusts and private foundations and how to legally ensure that you have no future tax obligations.

What the future holds for Aussies if we don’t all learn about our rights and start fighting back!

To find out more about what we cover at these incredible full day events, to read and see what others have said about past events and, to book your tickets to our next event, be sure to go to our Seminar page - - and take action now!

Remember, those who keep doing what they’ve always done will keep getting what they always got – do something different today.

We look forward to seeing your Members at one of our upcoming events.


The Know Your Rights group.”


Go to Jail for Reporting Child Abuse

Australian Natural Law Assessment Committee

Australian Government Contractors Will Now Go to Jail for Reporting Child Abuse in Detention Centers

Last month the Australian government, with the support of the opposition, passed the Border Force Protection Act through both houses of Parliament. It will come into effect on July 1.

The contents of this article are so horrific, it renders this entire government, including the opposition, worthy of instant dismissal, for colluding to commit gross violations of the most basic rights of individuals, and then hide it from the rest of the Australian population, and the world.
This is delusional, psychopathic conduct in our community and if the government can’t recognise it’s own insanity, community certainly can.
The ‘government should be instantly dismissed for grossly irresponsible conduct, with intent to harm, violate and exploit the most vulnerable.  
It’s no mystery to a great many people that the Australian Government is a private, foreign corporation, inflicting a private legal system upon the population and masquerading as a de-jure government.  (
This is fraud, treason and slavery.  And if asked to prove that this is not the case, the government is unable to do so, as it has already proven so many times.  
The contents of the above article represent a blatant psychopathic, pack and thuggery mentality with intent to exploit and harm the most vulnerable individuals on the planet.  This includes not only women and children, but individuals who are already fleeing for their lives under acts of tyranny in foreign lands.
The fact that this has been passed through Parliament, with the support of opposition, clearly highlights the antiquated, corrupted colonial power of this outdated private system of slavery that has a long and bloodied record of murder, slavery and disenfranchisement of the people. Full history available.
Just as the Fremantle Prison was built to hide this kind of conduct it is clearly, falsely believed, that these tortures behind the closed gates of Naura et al, will go unnoticed.  No such luck.  
The idea that contractors will now go to jail for reporting child abuse in detention centers is so void of basic sanity, that this government renders itself grossly incompetent and worthy of immediate dismissal.

Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton, and the Opposition Spokesperson for Immigration, Richard Marles, neither of whom were able to provide comment before publication, you should just resign immediately and consider yourselves to be a national disgrace.  

Australian Financial Services Hall Of Shame

HallOFShame1 HallOFShame2

Australia Selling the Farm to Eat the Food

Australia: Selling the Farm to Eat the Food

By Greg Canavan in Albert Park

–In yesterday’s Daily Reckoning I said that household spending was about the only thing holding the economy up right now. It accounted for 70% of total headline growth of 2% for the year to June 30. Combined, household and government consumption accounted for 105% of growth. (Other parts of the economy went backwards, which is why consumption can account for more than 100%.)

–Australia is indeed a consumption based economy!

–But this flimsy growth model took a hit yesterday. Retail sales data for July fell 0.1%, the first such fall in over a year and well below economists’ forecasts. It suggests that households went into the third quarter with a little less spending power than many had hoped.

–Ominously, the largest fall occurred in household goods. This follows on from the economic growth data released on Wednesday, which showed a fall in dwelling construction for the first time in two years.

–Hmmm. If housing construction is at its peak, then there’s no need to keep buying household goods, right?

–The market didn’t like the data, and stocks in the consumer discretionary sector were hit hard. The market thinks Australia is sliding towards recession…and it’s probably right.

–At the very least, we’re stuck in a low growth environment. Of course you’d know all about this if you’ve been reading the Daily Reckoning for the past few years, or if you picked up a copy of Vern Gowdie’s free book, The End of Australia.

–On the other hand, if you’d listened to Treasurer Joe Hockey or any of the government’s economic salesman, you’d be in for a bit of a shock. Hockey is still dribbling on about how the recent economic data is consistent with the government’s long term forecasts.

–But anyone with a bit of common sense knows better. The Financial Review reports today that:

Sluggish growth looks firmly entrenched and hopes of a sustainable rebound above 3 per cent, the basis of Treasurer Joe Hockey’s long-term budget strategy, are increasingly fanciful, say experts.

“Australia does not have a credible path towards putting its budget in order over the long term,” said Ross Garnaut, one of the nation’s top economists and a professor at Melbourne University. “Until we are on such a path we are highly vulnerable to deterioration in external conditions.”

–The ‘external conditions’ mentioned by Mr Garnaut refers to our complete and utter dependence on foreign capital to support our standard of living. As I mentioned yesterday, we had to borrow nearly $20 billion last quarter.

–Most of this borrowing occurs via the banks, to fund our insatiable demand for property. You can also see this dynamic at work with the recent debates about foreign ownership of property.

–This is a direct result of Australia’s broken economic system. That we have to borrow from offshore is a given. How that money comes into Australia is not really under our control.

–It enters via banks borrowing from wholesale money markets…via foreign ownership of shares, or via direct ownership of property…whether it be commercial, residential or agricultural.

–No doubt the biggest issue in housing right now is the belief that foreign buyers are helping to push prices of real estate higher, especially in the main centres of Sydney and Melbourne.

–Fairfax Media, owner of property spruiking site Domain, is hopelessly conflicted in trying to report on the matter. Yesterday it cited ‘research’ from the University of Sydney that examined data from the foreign investment review board (FIRB), data that everyone knows is hopeless. That’s why the government recently took monitoring of foreign property buyers away from the FIRB and gave it to the tax office.

–Anyway, here’s the Domain article:

New research has cast doubt on claims that foreign investment is pushing up Australian house prices, indicating offshore Chinese purchases totalled just 2 per cent of all transactions in 2014.

“It’s so low that it would be hard to argue that this is driving the affordability crisis in Australian real estate,” said the author of the research, University of Sydney professor Hans Hendrischke.

Dr Hendrischke compared the value of all residential property sales against Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) statistics, to calculate the impact of Chinese buyers – Australia’s largest source of foreign investment – on local housing markets.

–And then there was this little gem further along in the article:

The research did not take into account the potential impact of illegal purchases by foreigners, which the Federal Government is presently investigating.

–Fairfax followed this up with another article today in, this time citing the opinion of property valuer Herron Todd White. Funnily enough, this conclusion completely refutes the University of Sydney’s research. Check it out:

The lower Australian dollar makes property cheaper for foreign buyers and could increase the bubble prices being paid for apartments in areas of Sydney and Melbourne.

“A lower Australian dollar would lower the cost for overseas investors to purchase new properties in Sydney which would put upward pressure on the price of new properties,” says valuer Herron Todd White.

Its latest red-flag report warned some apartment buyers in Sydney and Melbourne were paying too much for properties in competition with foreign buyers, leaving owners and lenders exposed if the market suddenly turned.

The report says “two-tier” markets are starting to form in capital cities where developers of units are heavily dependent on foreign and interstate investors rather than local demand.

–If you think foreign capital isn’t pushing up the price of Aussie property, you’re either naïve or conflicted. Don’t forget, universities depend on foreign students for their income. The vast majority of foreign students in Sydney are Asian. And keep in mind that Professor Hans Hendrishke is a professor of…Chinese Business and Management!

–Now before anyone wants to play the race card here, let me point out I’m only calling out phoneys for talking their book. It is absolutely within the rules for foreign investors, whether they are Chinese or Malaysian or whatever, to buy newly built homes or apartments.

–But it is absolutely against the law for foreign nationals to buy established homes or apartments. And it’s a law that real estate agents, lawyers and the buyers themselves have completely disrespected for years now…to the detriment of our society.

–These are the sorts of problems you face when you live beyond your means for years. You start to sell off assets to keep the dream alive. This is the beginning of the end for Australia.


Greg Canavan,
Editor, The Daily Reckoning


School Students Tell Of Sex Abuse

Former students at Geelong Grammar School speak tell Royal Commission of sex abuse

Geelong Grammar School has been the focus of child abuse Royal Commission hearings.

Geelong Grammar School has been the focus of child abuse Royal Commission hearings. Source: Supplied

PRINCE Charles loved his time there, but others found the Timbertop campus of Geelong Grammar School to be tough and brutal, even comparing it to the novel Lord of the Flies.

Some former students recall being too afraid to tell anyone about bullying or sexual abuse, or being confronted by an institution they say was more worried about damage to its reputation than its students.

Sent to Geelong Grammar as a 10-year-old boarder in 1969, BKO recalls a strict and authoritarian English boarding school.

Speaking about his year at the 325-hectare Timbertop rural campus in 1973, BKO drew parallels with William Golding’s classic novel where a group of marooned schoolboys turn on each other and descend into barbarity.

The witness described it as an unusual and “quite a brutal” environment.

“You’re out in the bush with 14 other boys in your unit and you live very closely with those boys,” he told the child abuse royal commission.

“At Timbertop you’re forced together and it’s a Lord of the Flies type situation at times.”

BKO said he didn’t feel vengeful towards the school for the sexual abuse he suffered, but criticised how it handled his complaint about being fondled during a hypnosis session with chaplain Rev John Davison.

BKO told his maths teacher Jonathan Harvey — later convicted for abusing a student himself — and found the process very threatening, saying he was made to feel that he was wrong.

“I know the school was only concerned about avoiding a scandal,” BKO told the royal commission on Wednesday.

“I got the impression that the school simply wanted the issue to vanish.” A former preschool teacher whose son was also abused at Geelong Grammar said she was angry that Mr Harvey was not dismissed when they took their complaint to the then principal John Lewis.

“My understanding was that it needed to be kept quiet and that if I said anything further my job would be threatened,” she told the commission.

“I felt quite angry that the school didn’t look at this situation very well. I felt that they were only interested in protecting Jonathan Harvey and the reputation of the school.” The commission heard Mr Harvey, who will himself give evidence, denied indecently touching the son BKM, while Mr Lewis regretted that he did not properly deal with the report.

Two abuse victims told the commission they received $100,000 settlements of civil claims against Geelong Grammar.

One, Philip Constable, said he was sexually abused by teacher and boarding house master Graham Leslie Dennis on most nights for three years from the time he was eight in 1956.

Another former student, Luke Benson, has no memory of being sexually abused by Highton House live-in boarding house assistant Philippe Trutmann, a man he saw as a father figure.

Mr Benson said police told him in 2005 that Mr Trutmann, who abused 40 students between 1985 and 1996, had admitted sexually abusing him 30 to 40 times over a two-year period.

“The police told me that Trutmann had reviewed school yearbooks and identified from photographs the boys he had abused.”

Journalist Paul Bongiorno Lying For $

Internet Truth Train runs over journalist Paul Bongiorno who is caught pushing Union lies for $$$

By Shane Dowling

The Internet Truth Train is about to claim another victim in veteran Channel 10 journalist Paul Bongiorno who has been caught out lying and deceiving on behalf of the Unions. It is also now worth revisiting Mr Bongiorno’s time as a priest, friendship with Cardinal George Pell and when he lived with notorious pedophile Gerard Ridsdale […]

Read more of this post



Apology Over Youth Centres Abuse

Apology over Vic youth centres abuse

A SENIOR Victorian public servant “shaken to the core” by the horrific sexual abuse of children in state-run youth centres has admitted the problem is not limited to the past.

DEPARTMENT of Health and Human Services secretary Dr Pradeep Philip says there is no one who would not be deeply shocked, saddened and appalled by what some children in state care lived through.

“These experiences are abhorrent and should never have occurred,” Dr Philip told the child abuse royal commission on Friday.

“As a father, I am shaken to the core that children and young people were forced to endure such horrific experiences.

“As a public servant, I am profoundly disappointed in the failures of our public institutions that led to or compounded the tragedies that have emerged through these hearings.”

The commission’s public hearing has focused on abuse in three state-run facilities from the 1960s to the ’90s, but Dr Philip admitted this was not just a historical problem.

He told the commission there were 121 reports of incidents involving sexual behaviour in Victoria’s juvenile justice system between January 2005 and June 2015.

Sixteen of these incidents were classed as falling in the highest category of sexual assaults, and Dr Philip said there had already been two reports of sexual abuse in 2015.

“So the fact that you have any is a concern. But this is a highly charged environment with a cohort where this is a real issue,” he said.

Dr Philip said the youth system is very different today, with wards of the state dealt with separately from juvenile offenders. In the past, the two groups were put in the same institutions.

Victoria has the lowest rate of children in youth justice detention in Australia, Dr Philip said, as the state tries to allow more offenders to serve time in community-based services rather than in its two youth justice centres.

He said there has been significant changes to facilities and departmental practices, including in terms of the staff it employs, since a 2010 ombudsman’s report identified systemic failures in these centres.

The Turana, Winlaton and Baltara youth training centres at the centre of the commission’s hearing closed in the early 1990s.

Dr Philip said the department could and should have done more to protect children from harm caused by unacceptable practices and failings while they were under the care of the state.

“I offer my sincere and unreserved apology to all who have been affected by these failures and unacceptable practices,” he said.

He extended the apology to those people abused in other state-run facilities.

Care Leavers Australia Network executive officer Leonie Sheedy said the apology should go to the families of children in state care as well.

“I don’t think the department really cares what happened to us,” Ms Sheedy said after the two-week hearing ended.

“We were Victoria’s throw-away children.”

New Brutality Claims – Gold Coast Cops

Gold Coast police brutality: Another alleged incident captured on CCTV

Watch the video 

THERE has been an explosion of allegations of police brutality on the Gold Coast, with shocking footage emerging of a recent attack. The Courier-Mail has obtained disturbing CCTV footage from inside the Surfers Paradise police station which shows a handcuffed Michael Cox, 29, being physically restrained and his head slammed into the tile floor. The footage shows Mr Cox and watchhouse officer Peter Nummy talking on a bench inside the station. Both men appear relaxed. At no point does Mr Cox lunge at the officer, but moments later the footage shows Officer Nummy twist Mr Cox’s handcuffed wrist backward and slam his head into floor.

The Courier-Mail showed the footage to a former detective who questioned the officer’s use of force.

Police yesterday confirmed they were aware of the matter and that Officer Nummy had not been disciplined.

Michael Cox is claiming compensation after an act of alleged brutality at Surfers Paradise police station.

Mr Cox has lodged a claim against the Queensland Police Service for more than $100,000 for pain and suffering caused by Officer Nummy on May 4 last year. Mr Cox was taken to the Surfers Paradise police station after he was victim to a random assault outside East Nightclub in Broadbeach.

Michael Cox and officer Peter Nummy speak on a bench.

Officer Nummy moves on Michael Cox.

Michael Cox is wrestled to the floor, slamming his head on a tile.

Court documents reveal Mr Cox told an officer: “I’m going mate, I just want to know that the other guy is going to get charged”, when he was asked to move on.

The male police officer then yelled: “You’re a (expletive) stupid (expletive) and I’m not your (expletive) mate” before arresting him for contravening a “move on” direction.

Mr Cox said the evening was a nightmare.

“I had to take six weeks off work because my wrist was broken,” Mr Cox said.

“If I walked down the road and broke someone’s wrist I’d be charged with assault, so why can the police get away with it?”

The revelations come as an internal review into the culture of Gold Coast police began this week, and the Crime and Corruption Commission decided no officer would be charged over another police bashing in the basement of the Surfers Paradise station. However an accused police whistleblower faces prosecution for allegedly leaking video of the incident to The Courier-Mail. CCC: Former internal investigator blasts finding PROBE: Police culture under review Shine Lawyers general manager Kimberly Allen said the CCTV footage shows a handcuffed Mr Cox “did not resist his arrest or threaten or demonstrate aggression to the officers”. The Courier-Mail can reveal solicitors across the Gold Coast have been inundated with inquiries from people who have suffered serious injuries allegedly at the hands of police. One law firm is currently handling more than 50 excessive force claims. Potts Lawyers director Bill Potts said his firm receives inquiries on a weekly basis from members of the public who have been “touched up” by police.

Bill Shorten, Kathy Jackson HSU Fraud

The real Bill Shorten, Kathy Jackson HSU fraud story. Where’s the missing $15million?

by Shane Dowling

The HSU fraud saga is one of those triple backstab type situations where the corruption continues today under the watchful eye of current National President Lloyd Williams and National Secretary Chris Brown. Put simply, Michael Williamson, Kathy Jackson, Craig Thomson and others had been involved in major fraud for years ripping off HSU members millions […]

Read more of this post



Aussies Bust Pedophile Ring of 45,000

Aussies Busted for Running Pedophile Ring 45,000 Strong

by Gordon Duff for VT

Global pedophile ‘dark net’ bulletin board busted from Australia

A 10-month operation by an Australian police anti-pedophile taskforce put an end to a global ‘dark net’ of child abusers that had 45,000 members. An Australian administering a pedophile ‘bulletin board’ was sentenced to 35 years in jail for child abuse.Queensland’s Taskforce Argos targeting child abuse disclosed a clandestine pedophile ring, saving potentially hundreds of children from sexual exploitation, reports the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).Members of the ring residing in Australia, Europe, United Kingdom and the US ranked inside the network in accordance with the quantity and originality of materials they uploaded for common use inside the site. The name of the network, using encryption software to hide identities and mask people’s browsing history, has not been publicly disclosed by a South Australian District Court.

Investigation of a global child abuse led Argos to Australian national ringleader, who turned out to be Families SA (South Australia) employee Shannon McCoole from Adelaide. He was childcare worker with the agency from 2011 to 2014.

McCoole was busted thanks to the unusual ‘hiya’ greeting he used on the web, which led to police finding a Facebook page with a photograph of a Volkswagen four-wheel drive utility with a visible registration plate, which in turn led them to McCoole.

“He was a 32-year-old male. Lived alone, no real relationship or no recent partners from what we’ve gathered,” the ABC cited Detective Brevet Sergeant Stephen Hegarty of SA’s Sex Crimes Investigation Branch. And the man “immersed himself in child-related work” as well.

After four days of surveillance police knocked at McCoole’s door and arrested the suspect. The jackpot was found on his computer, which stored over 50,000 child porn images.

Metadata on McCoole’s camera was also used as evidence, as well as a freckle on his finger which matched one of the child abuse images discovered by Danish police in May last year that initiated the actual criminal proceedings in Australia.

Once McCoole was taken out of the game, police officers replaced the administrator in the pedophile ring and began the second stage of the operation, working 24-hours a day to expose as many pedophiles around the world as possible.

“Phase two was to take over the network, assume control of the network, try to identify as many of the key administrators as we could and remove them,” Detective Inspector Jon Rouse told ABC.

“This wasn’t an 8am-4pm, Monday-to-Friday operation. Even when the guys knocked off work we were all communicating outside work,” Rouse said.

“Ultimately, you had a child sex offender network that was being administered by police,” he added, stressing that the first thing done was closing membership of the board.

READ MORE: Australian pedophile gets 30 years in US jail for abusing Russian-born boy

This stage lasted for whole 10 months and resulted in identification of pedophiles in at least three Australian states, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, together with criminals in other countries.

“US, Europe, United Kingdom. [It was] global,” Rouse said.

“This required us engaging with those targets in real time while law enforcement went through doors. [There were] time zone challenges, but good work by authorities across the world,” the ABC cited Rouse.

In August 2015, Shannon McCoole was proven to have sexually abused at least seven children in his care, aged between 18 months and three years, taking pictures and sharing them over the web.

McCoole pleaded guilty to 20 state and commonwealth charges relating to sex with children and child pornography, and was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Initially Judge Paul Rice, who described McCoole as having “no moral compass” and being “evil and depraved,” had set a 65-year punishment. McCoole’s non-parole period has been set at 28 years.

The court heard McCoole, who reportedly came from a good family, told the court it was “hard to explain or understand how I committed these crimes.”

“I have researched why the hell I am the way I am and I just don’t know,” McCoole told the court, adding that he had never been sexually abused himself.

READ MORE: Outrage as Australian judge says incest, pedophilia ‘may be accepted’ by society

To avoid anything similar from ever happening again, certain measures have been implemented, Education Department Chief Executive Tony Harrison informed the ABC.

“We have tightened the recruitment and screening process for prospective staff and strengthened oversight of residential care facilities,” he said. “Candidates for residential care positions now undergo a comprehensive psychological assessment process during recruitment, which includes a face-to-face interview with a registered psychologist.”


Saturday, 10 May 2014

“The abuse was orchestrated by a former Whitlam Government Education Minister Kim Edward Beazley, a police commissioner, an Australian sporting icon, a Sydney University lecturer and a prominent screen actor.”The top Nazis were pedophiles and many Nazis went to Australia after World War II.Reportedly, the Sydney area has a major paedophile ring, made up of Nazis, Catholics, policemen, academics, politicians, the CIA and others.Thousands of Nazi war criminals were knowingly offered asylum in Australia.This is documented in the book, Sanctuary! Nazi Fugitives in Australia and various newspaper articles.

Australian Nazis. The ring which abused Fiona included police officers, psychiatrists, biochemists, psychologists, actors, writers, politicians, university lecturers and medical doctors, including a local Engadine GP named Doctor Mark.”

Fiona Barnett‘s family, who had Nazi connections, moved to Australia.

A 1951 marriage certificate records that Fiona’s grandmother Helena married a Nazi called  Peter Holowczak in Australia.
Peter Holowczak sexually assaulted Fiona from her earliest years until age 12.

Trapped inside Australia’s vast child abuse network (Part 1) 

Hitler preferred boys.

Peter used to entertain young Fiona with stories about the ‘olden days’ in Poland when he killed Jews for a living in a death camp.

Peter and Helena often took Fiona to be sexually abused by members of the Nazi community who had settled in an area south of Sydney which ran from the Sutherland Shire to Wollongong.

These Nazis “practised the mystery religion that underpinned Nazism.”

Peter and Helena Holowczak gave Fiona over to a national child sex trafficking ring when she was preschool age.

The ring included police officers, psychiatrists, biochemists, psychologists, actors, writers, politicians, university lecturers and medical doctors, including a local Engadine GP named Doctor Mark.

The CIA’s John Gittinger. It is the security services which protect the pedophile rings. The CIA used child abuse and Satanism to control governments.

The network also involved former CIA and U.S. military psychologist Dr John W. Gittinger, the developer of the Personality Assessment System.

Dr. John Gittinger raped and abused Fiona.

This child trafficking ring also engaged in other crimes including gun and drug trafficking.

Fiona witnessed child sex trafficking between Sydney, Wollongong, Bathurst, and Canberra.

Bathurst City Hall – “a traditional venue for paedophile orgies during the 1970s and 1980s.”

Crimes were committed in the Engadine BoysTown chapel;

Holsworthy military barracks;

Regina Coeli Memorial Catholic church;

St John’s College Catholic Chapel at Sydney University;

The Caltex oil refinery in Kurnell;

Garrawarra Cemetery;

Bathurst City Hall;

And in many of the national parks located between Sydney and Wollongong.

Fiona witnessed multiple acts of child abduction, drugging, child sexual assault, torture and murder.

Members of the paedophile ring were sexually aroused by necrophilia, bestiality and sadism.

The ring also contained a large number of female perpetrators.

At age of 15 years, Fiona witnessed the wife of an Engadine police officer lure a 15-year-old boy into her car at Cronulla Beach.

The boy was murdered.

Alleged crime scene: Garrawarra Cemetery near Waterfall.

At age eight years, Fiona suffocated while being abused.

She lost consciousness and awoke in the Sutherland Hospital.

A female nurse told her that her mother was present.

It was not her mother. It was the Engadine policeman’s wife.

Dr Mark got the hospital staff to release Fiona into his care.

Bathurst car race 1985

In 1985, Fiona witnessed approximately 10 children raped and murdered in Bathurst, during the weekend of the Bathurst car race.

Some of these children were victims of kidnappings.

Other children were born unregistered so that they could be used as sex slaves.


“The abuse was orchestrated by a former Whitlam Government Education Minister Kim Beazley, a police commissioner, an Australian sporting icon, a Sydney University lecturer and a prominent screen actor.”

The prominent screen actor raped Fiona in front of a large crowd that included numerous priests and police.

From the age of 16 years Fiona began disclosing the abuse to health professionals.

None of them reported the allegations to the police.

David Campbell,  discredited former Police Minister. LAND OF CHILD ABUSING POLICE, CLERGY AND POLITICIANS.

Fiona feared reporting the abuse to the New South Wales police because policemen were among the perpetrators.

Fiona had witnessed people being tortured and murdered for disclosing – or for trying to leave – the paedophile ring.

Bathhurst, near Sydney.

In 2008, there was  publicity surrounding abuse at the private Catholic boarding schoolSaint Stanislaus College in Bathurst, NSW.

After reading this in the Herald Sun (August 27, 2008) Fiona felt it would be safe to report her experiences to the New South Wales (NSW) police and be taken seriously.

Fiona contacted the NSW police and the detective in charge of the St Stanislaus, Bathurst case, Justin Hadley.

Fiona briefly described to Hadley the crimes she had witnessed in 1985 in the Bathurst City Hall and he asked her to go to her local police station.

Alleged site of paedophile sex orgies at the Bathurst City Hall

Tweed Heads police refused to take Fiona’s formal statement.

They mocked her witness testimony, and sent me home.

She never heard from them again about this matter.

Tor Nielson

Tor Nielsen had provided similar information to the NSW Police.

Nielsen reported witnessing 60 children being raped in the same Bathurst location Fiona had named.

Nielson also noted that St Stanislaus College has accommodated the NSW police during theBathurst car races for many decades.

Paul Evans, convicted Engadine BoysTown paedophile priest; relative of Regina Coeli founding priest.

Tor Nielsen’s testimony was detailed on his website ‘The Catholic Cover-up’.

The Catholic Church forced him to to remove the site just prior to the announcement of the current Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Blood tests revealed that Nielsen was drugged with a substance that induced psychosis.

Nielsen alleges that the drugs were administered by corrupt NSW health practitioners.

The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the charges against St Stanislaus’ staff and priests.

Maltese children sent to ‘child abuse’ children’s homes in Australia.(State Library of Western Australia, The Battye Library 005086D.) (310 Maltese child migrants were sent to Australia?)

Multiple victims then came forward.

The authorities were forced to bring charges against certain St Stanislaus staff.

However, Tor Nielsen’s lawyer mysteriously fell out of an 18-story window after Nielson publicly exposed the Bathurst paedophile ring.

Lawyer Frederick Jordon Chambers, a former St Stanislaus student, was due to testify at one of the College’s paedophile trials.

Before he could appear, he was found dead.

St Stanislaus College, Bathurst 

Fiona wrote to the NSW police minister and to the NSW police commissioner.

The police commissioner essentially dismissed her complaint.

This is in spite of the fact that the testimony of Tor Nielsen and Fiona tallied with other reports of victims abused at Engadine BoysTown and Bathurst.

In her letters to the NSW police minister and commissioner, Fiona requested that her witness testimony be written down and supplied to the taskforce assigned to investigate the Engadine BoysTown paedophile ring.

Boys Town Engadine, re-named Dunlea Centre

In 2013, Fiona tried to contact  Justin Hadley, the Bathurst detective in charge of the St Stanislaus operation.Hadley’s colleague told Fiona that it was too late for her information to be provided to police or to benefit the Bathurst victims.Fiona left a message for Hadley to contact her, but he never did.
Alleged crime scene: St John Bosco Catholic Church, adjacent to Engadine BoysTownFollowing Fiona’s publication of her first article regarding a northern NSW paedophile ring, she received several threats.Wollongong City Council was referred to in the Wood Royal Commission investigation into the NSW Police Service.Two former Wollongong Lord Mayors, Tony Bevan and Frank Arkell, reportedly ran a paedophile ring in the 1960s to 1990s.

The ring involved child sex trafficking between Wollongong and Sydney.

This was the same child trafficking ring that Fiona witnessed as a child.

Both mayors were ritually murdered.

Wollongong Mayors Tony Bevan and Frank Arkell: alleged child sex traffickers. Both were brutally murdered.

Ring banner featuring trade mark eagle, allegedly erected at major paedophile gatherings including Regina Coeli Catholic Church and Bathurst City Hall stage.


Australian Comedian Drops Truth Live

A rant made by Australian comedian Adam Hills is being described as one of the most controversial but important things ever said on television.

The Aussie host of The Last Leg was joined by Stephen Merchant, Josh Widdicombe and Alex Brooker when he began discussing poverty in the UK and pedophilia by our politicians.

It’s well worth seeing.

Trade Union Royal Commission

Labor’s tactics is an admission they have no legal basis to ask Dyson Heydon to recuse himself

by Shane Dowling

Labor’s tactics is an admission they have no legal basis to ask Dyson Heydon to recuse himself The Trade Union Royal Commission will on Friday (21-8-15) hear a Notice of Motion by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) for Dyson Heydon to stand down as Commissioner of the Royal Commission. It looks doomed to […]

Read more of this post


Cartoonist compares Mandatory Vaccination To Fascism

Cartoonist Michael Leunig compares mandatory vaccination to fascism in anti-vax cartoon

Popular Australian cartoonist Michael Leunig has attracted criticism for his views on vaccination. Source: News Limited

A BELOVED Australian cartoonist has sparked outrage on social media with a cartoon comparing the Victorian government to fascists, following a proposal to ban children who are not vaccinated from Victorian childcare centres.

Michael Leunig, who was declared a national living treasure in 1999, is a popular Melbourne cartoonist frequently published in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald newspapers.

But some of his fans have expressed disappointment after The Age published this cartoon in today’s paper.

Leunig2The cartoon published in Wednesday’s edition of The Age newspaper. Photo: The Age/Leunig.

Leunig, a known anti-vaxxer, took a stab at the Victoria government after Health Minister Jill Hennessy announced she would introduce legislation requiring children to be fully vaccinated before they attend childcare or kindergarten.

The proposed law also closes a loophole that makes an exemption for parents who choose not to vaccinate their children on the grounds they are conscientious objectors. Children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons will remain exempt.

Titled, “FACIST EPIPHANY,” the cartoon reappropriates Michelangelo’s ‘The Creation of Adam’ and depicts a hand pointing a needle at another hand. “The God of Science grants politicians the divine right to enforce mass medication among babies and small children,” it reads.

This isn’t the first time Mr Leunig has created a cartoon with an anti-vaccination message.
In April he created this cartoon criticising mothers who chose to vaccinate their children.

A cartoon published in Fairfax newspapers in April. Photo: The Age/Leunig.

“Some mothers do ‘ave ’em,” he wrote above the image.

“They have maternal instincts that contradict what science thinks. They stand up to the state,” he continued.
“A mother’s love may be as great as any new vaccine that man has ever seen.”
When seeking comment from Mr Leunig, was directed to an email response the 70-year-old gave to a woman who complained about the cartoon.
“My cartoon was not about the value of vaccines — it is about the punitive deprivation and coercive authoritarian force being increasingly and systematically applied by Federal and State governments to parents who want choice in the matter,” he wrote.
“There is a human rights issue here that is deeply disturbing and worth talking about in a clear-headed way that is free of hostility and insult.”
Social media users have expressed their disappointment at Mr Leunig’s position.

The Age’s news director Mark Forbes told the newspaper doesn’t rule out covering any issues, with the exception of offensive racist or sexist material. “Cartoons are similar to commentary, they represent the opinion of the cartoonist,” he wrote in an email.

Mr Forbes said The Age has a clear editorial position in favour of vaccination.
“As an institution we disagree with Leunig, but we will defend his right to hold those views.
“This is not unusual, The Age has run columns and cartoons denying the existence of global warming, although we believe the views expressed are profoundly misplaced.”
Children not vaccinated against illnesses such as measles and whooping cough put other children and the greater community at risk, health experts say.
The power of simple questions

“What we don’t accept is those who go around myth-making about the risks of vaccination,” Health Minister Jill Hennessy said on Sunday.
“The public health and wellbeing of the broader community has to take precedence against the anti-vaccination movement.”
Despite a vaccination rate of 92 per cent for whooping cough in Victoria, the number of reported cases has increased by more than 1000 since the previous year.
“Ultimately it is a parents call in terms of how they respond, but we cannot continue to see the alarming rise in diseases like whooping cough and measles, and not respond,” Ms Hennessy said. She is confident the “no jab, no play” policy will provide an incentive for parents to make sure their children are vaccinated.
MORE: Why do some people think vaccines are controversial?

End Of Privacy As We Know It

The end of privacy as we know it: 60 Minutes uncovers huge mobile phone security vulnerabilities

IT’S the dirty little secret that’s facilitating what’s being called the biggest breach of privacy ever.

Government, security agencies and the telecommunications industry will be forced to explain a security hole that allows hackers to listen in to conversations and hijack Australians’ mobile phones after it’s exposed by a 60 Minutes investigation, the program claims.

In an investigation into mobile security spanning three continents, reporter Ross Coulthart believes he has uncovered a security vulnerability that could affect any of us, and there’s nothing being done to stop it.

“What it means is that your smartphone is an open book,” he told

“Criminals now have access to these huge security holes to steal your data and listen in to your calls. We know telephone companies know about it, we know security agencies know about it, but nothing is being done.”

German hacker Luca Melette demonstrated the tracking and bugging vulnerability in the SS7

German hacker Luca Melette demonstrated the tracking and bugging vulnerability in the SS7 signalling network to 60 Minutes. Source: Channel 9

By tapping in to SS7, a signalling system in use by more than 800 telecommunication companies across the world including major Australian providers, hackers are able to listen in to conversations, steal information stored on mobile phones, and track the location of the phone’s user.

The system, Coulthart says, has long been in use by spies and has been a secret of perpetrators of international espionage. It’s believed to be the very tactic used by Australian spies in tracking the phone calls of the wife of the Indonesian president, Coulthart says. But recently, organised crime, commercial spies and potential terrorists have been exploiting this security loophole for their gain, 60 Minutesclaims to have uncovered.

“The allegation in our story is the reason this security vulnerability has not been fixed is because it suits the spooks,” Coulthart said.

“Until very recently corporate criminals didn’t know about it, but now it’s very clearly being misused by corporate and organised crime.”

With the help of a German hacker, who also works as a consultant to security agencies, and using Independent Senator Nick Xenophon as a guinea pig the program shows how easy it is for a politician’s mobile phone, or anyone’s for that matter, to be intercepted and listened in on.

“We were able to then track that phone on a map,” Coulthart said.

“You can imagine what that means for a company executive going to a secret meeting or a prime minister travelling around the world.

“But it’s not just those sorts of people who are vulnerable, basically it means your smartphone is an open book and you can no longer assume that it’s just the intelligence services or police that might be listening to your phone.”

‘The most breathtaking breach of privacy’

Senator Nick Xenophon, at Parliament House in Canberra, speaks to Ross Coulthart in Berlin while Luca Melette listens to the call using the SS7 hack. Source: Channel 9

Using a cryptophone, which allows the detection of the use of devices known as IMSI-catchers (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) that facilitate mobile eavesdropping, Coulthart said he was alerted to at least 10 devices trying to hack into his calls while in Sydney.

“I detected multiple intercepts, including right outside the Australian Stock Exchange,” he said.

“It’s pretty surreal to be standing outside the stock trading centre, and to be hacked. I hope it was law enforcement, but knowing how criminals use these devices there was a question mark in my mind.”

Bank Chief’s Eye-Watering Salary

CBA chief Ian Narev is paid twice as much in a week as most Australians get in a year

Bank chief’s eye-watering salary

Ian Narev, managing director and chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Bank Group.

Ian Narev, managing director and chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Bank Group. Lucky Mr Narev is paid twice as much in a week as most Australians get in a year

COMMONWEALTH Bank chief Ian Narev earned double the average annual Australian wage every week over the past year as the value of his pay and perks package hit $8.3 million.

The bank last week revealed a record full-year profit for an Australian lender of $9.06 billion.

But despite earning big bucks, he is still not the highest-paid banker, getting less than ANZ’s Mike Smith on $10.7 million.

The average Aussie earns about $77,000 a year after annual salaries rose by just 0.4 per cent in the six months to May 2015 to be 2.0 per cent higher than a year ago.

It’s also much more than most financial services workers make — an average of $89,736, according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data.

Mr Narev’s wage’s rose by 4.9 per cent. But his remuneration bonanza comes at a time when the institution’s 800,000 mum and dad shareholders are set to share in the bonanza.

The bank upped its dividend last week to $4.20 per share for the year, meaning it will pay out about $6.8 billion to its 800,000 shareholders.

CBA launches $5b raising, posts $9b profit

CBA launches $5b raising, posts $9b profit

The bank’s annual report, published today, reveals Mr Narev was rewarded for the year to June with a base wage of $2.6 million and benefits including short-term cash incentives of $1.6 million and deferred short-term incentives of $1.6 million.

The bank was left red-faced last week after a disastrous computer glitch saw it double-charge some accounts on the same day it announced the record profit.

Shares in the nation’s biggest bank start trading again today after going into a halt last week as the lender revealed a $5 billion capital raising — the second biggest in the nation’s history.

Shares are down 1.4 per cent — or just over $1.10.

The cash, which is to bolster its cash buffers to meet regulator demands in case of another financial crisis, will be raised by giving existing shareholders the chance to buy a bigger stake in the bank.

Originally published as Bank chief’s eye-watering salary

50 Sex Victims Abused At School’s Dungeon

Almost 50 ‘sex victims’ say they were abused at school’s notorious dungeon

The notorious dungeon from Parramatta Girls School.

The notorious dungeon from Parramatta Girls School. Source: News Corp Australia

DOZENS of women have told police they were sexually assaulted or raped, many of them in a dungeon in a former Sydney girls school.

The Daily Telegraph reports nearly 50 women have approached detectives from Strike Force Bilvo, the unit formed to investigate claims of abuse at Parramatta Girls Training School, from the 1960s and 1970s.

Their inquiries have focused on two of the three officials who were at the school and are still alive.

Two men have been referred to police as part of the largest investigation to come out of the child sex abuse royal commission, which last year examined the experience of women who were sexually abused as children at the school.

Many of the sexual assaults are alleged to have taken place in the dungeon, which was built by convicts and has walls half-a-metre thick.

Police want to speak to former staff of the school who worked there between 1960-1973, the Telegraph reported.

The royal commission triggered the complainants to come forward, Acting Superintendent Robert Toynton.

He said the two living former staff members — Frank Valentine, 75, who lives in Queensland and Sydney-based Noel Greenaway — were at the “centre” of their investigations.

Both men have vigorously denied any wrongdoing. Neither gave evidence at the royal commission.

In March, the Telegraph reported there were still rings on the walls where handcuffs were shackled to.

The dungeon itself was described as a dark and dusty room, that was just six paces long and about four paces wide.

One woman told the commission that she was raped in the dungeon a number of times by three men, a superintendent, deputy superintendent and a relieving deputy superintendent.

For more pictures from inside the dungeon go to the

Is Australia The Next Greece?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/19/2015 21:45 -0400

Australian consumers are more worried about the medium term outlook than at the peak of the financial crisis, and rightfully so.

Source: @ANZ_WarrenHogan

As The Telegraph reports, by the end of the first quarter this year, Australia’s net foreign debt had climbed to a record $955bn, equal to an already unsustainable 60pc of gross domestic product, and is set to rise as RBA’s bet that depreciation in the value of the country’s currency would help to offset the decline in its overbearing mining industry hasn’t happened to the extent they would have wished.

 Furthermore, as UBS explains, China’s real GDP growth cycles have become an increasingly important driver of Australia’s nominal GDP growth this last decade. With iron ore and coal prices plumbing new record lows, a Chinese (real) economy firing on perhaps 1 cyclinder, and equity investors reeling from China’s collapse; perhaps the situation facing Australia is more like Greece than many want to admit, as Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest woman and matriarch of Perth’s Hancock mining dynasty stunned her workers this week: accept a 10% pay cut or face redundancies.

The government in Canberra and the Reserve Bank of Australia, The Telegraph explains,  had bet that depreciation in the value of the country’s currency would help to offset the decline in its overbearing mining industry. However, that hasn’t happened to the extent they would have wished.

Last month Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest woman and matriarch of Perth’s Hancock mining dynasty delivered an unwelcome shock to her workers in Western Australia:accept a possible 10pc pay cut or face the risk of future redundancies.

Ms Rinehart, whose family have accumulated vast wealth from iron ore mining, has seen her fortune dwindle since commodity prices began their inexorable slide last year. The Australian mining mogul has seen her estimated wealth collapse to around $11bn (£7bn) from a fortune that was thought to be worth around $30bn just three years ago.


This colossal collapse in wealth is symptomatic of the wider economic problem now facing Australia, which for years has been known as the lucky country due to its preponderance in natural resources such as iron ore, coal and gold. During the boom years of the so-called commodities “super cycle” when China couldn’t buy enough of everything that Australia dug out of the ground, the country’s economy resembled oil-rich Saudi Arabia.

However, a collapse in iron ore and coal prices coupled with the impact of large international mining companies slashing investment has exposed Australia’s true vulnerability. Just like Saudi Arabia, which is now burning its foreign reserves to compensate for falling oil prices, Australia faces a collapse in export revenue.

Recently revised figures for April show that the country’s trade deficit with the rest of the world ballooned to a record A$4.14bn (£2bn). That gap between the value of exports and imports is expected to increase as the value of Australia’s most important resources reaches new multi-year lows. Iron ore is now trading at around $50 per tonne, compared with a peak of around $180 per tonne achieved in 2011. Thermal coal has also suffered heavy losses, now trading at around $60 per tonne compared with around $150 per tonne four years ago.

For an economy which in 2012 depended on resources for 65pc of its total trade in goods and services these dramatic falls in prices are almost impossible to absorb without inflicting wider damage. The drop in foreign currency earnings has seen Australia forced to borrow more in order to maintain government spending.

The respected Australian economist Stephen Koukoulas recently wrote of the dangers that escalating levels of foreign debt could present for future generations. Could a prolonged period of depressed commodity prices even turn Australia into Asia’s version of Greece, with China being its banker of last resort instead of the European Union.

As UBS further explains, China’s real GDP growth cycles have become an increasingly important driver of Australia’s nominal GDP growth this last decade.

The property-driven slowdown in China’s GDP growth is continuing to having a disproportionately large negative impact on Australia’s economy. This is because China clearly remains Australia’s largest export destination, having peaked at a record high ~? share of total exports last year (equivalent to ~7% of GDP), but more recently retracing sharply to the current 28% share. This reflects the >20%y/y drop in Australia’s nominal exports to China in FY15 – which is on track to subtract ~1¼%pts y/y from nominal GDP.

In contrast, FY14 export values surged 26%y/y, adding 1¼%pts y/y to nominal GDP. Notably, this turnaround entirely reflects collapsing prices, which more than offset surging volumes. (Indeed, this overall fall in export values is despite a boom in Chinese tourism arrivals which are currently growing ~20%y/y.)

Weak Chinese demand remains a key downside risk for not only Australia’s economy but also the RBA & AUD outlook. The weakness in Chinese growth is having the most obvious negative impact on Australia because our basket of exports is (almost) uniquely concentrated in commodities (back down to ~? share), where China is generally the marginal price-setter. Indeed, after iron ore alone reached a 30% share of total Australian exports in 2013, the recent renewed collapse in iron ore prices saw its export share drop back closer to 20%. The price effect has been a key driver behind Australia’s terms of trade collapsing by ? since its peak in 2011.

This negative income shock is weighing heavily on Australia’s fiscal position, which has seen its deficit consistently worse than expected over that period; as well as leading to a ‘capex cliff’, which has seen the RBA cut rates and drag the AUD/USD down to a 6-year low. Indeed, an ABS survey of the outlook for mining investment in FY15/16 implies a ~37% collapse which could directly subtract a massive 2%pts y/y from nominal GDP. As such, weak Chinese demand remains a key downside risk for not only Australia’s economy but also the RBA & AUD outlook (with the latter still expected to depreciate further to 0.70USD ahead).

*  *  *

As The Telegraph concludes, rather ominously,

The problem is that Australia, after decades of effort to diversify, is looking ever more like a petrodollar economy of the Middle East, but without the vast horde of foreign currency reserves to fall back on when commodity prices fall.

Instead, Australians must borrow to maintain the standards of living that the country has become accustomed to, which even some Greeks will admit is unsustainable.


Who Owns CCV?

Registered Business # CIK#: Dun and Bradstreet #:
Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Scott Charlton CLSC13A Cover Letter Charlton
Charlton Invoice2
Rebecca Power TSRP13A Cover Letter Power
Power RP Invoice1
Adriana Bianca Gardos Salteri CCVAGBS13A Followup letter Salteri
Salteri ABGS-Inv1
Salteri ABGS-Inv2
Salteri ABGS-Inv3
Salteri ABGS-Inv4
Salteri ABGS-Inv5
Mary Victoria Shaw Salteri CCVMVSS13A MVSS-Inv1
Salteri MVSS-Inv2
Salteri MVSS-Inv3
Salteri MVSS-Inv4
Salteri MVSS-Inv5
Paul Salteri CCVPS13A PS-Inv1
Salteri PS-Inv2
Salteri PS-Inv3
Salteri PS-Inv4
Salteri PS-Inv5
Robert Salteri CCVRS13A RS-Inv1
Salteri RS-Inv2
Salteri RS-Inv3
Salteri RS-Inv4
Salteri RS-Inv5

Why This Corporate Government is NOT our Government

Thank you to:

Why This Corporate Government is Not Our Government

First it is vital to understand just who We, the People are constitutionally.
  • The Commonwealth is the People - not the landmass known as Australia
  • The Commonwealth Parliament is the Parliament of the People.
  • Common Law is the law of the People.
  • Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Ireland is the sovereign of the People.
  • The People are Her subjects.
  • Her Majesty owns the land mass known as Australia, in trust for the People
  • Her Majesty is the keeper of the Law of the People, the Law of the Land

Therefore, all judges, police, politicians and etc can only deal with the People in any judicial and political manner by

  • swearing an oath to Her Majesty

which gives them Her authority to arrest or render a judgment, or make a law which will affect the People.

Without that authority, any of those kind of actions are null and void.

That is why, in the Courts and Parliament, the representatives of Her Majesty sit under a picture of Her or a replica of Her Royal Seal – to signify they hold Her authority in that place and that position.

That is why all acts of Parliament dealing with all civil and political matters of the People are sealed to Our Queen, under her Royal Seal. Because they are part of the part of the contractual relatonship we have with Her and Her Parliament.

Now what keeps the People to this structure of civil and political rights is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (UK) 1900 inter alia Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900.

This is a commercial contract,

  • signed by the Hand of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria,
  • sealed by Her Royal Seal (the lion and the unicorn)
  • and delivered to the People with whom She has the contract – the People in the Commonwealth of Australia.

This contract is NOT and has NEVER been made with any government. It was made with Her Majesty.

Government, as such, belongs to Her Majesty, administering and protecting Her assets.

As subjects of Her Majesty, we are the beneficiary of Her assets, however, Government, in their dealings with the People, are bound to the People’s “rules”, as found in our Constitution.

Her Majesty CAN NOT remove Herself from that contract as it is binding on the Heirs and Successors to the throne in perpetuity.

Only the People of the Commonwealth can remove the contract.

Hence our Constitution is referred to as indissoluble – unable to be terminated or annuled.

The People of the Commonwealth pay Her Majesty $19 million dollars per year as part of that contract.

As Her Majesty is the owner of the landmass known as Australia any purchase of land is a commercial contract with Her.

Government are no more or less than agents in the sale. Stamp duty until recently accumulated in order to supply government with the funds to buy land back when necessary. That land would then return to being Crown lands.

(For all details on what you actually own when you purchase land please go to earlier postings on this site.)

Regardless of whether the land has been onsold since the first sale, it remains a commercial contract with Her in its inception, construction and constitutional authority.

This is because in every sale, She remains part of the ownership via the registration of minerals and other such physical elements of land.

This reservation has always AND must always be noted on the Deed of Title OR the reservation is not lawful or valid.

And in the case a person dies without any heirs to inherit, the land reverts to Her full ownership.

The right to own land is the foundation of all ownership rights, the ability to inherit and etc.

The money of the People is money that Her Majesty authorises as the owner of the land, which is the collatoral. This money must carry Her face and Her Seal to signify that authority.

Without the Authority of the owner of the land – all other forms of money in Australia have no value.

Why has our research led us to believe all governments since 1972 have been Foreign governments to the People?

Because in 1973, the Parliament of the Commonwealth was given permission to form a Research & Development arm, to capitalize on the mineral elements of the land mass of Australia.

Because Her Majesty owned that land mass, this was done with Her Majesty’s permission as the Patron of that “arm.”

And just as any company or corporation must have, the government claimed for its Seal – the Great Seal of the Commonwealth – the kangaroo and the emu – renamed the Great Seal of Australia.

From that time on, Australia should have had a constitutional parliament of the People under the “Commonwealth”, AND a government arm dealing with the land under “Australia”.

However, please note this could only be Crown land, because Her Majesty had sold private land out of Her government’s control UNLESS, they purchase the land back and it returned to being Crown land.

Instead, as our research shows, the Parliament from Whitlam on, gradually absorbed the Parliament of the People of the Commonwealth, turning it into the Australian Parliament.

Creating the massive deception that Our Parliament was still in place, even after it had completely disappeared by 1986.

An immediate and simple proof of that is that ALL government acts, since 1973, have been sealed to the Great Seal of Australia.

What is the significance of the Seal I have been asked?

The Seal on any legal document – and all Deeds and government acts, etc are legal instruments – reflects the structure of law under which the document can only and must only be recognized lawfully and administered.

By that I mean, if a document is sealed to the government of Russia, it has absolutely no relevance in Australia.

Therefore, if the People are protected under the Royal Seal of Her Majesty, and all relevant acts, laws, etc must be sealed to that Seal to hold lawful authority over the People – then any act sealed to the new Australian government can have no power over the People.

Thus making the laws of the Australian government, no more or less, foreign to the People of the Commonwealth.

This is also vital in the Courts, because after firstly reworking all the Commonwealth court acts back under the Great Seal, making our judicial rights subect to the Australian government’s courts – the judges began to make their Oaths, not to Her Majesty OUR Queen, but to the Queen of Australia – their Queen.

The judges are now called “corams” meaning an unelected judge, a person sitting as a judge, but not a judge.

Therefore making the courts liable to uphold not our Common Law, but the civil law of commerce, as practised by this Australian System of Government.

And to doubly keep the People well away from any Common Law, the sea boundaries were extended around Australia, both outward and inward along each State’s coastline – the landmass was now legislatively covered in “water”, thus allowing maritime law to rule in the courts as well.

Under maritime law, the captain of the ship has total lawful control, making all judicial rules. Common Law does not exist at sea.

Now, as the People CAN onlybe arrested, punished, sentenced, etc through Common Law UNLESS they hold a commercial contract with any government “department” or entity – the rise of registration, licensing, certification, etc began in this country.

Suddenly it was a crime to do anything without being given permission from some government agency.

Prior to the Australia Act 1986, which is the constitution of this corporate government, followed by the States entering their own individual republican agreement in 1999, then culminating in the full-blown Corporate Government from 2000 onwards, the governmental structure operated under a sort of dual system, whereby the People were “allowed” to retain some rights, in order to give the semblance that all was still well.

From 2000 onwards that is no longer the case.

It is now impossible to plead common law rights of ownership in the courts and as more and more people have suffered the consequences without understanding how or why – the People are forced into obeying government legislation and conforming to the rules of this foreign government.

Our Solution

We, the People hold a commercial contract with Her Majesty in the form of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (UK) 1900 inter alia with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900.

And we pay Her through that contract.

She is now being asked whether We, the People still hold that contract and will She now abide by it to protect us and return to the People a Commonealth Parliament.

If She does not, We the People of Australia can sue Her for breach of contract.

If She does not, She will tell every other country that holds land under contracts with Her – including Britain, India, Jamaica, Fiji, Singapore, the Faulklands, NZ, Canada – that those contracts are breached and therefore valueless.

She will have breached Her duty of care.

Her worth as a commercial entity will be nill.

She holds only a nominal contract with the Australian Government, in that She is only their Patron under the title Queen of Australia.

This government can not claim any form of ownership of the land, as the Queen of Australia is not a real person, but an entity, owns nothing and has no Hand to sign a contract.

You will also note, that Australian money is not the lawful money of the People guaranteed by the land of Her Majesty, but paper guaranteed by a Queen who owns nothing – so it has no value.

What that will do to shares, money deposits, mortgages is yet to be seen.

Her Majesty gave the Australian Government two provisos concerning the People -

  1. In 1973, that they could not use Commonwealth money to fund this Australian research and development arm – which they did not obey.
  2. In the Australia Act 1986, that they hold a commercial contract with any person whose ownership rights were impacted by any government activity – they did not obey that.

Therefore, Her Majesty has been asked to remove Her patronage from this Australian government.

The only way this government can protect itself and minimize the damage is to force/persuade/coerce/manipulate the People of the Commonwealth to agree to a Republic, which would then mean that We, the People, had stepped away from our protective arrangement/commercial contract with Her Majesty. (Remember She can’t do it, only we can dissolve the constitution).


Fill Australia with immigrants, give them Citizenship rights and massive financial support, to vote and wait till We, the People of the Commonwealth, are too small in number to have any voting strength. Then vote in a Republic and dissolve the contract.

However, that was before we knew what had been done and how.

Now it is up to each and every person in the Commonwealth to speak out and demand the return of their rights – because under this foreign government we have absolutely none and time will show that very clearly.

  • If you live in Victoria and have to ask permission from at least one council to more there, you know that already.
  • If you live in QLD and have been taken for an involuntary mental health check because you spoke out against the government, you know that.
  • If you live in the coastal areas of QLD, NSW and Vic, and are having the arbitrary wildlife corridor, run through your land, removing even your right to walk on it, you know that.
  • If you live in Tasmania and a world heritage listing is going to apply to your land because you have views over a significant site, you know that.
  • If you live in WA, and are fighting to keep government from seizing your land for environmental purposes, you know that.
  • If you live in SA and every high tide allows government to claim more of your land, you know that.
  • If you have lost your land because you chopped down some dead tea-trees to feed starving livestock and the court costs bankrupted you, you know that.
  • If you lost your home to council because you owed $240 in back rates, you know that.
  • If you were arrested by Water Board officials who raided your land, you know that.
  • If a bird has priority over your ability to live on your land, you know that.
  • If you were not allowed to build on your land, but council took it off you to give to developers who were given permission, you know that.
  • If you know something is wrong with government but no government person will listen to you, you know that.
  • If you have been told by a politician’s office staff that they decide what letters he receives and who can see him and it won’t be you, you know that.
  • If you did not receive any kind of justice in court, you know that.
  • If you have been roughed up by the government’s police for disagreeing with government, you know that.
  • If you feel powerless to understand where this country is heading, you know that.
  • If you have ever said, “But they can’t do that…” and they did, you know that.
  • If you did not agree at Referendum to any structure of government that I have described, you know that.
  • If you voted at any Referendum and saw the resulting vote ignored, you know that.



The People of the Commonwealth do not have -

  • Any common law protection
  • Any Bill of Rights protection
  • Any Human Rights protection (Amnesty International can verify that)
  • Any security of tenure
  • Any inheritance right

The People of the Commonwealth do not have -

  • Any courts to protect us
  • No police to protect us
  • No army to protect us
  • No lawyers or solicitors to speak for us
  • No politicians who work for us





Big Pharma Is Puppetmaster Behind TPP

Big Pharma Revealed As Puppetmaster Behind TPP Secrecy

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2015 22:13 -0400

It is no secret that US healthcare corporations have been among, if not the biggest beneficiaries of Obamacare: by “socializing” costs and spreading the reimbursement pool over the entire population in the form of a tax, pharmaceutical companies have been able to boost medical product and service costs to unprecedented levels with the help of complicit insurance companies who have subsequently passed through these costs to the consumer, in the process sending the price of biotech and pharma stocks to levels not seen since the dot com bubble.

But when it came to the highly confidential TPP, it was unclear just which corporations were dominant in pulling the strings.

Now thanks to more documents published by Wikileaks, and analyzed by the NYT, it appears that “big pharma” is once again pulling the strings, this time of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which if passed will “empower big pharmaceutical firms to command higher reimbursement rates in the United States and abroad, at the expense of consumers” according to “public health professionals, generic-drug makers and activists opposed to the trade deal.”

In other words, just like the narrowly-passed Obamacare was a gift for big Pharma, so America’s legal drug dealers are now trying to go for another price boosting catalyst, one which however will involve not just the US but some 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Worst of all, the negotiations for the next price increase is taking place in utmost secrecy where “American negotiators are still pressing participating governments to open the process that sets reimbursement rates for drugs and medical devices.”

As RT notes, the latest disclosure links the Healthcare Annex to the secret draft of the quite aptly-named “Transparency” Chapter of the TPP, along with each country’s negotiating position. The leaked “Annex on transparency and procedural fairness for pharmaceutical products and medical devices” is dated from December 2014, with the draft being restricted from release for four years after the passage of the TPP into law.

RELEASE: TPP Transparency Chapter Healthcare Annex #TPP #TTIP#TISA

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 10, 2015

Worse, while in the US the rising healthcare costs are at least spread across a broader social safety net, the TPP is targeting countries where the potential jump in drug prices will have dramatic effects. As the NYT notes, “foreign governments and health care activists have accused pharmaceutical giants, mostly based in the United States, of protecting profits over public health, especially in poor countries where neither the government nor consumers can afford to pay rates anywhere close to those charged in wealthier nations.”

That fight re-emerged in the Pacific trade negotiations, which involve countries with strong cost-containment policies, like New Zealand, as well as poor countries like Peru and Vietnam.

The agreement “will increase the cost of medicines worldwide, starting with the 12 countries that are negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” said Judit Rius Sanjuan, a lawyer at Doctors Without Borders, a humanitarian organization that provides medical care in more than 60 countries.

None other than the CEO of Mylan explained in the simplest possible way what is going on: a government mandated monopoly under the guise of a trade pact: “Heather Bresch, the chief executive of Mylan, one of the largest generic-drug makers, said the brand-name pharmaceutical industry was “establishing, through U.S. trade policy, an international system designed to maximize its monopolies.”

But where the alarm bells truly go off is when someone, anyone, uses the word “fair” to justify policy, such as surging drug costs. To wit: “drug companies, however, say they need to be able to charge fair prices to compensate for the billions of dollars and decades of research that go into their medicines.”

What is amusing is that the true motive behind the TPP’s secrecy have been quite clear to virtually everyone but the population of the TPP’s host nation:

“It was very clear to everyone except the U.S. that the initial proposal wasn’t about transparency. It was about getting market access for the pharmaceutical industry by giving them greater access to and influence over decision-making processes around pricing and reimbursement,” said Deborah Gleeson, a lecturer at the School of Psychology and Public Health at La Trobe University in Australia. And even though the section, known as the transparency annex, has been toned down, she said, “I think it’s a shame that the annex is still being considered at all for the T.P.P.”

RT adds that one country that should be in arms over the TPP is Australia:

The secret negotiations now allegedly reveal that Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme might be undermined, pushing up the cost of medicines in the country.

“United States trade negotiators have aggressively pushed for provisions favoring multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers at the expense of national governments and public healthcare systems,” the Sydney Morning Herald wrote.

But the one place where the biggest price shock may be unleashed is, not surprisingly, the US itself :

The leaked TPP document “shows that the pact could expose Medicare to pharmaceutical company attacks and constrain future policy reforms, including the ability of the US government to curb rising and unsustainable drug prices,” the US consumer rights advocacy group and think tank Public Citizen said in its Wednesday statement.

The group says president Obama’s administration has been “acting at the behest of pharmaceutical companies,” and the secret negotiations it has been holding within the partnership might affect Medicare, limiting “Congress’ ability to enact policy reforms that would reduce prescription drug costs for Americans.”

The same Congress, incidentally, which gladly washed its hands of any discussion of the TPP when the Senate “fast-tracked” its passage and as the NYT further notes, “a House vote on final passage of the bill, now expected on Friday, appears extremely close.”

In other words, in exchange for a few million in lobby spending, aka bribes, by Big Pharma, the US Congress has once again sold out the US population, and this time it even voluntarily bypassed even the mock democratic process of debating the law it will pass.

Why? Just so shareholders of pharmaceutical companies could reap even greater profits at the expense of not just the US population, but of the populations of some of the biggest US trading partners, all of whom are about to see the prices of medical care skyrocket.

And since nothing is confirmed until it is officially denied, here is the punchline:

“The transparency annex in T.P.P. is not subject to Investor-State Dispute Settlement, and nothing in its provisions will undermine our ability to pursue the best health care policy for Americans, including any future action on health care expenditures and cost containment,” a trade representative spokesman said.

Those Americans who may wish to challenge the claim well, they are out of luck: Congress is about to make sure there is no way anyone can have a say into what big corporations have in store for the US population.

The full Transparency Chapter Healthcare Annex below:

Wiki Leaks Annex

TPP: Problematic In The US

Government pessimistic over bigger Trans-Pacific Partnership

THE Australian Government is close to admitting defeat on the Trans-Pacific Partnership — the massive and controversial trade deal aimed at uniting 40 per cent of the global economy.

“Look, it’s getting … it’s getting quite problematic in the United States,” Trade Minister Andrew Robb said today, referring to a Democrats’ revolt against President Barak Obama on the issue.

He said the negotiators were just a week away from settling the agreement but the TPP needed the backing of the US President to survive. And US House of Representatives was stalling.

Mr Robb told ABC radio: “If it’s not dealt with in the next two or three weeks I think it’s … we’ve got a real problem with the future of the TPP.”

Congress last week refused to give President Obama the power to fast track the deal and his own Democrats were among the TPP’s opponents.

It has been under attack on both sides of the Pacific for the secrecy of its provisions, with Wikileaks earlier this month offering a $100,000 reward for the leaking of the deal’s contents.

And there have been concerns about its section on Investor State Disputes Provisions. It is feared the ISDS will give giant corporations the power to override the laws of a country if they are claimed to be hurting business.

One possible example posed is Australia’s plain packaging laws on cigarettes.

Mr Robb has said Australia already has ISDS agreements with 28 countries with no major problems.

He was celebrating the closure of a lucrative trade agreement with China, 10 years in the negotiating and the third important pact following agreements with Japan and South Korea.

But the even bigger TPP appeared to be slipping away from achievement.

“We are literally one week of negotiation away from completing this extraordinary deal and across 12 countries and 40 per cent of the world’s GDP,” Mr Robb said.

“But the US Congress — as it has sometimes before — caused a problem. You can see the political heat’s rising by the day over there because of the presidential election next year. So I don’t think anyone can call it.”

The minister said there was some comfort the deal had passed the US Senate.

“But now it’s before the House, it’s facing a number of barriers and I don’t think anyone really knows where it’s going to finish up,” he said.

Barack Obama

President Barack Obama will have a hard time getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress.

Hospitals Are Blatantly Ripping Us Off

Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Most Americans are deathly afraid to go to the hospital these days – and it is because of the immense pain that it will cause to their wallets.  If you want to get on a path that will lead you to bankruptcy, just start going to the hospital a lot.  In America today, hospitals and doctors are blatantly ripping us off and they aren’t making any apologies for it.  As you will read about below, some hospitals mark up treatments by 1,000 percent.

In other instances, basic medical supplies are being billed out at hundreds of times what they cost providers.  For example, it has been reported that some hospitals are charging up to 30 dollars for a single aspirin pill.  It would be difficult to argue that the extreme greed that we see in the medical system is even matched by the crooks on Wall Street.  These medical predators get their hands on us when we are at our most vulnerable.  They know that in our lowest moments we are willing to pay just about anything to get better or to make the pain go away.  And so they very quietly have us sign a bunch of forms without ever telling us how much everything is going to cost.  Eventually when the bills come in the mail, it is too late to do anything about it.

How would you feel if someone sold you something for ten times the amount that it was worth?

Would you feel ripped off?

Well, that is what hospitals all over the country are doing every single day.  Just check out what one brand new study has discovered

Some hospitals are marking up treatments by as much as 1,000 percent, a new study finds, and the average U.S. hospital charges uninsured patients three times what Medicare allows.

Twenty of the hospitals in the top 50 when it comes to marking up charges are in Florida, the researchers write in the journal Health Affairs. And three-quarters of them are operated by two Tennessee-based for-profit hospital systems: Community Health Systems and Hospital Corporation of America.

“We just want to raise public awareness of the problem,” said Ge Bai of Washington & Lee University in Virginia, an accounting professor who wrote the study along with Gerard Anderson of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Does reading that make you angry?

It should.

They are greedily taking advantage of all of us.

Other studies have come up with similar results.  Here is one example

 According to National Nurses United, U.S. hospital charges continue to soar with a handful of them, such as Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center in Secaucus, N.J., going as far as charging more than ten times the total cost — or almost $1,200 per $100 of the cost of care. Meanwhile, the hundred priciest hospitals in the nation were found to have this cost ratio begin at 765 percent, which is more than twice the national average of 331 percent.

Much of the time, we are being overcharged for tests, services and procedures that we don’t even need.

It has been estimated that the amount of truly wasteful spending in the U.S. medical system comes to a grand total of about $600 billion to $700 billion annually.  That means that wasteful medical spending in the U.S. each year is greater than the GDP of the entire country of Sweden.

And of course almost everyone has a story about an absolutely ridiculous medical bill that they have received.  In fact, if you have one that you would like to share, please feel free to share it at the end of this article.  The following are just a few examples that were shared in an editorial in a local newspaper

 Have you heard about the little girl who required three stitches over her right eye? The emergency room sent her parents a bill for $1,500 — $500 per stitch (NY Times, Dec. 3). My neighbor recently spent six hours in the emergency room with bleeding from the mouth. He was on a blood thinner, needed several blood tests, and his heart was monitored. His hospital bill came to $22,000. A California man diagnosed with lung cancer chose to fight his cancer aggressively. Eleven months later his widow received a bill exceeding $900,000.

One of the most disturbing trends that we are witnessing all over the nation is something called “drive by doctoring”.  That is where an extra doctor that isn’t even necessary “pops in” to visit patients that are not his or “assists” with a surgery in order to stick the patient with a big, fat extra bill.  The following is from a New York Times article about this disgusting practice…

 Before his three-hour neck surgery for herniated disks in December, Peter Drier, 37, signed a pile of consent forms. A bank technology manager who had researched his insurance coverage, Mr. Drier was prepared when the bills started arriving: $56,000 from Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, $4,300 from the anesthesiologist and even $133,000 from his orthopedist, who he knew would accept a fraction of that fee.

 He was blindsided, though, by a bill of about $117,000 from an “assistant surgeon,” a Queens-based neurosurgeon whom Mr. Drier did not recall meeting.

How would you like to receive a bill for $117,000 from a doctor that you had never met and that you did not know would be at your surgery?

This is how broken our medical system has become.

And of course this type of abuse is not just happening in New York.  It is literally happening all over the nation

 In operating rooms and on hospital wards across the country, physicians and other health providers typically help one another in patient care. But in an increasingly common practice that some medical experts call drive-by doctoring, assistants, consultants and other hospital employees are charging patients or their insurers hefty fees.

They may be called in when the need for them is questionable. And patients usually do not realize they have been involved or are charging until the bill arrives.

If you or a close family member has been to the hospital recently, you probably know how astronomical some of these bills can be.

And if you have a chronic, life threatening disease, you can very rapidly end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

If you doubt this, just check out the following excerpt from an article that appeared in Time Magazine.  One cancer patient out in California ran up nearly a million dollars in hospital billsbefore he finally died…

 By the time Steven D. died at his home in Northern California the following November, he had lived for an additional 11 months. And Alice had collected bills totaling $902,452. The family’s first bill — for $348,000 — which arrived when Steven got home from the Seton Medical Center in Daly City, Calif., was full of all the usual chargemaster profit grabs: $18 each for 88 diabetes-test strips that Amazon sells in boxes of 50 for $27.85; $24 each for 19 niacin pills that are sold in drugstores for about a nickel apiece. There were also four boxes of sterile gauze pads for $77 each. None of that was considered part of what was provided in return for Seton’s facility charge for the intensive-care unit for two days at $13,225 a day, 12 days in the critical unit at $7,315 a day and one day in a standard room (all of which totaled $120,116 over 15 days). There was also $20,886 for CT scans and$24,251 for lab work.

The sad truth is that the U.S. health care system has become all about the money.

A select few are becoming exceedingly wealthy while millions go broke.  One very disturbing study discovered that approximately 41 percent of all working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.  And collection agencies seek to collect unpaid medical bills from approximately 30 million Americans every single year.

Once upon a time, going into the medical profession was a sacrifice and you did it because you wanted to help people.

Today, it is considered to be a path to riches.

If the U.S. health care system was a separate country, it would actually be the 6th largest economy on the entire planet.  Even though our system is deeply broken, nobody wants to rock the boat because trillions of dollars are at stake.  If it was up to me, I would tear the entire thing down and rebuild it from scratch.

Deutsche Bank Head Of Asia-Pac Kills Innocent Bystander

Deutsche Bank Head Of Asia-Pac Equities Loses Control Of His $580,000 Ferrari, Kills Innocent Bystander

As recently as several months ago, the financial press was surprised when a wave of Deutsche Bank employees, particularly those in the bank’s legal department (such as here and here), decided to take their own lives. Now at least one Deutsche Banker, perhaps perturbed by the recent news involving the unexpected departure of his co-CEOs coupled with the even more unexpected raid of the bank’s global headquarters, has decided to show the jump from sui- tohomicide is a simple one.

Earlier today, Hong Kong police arrested a 48-year-old Deutsche Bank employee on “suspicion of dangerous driving and causing death.” The fatal accident happened early on Tuesday at a car park near Deutsche’s office at International Commerce Center, across the harbor from the city’s financial district.

According to Reuters, the driver was Deutsche’s head of Asia-Pacific equities trading, Robert James Ebert, 48, who was behind the wheel of a Ferrari at the time of the accident.

Below is his Linkedin profile:

Police said the arrested driver, whom it identified only as James, had said he lost control of his car. The police said a 53-year-old man, who was next to the barriers, died after suffering serious head and shoulder injuries. He was pronounced dead in the hospital early in the afternoon.

The Apple Daily newspaper also identified the driver as Ebert and said he was driving a black,HK$4.5 million ($580,502) Ferrari 458 Spider, which was in collision with a HK$2.4 million Maserati at the car park entrance before hitting a security guard.

 The police said the driver was not charged.  “We are investigating whether the car was driving beyond the speed limit of 30km/h at the time,” a police source said.

It is safe to say the answer is yes, as a simple check of the security cameras would confirm.

Ebert was released on bail in the early hours of Wednesday and has to report back in mid-July, the police said.

Ejiinsight adds that Ebert’s car went on to sweep across three barricades and hit the guard, who was pinned to a post at the carpark entrance.

Koo was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead by 2 p.m.


Ebert and the Maserati driver were unhurt. Police said both drivers passed a breathalyser test.


Skid marks stretching 10 meters were found at the entrance of the carpark.


Ebert told police his car had a brake failure. He was arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving causing death.

So guy drives a car which costs more than most Americans will make in a decade (pretax), crashes in what may have been an improvised drag race, kills an innocent bystander, and promptly posts bail and is allowed to roam, and drive, in freedom.

Meanwhile Nav Sarao rots in the UK’s worst prison unable to pay his ridiculous $5 million bail, for the simple reason that he was a good trader and dared to expose the HFTs’ rigging to regulators. He faces a maximum sentence of 380 years in jail.

It’s ok though: when Stan Fischer and Mark Carney said bankers have to go to prison for “at least” 10 years when caught rigging markets they said nothing about bankers who engage in homicide. It appears the legal system will need a central bank explainer on how to proceed in that specific case.


Seven QLD Police Officers Stood Down in May

SEVEN Queensland police officers have been suspended in May — an average of almost one every three days.

The latest involves a detective stood down over allegations he inappropriately released confidential information.

The 45-year-old detective senior sergeant from the central region is subject to a disciplinary investigation into allegations he also permitted the inappropriate use of Queensland Police Service resources and inappropriately received gifts and benefits.

Earlier this week two officers were stood down, including one acquitted for a high-profile death in custody. The two are under investigation for engaging in an unauthorised pursuit and inappropriate use of force.

Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley and his partner Senior Constable Barry Wellington were involved in a dramatic car chase through Surfers Paradise on Sunday that resulted in the arrest of the alleged driver Sarah Jane Boyd, 28, and her co-accused Joel Gillard, 19.

Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley

The chase has become the subject of an ethical standards probe and the officers are also accused of driving a police vehicle in a manner likely to endanger other road users.

So far in 2015, 16 officers have been suspended, according to the official police blog, which issues alerts whenever an officer is stood down.

Eight of those suspended are from the southeast policing district.

Four officers have been suspended from the central region, while there has been one suspension in each of the northern and far northern districts, road policing command and operations support command.

The reasons for the suspensions vary.

Some involve allegations of excessive force, driving dangerously and serious discipline matters.

One senior constable allegedly maintained an inappropriate relationship with a female complainant, while another constable was stood down in relation to charges relating to a fatal traffic crash.

Confirmation has been sought from the QPS media unit regarding how many of the suspensions are ongoing.



* Male senior constable, 49, and male senior sergeant, 47, from south eastern region for “engaging in an unauthorised pursuit, driving or causing a police motor vehicle to be driven in a manner likely to endanger other road users, and inappropriate use of force”.

* Male senior constable, 36, from central region for “serious discipline matters and criminal offences”.

* Male senior constable, 39, from south eastern region over “allegations including excessive force, wilful damage of a service vehicle and falsifying training records”.

* Male senior constable, 35, from state crime command over “allegations he maintained an inappropriate relationship with a female complainant”.

* Male constable, 24, from northern region over “allegations he drove a police service vehicle while over the prescribed alcohol limit”.


* Female constable, 27, from south eastern region for “misconduct in relation to the submission of false and misleading information, and being untruthful to an officer investigating a disciplinary matter”.

* Male senior constable, 40, from southeastern region arrested and charged with a number of offences including possession of unlicensed weapons. He wasn’t on duty at the time.

* Male constable, 29, from road policing command appeared in court “in relation to charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and one charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The charges relate to a fatal traffic crash which occurred in Southern Region in May, 2014”.

* Female constable, south eastern region over “allegations that while off duty the officer has driven her private vehicle in a dangerous manner.”


* Senior male constable, 29, from south eastern region after an “investigation relating to use of excessive force in four separate incidents between September 2014 and January 2015”.


* Two male officers, central region, suspended without pay after being charged with “multiple offences following an Ethical Standards Command investigation with overview by the Crime and Misconduct Commission”.

* Male constable, 26, from far north district over “the provision of false and misleading information to members of the Queensland Police Service”.

* 36-year-old male from operations support command facing “criminal and disciplinary allegations” as part of a Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) investigation.


* Male constable, 49, from south eastern region stood down after an “an investigation relating to an incident of drink driving while off-duty on January 13 and other work-related matters”.


CHRIS Hurley, the police officer at the centre of the Palm Island death-in-custody controversy, has been stood down from duty over a wild car chase in which shots were fired.

The 47-year-old senior sergeant is one of two experienced officers stood down following the two-and-half hour pursuit of an alleged Bonnie and Clyde-style crime duo on the Gold Coast last weekend.

The action followed an internal investigation into what the Queensland Police Service said were allegations of “engaging in an unauthorised pursuit, driving or causing a police vehicle to be driven in a manner likely to endanger other road users, and inappropriate use of force”.

Officers were officially directed to stop the pursuit by superiors.

This is the latest controversial episode in the career of Senior Sergeant Hurley, who was acquitted of manslaughter in 2007 over the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee on Palm Island three years earlier, which sparked a riot.

And it is the second time in six months that Sen-Sgt Hurley has been in strife, after a magistrate found in December that he had unlawfully choked a man who swore at him during a roadside arrest.

The latest case has ignited fresh debate over the contentious Queensland Police Service pursuit policy, slammed by the police union as a “no pursuit” policy.

Sen-Sgt Hurley and a male senior constable, 49, were involved in Sunday night’s pursuit of a couple who had allegedly tried to rob a Pacific Pines service station before robbing and bashing a taxi driver with a tomahawk at Helensvale.

Police opened fire on the car during the dramatic two-and-a-half-hour pursuit, during which the vehicle allegedly reached speeds of up to 160km/h and veered on to the wrong side of the road.

Police and civilian vehicles were allegedly rammed, Sen-Sgt Hurley and his colleague were injured and the tomahawk thrown out of the window of the speeding getaway car before road spikes and the police helicopter finally brought the mayhem to an end.

A 19-year-old man and his alleged 28-year-old female accomplice were charged with a string of offences over the incident including armed robbery, dangerous driving and committing acts intending to cause grievous bodily harm.

Many police are backing Sen-Sgt Hurley and his colleague over their actions.

“The pursuit policy is a complete joke,” one veteran officer said.

“Technically we can’t pursue anyone and the crims are laughing at us. It’s getting to the stage where we’ll have to send them an invitation asking if them if they’d like to come down to the station and have a talk to us.”

But another seasoned officer said the pursuit policy was needed to safeguard lives.

“You’ve got some young and inexperienced coppers on the road and it’s simply too dangerous to have them involved in high-speed pursuits, particularly when we have resources like PolAir (the police helicopter) at our disposal to track offenders,” he said.

The pursuit policy, introduced in 2011, instructs police to chase only if there is an imminent risk to life or if the offender has committed a serious crime such as murder.

Last year, Police Commissioner Ian Stewart said a review of the policy had found it should not be changed.

“What is very, very clear from the evidence is, since 2009, the Queensland Police Service has had no pursuit that has ended in a fatality,” he said.

“That is a huge change to the years before that.”

Before the policy was changed in December 2011, figures showed 19 people had died since 2000, including three collateral victims.

The police union pushed for changes to the policy, saying that offenders regularly taunted police, knowing they were able to drive off without being chased.

A spokesman said the union was “fully supporting the officers involved” in the Gold Coast pursuit.

Police Misconduct Lawyer May Sue Government

Police Misconduct Lawyer May Sue Victorian Government

A lawyer is considering suing the Victorian government for prosecuting him for failing to repay legal costs for his former clients, who were beaten by police officers.

Mark Morgan represented Corinna Horvath and three others against the state in 2001, five years after they were beaten by eight Victoria Police officers over a dispute about an unroadworthy car.

The County Court awarded all four – including Ms Horvath’s partner Craig Love, Colleen and David Kniese – compensation, which they were never paid because the then Bracks government successfully appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal decided the state was not responsible for police officers who acted outside reasonable procedures.

The Victorian government’s solicitor then pursued Mr Morgan for contempt of court in 2007 after he failed to pay the state more than $400,000 in legal costs. He had previously agreed to underwrite his clients’ court costs if they lost.

The Court of Appeal exonerated him in 2008, saying he had been unable to pay the legal costs. The judges called him ‘‘foolish’’ for accepting personal liability for his clients’ costs and criticised the state for its ‘‘aggressive’’ approach to his debt, which it said fell short of its duties as a model litigant.

Mr Morgan called the state’s prosecution an extraordinary attempt to ‘‘criminalise’’ his debt.

‘‘I didn’t have the financial resources at the time to sue them for abuse of process,’’ he said.

He spoke with Fairfax Media after the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee decided last week that Victoria should compensate Ms Horvath and amend legislation to make the government vicariously liable for all police misconduct.

Read More

Community Law Resource Group

The Constitution Act (1900)

Clause 4,  is now being discussed in meetings for the month of June.

Do not hesitate to download a copy from the link below:


The contents are as follows:

Constitution Act 1900.

Covering Clause 4

Commencement of Act.

The Commonwealth shall be established, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth shall take effect, on and after the day so appointed. But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at anytime after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this Act.

Some words from CLRA.

The above words “But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this Act”, allowed the Colonies/States taking part in Federation to continue to make Laws but only those Laws that they could make after Federation (Reserved and Concurrent powers).

The Annotated Constitution written by Quick and Garran make the following comments;

HISTORICAL NOTE.—Clause 4 of the Commonwealth Bill of 1891 (which became the Constitution Act 1900) was as follows:—

Unless where it is otherwise expressed or implied, this Act shall commence and have effect on and from the day so appointed in the Queen’s proclamation; and the name ‘The Commonwealth of Australia’ or ‘The Commonwealth’ shall be taken to mean the Commonwealth of Australia as constituted under this Act.

This clause, with the omission of the second word “where,” was adopted at the Adelaide Session,1897. At the Sydney Session, following the suggestions of the Legislatures of New South Wales and Tasmania, the words “unless it is otherwise expressed orimplied, this Act” were omitted, and the words “The Constitution of the Commonwealth” were substituted.

A provision was then added that “The Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had been established at the passing of this Act.”

Some words from CLRA.

The words “of the Commonwealth Bill” point out the influence that Australia had in the creation of the Constitution Act, an act of the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament.

Now back to Covering Clause 4 and the Annotated Constitution written by Quick and Garran make the following commentsPage 343 to 345.

Shall be Established.

Clause 3 says that the people of the Commonwealth shall be united on and after the day appointed in the Queen’s Proclamation. Clause 4 contains a detailed list and expansion of the legal results of the Union so accomplished. The first immediate result is that the Commonwealth is established.

Some words from CLRA.

The word Union refers to the unification of the colonies into becoming firstly States and then the Commonwealth of Australia.

Now back to Covering Clause 4 and the Annotated Constitution written by Quick and Garran make the following commentsPage 343 to 345.

The constitutional definition of the Commonwealth will be analysed later on. Meanwhile, attention may be drawn to the significance of the word “Established.” The same verb is used in the preamble to the constitution of the United States, where it is recited that in order to form a more perfectunion the people “do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Parliament authorising the creation of colonies, the words “erect” and “establish” are used as identical terms. The Act 9 Geo. IV. (1828) (the Australian Courts Act of 1828), provided that it should be lawful for the King by charters or letters patent under the Great Seal to “erectand establish” courts of judicature in New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land.

Some words from CLRA.

In 1828, all of the area now known as the mainland of Australia was then called New South Wales and the area now known as Tasmania was then called Van Diemen’s Land.

Now back to Covering Clause 4 and the Annotated Constitution written by Quick and Garran make the following commentsPage 343 to 345.


Welcome to the Operate in the Private group. We have set up this website specifically for listeners of the Know Your Rights group radio show – – and we are here to assist those who want to find out more about trusts, private foundations and self managed superannuation funds.

We set up the following structures that may be of benefit to you, depending on your specific financial situation:

Trusts – Used primarily for asset protection
Private Foundations – Used primarily to operate your business “in the private” with no tax obligations
SMSF – Used primarily to take control of your own superannuation and retirement funds

Please note that we are neither lawyers nor financial planners and therefore, we make no representations what-so-ever about the benefit of any of these structures to you personally. You need to ascertain which, if any, of these structures would be of use to you given your own specific financial position.

The following information may be of assistance to you in learning the basic benefits of these structures:


A trust is a legal relationship whereby one person (the ‘trustee’) holds assets for the benefit of one or more other parties (the ‘beneficiaries’). A trust is created by a deed. The deed sets out the governance and operation of the trust, and the powers of the trustee.

The most common types of trusts are:

1. Discretionary Trust (also known as a family trust) is a trust in which the trustee is given the power/discretion to decide which of the beneficiaries are to benefit from the trust. It is an important vehicle for a number of reasons, which include:

  • Asset protection – the assets of a discretionary trust are distinct from the assets of the beneficiaries of the trust and may be protected from creditors in circumstances where a beneficiary is sued or made bankrupt;
  • Minimise tax – Probably the most important advantage for a discretionary trust is tax minimisation, indeed substantial minimisation, by way of flexibility because income can be diverted to people with lower rates. By distributing income and capital to beneficiaries on lower marginal tax rates and distributing different types of income to different beneficiaries (i.e. “streaming”) the overall tax paid by a family group could be reduced. Each beneficiary is liable to pay tax at their marginal rate on income distributions received from the trust in each financial year;
  • Carry forward losses – a discretionary trust may carry forward losses, in certain circumstances;
  • Capital gains tax discount – a discretionary trust is entitled to a 50% discount on any capital gains made on disposal of any assets held by the discretionary trust for greater than 12 months. This discount is also available to individuals, but not companies.

2. Unit Trust – fixed and non-fixed
In a company you get shares. In a Unit Trust you get Units. The number of Units you hold determines your share of the income and voting power.
A Unit Trust is cheaper and more flexible than a company. A company costs substantial money to set up and then has ongoing government charges to keep a company going each year. The Unit Trust doesn’t suffer this government intervention.

Previously unit trusts were primarily used to gather together investors to pool their (usually) small sums with a (usually corporate) trustee for the purposes of investment. In recent years the importance of unit trusts has grown to such an extent that they have in many respects supplanted companies as the most common vehicle through which business is conducted in the non-public company area.”

There are a number of differences between a Fixed Unit Trust and a Non Fixed Unit Trust.

  • A fixed unit trust has only one class of unit holders, all with the same rights to capital and income distributions in proportion to their unit holdings.
  • A fixed unit trust provides unit holders with the ability to claim a tax deduction on borrowing costs associated with their unit holding.
  • A fixed unit trust can receive the threshold benefit relating to NSW land tax provisions (where this requirement has been outlined in the order form).
  • A non-fixed unit trust has multiple classes of unit holders and enables the issuing of both income and capital units and has income streaming flexibility.

Please e-mail us at to find out more.

Private Foundations

The primary purpose of a private foundation is to fund your personal requirements and to help fund other projects that benefit the “greater good”.

Private Foundations can be used to operate your business in the private and this entity has no tax obligations. When set up correctly, they are a legally recognised entity by the ATO and have no reporting requirements.
A foundation can have its own bank account and all income generated in the foundation is non-taxable.

A Private Foundation is a legal and lawful entity set up by an individual, a family or a group of individuals. They are “not-for-profit (nfp)” “tax-exempt,” “non-government-organisations (ngo’s)” and therefore must be managed slightly differently and much more simply than incorporated company type government organisations (go’s).

The underlying principles of foundations have been written about for at least 2000 years, but it is difficult to find much written information on them today as most people using them operate in “the private” and would not be dealing with the usual “business” authorities. The “system” does not educate or promote this knowledge as they do not want the general public knowing this information, yet they are used every day predominately only by the very wealthy.

Please e-mail us at for a copy of our Foundation FAQ sheet.

Self Managed Superannuation Fund

Like other super funds, SMSFs are a way of saving for your retirement. Generally, the main difference between a SMSF and other super funds is that members of a SMSF are the trustees. This means the members of the SMSF run it for their own benefit.

Running a self-managed super fund (SMSF) gives you control over where your super money is invested, and access to a greater choice of investments compared to managed super funds, such as retail or industry funds, taking back control over your hard earned super. SMSFs can be a great way to provide for your retirement, but it is important you are aware of your responsibilities and obligations as a trustee.

As a SMSF trustee, you can invest in direct property, artwork, bullion and virtually any valuable asset. You can even purchase business property, such as an office, and use the property in your business.

If you are considering a SMSF for your super savings, the publication Thinking about self-managed super on the ATO website (NAT 72579) – – provides you with some practical information.

The SMSF can have a corporate trustee or two individual trustees. Your SMSF must have a trust deed which forms part of the governing rules for operating the fund. You will need to prepare an investment strategy and ensure that it is reviewed regularly. There are rules and regulations that you must follow to ensure the fund’s assets are protected to provide benefits in retirement.

You may also want to read Self Managed Super Funds - – and Laws, Rules and consequences of setting up a self managed super fund -,-rules-and-consequences/ – for further details on how to run a SMSF and details of what some of the legal requirements are.

The above is, of course, far from an exhaustive list of the benefits and drawbacks of each of these structures and we recommend that you do your own, independent research before contacting us about setting up any of these entities for you.


Bank Secrets Revealed

Please click this link to hear the RATFM broadcast that we did on the “Ultimate Bank Secret” on the 24th of June.

The Team at Bank Secrets Revealed is a community of passionate, like-minded people who are committed to sharing their wealth of knowledge, gained over many years, to inform and educate people about the truth in regards to banking.

Our aim is to wake people up to the TRUTH that the governments and those who are REALLY in power have been suppressing for many years. This website will be developed and expanded further over the coming months and we welcome your feedback, ideas and suggestions via e-mail

In the meantime, if you want to get a basic understanding of how clear the fraud committed by the banks really is then please go to these 2 links below and download the “D2 – Lending and Credit Aggregates” and the “D3 – Monetary Aggregates” Excel documents from the RBA website:

Then, compare the amounts detailed under the Currency and Broad Money columns (in D3) with the amounts detailed in the Loan and Advances and Total Credit columns (in D2). How exactly is it that there can be more loans, or the banks can extend more credit than exists in Broad (or all) Money – unless they “create” it!

This is just the tip of the iceberg and we want to give people so much more information but it takes time and money. Therefore, we would gladly receive any donation that you could spare – see the link below – to help us cover the cost of developing this website and bringing you more breakthrough information on the fraud committed by the banks every day and what you can do about it.

If you would like to find out more information about extracting yourself from the public banking system, please be sure to visit our friends at

Australian Government Misleading About Taxation

The Australian Government is misleading us about taxation.


The Australian people are being sorely deceived by their government.

In fact, deceived is probably too mild a word!

For years politicians, senior judiciary and many, many lawyers have known that the ATO is illegal.

And no-one, and I mean not one person, wants to do anything about it.

While they ‘sit on their hands’ the people are being seriously oppressed by this entity that does not even exist. Since its so-called inception in 1974 senior tax officers have been earning juicy bonuses based on the size of the assessment (illegal) notices issued to taxpayers – regardless of their accuracy, or should I say inaccuracy. Many of these assessments are wildly inflated and would be thrown out of a court.

Politicians, complicit with the ATO have legislated to tie the court’s hands.

If the ATO issue an assessment notice the court has not choice other than to enforce a judgement on the hapless taxpayer – regardless of the notice’s accuracy. Lawyers call it the ‘pay now, fight later’ strategy.

It should be called the ‘tie both hands behind their back so they can’t fight’ strategy.

After all, if the ATO has taken all your money, sold all your assets (often in a ‘fire sale’) what do you have left to fight them with? Lawyers want to be paid before they will fight for you.

If this is not oppressing the people, I don’t know what is!

Australia is rotting – and this rot needs to be exposed. If the people (read media / blogs with strong followings here) don’t stand up they will become a part of this cancer!

Many blogs have massive readerships and are quite influential, especially now that so many Australians despair about the ‘state of the nation’. Many are saying ‘can’t wait until the election so that we can get rid of this incompetent government’ etc. etc. and ‘I don’t know how this country can recover from the debt amassed over the last 6 or so years.’

However, the malaise goes deeper than just one political party.

And waiting until an election won’t change much.

Australians needs to get out from under the ever increasing burden of taxes and debt. It won’t happen unless the people demand it.

And the people won’t demand it unless they learn the truth.

Some facts about the Australian Taxation Office (ATO):

Preface: All law in Australia must be passed by a Parliament in both houses (in states that have both houses) and then by law must be gazetted.

Fact: The law that established the Australian Taxation Office has been challenged in a particular court. The Plaintiff created the need to document the ATO’s formation to the satisfaction of the Defendant and the Court.

The Plaintiff, with the approval of the Australian National Library, brought into the court every Federal Government Gazette for the time period around when the law (taxation) was passed by the Federal Parliament. The Defendant was then asked to ‘Please show us in which Gazette we will find the Legislation regarding the Australian Taxation Office’ to which the Defendant stated; ‘it is not in any Government Gazette’,

The judge of the matter then stated; ‘You have proved beyond any doubt that the law establishing the Australian Taxation Office has not been Gazetted and thus place its legality in question’.

Further, Justice J Callinan, in Moelike v Chapman [B8/2000 (24/8/2000)], agreed that the ATO was not a legal entity. This has been validated by two judges.

Since this case, an article from the Aussie POST quotes the High Court case on May 17, where the ATO admitted it isn’t a legal personality, a view also held by the presiding judge, JusticeCallinan.

It goes further, stating “at the heart of the matter is the inability of the ATO to provide any documentation that proves it is either a legal entity, or was established following correct procedure…”.

Further, a response by Anthony Wallace, of the ATO, to Mr D Cameron on February 25, 2000, in an affidavit, stated that the writer and others he contacted could not identify any relevant files or documents establishing the ATO.

The Australian Government has grossly misled the people of Australia in matters relating to taxation.

Attached is an extract from a letter from oppressed taxpayers to the ATO in March 2011, along with attachments referred to in the body of this letter. To date, there has been no response by the ATO to the taxpayers concerned. Instead the ATO continues to forge ahead with their stated intention to take every single asset.

Be warned: This is not an isolated incident. Sadly, it is an all too common story, although this case is even worse than most….

Without ‘ordinary’ Australians taking action, creating a groundswell against this tyranny, it will continue unchecked. And when this type of action is allowed to continue it will escalate. For people who believe they are above the law become more and more bold in their coercion of those they see as powerless!

It has been written that all that is needed for evil to flourish is for ‘good’ men to do nothing – and history shows that this is the truth.

It may be insidious here in Australia, but none the less it is evil.

I plead with you to become a part of the solution, rather than be seduced into thinking you cannot do anything to stop it.

And so I end with the allegory of the frog in the pot of water.

A frog can easily leap from a pot of water. And is likely to do so if the water is too hot (uncomfortable). However if the water is cool, the frog sees no reason to jump out.

So if one wants to cook the frog, just put it into a pot of cool water. Place it onto the hotplate, turn the power on to it’s lowest setting and slowly, slowly the water temperature will rise. The frog will NOT leap from the pot to safety.


Because the rise in temperature has been so gradual, it never even noticed. It remained comfortable while it was being slowly cooked.

Then, please ask yourself, am I being slowly ‘cooked’?

And if you begin to feel just a little uncomfortable, maybe even before reading the attachments, then maybe it’s time to read them, and then do some more research for yourself – all the evidence is out there for anyone prepared to look….

Australian Taxation Office – Illegal?

Is the Australian Taxation Office illegal ?  It seems so…

After all, it is a private compamy registered in Washington (Click here)  and according to a World Bank Official, tax revenue is given to the Roman Catholic Vatican (Click here).  So how does the Government run the country ?  Simple – it borrows and pays interest on top. Borrows from whom ? I’m sure you can work that out ?  So why the continual push to raise the debt level when the Gov’t already has the power to create our own money system interest free and debt free ?  (Click here)

The following facts support the claim of the ATO being illegal:

All law in Australia must be passed by a Parliament in both houses (in states that have both houses) and then by law must be gazetted.

The law that established the Australian Taxation Office has been challenged in a particular court whereby the Plaintiff created the need to document the ATO’s formation to the satisfaction of the Defendant and the Court.

The Plaintiff, with the approval of the Australian National Library, brought into the court every Federal Government Gazette for the time period around when the law was passed by the Federal Parliament.

The Defendant was asked to ‘Please show us in which Gazette we will find the Legislation regarding the Australian Taxation Office’, to which the Defendant stated; ‘It is not in any Government Gazette’.

The judge of the matter then stated; ‘You have proved beyond any doubt that the law establishing the Australian Taxation Office has not been Gazetted and thus place its legality in question’ he went on, ‘But I can not permit Australia to fall into financial chaos and thus strike out this evidence’.

Further, Justice J Callinan, in Moelike v Chapman [B8/2000 (24/8/2000)], agreed that the ATO was not a legal entity. This has been validated by two judges.

Since this case, an article from the Aussie POST i quotes the High Court case on May 17, 2000, where the ATO admitted it isn’t a legal personality, a view also held by the presiding judge, Justice Callinan. It goes further, stating “at the heart of the matter is the inability of the ATO to provide any documentation that proves it is either a legal entity or was established following correct procedure…”.

Further, as a response by Anthony Wallace, officer of the ATO, to Mr D Cameron on February 25, 2000, in an affidavit ii, stated that the writer and others he contacted could not identify any relevant files or documents setting up the ATO.

The Australian Government has misled the people of Australia in matters relating to taxation.

Extracts from letter, in our possession, and dated June 29, 2005, addressed to the ‘Taxation Commissioner’, Mr M Carmody, follow:  Read More

Affadavit by Tax Office Employee – Anthony Wallace

ATOAffidavit1 ATOAffidavit2 ATOAffidavit3

Cardinal George Pell Faces Criticism Over Child Sex Abuse

Cardinal George Pell faces more criticism from the man hand-picked by the Pope to protect children

CARDINAL George Pell continues to draw fire with the man hand-picked by Pope Francis to protect children and help others abused by members of Catholic Church saying he needs to go.

“I think it’s critical that George Pell is moved aside, that he is sent back to Australia, and that the Pope takes the strongest action against him,” Peter Saunders said speaking to 60 Minute’s Tara Brown in Rome.

Pell has been under fire of late for allegedly ignoring warnings about Father Gerald Ridsdale, Australia’s worst paedophile priest.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse which has been sitting in Ballarat has heard witnesses claim Pell turned a blind eye to abuse.

One witness claims Pell tried to silence him with a bribe while another said Pell was present at a meeting where it was announced that Ridsdale needed to be moved to another parish.

‘He is making a mockery of the Pope’

Allegations levelled … The Royal Commission heard Cardinal George Pell knew about Father Gerald Ridsdale, Australia’s worst paedophile priest. Picture: AFP/ANDREAS SOLARO Source: AFP

Saunders, himself a victim of paedophile priests, was chosen by Pope Francis to sit on his new commission charged with establishing greater protections for children and the vulnerable, as well as increasing accountability and transparency on child sex abuse within the Catholic Church.

Saunder who has met with Australian victims and their families said he is appalled by the allegations levelled against Pell and the Cardinal’s response to these allegations so far.

Tonight on 60 Minutes he speaks for the first tome and calls for Pope Francis to move against him.

“He is making a mockery of the papal commission, of the Pope himself, but most of all of the victims and the survivors. More importantly, anybody who is a serious obstacle to the work of the commission and to the work of the Pope in trying to clean up the church’s act over this matter needs to be taken aside very quickly and removed from any kind of position of influence.”

Ballarat Sexual Abuse Victims Speak At Royal Commission

Ballarat sexual abuse victims to speak at royal commission

Father Gerald Ridsdale

One of Australia’s worst paedophiles, Father Gerald Ridsdale, will be called to give evidence when the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse opens in Ballarat. Source: News Corp Australia

HE is one of Australia’s most vile and notorious paedophiles, responsible for the rape and abuse of children as young as four.

Convicted priest Father Gerald Ridsdale will give evidence via video link from prison, where he has been held since 1994. He be questioned about the crimes committed at the Catholic school he worked at when he is called to give evidence at the The Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse in Ballarat.

The Victorian city was considered one of the most horrific sites of abuse after it was revealed in the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into Sexual Abuse that at one time all the male teachers and the chaplain at the St Alipius primary school were molesting children.

Ridsdale’s appearance will be just the third time since the Royal Commission began that a convicted sex offender has been called to give evidence.

The Christian Brothers say they are committed to addressing the failures of the past as the child abuse royal commission focuses on the Catholic Church’s dealings with paedophiles in Ballarat.

Speaking ahead of today’s hearing, Christian Brothers Oceania province leader Brother Peter Clinch repeated the Catholic order’s apology to those abused while in their care.

“The Christian Brothers are steadfast in our commitment to address the failures of the past and to help bring some measure of healing to lives damaged by abuse,” Brother Clinch said in a statement.

“As we have done in the past and reiterate today, we acknowledge the great suffering inflicted as the result of actions of some of our own.” Ballarat Bishop Paul Bird said the hearing will be very stressful for survivors, their families and people across the region.

“People will be deeply upset by the accounts of crimes against children and by the failings of church leaders in responding to these crimes,” he said.

Bishop Bird said victims had a right to know the church recognised their suffering and apologised for their pain.

A Victorian parliamentary inquiry heard former Ballarat Bishop Ronald Mulkearns destroyed documents and made a “tragic mistake” by not removing Australia’s worst paedophile priest Father Gerald Francis Ridsdale when he became aware of abuse allegations.

Bishop Mulkearns knew of complaints against Ridsdale as early as 1975 — but let him remain a priest and moved him to other parishes, the inquiry heard in 2013.

The Christian Brothers told a Victorian parliamentary inquiry it was an “accident of history” that at one time the entire male teaching staff of Ballarat’s St Alipius Primary School were sex offenders.

Former Christian Brother Stephen Farrell is led away from Ballarat Court after receiving

Former Christian Brother Stephen Farrell is led away from Ballarat Court after receiving a suspended sentence for sex crimes against children. Source: News Corp Australia

Ridsdale, one of those moved between parishes, is one of Australia’s worst paedophiles.

Police investigating complaints against him believe there are many more victims than those who have come forward, Dr Chamley said.

“They estimated that Ridsdale had probably sexually abused at least 1000 children,” he said.

“In a town like Mortlake it’s thought that he sexually abused every child in the primary school.”

Ridsdale will not be eligible for parole until April 2019.

Channel 7’s Ryan Stokes thrown under a bus for corruption

Channel 7’s Ryan Stokes thrown under a bus for corruption as Chair of the National Library

by Shane Dowling


After a long battle I now have documents that show Seven Group CEO Ryan Stokes lying, deceiving and acting corruptly as Chairman of the National Library of Australia (NLA) for the benefit of his father Kerry Stokes. The documents also show the Library’s CEO, Director-General Anne-Marie Schwirtlich, throwing Ryan Stokes under a bus. Although she….

Read more of this post



Rolf Harris – How many more victims are there?

Rolf Harris – How many more victims are there?

by Shane Dowling

Rolf Harris is currently in jail in the UK and is looking at further time behind bars as over 10 new victims have come forward and made complaints to the police. The British police have investigated and passed the “full file” to the Crown Prosecution Service who will decide if they will prosecute Rolf Harris for the new alleged crimes.

Read more of this post



Bill Shorten and his corrupt supporters at the HSU targeted by the Royal Commission

Bill Shorten and his corrupt supporters at the HSU targeted by the Royal Commission

by Shane Dowling

Bill Shorten and his supporters are a major target for the Trade Union Royal Commission in 2015. While the Royal Commission did not expressly name Bill Shorten it did mention matters that involve him and also his Labor Unity factional supporters at the Health Services Union (HSU). On Thursday (23/4/15) at the 2015 Opening Session Commissioner Dyson Heydon…

Read more of this post



Ian Narev CEO – Commonwealth Bank

Ian Narev, CEO – Commonwealth Bank, shows his contempt for the Australian Senate and his customers

by Shane Dowling

The senior management of Australia’s leading Banks went before the Australian Senate on Tuesday to answer questions regarding widespread fraud in their Superannuation / Wealth Management departments. Last year alone almost $80 million was paid to victims of the banks frauds. What was obvious at the senate hearing is the contempt the banks still have for Australian Laws.

Read more of this post




Aussie Speeding Fines June 2015 Newsletter

Some really positive news for once and some excellent success stories!


- Controversial claim that mobile phones do not cause crashes

- Huge success in QLD as the government scraps plans to recover $1 billion in unpaid fines

- Incredible stories of success from people fighting back against unjust fines

- Everyone can claim costs for unjust and unlawful fines

- The “next” level, for those who are ready

- Latest Testimonials and Feedback

- Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards


We know it has been a while since we last wrote to you and we thank all those people who have now slowly but surely started sending us a gentle “reminder” in regards to the time frame between e-mail updates. Given the feedback we have received, it seems that about a month is a suitable time frame between updates – regular enough to keep you up-to-date with developments but not so often that you are bombarded with e-mails.

It’s always a bit of a juggling act but this time frame seems to be what people are after and, given our increasing workload, that works in well with us too. So, please expect that, from now on, give or take, you should receive our regular e-mail updates once a month or so, unless there is something of great importance to report before then.

Now, speaking of our e-mail updates, we know that very often they refer to all the issues that we, as Aussie motorists are facing, and, every so often, they contain just one or two “positive” articles. Well, this week, we are happy to report that all of the articles are very positive and powerful and should be used to inspire and empower more people than ever before to fight back.

So, to find out more about the latest and greatest developments, please read on ….

Controversial claim that mobile phones do not cause crashes

As we noted in the section above, every time we send out an e-mail update, we include references or links to the latest government propaganda. Those articles are usually filled with government spin that exists purely to justify their on-going revenue raising agenda. Well, finally, it seems as though there is some dissention in the ranks and people are speaking out against all the ridiculous government claims and setting the record straight.

The first of those articles is from a Ford executive who stated that mobile phones are not causing anywhere near the number of crashes that the governments claim they are. You can read the full story here -

Now, we would like to state, from the outset, that anything that distracts you whilst driving or takes your attention off the road for even a second – such as constantly looking down at your speedo so you don’t get some ridiculous, arbitrary “speeding fine” – can, most assuredly, be dangerous.  As this article correctly points out though, most drivers tend to slow down if they are on the phone – because they are focused on the phone – and, if all the government BS about “wipe off 5 and save lives” or “speed is the biggest killer on our roads” is true, then that would actually make phone users “safer” drivers!

Clearly, we’re not saying that we agree with that statement but the point is that they can’t have it both ways – either it is “speed” that is the problem and anything that causes you to slow down must make you safer or, it is “inattention and distraction” that are the issue, in which case, driving faster and paying greater attention to the road will make you safer.

Pick an argument and stick with it governments – you simply cannot have your cake and eat it too!

As this article points out, the reality is that the moment you tell people they “can’t” do something then that’s exactly what they will try and do – you can’t get around human nature! So, if you tell people that they can’t text and drive then they will try and hide their phones in their laps and that will make them more distracted which, in turn, creates more accidents.

It’s exactly the same as the red light camera issue – they create a new law that allows zero tolerance for going through a red light – even though it may be safe to do so – and everyone starts slamming on their brakes at even the hint of a light going red and they create more accidents than they prevent – but hey, they generate a hell of a lot of cash flow while their doing it!

We urge all motorists to please visit our Vision for the Future page - - to see the sort of true road safety initiatives that we would like to see implemented, rather than just these blanket, across the board, arbitrary fines.

Huge success in QLD as the government scraps plans to recover $1 billion in unpaid fines

Our second story, this week, follows on from an article that we reported on previously, where the QLD government proposed using private debt collectors to try and a recover the $1 billion currently outstanding in unpaid fines.

Well, we have great news to share with you this week, the government has now decided to scrap that plan – hopefully due to unprecedented pressure from our Members. You can read the further details here -$1b-in-unpaid-fines and also here -

Now, there are some really important points to note about that article and the first, and most obvious one, is the fact that there are currently $1 billion in outstanding fines in QLD alone, which just shows that more people than ever before are refusing to blindly “pay up”, which is fantastic news, in and of itself – well done QLD motorists!

The second point is that our Members, through the assistance of other groups that we now work with: the Know Your Rights group –; Bank Secrets revealed –; CLRG – and the like, are starting to realize that debt collectors are third party interlopers and have absolutely no legal right or standing to collect on these alleged debts.

And, in addition to that, it seems as though, finally – after 8 years of repeating it on a regular basis – people are starting to understand the power and the impact of Section 8, Sub-section 12 of the Imperial Acts Application Act, which dictates that all fines and forfeitures, before conviction, are illegal and void. If you don’t yet understand the relevance of that Act and why it means that all traffic fines are unjust and unlawful, then please be sure to get a copy of our comprehensive, 85 page e-book – “Speeding Fines, What You REALLY Need to Know” -

The simple fact is that neither the government, nor their private debt collectors, have any legal right to pursue those purported “debts”, until or unless those people have been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction, after all relevant evidence has been cross examined. Given that most of those fines would have stemmed from speed cameras and, as the only witness to the “offences” are the cameras themselves, and the fact that the cameras cannot be taken into court and cross examined, there is simply no case to answer to for the majority of those fines and they are ridiculous, baseless threats.

Thankfully, QLD motorists are waking up to these facts – we just hope that other motorists around this fine country, pun intended, do the same.

Incredible stories of success from people fighting back against unjust fines

And, following on from our section above, it does, in fact, seem like motorists around the country are waking up to the truth about the current system and how utterly ineffective it is and they are fighting back to change it.

Earlier this week, we were involved in putting the following article together with the Daily Mail Australia -

Not only has this ASF Member successfully challenged some fifty unjust and unlawful speeding fines, but he has also been awarded significant costs in his favour – even as high as one for an amount of $6,000. We spoke to David and it was really interesting to see how he looks at things so differently to most motorists. Most people are just happy if they can successfully have a fine withdrawn yet he believes it as a failure if he doesn’t get a four figure payout for his trouble – just imagine every motorist started treating the system like that!

The other great thing about this article is that we finally got the mainstream media to refer the fact that the government constantly claims that fines are not about revenue raising and they further claim that speed cameras and the like cause motorists to slow down so, why then do the governments budget in a certain amount of revenue from fines each year – surely, if fines really were the deterrent that the government claims then their budget would be zero! 

The additional comments about having no right what-so-ever to call speed cameras “Safety Cameras” is 100% correct. If we started claiming that our e-book will “save your life” we’d be shut down in a heartbeat yet they get away with it every day.

There are some really great points in that article for motorists who are just starting down the path of learning about their rights in regards to traffic fines, to read up on and, obviously, for those who are ready for more detailed information, be sure to join up as a Member and grab a copy of the e-book that is mentioned in that article, via this page -

- Everyone can claim costs for unjust and unlawful fines

Further to the brilliant article detailed in the section above, one of our Members has sent us through some excellent information confirming that everyone has the right to compensation when they successfully challenge an unjust and unlawful fine.

Section 64, Sub-section 2 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 clearly states that, “A person may claim compensation from the State if the person incurs loss or expense because of the exercise or purported exercise of a power under a transport Act, including, for example, in complying with a requirement made of the person.”

You can download a copy of that Act via this link - – and you will find Section 64 on page 120 of the document or page 122 of the pdf, so you can print that page out and take it with you to court whenever you are challenging your next fine.

And, yes, this is QLD legislation but there will almost certainly be equivalent legislation in your State and, if there isn’t, be sure to refer to sections 117 and 118 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which dictate that full faith and credit must be given to all Acts in each State and a resident in one State cannot be discriminated against because he/she lives in that particular State and not another – ie. you can rely on the legislation of any State in any other State, if it benefits you to do so.

As we have said more times than we can count, the only way that we’re going to bring about some real change is by hitting the government where it hurts – in their back pocket. The first step is for motorist to stop blindly “paying up” which already seems to be happening in QLD and that is great news. But, the next step is to start blowing out their costs. As it is, it already costs them thousands of dollars to run each and every prosecution but if every time you win, you also claimed additional costs, over and above what it already costs them to pursue these ridiculous fines, then they will really get the message and be forced to start changing things!

- The “next” level, for those who are ready

As we promised at the start of this e-mail, all the news this week is really positive and our last story is going to blow you away. Now, this is not for the faint of heart, this is really aimed at our Advanced Members but it is certainly something for all motorists to keep in the back of their minds and aim towards.

We were recently sent a brilliant You Tube video of a man in the US who actually pulled over a police officer, made him identify himself and then informed him of the law and warned him that if he didn’t alter his behavior, he could be fined or even arrested – the officer’s face and responses are pure gold -

Now, what is so powerful about this video is that this guy does this so calmly and clearly that this officer is never given a reason, or an opportunity, to “have a go” at this guy. He retains full control of the situation throughout the entire encounter, he is firm but fair and he completely turns the table on this officer and does to the officer exactly what they usually do to motorists.

We need to remember that the police are public servants – they exist to serve us. Now, we don’t say that in some egotistical way or anything like that, but it is the same as any other person or group that we employ to do any task or service for us. If you employ a mechanic to fix your car then you expect them to make repairs that are in our best interest. You expect a medical professional to perform medical tasks with your best interests at heart (and no, we’re not suggesting that they always do that, we’re just making a point here) and, police officers are no different – they are there to serve us. So, if they are not truly serving you or, worse still, they are in breach of some law whilst conducting their duties, then you have an obligation to calmly and firmly but fairly explain that to them and they have an obligation to take those points on board.

We reported a few months back about the police that tried to sue the Victorian Government, only to be told that they are not “employed” by the government so they do not have “government protection”. So, if they were to “arc up” or act inappropriately to any suggestion you might make to them – that was in accordance with the law and their duties – then you have every right to take legal action against them for compensation.

The police are just humans and they are accountable too, as this article proves -  It is our role to hold them accountable and, if everyone did this, things would change very quickly!

- Latest Testimonials and feedback

And, as if all of the above wasn’t enough good news, we have some more positive reports from Members who have successfully used our information to challenge their own unjust and unlawful fines.

The first is from a Member who was being threatened with licence and registration suspension for unpaid fines. Here’s what he had to say:

Hey team,

Just had a small win with the Fines and Enforcement Unit here in SA. We received my wife’s rego renewal and they are going to suspend her license and stop her from registering her car.

I had been using the “Return to sender” strategy with them for 3 fines – 1 was a fine which we had paid off or at least thought we had. We missed the final payment of $25.

2 of the fines were from the local council. I’ll come back to these.

For the missed payment of $25 they had added fees and charges – an additional $375!

I challenged this by conditional acceptance – we would pay the fine and additional amounts on proof of:

Legislation compelling mail to be opened
Legislation forbidding the return of unwanted mail
Proof that the Fines and Enforcement Unit were not a private business registered to a lady named Theresa Kennedy and trading as a sole trader. (ASIC website shows the Fines and Enforcement Unit are a private business!)

We received an email back stating the team leader had decided to waiver the additional fees! So we paid the $25 and emailed them the receipt.

When we called the Fines and Enforcement Unit about these fines I said I’d elect to go to court and was told this is no longer possible. Then I filled in the payment plan papers and noticed a little line – “by electing to enter a payment plan you also waiver your right to elect to be prosecuted”. So I killed the payment plan option and am now appealing the other 2 fines.

I had used the 3 letter process with the local council and through non-response and non performance gained an agreement. Now with the appeal with the fines unit I’m expecting them to throw the fines straight back to the council. I’ll update you on completion :)

I’d NEVER have even attempted this without your ebook! I refuse to pay any fines now. Thank you for giving me the balls and resources to fight the thugs!

Wayne – S.A.

We also had another interesting e-mail from a member who reported back some very interesting points from a court case she attended.

Hi Guys

Well I went in, court Mention today. I had a big affidavit that I had prepared but I didn’t bring it out….of course….

There were heaps of people there all trying to get permission to drive due to hardship, so they had all run out of points….a crazy scenario.

There were a couple of interesting interchanges between the magistrate and the prosecution.

One was about an infringement that had been returned to sender. No note- just marked on the outside.

Magistrate said they couldn’t send it to SPER because it had been “returned to sender” even though the prosecution was sure that the address was correct. They were told to send it back to TCO and have them reissue it…. so that was interesting.

Then also, the 12 months thing is only IF people refer it on, and it keeps getting referred on. In other words, the round robin WORKS! You just have to keep it up for 12 months.

So then came my turn.

She asked my name and I fumbled again…. then she said- do I want it heard, if not she will just schedule the hearing and be done with it….so a threat I guess. Then she asked how I plea- I said I enter no plea because I have no cause to answer because it is already a year old.

She said she would enter a not guilty plea and the date for hearing was set….then I piped up.

I said but you cant because it is passed the statute of limitations. She said that the policeman- Colin John Parry- declared it came to his attention on 3 March and under section 62 of transport operations blabla……..

Then I said. “So is this a personal thing between him and me or is it Qpolice, because if it is Qpolice then they have had it for over 12 months.” then everything changed. She told me I might have something, and she looked up her big books.

She asked me if I put in a court election, I said no because I don’t use their paperwork, but I told them repeatedly that IF they had a “cause of action” that I would go to a court of competent jurisdiction, Chapter 111 Jury court.

Then she sat back and had a think….. Then she announced she wanted him to prepare an affidavit explaining why it took so long. So he has 6 weeks to prepare his affidavit/ or withdraw.

She said she would like him to withdraw, because 8 months is too long…..

She even smiled at me, and the prosecution lady was really polite….

And they took down my email address so that they could notify me if he withdraws…..

I asked her if I needed to prepare anything, did she want my letters….She said No…I don’t have to do anything- it is up to them to explain themselves.

So, fingers crossed, this one is a win……


Brandi – QLD

And, finally, we had feedback from another Member who successfully managed to drag a case out for 18 months and not only had the fine waived but also admitted that he earned far more in that time by being an affiliate than the original fine would have cost him anyway so it was a double win.

Please read his e-mail below and be sure to join up as an Affiliate yourself - - if you haven’t already done so.

G’day guys,

Well, I went to court on Monday. The police spent almost 90 minutes presenting their ‘evidence’. Dozens of pieces of paper certifying that the speed camera was correct, that the police officer was authorized under the Act, and all the rest of the rigmarole they go through to try and justify their daylight robbery.

Then I got up and told the magistrate that I am a Vietnam veteran and that I was not driving the car. I produced a Stat Dec sent to me by the Indian who was driving my car. I also produced a print out from the Department of Veterans Affairs showing that I was logged in at the gym about 5 kilometers from the site of the alleged offense at the time.

The Magistrate would not accept either document into the evidence, as he said the driver must be in the court room. As my driver was in India, there was nothing he could do.

Then the policewoman started grilling me. During this amazing performance she repeatedly asked why I didn’t state categorically that I was not driving on the Stat Dec I submitted within the mandatory 30 day period after receiving the fine notice. As I pointed out, I wasn’t sure who was driving the car at that time. I wasn’t even sure if I was driving. However, after further investigation I found out that I was at the gym and eventually I found the Indian friend who was driving my car at the time. She asked why I could not remember where I was on the day, and I pointed out that I have a poor memory (I am 67 after all!) and the shock of receiving a speeding ticket confused me. I had no recollection of getting pinged for speeding.

When I was finished giving evidence the Magistrate took a 10 minute recess to “go and do some research”. I think he was looking up the Act to see if there was a time limit to submitting a Stat Dec, and if the court could accept one from my Indian friend.

When he returned he explained that the Act is very specific. The SD must be submitted within 30 days (in Qld) and I should have stated that I was not driving the car at the time and nominated the actual driver.

As I had pointed out repeatedly as I gave evidence, I couldn’t do that, and I wasn’t going to lie on a Stat Dec, he said it was unfortunate but he had to administer the letter of the law.

Then came the sentencing phase. He convicted me of speeding, but then said that he believed my version of events and therefore he WAIVED THE FINE!

I want to thank you for your support throughout this saga. It is finally closed after more than 18 months of dragging it out through the court system while I did the research to back up my defence. I really appreciate the support and advice you have given me along the way. You guys have been great.

But what is really fantastic about all this is that when I first approached you I signed up as an affiliate. Since then, I have earned much more than the fine would have been…enough to buy a new laptop! Fantastic. Keep up the good work.


Mike – QLD

Please remember that there are plenty more e-mails like that on our Testimonial’s pages - - and many of you will note that our old page has now grown to four full pages and continues to grow because we regularly receive stories of success, just like this, from our Members.

- Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards

So, now you can see how powerful the Aussie Speeding Fines information is, what can you do to help us get our invaluable, licence saving information into the hands of every motorist beforethey get a fine?

First and foremost, if you’re not yet a Member or you know someone who isn’t then please go to our Memberships page - - and join up now.

Please note that E-book Membership - – is what you will need to access the step-by-step strategies for defeating your fines and Advanced Membership - – is what will allow you to access the most important sections of these regular e-mail updates, all in the one easy-to-read website, as well as breakthrough techniques and strategies that have not yet been incorporated into the e-book.

Then, if you would really like to help us spread the word and get our invaluable, licence saving information into the hands of every motorist in the country, then please be sure to join and/or visit our Facebook group and get your friends to join as well. We now have a direct Facebook link on the top right hand side of our Home page or you can just use this link-

And, if you haven’t yet done so, please spare 10 seconds to click “like” on our fan page -!/pages/Aussie-Speeding-Fines/433275636708829 - we have well over 6,000 Members on our Group page but only just over 1,000 “likes” and we really want to raise that to be on par with our Group numbers ASAP.

Many of you will have also noticed the Paypal “Donate” button just above the Facebook link. The team at Aussie Speeding Fines work tirelessly day and night, 7 days a week, answering everyone’s e-mails, continually researching to find new ways to defeat unjust fines and preparing these weekly e-mail updates. So, any financial support you could offer, no matter how small, is always very much appreciated.

And finally, if you really want to help make a difference, just e-mail us your postal address and we will send you out some business cards and/or bumper stickers – completely free of charge – that you can then place on your car/truck/van and/or hand out to friends, family and work colleagues.

As always, we thank you all for your continued support and we appreciate all the Members who have taken the time to e-mail us with the latest media article they come across as well as their stories of their success so please, keep them coming!

Stay safe out there,

The Team at Aussie Speeding Fines

Aussie Speeding Fines

P.O. Box 7322
Beaumaris, Vic.

Bill Shorten: Cover-up of vote rigging scandal

Bill Shorten tries to cover-up the vote rigging scandal that had him elected leader

By Shane Dowling

Bill Shorten told the ABC on Friday (10-4-15) that the vote rigging scandal had been independently investigated by the NSW branch of the Labor Party and that one person had been suspended from the Labor Party. Bill Shorten gave no specific details and his statement raised more questions than it answered. One thing is for sure and that […]

Read more of this post




Supreme Court Rules NAB Breached Banking Code

Court rules NAB unable to recover Gold Coast millions due to breach of banking code

Customers and small businesses taking on their banks over rip-offs have won a massive boost after a landmark court ruling that requires financial institutions to stick to their own code of conduct.

Author: Richard Baker, Nick McKenzie and Sarah Danckert
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

In a judgment that has sparked predictions of major changes in a sector that has already faced numerous consumer scandals in recent years, the Victorian Supreme Court has ruled NAB broke the banking industry’s code of conduct in its dealings with a wealthy property investor.

The precedent setting judgment will cost NAB millions of dollars and sparked a scramble from the industry as it means the code of conduct goes from being a guide to contractually binding.

NAB suffered the defeat in court after it tried to argue that the industry’s self-regulatory Banking Code of Practice has no legal effect.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice James Elliott ruled in March that the code has contractual force, and that, because NAB breached it, the bank could not recoup $6 million in loan guarantees for a series of failed Gold Coast property investments.

Justice Elliott dismissed NAB’s claim after finding a senior Melbourne NAB banker had failed warn businessman John Rose of the risks involved in guaranteeing multi-million-dollars loans to companies he ran with his former friend, bankrupt property speculator, Timothy Rice.

The banker also failed to tell Mr Rose, the founder of the Rosebank “Stackhat” safety helmets, that he should seek independent legal and advice, and failed to offer a 24-hour cooling off period, Justice Elliott ruled.

These actions were a breach of clauses 28.4 and 28.5 of the code, Justice Elliott found, and meant NAB could not enforce the guarantees made by Mr Rose.

A spokesman for NAB said the bank will appeal the decision on the basis it did not breach the code and had been found by Justice Elliott not to have acted unconscionably.

Mr Rose’s lawyer, Grant Walker of Madgwicks said it was a very important ruling.

“The judgment places a spotlight on the code of banking practice and banks will need to seriously consider their compliance with the code now that it’s been held to be of contractual force, pending the appeal,” he said.

In a separate case this year between the Commonwealth Bank and a Melbourne couple over a disputed mortgage arrangement, Supreme Court Judge Kim Hargrave found the code had contractual force but stopped short of finding the bank had breached the code.

Bright Law principal David Jacobson said Judge Elliott’s ruling was an important decision that showed the Code of Banking Practice was not just a series of “motherhood statements”.

“It is precedent in terms of the status of the code of banking practice and the Code of Banking practice is not just a set of general principals about how banks will deal with customers but it actually incorporates the code obligations into the loan contract and mortgage terms.”

“It’s a significant decision because it means banks will be held to account if they say they are going to give certain information or make certain disclosures and then don’t,” Mr Jacobson, who also edits industry journalAustralian Regulatory Compliance Review, said.

Australian Bankers Association chief executive Steven Munchenberg​ said the ruling enforced the contractual obligations he said was inherent in the voluntary code.

“We’re not planning to make any changes to the code following this ruling,” he said.

Mr Rice and Mr Rose bought seven Gold Coast properties in 2007 and 2008 with the aid of the NAB loans.

The value of these properties plummeted in the wake of the global financial crisis, resulting in multi-million-dollar losses. One property, 247 Hedges Avenue in Mermaid Beach, was bought in 2008 by the pair for $9.5 million but was sold two years later for just $5 million.

Evidence before the court showed NAB was prepared to loan Mr Rice, and companies effectively run by him, up to $23 million despite knowing his income was insufficient to meet his expenses and that his proposed investments were “speculative” and came at a time where the risk of a downturn in the Gold Coast property market was  “high”.

To overcome these hurdles, senior Melbourne NAB banker John D’Angelo​ included in his loan submission the revenues earned by Mr Rice’s wife from her private medical practice, even though NAB had no security or legal right to the profits of that business.

Mr Rice, who is accused in a separate Queensland legal case of being involved in the payment of a $100,000 secret commission to a controversial Gold Coast real estate agent, was responsible for negotiations with NAB and purchasing properties.

Mr Rose, who Justice Elliott noted was independently wealthy and able to look after his own interests, was a passive investor. He told the court he was involved Mr Rice for a “bit of fun”.

The court heard that Mr Rose had been told by Mr Rice his liability as guarantor was just for the interest of the loans, not the millions-of-dollars actually loaned.

Justice Elliott ruled that documents prepared by NAB to execute the guarantee agreements with Mr Rose contained “fundamental errors”.

“Most certificates have serious issues with them. They also contained statements which D’Angelo knew to be untrue,” Justice Elliott ruled.

At the start of the case, NAB’s counsel tried to argue that the banking code of conduct – which requires banks to provide full disclosure to clients and act with integrity – was of “no legal effect” and merely a “desirable” way of doing business.

But NAB changed its view as the case came to a close and accepted, though only for the purposes of this proceeding, that the code of conduct was contractually binding in respect of its dealings with Mr Rose.

Justice Elliott said regardless of NAB’s change of position, he would have found “that the relevant provisions of the banking code relied upon in this proceeding applied with contractual force”.

“Rose’s evidence was clear and unequivocal that if he had been told D’Angelo that he should obtain legal advice before signing any of the guarantees, he would have done so. Such legal advice would most likely have informed Rose of the true extent of his potential liability under each of the guarantees … if he had known he would become potentially liable for all the debts of the borrowers he would not have signed any of the guarantees,” Justice Elliott ruled.

What the judge said…

Justice James Elliott’s comments on NAB’s conduct:
On NAB including profits earned by a business owned by Mr Rice’s wife in its loan assessments: “NAB had no security or other basis by reason of which it could assert a legal entitlement to any profits of this business. Without the inclusion of his wife’s profits, Rice would have had, according to NAB’s information, an inability to meet his expenses from his income. Accordingly, these further anticipated profits were a ‘crucial component’ of NAB’s financial assessment of the viability of ‘Mr Rice’s group’.”

On NAB’s errors in documentation: “NAB was dismissive of errors in its documentation. The errors were described as tangential and ultimately immaterial. Given the litany of mistakes referred to above (which is non-exhaustive), I cannot accept this submission. For the reasons stated, I find the errors were significant and raised serious doubts about the evidence of D’Angelo that he strictly followed banking procedures when dealing with security documentation and related matters.”

On NAB’s position on the legal force of the banking code: “When the case was opened on behalf of NAB, counsel stated that NAB did not accept that the Banking Code was promissory or contractual. It was contended that the Banking Code imposed no contractual obligation, but merely provided a ‘desirable code of practice’… In short, it was stated that the Banking Code was of no legal effect.”


(Ed:  All we can do is smile… Finally :-)

wayne styles <>

Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 15:13:04 +1000
To: Max Anderson <>
Subject: BANKS


 “It’s a significant decision because it means banks will be held to account if they say they are going to give certain information or make certain disclosures and then don’t.” The Bank tried to make out that it’s ‘errors’ in their documents were not important, the Judge said that the errors WERE significant, and the Judge raised serious doubts about the evidence from the Bank manager. The Judge said that “the borrower could not have met his expenses from his income.” The Bank knew that he didn’t earn enough to pay for the loan, yet they approved the loans – because they thought that they could take his home & his properties if it all went pear shaped! This is pure asset lending by the Bank. 

In my humble opinion, based on this ruling, it seems that anyone who dealt with a bank who was not given a copy of the MEMORANDUM OF MORTGAGE / STANDARD TERMS DOCUMENT prior to signing their mortgage would have excellent grounds to sue and have the mortgage annulled by the court on grounds that the bank was contractually bound to provide full disclosure and failed to do so.

The argument might be, that as an unsophisticated borrower, they were required to sign away their legal rights to the property, without proper disclosure from the bank that signing the mortgage was in fact giving a power of attorney to the bank whereby the borrower / mortgagor surrenders all its legal property rights to the lender / mortgagee.

Secondly, it could be argued too that, it is an impossibility for a borrower to give away rights by POA when the borrower has no knowledge that, by signing the mortgage, that is what he is being deceived to do.

A person can’t give away rights without having the intention and will to do so. He/she must know what they are doing and then intend to do so for it to occur.

So many mortgages do not fit this simple requirement because the power of attorney contained in the mortgage memorandum was not disclosed to the borrower before signing the mortgage, so the borrower would have no idea of its existence.

I believe, cases like this could easily be overturned on these grounds, if argued correctly.”

See Karen Hudes of the World Bank – Latest Interviews :-)

John Zukerman, Probe Group, ATO Illegal

Update: John Zukerman has passed back his alleged claim, to the alleged claimants.
Dun & Bradstreet (Australia) Pty Ltd are now the second round of interlopers acting as unauthorised agents for the alleged entity ATO, who have been served with Courtesy Notices.


Originally Published 14 Jan 2015

John Zukerman ATO1


John Zukerman (you), acting as Managing Director

C/o alleged THE PROBE GROUP Pty Ltd

ABN: 19 092 585 745

214 Balaclava Road

Caulfield North
Victoria, Australia 3161

Posted at: (for all to know and rely upon)





Today: 14 January 2015   Your Reference: DT2XXXXXX

Dear John,

Recently, an unsolicited form letter dated 8th December 2014 was sent from your company addressed to XXXXX XXXXX, concerning an alleged obligation.

You also made threats of legal proceedings and additional costs unless the alleged outstanding amount is paid.

For the avoidance of any doubt:

Every claim and allegation contained within your computer/intranet–generated form letter is denied and rejected, for lack of evidence.

Therefore, you are instructed to provide verification of your claim/s immediately, including:

1)   proof of your Agency;

2)   proof via an Affidavit, that Anthony Wallace’s Affidavit cannot be relied upon;

3)   proof of a lawful contract signed by both Parties;

4)   a hand signed invoice in accordance with The Bills of Exchange Act 1909; and

5)   your Professional Indemnity Insurance policy details, as your unsupported demands for money may be mistaken,

within ten (10) days from the above date.

Your failure to provide proof of your claims, as per your instructions in points 1-5 above will be constituted as ‘harassment’ and may lead to action under The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and/or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

Your failure to provide proof of your claims, as per your instructions in points 1-5 above, will constitute your agreement to the following terms: that you are a third party interloper; you have no legal standing; no first-hand knowledge of this matter; your claim is fraudulent; any damages we suffer you will be held culpable; you agree to pay all fee schedules; that any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed and that you will no longer pursue this matter any further.

Should you provide sufficient evidence that I owe you or your alleged client any obligation, and that you can provide proof that you have been assigned agency, I may be happy to pay any verified claim in full.

If your next communication fails to provide adequate assurance of your claim or fails to convince me that your alleged claim has been terminated and no longer applies, please be assured I will be seeking legal advice concerning your company’s attempts at extortion.

Please Note:

  1. I do not give you or your agents, permission to contact me by telephone. This legal and lawful instruction has been recorded on your system 13 January 2015 at 4:10pm. Should you choose to contact me, I must warn you that calls will be recorded, and you will be invoiced in accordance with your Terms and Conditions No CLGMPC13B.
  2. As you are aware John, failure to take heed of this instruction will be construed as ‘harassment’ and may lead to action under The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and/or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).
  3. Your Terms and Conditions No CLGMPC13B was previously been offered for your acceptance, wherein the method of acceptance was clearly defined in a Courtesy Notice dated 10 July 2013, recorded as being received by you.
  4. You were formally advised that, should youchoose to interact privately and individually beyond that date, you would be acting in the capacity of an individual entity, without a corporate safety net and with full personal liability for EVERY ACTION RESPONDENT TAKES under common law protected and preserved by public policy UCC 1-103, and Universal law, the governing law laid out in the OPPT UCC filings.   (Refer: WA DC UCC Ref Doc # 2012113593)
  5. Youhave clearly engaged the invoicing process previously, of which there are still outstanding amounts owed. Any correspondence from youthat threatens any action/s listed in Schedule A of T&C: CLGMPC13B may bring immediate commencement of legal action against youto recover the value of yourunpaid invoices and/or a formal complaint to ASIC and ACCC.

Understand now John Zukerman, and be governed accordingly

Without prejudice, XXXXXXX TM

All Rights Reserved, as per UCC 1-308


Evidential Facts

ATT 1 Affidavit from ATO Officer Anthony Wallace…………………………. 4

ATT 2 Top 10 Facts about the Australian Taxation Office (ATO):………… 6

ATT 3 Court Evidence ATO is NOT a legal Entity……………………………….. 7

ATT 4 Extract: Letter from taxpayers to the ATO in March 2011……… 10

‘Extract’ Attachment Links……………………………………………………………………………….. 15

ATT 5 Acting In Commerce……………………………………………………………. 16


ATT 1 Affidavit from ATO Officer Anthony Wallace

Anthony Wallace ATO1 Anthony Wallace ATO2 Anthony Wallace ATO3 Anthony Wallace ATO4

ATT 2 Top 10 Facts about the Australian Taxation Office (ATO):


The following facts support the widespread claim of the ATO being illegal:

  1. The ‘ATO’ is a private company registered in Washington (Click here)  and according to a World Bank Official, tax revenue is given to the Roman Catholic Vatican (Click here).
  2. All law in Australia must be passed by a Parliament in both houses (in states that have both houses) and then by law must be gazetted.
  3. The law that established the Australian Taxation Office has been challenged in a particular court whereby a Plaintiff created the need to document the ATO’s formation to the satisfaction of the Defendant and the Court.
  4. The Plaintiff, with the approval of the Australian National Library, brought into the court every Federal Government Gazette for the time period around when the law was passed by the Federal Parliament.
  5. The Defendant was asked to ‘Please show us in which Gazette we will find the Legislation regarding the Australian Taxation Office’, to which the Defendant stated; ‘It is not in any Government Gazette’.
  6. The Judge of the matter then stated; ‘You have proved beyond any doubt that the law establishing the Australian Taxation Office has not been Gazetted and thus place its legality in question’ he went on, ‘But I can not permit Australia to fall into financial chaos and thus strike out this evidence’.
  7. Further, Justice J Callinan, in Moelike v Chapman [B8/2000 (24/8/2000)], agreed that the ATO was not a legal entity. This has been validated by two judges.
  8. Since this case, an article from the Aussie POST i quotes the High Court case on May 17, 2000, where the ATO admitted it isn’t a legal personality, a view also held by the presiding judge, Justice Callinan. It goes further, stating “at the heart of the matter is the inability of the ATO to provide any documentation that proves it is either a legal entity or was established following correct procedure…”.
  9. Further, as a response by Anthony Wallace, officer of the ATO, to Mr D Cameron on February 25, 2000, in an affidavit ii, stated that the writer and others he contacted could not identify any relevant files or documents setting up the ATO.
  10. The Australian Government has misled the people of Australia in matters relating to taxation.


ATT 3 Court Evidence ATO is NOT a legal Entity

 Extracts from a letter dated June 29, 2005, addressed to the ‘Taxation Commissioner’, Mr M Carmody, follow:

The letter stated:

As you are apparently aware, via Australian “High Court” cases and numerous other legal challenges against the “Australian Taxation Office”, the credibility of your “commission” and the status of the “ATO” have been known to be, for some considerable time, illegitimate.

Please take further notice that your “commission” is entirely dependent upon the following:

Laws issued by a legal “Australian Parliament” granting the gathering of taxes,

A legally appointed “Australian Government”, and;

A Governor General with the appropriate legal status as granted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland,

It was also stated:

Please take further notice that as it has been revealed in courts in the United Kingdom:

The ruling iii in the Chancery Division of the High Court in London, on Friday 25th June 2004 (the case was heard by Master Bencher Bowman, of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, who had previously reserved his decision on 9th March 2004), has stated that “Letters Patent, issued under ‘The Great Seal of Australia,’ by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, appointing a Governor General in Australia, have been issued incorrectly.”

That as a result of the ruling of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, that the Governor General of Australia holds no executive powers what so ever.

That as a result of the ruling of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, all current Australian Laws assented to on behalf of a British Monarch by the Governor General of Australia, cannot hold any valid or legal executive authority as the Governor General’s appointments have not been lawfully issued and are in legal terms ultra vires.

It was also stated:

I have included, as attachments to this letter, documents and letters that have been sent to various persons to acquaint them with the travesty of injustice that has been imposed upon the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia.

It was further stated:

Take Note: that as you now have both actual and constructive notice of this legal defect you have a Duty of Care Obligation to act immediately and step down from your position, once you have notified the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia.

It was also stated by the writer that shortly after the letter was delivered, Mr Carmody left the position of Commissioner of Taxation and was replaced by another and that there was no response to his letter.

Another letter by the same writer, was sent to the new Commissioner of Taxation on or about 15th February 2006 and stating:

Please take notice: that I requested the “Commissioner of Taxation” to step-down on the 29th June 2005 as he held no legal status.

It was also stated:

Accordingly any attempt by the “Australian Taxation Office” to demand monies with menace from any Australian citizen is an illegal act and must stop forthwith. All current and pending claims by the “Australian Taxation Office” upon the Citizens of Australia must be withdrawn immediately.

I (writer of this letter) forwarded documentation to the “Taxation Commissioner” on the 29th June 2005 to acquaint him with the travesty of justice that has been imposed upon the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia. You are advised to review this documentation without delay.

Take Note: that as you now have both actual and constructive notice of this legal defect you have a Duty of Care Obligation to act immediately.

Thus, as is made clear in the above information and attachments, no current law, created in Australia after 1919 has any legality. The writer of the above letter extracts was attempting to rectify this matter with the least amount of political, financial and human suffering as possible. Rather it was an attempt to ‘wake up’ the system.

Further, we are aware of private arrangements made by the Australian Taxation Office and other persons. Many people had taken action against (or had actions taken against them) by the Australian Taxation Office. We understand that in such private arrangements, the Australian Taxation Office had dropped all legal action and paid compensation to the opposing party(s).

We further understand that in many documented cases people had entered into an arrangement whereby the opposing party need not pay any further taxation in Australia. In some cases the Australian Taxation Office has even agreed to reimburse all taxation paid by the opposing party in a further private arrangement.

Many senior political persons, in both major political parties, are aware of this and simply turn a ‘blind eye’; because they are aware of the outrage that would be felt by the Australian people, should this matter be made public.

The late Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, had written an ‘explanatory statement’ iv and a letter v supporting the conclusions reached that underpin the above statements, upon which our requests are founded.

In his statement he makes note of the fact that these conclusions are based on the historical facts. They were solely relied upon. There is no political rhetoric or legal opinion unless based on historical fact.

His statement goes further in confirming access to the historical documentation.

One of Sir Harry’s key findings is:

“I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law”

ATT 4 Extract: Letter from taxpayers to the ATO in March 2011

To date, there has been no response by the ATO to the taxpayers concerned. Instead the ATO continues to forge ahead with their stated intention to take every single asset.

Extract 1

Extract 2

‘Extract’ Attachment Links


Attachment:                 Extract of Letter to the Australian Taxation Office dated 21st March 2011

Attachment # 1: Article by Greg McLean in Aussie POST

Attachment # 2: Affidavit by ATO Officer Anthony Wallace

Attachment # 3: Ruling by Master Bencher Bowman June 23rd 2004.

Attachment # 4: Sir Harry Gibbs Explanatory Statement

Attachment # 5: Sir Harry Gibbs Letter


ATT 5 Acting In Commerce


John Zukerman acting as Managing Director for Probe Group Pty Ltd

(ABN 19 092 585 745)

NOTICE: Request for Professional Indemnity Insurance Details

All correspondence from your offices and related agents/departments, have so far referenced ‘money’, ‘outstanding balances’ and ‘associated costs’, so would it be reasonable assume that you are therefore “acting in commerce”? Also, as you signed off your letter with the title of ‘Director’ that goes with your job, does this also further confirm that you are indeed “acting in commerce”? If this is the case, as all your correspondence seems to indicate, there is something important to consider before you proceed with any further action in any of these alleged matters.

“Acting in commerce” always requires “insurance”, in order to indemnify the ‘Actor’ against any “act, error or omission in the performance of providing professional services”.   As business engaged in commercial activities, some how, some way, you will be insured against making any mistakes, for example, if you proceed with any of the matters listed below and any turn out to be a ‘mistake’. As such, there are two things you need to consider. The first is “circumstances” and the second is “claims”.

As you must be aware, “circumstances” can lead to “claims”, if you make any mistakes “acting in commerce”. Which is why, if you read the small print of your policy, you will almost certainly find that you need to report any “circumstances” as well as any “claims” made against you. Simply put, if you fail to report any “circumstances” you are UNINSURED. “Uninsured” means you would be PERSONALLY LIABLE for any mistakes you make while “acting in commerce”, for example, if you proceed in this matter and it turns out to have been a mistake while you were “acting in commerce”, you would be “uninsured”.

Reviewing the paper trail of all previous correspondence you and your associated entities have received related to these alleged matters, it is easy to see there has been a complete lack of desire to be engage “in commerce” with you and your organization. Your decision to proceed directly against those documented desires may be interpreted that you and your associates have deliberately attempt to force various private parties to “act in commerce” against their wishes or better judgment.

If light of questions concerning whether you are “acting on commerce”, please provide the following details of your Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy, for any claim that may be made, if you decide to pursue any of your alleged ‘infringements’ and/or ‘obligations’, and it is determined that you have ‘made a mistake while “acting in commerce”:

The name of your insurer

Your insurer’s contact details

Your insurance policy number)

Aussie Speeding Fines April 2015 Newsletter

Important ANZAC Day message for all Aussie motorists!

Read in browser here:


- The blatant revenue raising in QLD

- The news is even worse in Victoria

- The truth about the police – Our friends at the Know Your Rights group

- Latest Testimonials and Feedback

- Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards

Dear Reader,


Today is ANZAC Day. It is a time for remembering those who have fallen, fighting for our freedom and liberties. So, why is it that so many people, despite all the sacrifices that have been made on our behalf in the past, are content to sit on their asses and allow all those freedoms and liberties, that have been fought for so valiantly, to be slowly but surely eroded away by the corrupt governments that now control us.

What would those diggers say from beyond the grave if they could see the disgraceful corruption that Australia has degenerated into? How disgusted would they be that their lives were given in vain? They fought so hard for us to be free and yet we give our freedoms away every day by refusing to fight back against the injustices that are forced upon us by the very people that we elected into power to do our bidding!

Yes, of course, traffic fines are just a very small part of those but they’re a great start and they are something that everyone can relate to and they are a way that everyone can fight back collectively and send a united message to the powers-that-be, that we are “Aussies”, we are fighters and we will not be controlled or dominated anymore!

Our diggers had to fight for their lives in horrendous conditions to protect our freedoms – all you have to do is pick up a pen.

You will not find a single link to our e-book in this e-mail because we don’t care what information you use – what we care about is that Aussie motorists stand up and fight back. We’re not asking you to pick up rifles and huddle in cold, damp, muddy trenches – we’re asking you to get your asses off the couch, turn off the football and pick up a pen and write a letter to your local MP, write a letter to your State Police force or write a letter to some agency that has issued you with an unjust and unlawful fine and challenge it!

Quite frankly, if you’re not prepared to make just a small sacrifice like that, when thousands gave their lives for you then you are a disgrace, you disrespect their memory and you don’t deserve the few freedoms that you have left. No-one made it easier for our diggers to fight so forget about our e-book for today and just stand up, for one day, on your own two feet and fight back.

After all, those who don’t fight for something will fall for anything!

Let us truly honour the memory of those who have fallen by choosing to fight back, in much simpler ways, under much easier conditions, but to achieve the same end result – true freedom for all Aussies.

And, should you need any more reason than the words above to inspire you to fight back then we challenge you to read the sections, articles and stories below because, if they don’t empower you to take action then, sadly, there is clearly no hope for this fine country (pun intended) any longer.

We urge you to read on and prove us wrong …

The blatant revenue raising in QLD

Our first story is from QLD and it clearly shows the lengths that the government is going to – or, perhaps, that should be depths they are lowering themselves to – to raise revenue from entirely innocent, law abiding motorists.

The politicians reduced the tolerance levels for speeding fines a year ago in QLD and, as this story explains - - they have reaped some incredible financial rewards as a result – an extra $5 million to be exact. But, has the road toll go gone down as a result? No, of course it hasn’t, in fact, it has actually increased!

They say that speed tolerances are never published or known by the public but that is a blatant lie – people were well aware, for decades, that there used to be a 10% leeway in the issuing of fines, now A) that doesn’t exist and B) no-one has any idea what the tolerances are. The people that we elected into power to do our bidding are now keeping us in the dark in regard to how they go about raising revenue from us – that’s insane!

The police claim, that this new “enforcement action” is saving lives yet, the video at the top of the article above details that it has been the worst Easter road toll on record so clearly the current system is simply not working!

The Police are “urging motorists not to take risks” but what do you call constantly staring down at your speedo so that you don’t cop a ridiculous, unjust fine! Logic dictates that the more time your eyes are on your speedo and, therefore, not on the road, the more of a danger you are going to be – it’s not rocket science people, it is very simple, straight forward and logical.

Should there be anyone reading this who struggles with this concept in any way, please read this very short article - - which explains it in very simple to understand terminology – “Speedo gazing is a ‘fatal hazzard’”.

Further to the article at the start of this section, there was this follow up article the following day - - where the Assistant Commissioner admitted that he couldn’t point to any specific proof that all these ridiculous cameras and/or the lowering of tolerances, had reduced the road toll in any way, shape or form, despite the fact that this “crackdown” has been going for almost two years.

He goes onto suggest that it could take up to ten years for the data to become available. So, what are we, the general Aussie motoring public, supposed to do until then, just keep bending over and handing them our hard earned cash!!!

And, what happens in 10 years when it’s proven to be a load of crap – will they come back and repay all those fines with interest??? Let’s get real, this is the most obvious scam ever and yet people are still buying into it- literally “buying into it” buy handing over their money every time one of these agencies sends them a piece of paper in the mail.

At least someone has had to guts to stand up and post a sensible reply to this rubbish -

So, if you are sick of this blatant revenue raising then, as we said in our opening section, please take action and do something about it.

The news is even worse in Victoria

Yes, as the title of this section correctly states, things are even more out of control in Victoria. The Victorian government is so completely and utterly incompetent when it comes to handling finances that they need to constantly create new ways of stealing from their constituents and they have now employed a whole host of people and new ways to do that.

First off, one of our Members sent us this article – - that details the extraordinary lengths they are now going to in Victoria to try and raise every dollar worth of unjust and unlawful revenue that they can.

The article starts by explaining that police vehicles have been fitted with new technology that cost $85 million! Please, stop reading right now and think or just one minute where that $85 million comes from. Then, understand that this is an “investment” for them, they’re not doing it for nothing, they are doing to it make money. So, just to “break even” they need to steal another $85 million from completely innocent Victorian motorists and, because they need their “investment” to pay off, they actually need to raise considerably more than that.

If they’re not getting this money from you then they’re getting it from someone you know. Read the last article in the section above – most motorists are not criminals, they are genuine, law abiding people who are being preyed upon by a money-hungry government that has employed “policy officers: (police) to do their dirty work for them. Is this the kind of thing that you voted the government into power to really do?

Remember, the road toll is increasing so they can’t claim that these are “road safety” initiatives – they are not, they are blatant revenue raising initiatives – and, if you read the rest of the article, they all but admit that.

They “claim” that this new ANPR system will “save lives by reducing numbers of dangerous drivers” yet, they go on to say that the system will simply scan numberplates to “check them against vehicle, criminal and sheriff’s office records, could gather intelligence on “persons of interest” and identify patterns of behaviour and relationships.” – absolutely nothing to do with identifying or stopping “dangerous drivers”.

Maybe it’s just us but we thought that most people had read George Orwell’s “1984” at school and could clearly see that “Big Brother” is well and truly upon us and is growing at an exponential rate with the introduction of these kind of insidious systems that steal the freedoms and liberties that our diggers worked so hard to protect!

This system exists purely to help identify un-registered vehicles and suspended drivers, most of whom are in that situation because these government agencies have failed to comply with Section 8, Sub-section 12 of the Imperial Acts Application Act in the first place. Remember, that law clearly dictates that “All fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void.”

These agencies are now taking on the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner, all in one! Instead of the police “policing” us, we should be policing them!

And, if that’s not enough, as this article shows - - they have just employed an additional 10 sheriff’s officers to help them in their quest to force people to “pay up” before anyone has even seen the inside of a court room, let alone been “convicted” of anything.

Mr Brendan Facey needs to understand the ramifications of the Imperial Acts Application Act – specifically the section noted above – and accept that people are not trying to “cheat” the system at all. Most people are genuine, law abiding motorists who have been targeted by a corrupt, revenue focused system, despite doing nothing “wrong”.

If anyone is trying to “cheat the system”, it is the Sheriff’s officers themselves who are trying to enforce fines that have not yet gone through proper due process!

- The truth about the police

Most of the people that we speak to have a strong dislike, and sometimes even fear of the police, yet we believe that this is unfounded. Most police entered the force with a true desire to “do good” and to help their fellow man. Unfortunately, however, this desire was corrupted from way back in the beginning, during their training. The powers-that-be forced these young people, often fresh out of high school, to sit through graphic videos of crushed cars and mangled bodies and they reinforced the lie that these things occur as a result of “speeding motorists”.

Now, as we have detailed on our Vision for the Future page - - for over 8 years now – click the “Crash Statistics” link – “speed” is only “a” factor (not “the” factor) in just 5% of accidents, yet that is what young recruits are brainwashed into believing.

So, with their genuine desire to help save lives, they go out in force to clamp down on speeding motorists with the misplaced belief that they are really “making a difference” when, the reality is, that they are simply glorified revenue raisers for the government.

There is a concept that many of us are aware of, that is, “you can’t fix a problem that you don’t know that you have”, so rather than “hating” the police or abusing them during their course of duty, instead, we would like to see Aussie motorists helping to educate the police about the truth about fines. Direct them to our website, urge them to read our e-book and, if you really want to challenge them, send them a copy of this video -

Please feel free to pass that video around far and wide, post it on Facebook and the like and let’s inform and educate not only the motoring public in Australia but also the policy enforcers as well.

Last month, we reported on this great article from the Sydney Morning herald - - where the author detailed the fact that Aussie motorists were simply being used as “cash cows” for the government. Well, that same author followed up that article with another great article that followed the journey of the woman who was issued with that ticket, as she took it to court.

You can read that follow up article here - In this latest article, he details how just 21% of police time is actually used on true criminal investigation, which we believe is outrageous – after all, that’s what we pay them for via our taxes.

He goes onto detail how police in NSW alone stop around 6 million people a year and issue them with fines, despite those motorists doing absolutely nothing “wrong”. As he says, “Most people just pay the fine, which is what the police and court system count on. It’s a growing revenue stream for the government.”

Thankfully, as we encourage our Members to do, the lady in question from his original article chose not to just blindly “pay up” and, instead, she challenged the fine in court and beat it! In this ANZAC Day email update, we want to urge all motorists to stand up and fight back against every unjust and unlawful fine that they receive – just like our diggers stood up and fought for our freedoms and liberties to be protected.

And, it’s not just us urging people to fight back either, it is retired police officers too. We urge you all to read the comments from Stan (not his real name) on our Advanced Membership Home page - – and see why he also recommends a systematic approach to challenging your fines.

Finally, we would ask you all to read this short post from a retired police chief in the US, who explains why we have cameras, what the true purpose of police is and what the biggest obstacle is to bringing about some real change when it comes to true “road safety” initiatives -

- Our friends at the Know Your Rights group

As many of you know, we have been working very hard with one of our founding members who has gone onto start the Know your Rights group –  – around the middle of last year.

We know that a number of our Members are interested in finding out more than just how to defeat unjust and unlawful fines and the Know Your Rights group cover a wide range of different topics from eliminating personal tax obligations through to challenging the banks and even expanding on the “Strawman” concept that we touch on very briefly in our e-book.

As we detailed at the beginning of this e-mail update, fines are just one very small part of understanding and fighting for our rights overall but they are a great place to start. If, however, you want to find out more, we urge you to check out their website -

Their website is completely free to access and there is a ton of great information on it. They also have a huge Facebook following, which you can also join for free – just search for Know Your Rights under Facebook or click this link -  Please be sure to read the Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards section at the end of this e-mail to find out how to join our Facebook group and support us too.

We were part of their Melbourne seminar last week in Deer Park which was incredible opportunity to learn a whole range of interesting and powerful topics and they are running another seminar in Adelaide in May and we would certainly encourage anyone who is in the Adelaide area to get along to that seminar if they can. You can find out more about the exact topics that are actually covered at those seminars, as well as reading and viewing testimonials from previous attendees via their Seminar page -

They also run a weekly internet radio broadcast and they have covered some incredible topics over the last 9 months or so. They have done a number of eye-opening interviews with various people, including: Darryl O’Brien (who used to run all the CLRG meetings), David Woods (an ex-police officer who now teaches people about their rights), John Vico (the law student who took on CarePark and beat them), Owen Godfrey (the ex-police officer who now heads up the No Speed Cameras party) and, Larry Hannigan (who wrote, amongst other things, “The Voice of the Constitution”)

You can listen in to their broadcasts live each Tuesday night between 8pm and 10pm, you can e-mail, text or phone them with questions live on the air and you can also download any of their past podcasts as well via their Radio Show page -

The guys are huge supporters of the work that we do here at Aussie Speeding Fines and we encourage you to support them in return by joining up as a Member - - or simply making a small donation to help keep them and their radio show going each week.

As many of you know, we almost never endorse other people or products so you know that on the very rare occasion that we do, that we have absolute faith and belief in what we are recommending.

Again, keeping in line with this week’s ANZAC Day edition of our e-mail update, it’s all about learning about your rights, taking action and fighting back for our freedom and liberties, just as our fallen heroes did for us 100 years ago.

  - Latest Testimonials and feedback

Speaking of the know Your Rights group, we received a very powerful e-mail from one of their listeners, who also happens to be an ASF Member, and this is what he had to say about a recent matter that he took to the courts that has been dragging on for some time now:

An incredibly big thank you and congratulations to you Mike, Brenton and the rest of the team at KYR and ASF.

As a follow up to the email below which you addressed on RATFM on 21/4, I went to court for the appeal today.


After shitting myself for the last 2 weeks, I listened to what you had to say about my email on Tue night and took it all on board. Mike, you simplified my case but more than anything, gave me the confidence to walk into the court reasonably confident and well prepared. I must have done a 100hrs preparation for a 10min hearing.

But what actually happened is what really gobsmacked me.

I didn’t have to say a thing!!!!!!!!

The SDRO didn’t turn up. They just provided a submission which the magistrate read through after which he said he upheld my appeal.

He explained that I didn’t know about the penalties (because I had returned them to sender unopened) and that the final penalty notice by email was not served properly.

The matter didn’t even go back to SDRO. He booked another court hearing after asking me how I pleaded, and after pleading not guilty we are going to court in June, which is what I have been after all along.

My take on this-

All the blustering and bullying in the correspondence with the SDRO and refusing to annul the enforcement order was just bluff. They were on thin ice and when it came to the crunch in the appeal, they caved in.

Mike, this is testament to what you keep saying about challenging everything because it’s only when we all do that, the system will finally take notice. A lot of their armoury is the intimidation by the system, the court rooms and the government agencies. It is based on fear, bullying and bluff but if you persist, you’ll come through.

Again, a huge thank you.



This e-mail highlights a fact that we have been saying for many years now – the minute you blindly “pay up”, that’s it, it’s all over, there is simply nothing more that you can do. But, the longer you keep fighting, the more opportunities that there are for things to “just happen” – like the agency representatives not turning up – that can ultimately mean that you win!

Please remember that there are plenty more e-mails like that on our Testimonial’s pages - - and many of you will note that our old page has now grown to four full pages and continues to grow because we regularly receive stories of success, just like this, from our Members.

- Facebook group, bumper stickers and business cards

So, now you can see how powerful the Aussie Speeding Fines information is, what can you do to help us get our invaluable, licence saving information into the hands of every motorist before they get a fine?

First and foremost, if you’re not yet a Member or you know someone who isn’t then please go to our Memberships page - - and join up now.

Please note that E-book Membership - – is what you will need to access the step-by-step strategies for defeating your fines and Advanced Membership - – is what will allow you to access the most important sections of these regular e-mail updates, all in the one easy-to-read website, as well as breakthrough techniques and strategies that have not yet been incorporated into the e-book.

Then, if you would really like to help us spread the word and get our invaluable, licence saving information into the hands of every motorist in the country, then please be sure to join and/or visit our Facebook group and get your friends to join as well. We now have a direct Facebook link on the top right hand side of our Home page or you can just use this link-

And, if you haven’t yet done so, please spare 10 seconds to click “like” on our fan page -!/pages/Aussie-Speeding-Fines/433275636708829- we have well over 6,000 Members on our Group page but only just over 1,000 “likes” and we really want to raise that to be on par with our Group numbers ASAP.

Many of you will have also noticed the Paypal “Donate” button just above the Facebook link. The team at Aussie Speeding Fines work tirelessly day and night, 7 days a week, answering everyone’s e-mails, continually researching to find new ways to defeat unjust fines and preparing these weekly e-mail updates. So, any financial support you could offer, no matter how small, is always very much appreciated.

And finally, if you really want to help make a difference, just e-mail us your postal address and we will send you out some business cards and/or bumper stickers – completely free of charge – that you can then place on your car/truck/van and/or hand out to friends, family and work colleagues.

As always, we thank you all for your continued support and we appreciate all the Members who have taken the time to e-mail us with the latest media article they come across as well as their stories of their success so please, keep them coming!

Stay safe out there,

The Team at Aussie Speeding Fines

Aussie Speeding Fines

P.O. Box 7322
Beaumaris, Vic.