https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/crime/frauds_and_scams

What is Fraud?
Fraud is broadly defined as an act on behalf of a person that is deceptive or deceitful in some way in that it causes them to receive a benefit that they are not entitled to. In this way some other person or organisation to suffer some disadvantage.

Fraud in New South Wales is a growing problem. With the advent of on-line services and the internet fraud can be committed in dozens of ways.

If you witness, or suspect, fraud, please contact police.

Another controversy?

⚠️Victorian 2022 Election Fraud EXPOSED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLTGfBjuS-o

NANOTECHNOLOGY:
SELF ASSEMBLY STRUCTURES IN mRNA-INJECTIONS

In this episode of ☀️ICIC , Dr Reiner Fuellmich and co-host Dr Mike Yeadon have an insightful conversation with four experts on this explosive topic.

with: Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea, Dr. David Nixon, Shimon Yanowitz & Karen Kingston

Dark-field microscopy blood tests reveal crystalline, unnatural and variable structures that exhibit characteristics of nano- or micro-technology.

It is also disturbing that the lipid nanoparticles found in the substances have been approved as "technical devices".

Why do all the usual measures fail with regard to a functioning quality assurance management in the administration of novel, mRNA-based injections worldwide? According to the poor statistical data available and the unnatural phenomena reported, further administrations should be stopped immediately and the damage caused should be investigated.

Link to the video

Website: ICIC.law

Telegram: ☀️ ICIC 🇺🇸/🇬🇧/🇦🇺

Telegram: Reiner Fuellmich 🇺🇸/🇬🇧/🇦🇺

An interesting perspective about Easter and Christmas...something to think about perhaps 👇👇👇

This guys theory about why we celebrate Christmas is really eye opening 👀

@TikTokNews45

💥JUDGEMENT TOMORROW💥

Tomorrow
the (N.S.W) SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS
will be making their decision,
in determining the the constitutional validity of section 105 of The Child and Young Persons (Care & Protection) Act (1998) N.S.W.

Remember,
The court appointed AMICUC CURIAE agreed with the claimants (Burton & Katelaris)!!
SEE:BELOW.

AMICUS CURIAE SUBMISSIONS
Introduction
1. As amicus curiae, we have adopted the role identified by Wilcox J in Bropho v Tickner (165 FCR 165 at 172)—
that is, of “assisting the court in its task of resolving the issues tendered by the parties by
drawing attention to some aspect of the case that might otherwise be overlooked”
We have attempted to do so without advocating for any particular outcome.

2. Having said that, the Attorney-General’s broad submission is that that applicants’ claims
have no merit—that their case is “so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly
succeed”. He says that the primary judgment was plainly correct such as to support a refusal of leave to appeal.
We disagree with that position.

3. The claim that s 105 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998
(NSW) (Care Act) is invalid, as squarely advanced by the applicants, raises an important
constitutional question. The question both affects their personal interests and raises wide
public interest considerations.
In our respectful submission, it warrants consideration by the Court through a grant of leave to appeal.


SEE:
BURTON & KATELARIS v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS (NSW).
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
AT SYDNEY
(Case No: 2021/304575).
🔥

Peoples Council's can be setup in your local area. Get a group of people together. You can be a TAP Satellite group and form a People's Council in your area if you want or you can be a group of people who decide you want to form a People's Council.

The People's Council concept was a great initiative of Spiro and it is a great way to keep the current councils (that are merely corporations) accountable.

Hold regular meetings, keep minutes of those meetings, turn up at your local existing council meetings and question everything.

#peoplescouncil #updates #accountability #wethepeople

Dick Gregory 2005 interview

READY FOR ANOTHER EXCITING EPISODE OF TRIPLE TAP ?
Triple TAP 29th Nov 2022 with special guest Jagamara.

Please send out this invite everywhere and come and hear what Jagamara has to share with us about the sovereign nations and how important they are. This is one episode you will want to be on!!

Join the Triple TAP call at the allocated time:

Time: Nov 29th, 2022 07:30 PM QLD time, 5:30pm Perth time, 8:30pm NSW/VIC time

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89343111873?pwd=dStIQVpGK2g4c0dXd1BFOFNDWmhyUT09

Meeting ID: 893 4311 1873
Passcode: TripleTAP

You name it we'll talk about it....

#tripletap #specialguests #discussions #holistichealth #courtcases #conversations #letstalktruth #investigations #evolution #creation #cryptocurrency #health #law #politics #TAPSatellites #banking #councils #education #schools #commonlaw #pfizer #microscopy #bluedonuts #technology

As November 30th creeps closer around the corner, are you frightened by the new invasive Director's ID requirements? And you want to know how to keep your private information safe?

If the answer is yes, watch this free in-depth training with Warren Black where you learn the 5 strategies to deal the Director's ID.
https://youtu.be/BTGVXTrPm6Q

To all Victorians. You need to watch carefully to whom Dan Andrews swears his Oath or Affirmation.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK requires him to swear his oath or Affirmation to Queen Victoria the second or her Aires and successors. So who is he going to swear to? He can't swear it to anyone because Queen Elizabeth is gone and Prince Charles has not taken his oath of coronation. Therefore there is no Aires or successors. If he swears to The Queen/king of Australia or His/her royal majesty/highness or any other fictional created corporation figure/description than he is swearing his other to a private corporation and not the Commonwealth of Australia.
That's the time to make some real noise and pull the masquerading government apart. Don't let them swear a oath/Affirmation to a private corporation again and get away with it.

He's got a point. Not one whole police force stood up and said ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT. We're not doing it!!!
I guess that means they'll all be held liable when shit hits the fan...👇👇👇

50 seconds
TATE ON COMMUNIST AUS
🗳☄️🤓🇦🇺👮‍♂️
I’m not a huge fan…
but Tate nails it every now and then in a big way.

I think the most shocking thing is, like he said,
that so few spoke out.

It wasn’t just amongst the police tho.

Every institution turned out to be filled with state worshipping, order followers who really didn’t care what damage they did.

Still can’t wrap my head around it.

What the hell happened to Australia 🇦🇺? 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️👇👇👇

More than 33,000 fines will now be scrapped. As stated by David Kell...."These two notices do not sufficiently state or describe the offences in general terms"

1 min 40
😵‍💫👁⁉️🇦🇺
Alex Antic on the rise of the the surveillance matrix in Aus.

He’s brilliant…
but can it even be stopped???
🤷🏻‍♂️👇

0️⃣ CHALLENGE UNSUCCESSFUL.

The Constitutional challenge - by Pastor Paul Robert Burton and Dr. Andrew Katelaris - of s.105 of the Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act1998 was unsuccessful in the N.S.W Supreme Court of Appeals.


Stay tuned for the HIGH COURT challenge!!


The judges (x3 - led by Kirk, J.A) decision and rationale for determination is attached and given in brief below.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/


Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
🔥

1️⃣Burton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] NSWCA 242.
Bell CJ
Leeming JA
Kirk JA

⁉️"Not a personal right" and, thus, "a protected freedom" (as at [19]).⁉️

JUDGMENT.
KIRK. J. A.

BACKGROUND.
[12] Even if the separation of powers
found in Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution
applied at the State level (which it does not: see Lazarus v Independent Commission Against Corruption (2017) 94 NSWLR 36; [2017] NSWCA 37 at [106]), there is no difficulty in the Executive altering the title of an office holder and deeming references to the former office to be references to the renamed office.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE.
[14] The principles relating to the constitutional limitation are well-established.
There is implied in the Constitution a limitation on (at least) legislative power protecting the freedom to discuss government and political matters: Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; [1997] HCA 25.
That freedom must not be unjustifiably burdened.

[15] Like many constitutional requirements in Australia and elsewhere, the freedom is not absolute. It may be curtailed by laws which are directed to achieving competing objectives.
That has resulted in the need to articulate some test or guide for what types of infringement are permissible. An ongoing majority of the High Court has adopted the “structured proportionality” test to fulfil this need:
see McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 178; [2015] HCA 34 at [2] per French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ; and, most recently, Farm Transparency International Ltd v New South Wales (2022) 96 ALJR 655; [2022] HCA 23 at [29] per Kiefel CJ and Keane J, [250] per Edelman J, [269] per Steward J, [271] per Gleeson J.

[16] The Lange test, as understood to incorporate structured proportionality, involves addressing the following questions:
1. Does the impugned law effectively burden the freedom in its terms, operation or effect? If not, the inquiry ends.

2. If so, is the purpose of the law legitimate, in the sense of being compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government? If the purpose is not legitimate, the measure is invalid. If it is legitimate, it is necessary to address the next question.

3. Can the burden on the freedom imposed by the law be characterised as justifiable? That involves testing the law by way of a structured proportionality analysis, which raises the following issues:
a) Is the law suitable to achievement of the purpose, in the sense of having a rational connection to that purpose?
b) Is the burden on the freedom necessary, in the sense that there is no obvious and compelling alternative, reasonably practicable means of achieving the same purpose
which has a less restrictive effect on the freedom?
c) Is the law adequate in its balance, that is to say, not unduly burdensome on the freedom taking account of the importance of the purpose served by the restrictive measure and the extent of the restriction it imposes on the freedom?

[18] Applying the test is not a purely mechanical exercise, and a clear focus on the constitutional guarantee at issue should be retained.
a finding that a law is not rationally directed to achieving the identified legitimate end may suggest that in fact the purpose of the law should be characterised in a different way, such that in truth the purpose of the law was not legitimate.