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.

2️⃣SECTION 105 IN CONTEXT.
[30] Thus it has been held that the prohibition only applies when there is some connection in the publication or broadcast between identification of the child or young person on the one hand, and on the other pending, contemplated or completed proceedings, non-court proceedings or a relevant report: Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith [2017] NSWSC 6 at [39]-[40] (Smith SC) per Brereton J; Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206 (Smith CA) at [46]-[49] per Gleeson JA, for the Court.
There was a suggestion by the amici that this construction was wrong.
In my view the construction is plainly right.

[31] The prohibition does not apply to the publication or broadcasting of an “official report” of the proceedings of the Children’s Court: s 105(3)(a).

[34] ...it is notable that s 10(1) of the Act identifies certain responsibilities of the Secretary which exist in order to “ensure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her life”.

[36] In summary, the section creates a strict liability offence prohibiting publication or broadcast (directed to the public or a section of the public in a form accessible in this State) of the name, picture or identifying information of a child or young person who is involved (or reasonably likely to be involved) in proceedings in the Children’s Court or in related dispute resolution procedures, or who is the subject of a relevant report related to their welfare, and where there is a connection in the publication or broadcast between the identification of the child and the relevant proceeding, procedure or report. The prohibition applies until the child or young person is 25 years old, unless they die first.
There are various ways that consent can be given to publication or broadcast, including by the person themselves from when they reach the age of 16.

"Strict liability offences allow for a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact" as at [64] (1).

3️⃣RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO S.105
An effective burden.

[39] In Lange at 561 the Court said:
Similarly, those provisions which prescribe the system of responsible government necessarily imply a limitation on legislative and executive power
to deny the electors and their representatives information concerning the conduct of the executive branch of government throughout the life of a federal Parliament.
Moreover, the conduct of the executive branch is not confined to Ministers and the public service.
It includes the affairs of statutory authorities and public utilities which are obliged to report to the legislature or to a Minister who is responsible to the legislature.

[42] The appellants also raised an issue about persons wanting to protest the treatment of children who have been removed – such as, for example, raising concerns about the sexual abuse of foster children.
The amici noted that it is significant that s 105 extends to the indirect identification of children. They suggested that this meant that a parent of a removed child could not raise such a protest because to do so would be to identify their child. The appellants submitted that the section “effectively silenc[ed]” parents or caregivers of removed children.
That is an overstatement. In such cases it would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person. It may be accepted that, at the least, the parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful in how they articulated any such public criticism or discussion.

"Foster children" = THEIR (the parent's) CHILDREN!

⁉️"It would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast...[by] ...the parent or caregiver concerned...is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person".
"The parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful" indeed...
HOW IS A PARENT TO NOT IDENTIFY THE CHILD WHEN THAT 'CHILD' (OR YOUNG PERSON) IS THEIR OWN SON OR DAUGHTER?!!

[43] The appellants relied in the Court below on various affidavits illustrating the concerns that parents of removed children, or people who had been removed themselves, held about the State care system.
It is not necessary to address that material in any detail. Some of it was scurrilous.

⁉️ "It is not necessary to address that material in any detail" [43]
VS
“Ensure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her life” [34].


[47] Taking account of the practical effects of the law means identifying the effects of the law, properly construed, in the real world of human action.

The burden on the freedom is justified


SUITABILITY.
[57] The amici accepted that s 105 was suitable to achieve the purpose in question. But they sought to argue that there was a broader purpose at play in the context of the Act, namely promoting the best interests of the child or young person. They submitted that it is not the case that protecting the identity of those involved was necessarily always in their best interests, for example, if they had been improperly removed or were being mistreated after removal. That argument characterises the purpose at too high a level of generality. The focus of the provision is more specific. If the argument is that the provision goes further than is necessary, that is really a necessity or balancing argument.
It does not mean that the provision is not a rational means of achieving the identified end.

4️⃣NECESSITY.
[60] The amici submitted it would be sufficient for the Children’s Court to be able to make suppression and non-publication orders on an ad hoc basis pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). To the extent that did not cover all possibilities, they said, a narrower version of s 105 could have been enacted. The appellants made similar arguments.

[65] The amici also suggested that it would be possible to create a “public interest” defence to s 105. The primary judge apprehended that the appellants made a similar type of argument below to the effect that persons who wished to identify children for the purposes of criticising the statutory system, and its implementation, should be permitted to do so. As his Honour observed at [109], in rejecting that argument, a regime based upon motivations would inevitably involve contestable subjective characterisations. As for both arguments, they would involve identification of a child or a young person in connection with the child welfare system based on another person’s own motivation or assessment of the public interest. That motivation or assessment would only then be assessed on an ex post facto basis by a court. The court might find that there was good justification, but it might not. By then the harm would have been done. Such a scheme would not achieve the protective purpose of the provision to the same extent.

[66] In sum, neither the amici nor the appellants have identified any obvious, compelling and less burdensome alternatives to s 105 which achieve its purpose to the same extent.

[71] Even so, there is a burden on the freedom. That not insignificant but limited burden is readily justified. Why should the important privacy interests of the vulnerable child or young person be overridden by the desire of a critic to use their case as an example?
The fact that the critic thinks themselves justified, and may even be the parent who has lost responsibility for their child, does not mean that there is no legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of the child in question.
If the protected child or young person thinks it is in their own interest for publication or broadcast to occur, they can consent to that from when they are 16.
⁉️UNTIL THEN THEY MAY REMAIN IN THE CUSTODY OF A PAEDOPHILE⁉️
Prior to that time the Children’s Court can be asked to consent. In this context it is certainly not the case that “the benefit sought to be achieved by the law is manifestly outweighed by its adverse effect on the implied freedom”: cf Comcare v Banerji (2019) 267 CLR 373; [2019] HCA 23 at [38].

Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
🔥

What is the goal of the education system?

@TikTokNews45

Bombshell as two Aussies WIN their Supreme Court case over Covid fines - and it means as many as 45,000 penalties could be struck down

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11479153/Redfern-Legal-Centre-WIN-Covid-fines-Supreme-Court-case-45-000-penalties-struck-down.html

"After digging deeper into the cesspool, which means ‘follow the money’, I found Bill Gates has invested FORTY MILLION DOLLARS into Scytl software which is used in the finalising of an election here in Australia.(Queensland)"

https://cairnsnews.org/2022/11/30/remote-connection-software-installed-on-election-management-systems/

𝗦𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗧 METERS 👀

Join: John F. Kennedy Jr