Forwarded from Community Services Speak Out!
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS EXPLAINED. A conversation between myself as an ex welfare worker and Taschi from Taschi Talks.
Did you know that investors are making profit returns off mental health, affordable housing, children's education, loneliness, disability, Aboriginal families and more?
Did you know that there are expanding markets $$$$ in this?
It is predatory financing on steroids.
For those in welfare- you need to be aware of what you will be working within. Please share with anyone you know who works in the welfare field.
Did you know that investors are making profit returns off mental health, affordable housing, children's education, loneliness, disability, Aboriginal families and more?
Did you know that there are expanding markets $$$$ in this?
It is predatory financing on steroids.
For those in welfare- you need to be aware of what you will be working within. Please share with anyone you know who works in the welfare field.
👍11
Forwarded from Serene Teffaha
Putting the call out for doctors who are squirters not that sort of squirting but the kind that would put the vaccines in the bin and here in Vic
Please text Serene on 0425754299
Please text Serene on 0425754299
👍20🤔4
Forwarded from CoVid Scamdemic 💉 (🔐Unlock the Knowledge)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Voice to Parliament Referendum
Be clear how to vote to make it count
* Take a PEN
* Write YES or NO in the box
* DO NOT use a TICK or CROSS
Be clear how to vote to make it count
* Take a PEN
* Write YES or NO in the box
* DO NOT use a TICK or CROSS
👍50😢4❤3👏2
Forwarded from Lawyers of Light
Naughty squirrels breaking ULEZ cameras as they gather nuts (and bolts) and now they have created a map of all the places where other squirrels can gather nuts.
https://goo.gl/maps/38h8myyTRzor2SRS9
https://goo.gl/maps/38h8myyTRzor2SRS9
❤69🔥13👍7😁4👏3
Forwarded from Did you know - Education Campaign
Voice A4 flyer didyoukow.ink.pdf
4.9 MB
THE VOICE FLYER 'PDF'A4 size. Share far and wide! Can print at home or get them done professionally!
You can pick up flyers for FREE for distribution at the following 5 locations on the Central Coast: (Google location for address)
- CTC & News Kincumber
- CTC & News Green Point
- CTC & News Killarney Vale
- Cignall & Leaf Chief Woy Woy
- Gorokan Newsagency
Follow our public Did You Know Telegram Channel:
@didyouknow_ink
You can pick up flyers for FREE for distribution at the following 5 locations on the Central Coast: (Google location for address)
- CTC & News Kincumber
- CTC & News Green Point
- CTC & News Killarney Vale
- Cignall & Leaf Chief Woy Woy
- Gorokan Newsagency
Follow our public Did You Know Telegram Channel:
@didyouknow_ink
❤21👍4🔥2👏2
APHRA doesn't have the authority to cancel licences only the tribunal can as stated directly by APHRA....
Suspension is only an interim measure....
take a listen.
https://youtu.be/T9KrrQFmSw0?si=jo6J-Rr5BO8Db0at
Suspension is only an interim measure....
take a listen.
https://youtu.be/T9KrrQFmSw0?si=jo6J-Rr5BO8Db0at
YouTube
Medical Professionals Silenced by AHPRA
Ten medical professionals have had their registrations suspended by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) simply because they spoke ou...
👍25🤯14❤7🔥4😢4👎2🤨1
Forwarded from Resurgence News
A “mouse” was put at the top of a jar filled with grains. He was so happy to find so much food around him that now he didn’t feel the need to run around searching for food and he can happily live his life.
As he enjoyed the grains, in a few days’ time, he reached the bottom of the jar. Now he is trapped and he cannot get out of it. He now has to solely depend upon someone to put grains in the same jar for him to survive. He also may not get the grain of his choice and he cannot choose either.
Here are a few lessons to learn from this:
1) Short term pleasures can lead to long-term traps (living on benefits/furlough perhaps?).
2) If things are coming easy and you are getting comfortable, you are getting trapped into dependency.
3) When you are not using your skills, you will lose more than your skills. You lose your CHOICES and FREEDOM.
4) Freedom does not come easy but can be lost very quickly.
NOTHING comes easily in life and if it comes easily, maybe it is not worth it.
As he enjoyed the grains, in a few days’ time, he reached the bottom of the jar. Now he is trapped and he cannot get out of it. He now has to solely depend upon someone to put grains in the same jar for him to survive. He also may not get the grain of his choice and he cannot choose either.
Here are a few lessons to learn from this:
1) Short term pleasures can lead to long-term traps (living on benefits/furlough perhaps?).
2) If things are coming easy and you are getting comfortable, you are getting trapped into dependency.
3) When you are not using your skills, you will lose more than your skills. You lose your CHOICES and FREEDOM.
4) Freedom does not come easy but can be lost very quickly.
NOTHING comes easily in life and if it comes easily, maybe it is not worth it.
❤63💯28👍14👏2
Forwarded from ORGANIZED SUPPORT AND REPORT CROWDS (O.S.A.R.Cs)
ORGANIZED SUPPORT AND REPORT CROWDS.
Sanchia Romani v State of New South Wales
👉 judgment listed for 31 August 2023 at 9:30am.
👈 Use the link below to join.
👉Sanchia was awarded damages of approx 18K in Feb 2023 of which she has not been paid. The State is claiming costs approx 8k ABOVE what Sanchia was awarded🧐. This occurred because one of the earlier Justices removed the men who Sanchia did claim were the offenders and replaced the men with the State. That Justice had no right whatsoever to do so and did so against Our consent. That Justice then awarded costs to the "successful State" who interloped into proceedings, also of which We did not consent to. One cannot be forced to contract. Secondly, Sanchia did then file a Notice to Produce evidence from the NSW Police Force (the State) evidence that "implicated" her with the State claiming it was privileged information😂 and the presiding second Justice denied Sanchia that evidence (as there was no evidence to implicate Sanchia) based on "privilege" of the State.
REMEMBER The Bill of Rights/The said Rights claimed.
Tender of the Crown.
Regal Power exercised.
Limitation of theCrown.
"And they doe Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter intoConsequence or Example."
AND
👉Grants of Fines, &c. before Conviction, &c.
"And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction orJudgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed. All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.$
👉That Justice then awarded costs to the State as my Notice to Produce was "unsuccessful" due to the State's "privilege"...All before the matter had gone to full trial🤔!
👉The State has no privilege over the people. The State is subject to the People. The State's Agents did wrong. This is State Overreach and is unacceptable. Justice must not only BE done, Justice must also be SEEN to be done.
The People are the Supreme, Uncontrollable Authority.
Should the Judgement not be fair, reasonable and just then Sanchia has the option to Appeal any erroneous decision and certainly will do so.
This judgement will send a clear message as to the upholding of The Rule of Law in this country and is a matter of Public Interest.
We must remember the Judiciary is independent. Though some may be dark, that is a mans choice, there is good and bad in everything.
We have a tried and tested system of Law...its just been disguised from Us.
The final Justice who presided over the trial and proceedings regarding costs has facilitated the matter courteously. What WE must do is uphold the Law and do this with persistence before the court.
Court 10C.
Non participant link:
NON-PARTICIPANT OPTIONS TO CONNECT TO VIRTUAL COURTROOM
1(a) Phone
1(b) ID
2. Web Link (Mobile devices, laptops)
QUEENS SQUARE LAW COURTS
QSLC - VCR 10C
02 9765 5580
10190892#
👉https://avl.justice.nsw.gov.au/invited.sf?id=10190892&secret=4zyMG9.Mp2S2axrGz3bFRg👈
💥THIS MORNING (31/08) 9:30AM💥
https://t.me/ORGANISEDSUPPORTCROWDSPERSTATE
Sanchia Romani v State of New South Wales
👉 judgment listed for 31 August 2023 at 9:30am.
👈 Use the link below to join.
👉Sanchia was awarded damages of approx 18K in Feb 2023 of which she has not been paid. The State is claiming costs approx 8k ABOVE what Sanchia was awarded🧐. This occurred because one of the earlier Justices removed the men who Sanchia did claim were the offenders and replaced the men with the State. That Justice had no right whatsoever to do so and did so against Our consent. That Justice then awarded costs to the "successful State" who interloped into proceedings, also of which We did not consent to. One cannot be forced to contract. Secondly, Sanchia did then file a Notice to Produce evidence from the NSW Police Force (the State) evidence that "implicated" her with the State claiming it was privileged information😂 and the presiding second Justice denied Sanchia that evidence (as there was no evidence to implicate Sanchia) based on "privilege" of the State.
REMEMBER The Bill of Rights/The said Rights claimed.
Tender of the Crown.
Regal Power exercised.
Limitation of theCrown.
"And they doe Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter intoConsequence or Example."
AND
👉Grants of Fines, &c. before Conviction, &c.
"And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction orJudgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed. All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.$
👉That Justice then awarded costs to the State as my Notice to Produce was "unsuccessful" due to the State's "privilege"...All before the matter had gone to full trial🤔!
👉The State has no privilege over the people. The State is subject to the People. The State's Agents did wrong. This is State Overreach and is unacceptable. Justice must not only BE done, Justice must also be SEEN to be done.
The People are the Supreme, Uncontrollable Authority.
Should the Judgement not be fair, reasonable and just then Sanchia has the option to Appeal any erroneous decision and certainly will do so.
This judgement will send a clear message as to the upholding of The Rule of Law in this country and is a matter of Public Interest.
We must remember the Judiciary is independent. Though some may be dark, that is a mans choice, there is good and bad in everything.
We have a tried and tested system of Law...its just been disguised from Us.
The final Justice who presided over the trial and proceedings regarding costs has facilitated the matter courteously. What WE must do is uphold the Law and do this with persistence before the court.
Court 10C.
Non participant link:
NON-PARTICIPANT OPTIONS TO CONNECT TO VIRTUAL COURTROOM
1(a) Phone
1(b) ID
2. Web Link (Mobile devices, laptops)
QUEENS SQUARE LAW COURTS
QSLC - VCR 10C
02 9765 5580
10190892#
👉https://avl.justice.nsw.gov.au/invited.sf?id=10190892&secret=4zyMG9.Mp2S2axrGz3bFRg👈
💥THIS MORNING (31/08) 9:30AM💥
https://t.me/ORGANISEDSUPPORTCROWDSPERSTATE
❤17👍6
Forwarded from COLE THE SOCIOLOGIST
Romani v State of New South Wales (No 2)
[2023] NSWSC 1044
💥ANOTHER VICTORY FOR A FREEDOM FIGHTER!💥
⚡️THE STATE HAS BEEN FORCED TO PAY SANCHIA HER ORIGINAL AWARDED MONEY,
PLUS COSTS!⚡️
[40] In the present case, there is a public interest in ensuring that infringements of
citizen’s rights by officers entrusted with upholding the law are vindicated and
seen to be vindicated. Sanchia was awarded not only general damages for the
admitted trespass to her land by the two police officers but also aggravated and
exemplary damages in the circumstances and for the reasons explained in my
judgment in the substantive proceedings. If costs, as claimed by the State on
the assumption that it was entitled to costs in respect of the whole of the second
notion of motion, were set off against the damages awarded to Sanchia, the
judgment in her favour would be effectively wiped out. In my view, this would
be contrary to the public interest which has been identified.
[41] It does not appear to me that the efficient administration of justice has been
served by the State’s not paying the judgment amount while the present motion
was prepared, filed and heard. Nor does the efficient administration of justice
require that the costs as claimed by the State be set off against the judgment
amount, especially in light of the confusion as to what costs order or orders
were actually made in respect of the second notice of motion.
THESE AREAS FOR JURISPRUDENCE WERE SUBMITTED BY SANCHIA,
BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL, THUS INFORMING THE COURT.
[42] There has been no conduct on the part of Sanchia in relation to the judgment
or costs which would provide some independent justification for the costs as
claimed being set off against the judgment sum. By way of contrast, despite
the judgment of the Court, the plaintiff failed or refused to pay the amount of the
judgment awarded to Sanchia for three months without any apparent
justification and has subsequently continued to refuse to pay, presumably on
the basis of the present application. If the State seeks to refuse to pay a
judgment of the Court on the basis of an application for a costs set off and a
gross sum costs order, a reasonable expectation would be that such an
application is made within the 28 days referred to in s 101(3) of the CP Act. In
my view, the State’s refusal to pay the judgment sum and delay in making its
application tell against ordering a set off.
[44] Finally, considerations of fairness and equity, in all the circumstances of the
present case, do not require or substantially favour setting off whatever costs
the State might be entitled to recover against the judgment awarded in
Sanchia’s favour. In light of the admission by the State that the police officers
had trespassed on Sanchia’s land, the circumstances which justified the
awarding of aggravated and exemplary damages and the delay in filing the
notice of motion, it appears to me that considerations of fairness and good
conscience also militate in favour of a set off not being ordered.
Orders
[48] For all these reasons, I do not accept that any of the orders sought in the State’s
notice of motion should be made.
[49] The State has been entirely unsuccessful and there do not appear to me to be
any reasons why costs should not follow the event.
ANOTHER BENEVOLENT JUDGE!
🧩
This is one element of the O.S.A.R.C initiative; to identify GOOD JUDGES!
🧩
We saw this in Pastor Paul's case (Judge Stone),
now we again see it in Sanchia Romani's court victory!
🧩
https://t.me/ORGANISEDSUPPORTCROWDSPERSTATE
[2023] NSWSC 1044
💥ANOTHER VICTORY FOR A FREEDOM FIGHTER!💥
⚡️THE STATE HAS BEEN FORCED TO PAY SANCHIA HER ORIGINAL AWARDED MONEY,
PLUS COSTS!⚡️
[40] In the present case, there is a public interest in ensuring that infringements of
citizen’s rights by officers entrusted with upholding the law are vindicated and
seen to be vindicated. Sanchia was awarded not only general damages for the
admitted trespass to her land by the two police officers but also aggravated and
exemplary damages in the circumstances and for the reasons explained in my
judgment in the substantive proceedings. If costs, as claimed by the State on
the assumption that it was entitled to costs in respect of the whole of the second
notion of motion, were set off against the damages awarded to Sanchia, the
judgment in her favour would be effectively wiped out. In my view, this would
be contrary to the public interest which has been identified.
[41] It does not appear to me that the efficient administration of justice has been
served by the State’s not paying the judgment amount while the present motion
was prepared, filed and heard. Nor does the efficient administration of justice
require that the costs as claimed by the State be set off against the judgment
amount, especially in light of the confusion as to what costs order or orders
were actually made in respect of the second notice of motion.
THESE AREAS FOR JURISPRUDENCE WERE SUBMITTED BY SANCHIA,
BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL, THUS INFORMING THE COURT.
[42] There has been no conduct on the part of Sanchia in relation to the judgment
or costs which would provide some independent justification for the costs as
claimed being set off against the judgment sum. By way of contrast, despite
the judgment of the Court, the plaintiff failed or refused to pay the amount of the
judgment awarded to Sanchia for three months without any apparent
justification and has subsequently continued to refuse to pay, presumably on
the basis of the present application. If the State seeks to refuse to pay a
judgment of the Court on the basis of an application for a costs set off and a
gross sum costs order, a reasonable expectation would be that such an
application is made within the 28 days referred to in s 101(3) of the CP Act. In
my view, the State’s refusal to pay the judgment sum and delay in making its
application tell against ordering a set off.
[44] Finally, considerations of fairness and equity, in all the circumstances of the
present case, do not require or substantially favour setting off whatever costs
the State might be entitled to recover against the judgment awarded in
Sanchia’s favour. In light of the admission by the State that the police officers
had trespassed on Sanchia’s land, the circumstances which justified the
awarding of aggravated and exemplary damages and the delay in filing the
notice of motion, it appears to me that considerations of fairness and good
conscience also militate in favour of a set off not being ordered.
Orders
[48] For all these reasons, I do not accept that any of the orders sought in the State’s
notice of motion should be made.
[49] The State has been entirely unsuccessful and there do not appear to me to be
any reasons why costs should not follow the event.
ANOTHER BENEVOLENT JUDGE!
🧩
This is one element of the O.S.A.R.C initiative; to identify GOOD JUDGES!
🧩
We saw this in Pastor Paul's case (Judge Stone),
now we again see it in Sanchia Romani's court victory!
🧩
https://t.me/ORGANISEDSUPPORTCROWDSPERSTATE
❤23🔥19👍9👏3
Forwarded from Cole the Sociologist
PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION ACT, 1875.
7. Saving of rights of tribes.
Nothing herein or in any such Order in Council contained shall extend or be construed to extend to invest Her Majesty, with any claim or title whatsoever to dominion or sovereignty over any such islands or places as aforesaid, or to derogate from the rights of the tribes or people inhabiting such islands or places, or of chiefs or rulers thereof, to such sovereignty or dominion, and a copy of every such Order in Council shall be laid before each House of Parliament within thirty days after the issue thereof, unless Parliament shall not then be in session, in which case a copy shall be laid before each House of Parliament within thirty days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
7. Saving of rights of tribes.
Nothing herein or in any such Order in Council contained shall extend or be construed to extend to invest Her Majesty, with any claim or title whatsoever to dominion or sovereignty over any such islands or places as aforesaid, or to derogate from the rights of the tribes or people inhabiting such islands or places, or of chiefs or rulers thereof, to such sovereignty or dominion, and a copy of every such Order in Council shall be laid before each House of Parliament within thirty days after the issue thereof, unless Parliament shall not then be in session, in which case a copy shall be laid before each House of Parliament within thirty days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
❤8👍2
Forwarded from Cole the Sociologist
Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex:
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907
Art. 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.
https://elearning.icrc.org/.../Convention%20(IV...
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907
Art. 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.
https://elearning.icrc.org/.../Convention%20(IV...
❤8👍3