Mangled Thoughts

“Super ideal to provide funds for infrastructure
In a time of scarce resources and market volatility public private partnerships are the best way to fund major projects” The Australian, by Adele Fergusen.”

Reading the ‘mainstream’ media’s economic commentariat is depressing. They bury serious matters under layers of mud. If it were not for Brookesnews, in Australia there would be no trustworthy journal of economic analysis and explanation. However, the subject is what Rudd and Swann are proposing to do. Adele and “The Australian” are oblivious to not only economic theory but also to what the substance of the new Prime Minister’s and Treasurer’s plan is. It doesn’t require economics to work out the criminal force of the “plan”.

1. What Rudd and his Treasurer, Swann, are planning is raiding the (superannuation) savings of Australians to throw at what is nothing less than more government consumption, and that would be destruction of capital on a massive scale. Capital, inclusive of super funds, is hard taxes as it is. The ATO also acted during the past few years to extract more taxes out of super savings plans, by closing what it calls ‘loopholes’ in ‘tax law’.

2. If they can get away with it, it will be theft of the private property of millions of Australians on a massive scale. It is criminal what the Federal Cabinet is preparing to do. It does entail commission of major crimes against Australians. It is a ‘plan’, involving the recruitment of “businessmen”, to deliberately defraud Australians of their savings.

3. That to tie ‘enterprise’ in to execute the ‘plan’ is also fascist corporativism.

4. It will see many Australians impoverished in their old age, contrary to the reason for saving and increasing their “seed corn” through superannuation policies and similar funds.

Adele reported:

But as Mitch King, chief executive of infrastructure funds management outfit Lighthouse Infrastructure says, the Government’s plan is a welcome one.

“It is logical, necessary, politically courageous — if it is to be implemented balancing the various interest groups (state versus state, federal versus states, local government, private sector) and recognises the capital efficiency and role of the private sector,” he says.

But he says the main problem is the excessive timing. A year to create a list suggests this is not a real plan, according to King…

King suggests the following to make the idea a reality:

* Create the list quickly…

King believes it will require some gutsy calls, but the federal Government clearly has the mandate and can leave a legacy for future generations if it acts quickly. King is spot on.

King is not spot on. Moreover, “Lighthouse Infrastructure” super customers should be very worried. My advice to them is remove your savings and place them with firms that will not have a bar of the fraud Kevin Rudd proposed. Put your savings with firms that will fight tooth and nail any device Rudd, Swann, bureaucrats and their ‘advisers’ dream up to steal and destroy their hard earned and already hard taxed savings. King deserves to be chucked out of his well paid job and the firm to collapse. The collapse that swiftly follows customers removing their savings to firms that can be trusted to do their very best by customers and their savings.

A Mr. Zwi states:

says there are numerous implications that need to be carefully considered by the super funds and the governments

It sounds reassuring, but a man who can say the following, as Zwi does, has a handicap in fighting Rudd and his criminal scheme called economic ignorance:

But he warns that if essential infrastructure is in private hands, there is an incentive to maximise profits by raising the cost of usage more aggressively than would otherwise be the case if it was in government hands, because the funds are interested in returns, not worrying about sacrificing votes at the ballot box.

“There are many implications that have to be carefully thought through, because you could end up with a situation where the relevant government has to buy the asset back because it was run down,” he says.

There is a bright note in the article. Mr. David Bryant objects to the ‘plan’ for a good reason:

David Bryant, group executive of investments at Australian Unity, which has more than $6 billion in funds under management, says superannuation funds are required under law to invest for the sole purpose of providing adequate returns for retirement funds.

That is the only bright note.

Infrastructure Partnerships Australia national manager of public affairs Brendan Lyon says, with an infrastructure shortfall, the Government is prudent to seek to match retirement savings with urgent infrastructure projects in Australia.

“The lack of opportunities for superannuation investment has led to a situation where 30 per cent of retirement savings are being invested offshore at a time when Australia’s infrastructure shortfalls are becoming urgent,” he says.

Tony Shepherd, the chairman of Transfield Services, one of the biggest infrastructure companies in Australia, applauded the use of superannuation funds to bankroll infrastructure in Australia.

No, if Rudd wishes to engage in a spending spree, he has to do it through the revenue stream called taxation. The Hawke –Keating Government imposed the tax ‘petrol parity pricing’. They also imposed the ‘roads levy tax’ on petrol – to build roads. Never mind that road building is one of the major reasons (excuses) politicians and bureaucrats, each “tier of Govt.” have used to hit Australians with ever increasing taxes, Keating added another one on top. Instead of roads, those tax revenues have been thrown down the voracious throats of more grand socialist schemes. Now they want more!

The PAYE tax was introduced in the ealry 1940’s to pay for WWII. It was not imposed as an eternal tax. At the end of WWII, politicians and bureaucrats were loathe to get their hands off private property. They said, ‘we will retain the tax to pay every Australian a pension’. Today, those who might be considered fully entitled to that, ie. those who lived through the war era, have to meet capricious tests to receive a single cent. We are speaking of old-aged pensioners.

The politicians cannot fulfil the obligation to that generation, but they can make multi-billion promises to buy votes from the likes of Greenies, and ‘wannabe” university ‘stoodents’. The politicians and bureaucrats have abused the PAYE to impose a miasma of socialist schemes. They are at it again. (It is time to kill PAYE, a large number of taxes, and the myth “Government’ has some automatic, divine right to tax all and sundry into ‘poverty street’).

Local Councils, States’ Governments, and the Federal Government refuse to meet what was one of their original duties, in return for taxation, build things such as roads. Rudd’s solution to their malfeasance is: seize the savings of Australians and throw it down the black hole of more government consumption.

If Rudd wishes to throw money on consumables he has only four choices:

1. He cuts other areas of government consumption, and redirects the funds into what he might propose to indulge.

2. He raises taxes.

3. If the ‘budget surplus is real’, spend that on his grand schemes.

4. A combination of the above three options.

However, the reason why he is preparing a criminal conspiracy to steal and wipe out the the private property of many Australians is transparent.

The object of the scheme is clear; it is to avoid a voter backlash because of what the Cabinet is about to launch, a massive increase in government squander, and a hike in taxes to cover it. It is an attempt to conceal socialist planning and squander. By falsely calling it investment, and a legitimate direction of capital, Rudd and Swann are merely engaged in a preparatory propaganda campaign to blind voters to those facts.

The concealment plan is called ‘let’s siphon Australians’ savings accounts into our coffers and call it ‘investment’ . Savings are highly taxed as it is, including those held in super funds, but now along comes Rudd who will do a Swannee and loot the lot. They, as Adele related, have already taken steps to establish their crime syndicate.

What has been the response of Opposition Leader Nelson, and Shadow Treasurer Turnbull? Silence, not a peep, not a hint of attacking Rudd and Swann over the poposal. There is not a twitter from the self-styled “free market think tanks’ and the ‘right wing’ of the Liberal Party ( nor from the ‘wets’). They have had three days to attack Swann and Rudd.

All we have heard from Banana Republic Presidente aspirant, Turnbull is; ‘the time will come soon for the Republicanistos revolution’. Yes, right, and in the meantime a few Liberals will have lined Turnbull up against a wall and shot him. As for Nelson, during the Australia Day long weekend, he did a good imitation of ‘Red’ Ted Baillieu, a lot of squeaking about nothing much.

One might infer Colin and Mal see nothing wrong in a major criminal conspiracy, run with the co-operation of “insider traders” and “butt protectors” euphemistically called businessmen. Nothing wrong at all, with a massive transfer of wealth into the pockets of parasites. Indeed, one suspects they heartily approve of this plan to commit theft and fraud on a massive scale.

Mind, Turnbull, as the last Liberal Cabinet Minister for the Greenie Cult of Death, proposed his own plans for extracting the savings of modest Australians, and wiping them out. So, one infers he has no objection to the Rudd-Swann plan. Turnbull and Nelson have shown themselves besotted with the vainglorious pretensions of politicians, bureaucrats, and pseudo-businessmen (who see another get rich quick scheme in the offing, like the ethanol and windmill scams).

Even if what was proposed is not in fact criminal, the claim that raiding super funds to pay for government dictated consumption will somehow ensure future economic growth and prosperity is a kenyesian fallacy. Only capital (savings) and entrepreneurs yield economic growth. Rudd’s plan = the immiseration of Australians by acts of criminal conspiracy, fraud, and squander.

Below are a few corrective items from Brookesnews.

So-called ethics, wages and economic stupidity
. Businesses do not receive subsidies, people do; businesses do not pay taxes or wages, people do. It is the investments made by people in business enterprises that creates the resources that builds our taxpayer-funded infrastructure and, incidentally, finds employment for the likes of him.
It is these investments, taxed and curbed as they are by governments and unions, that fuels economic growth. For Longstaff’s absurd claim to be correct, all businesses would have to be tax consumers. That is to say they would have to receive more in taxes than they collectively pay.
His other silly claim that jobs and wealth are common goods to be enjoyed by everyone is just juvenile socialist dogma. This conjures up an absurd picture of a vast community pool of jobs and wealth to which everyone has an equal share, but the greedy ones manage to get more than their fair share.
He also obviously has no real idea of what a job is. Labour rents…

Bottlenecks and monetary policies: more economic fallacies that damage economies

Emerging bottlenecks tell us that monetary policy has distorted the pattern of production to the point where firms now find that either they do not have sufficient complementary factors to meet the demand for its product, in which case they must continue to bid against each other for the necessary factors, which also include circulating capital. This is always the case where investment has been driven by artificially low interest rates and the boom is allowed to continue until brought to an end by real factors. The point may even be reached where …

Keynesian nostrums still plague the US economy

Immigration, economic growth and jobs

Central banks panic as credit crunch looms

The root of the problem is not just a misunderstanding of how money actually functions but also an ignorance of even elementary capital theory. Once again, capital is heterogeneous and forms an incredibly complex structure with a time dimension. When the central bank pushes interest rates down below their market rate this encourages companies to expand their activities by borrowing at the low rates. This in turn distorts the capital structure….

Once this happens a recession becomes unavoidable, and Austrian capital theory explains why. Firms — particularly in manufacturing — find that a point is reached where capital goods, including circulating capital, become increasingly scarce along with certain types of labour. This leads to firms…

However, by using credit expansion the impression can be given that an economy has grown faster than it has saved. By this process businesses can direct resources away from consumption to investment, giving the impression that investment now exceeds savings. This is called inflation.

It should be noted that the apparent discrepancy between investment and savings is really a monetary illusion, the product of a monetary disturbance. In real terms investment still, as it must always do, equals savings, even if they are forced savings.

Davidson has made the absurd class-war accusation that Treasury ‘ideology’ held back savings by restraining growth because it put the “interests of rentiers (people who save) ahead of real entrepreneurs” who make real investments that create jobs. What he means by this Keynesian ideological claptrap is that the Treasury should be forced to lower interest rates to stimulate investment. But this is the very policy that gave us the 1980s boom followed by “the depression we had to have”. In other words, what Davidson called for was more inflation followed by another recession. (This is precisely what the Howard Government gave us. The irony here is

In Summary:

Capital is savings. Rudd plans to wipe out massive amounts of capital in criminal conspiracy with parasites pretending to be be entrepeneurs.

Contrary to Rudd’s claim, and others who say so, it won’t solve bottle-necks. They emerged because of inflation, the RBA’s destructive habit of credit expansion.

It is consumption, and not investment of capital.

It is theft of private property on a massive scale.

It involves the grand lie that central planning and socialist schemes are superior to private property, free markets and volitional undertakings, capital accumulation, and the work real entrepenuers do.

It rest on fallacious notions palmed of as true economic theory, particularly keynesianism.

A destructive and criminal plan, it will immiserate many Australians by “eating their seed-corn”; they will have nothing to harvest in their old age.

It only tells us what the real aims of the Rudd lead Cabinet are. Australians should be more than disturbed by what is revealed.

Yah, that’s a hilarious prospect.

Landeryou has run a nice line on “Red” Ted Baillieu “muscling up” to Kroger and Costello ( The Other Cheek “Muscling Up: Red Ted’s ticket out of oblivion”). It would be even nicer watching Ted and Co, and Kroger-Costello bash each other up, and then a rump of genuine Liberals walk right over them all, jabbing their useless hides with bayonets to make sure they are completely dead.

I wonder at times if Landeryou harbours classical liberal principles, but is unsure what to do. Other comments contradict that impression. All that I can conclude is that he is not of the treacherous left, the green left, and the Peking left. That, he is trying to steer a line of decency, which the treacherous Left is devoid of, and so are the ‘rightwing’ who have strangled the Liberal Party.

For Ted to muscle up, he’d have to find principles and stand on them. Landeryou has missed the obvious. The reason why Kroger and Costello hate Ted is because he is not their monkey. Ted is Kennett’s monkey. Otherwise, Ted is possessed of all the qualities they like in monkeys. Makes me feel depressed but I’ll cheer myself up by a bit of David Davis bashing - I suspect he’s browning his pants over the material I’ve already dropped off at his office.

Landers doesn’t see that Davis is gutless, as well a clueless Kennett monkey. David Davis, you see, is the MP who deliberately refused to do his oath-sworn, honour bound duty to one of his constitutes, Jennifer. In his defection from his duty as an MP, being thick he did not realise the case of Jennifer can destroy the Bracks - Brumby Cabinet. David Davis is typical of the Rightwing in another way.

If Jennifer and her husband had turned up at his doorstep in a chauffeur driven Rolls Royce, Davis and the other useless blobs pretending to be Liberal MPS would have licked their boots, and bent over backwards for Jennifer. Their motives are fear and greed. Fear, because they would have worried Jennifer had a stable of QCs working for her and thus they would kick Davis’ head in for not doing his duty. Doyle, then Ted, would cower for the same reasons, and so would Kroger, Costello and their stick puppets. Greed, because they’d try to chisel a few millions out of Jennifer.

Well, Jennifer is of modest means. Thus, in good Rightwing style, Davis and the rest ignored her. Australia’s rightwing, don’t give a stuff about modest Australians. Modest Australians are mere serfs to be spat on, taxed and then buried when the ‘good and the true’ have used them up.

Davis has never hurt a Bracks/Brumby Cabinet Minister. Davis is so fearless, and so dedicated to his duty as an MP that he stood aside while the Cabinet, STO, OPA, and a law firm proceeded to rob Jennifer of her dignity, her freedom, and her property. He’s a brave man.

The kind of fight Davis is good for is protecting his lucrative Upper House seat and scratching pussy cats. The prospect of David Davis going for Kroger and Costello with steel-capped boots is comical to contemplate. Anyway, he’d have to find his boots, which defeats the point to burying them in the first place. Not that Costello and Kroger any braver than Kennett’s monkeys.

I do hope they pulverise each other into bloody heaps but this is too much to expect of a pack of unprincipled cowards. Landeryou, mate, you are in for a big disappointment; don’t waste your money on ringside tickets and bets.

Readers:

Due to commitments tomorrow, I will, as it were, ‘rest my case’ until Tuesday next week. The article below, detailing two major crimes committed by the OPA, and the items preceding today’s disclosures,is material to mull over as it is. I will on Tuesday next document more major crimes. As you can guage by now, when I promised to throw a ticking object wth detonator and explosives attached, it was no idle promise.

Remember why this series is being written. Remember, Jennifer and Peter are only two of very many vicitims of the Government of Brackistan.

Until Tuedsay.
Douglas.

Yesterday, I promised an explosive document. There are two of them. The two documents are direct evidence of an attempt by the OPA to pervert the course of justice. It has committed two counts of what are major criminal offences. I now warn the OPA, any attempt to interfere with evidence, internal and external, external evidence, and witnesses, are, obviously criminal offences, serious criminal offences, as are the two counts I relate now.

The Attorney General, and through him, Premier and Cabinet are responsible for the OPA, as well as STO and VCAT. The Cabinet is running a crime syndicate, which commits serious crimes. The two counts named above are not the only crimes committed in the case of Jennifer and Peter. Those other crimes, some already laid out, while others will be laid out with direct documentary evidence.

The criminal actions were committed late in the case, in during one of the final phases in 2007 (there are matters that still have to be fought. Thus, the case has run from October/2005 to, to date, January 2008). The tide turned in 2007. The crimes were committed in 2007. In view of the serious offences named above, we leap forward by over a year of actions in the case.

The crimes were committed when Peter and Jennifer, with their barrister, began turning the tables on the STO, OPA, and VCAT. This was entirely due to Peter’s meticulous collection of evidence and related documents. The archives, as far as I am aware, are the only collection preserved in such cases. This is what makes this case a precedent: the only collection of hard fought for documents demonstrating the crimes the Victorian Government commits against its victims through its agents.

As we indicated yesterday, the OPA is directly involved in those core crimes, through its institutional ties to STO and VCAT. We noted yesterday the OPA has widened ‘catch-all’ excuses by which Victorians can be placed under the total control of the Government, and by which the Government, through its agents, proceeds to steal victims’ property.

As the tide turned, both STO and OPA tried desperately to retain their unlawful, criminal control over Jennifer and her property. Presented with a massive body of evidence demonstrating the Order over Jennifer, of the large scale theft of funds committed by the STO, and other serious matters, VCAT began extracting itself from the case, covering its backside. After all, VCAT is the ‘legal’ device which the Government protects its crime syndicate STO-OPA. This is when the OPA attempted to suborn and influence an expert witness and a VCAT ‘member’ (VCAT’s name for judge – and they are an insult to the name judge)

The 2 documents were obtained under the ‘Freedom of Information Act’.

Document number 1

Jennifer made an application for a “Reassessment Hearing” in 2007, based on new evidence, and the true claims that essential evidence she and Peter had submitted in past hearings were ignored by VCAT members and other abuses that damaged them. Other grounds included, STO stealing from her funds, and both STO and OPA had broken the Act of parliament regarding their duties to Jennifer. That also the hostile case was built on the lies told by Gorgon and Hecate. That Doctors’ reports showed the excuses for the Government’s actions, through STO, VCAT, and OPA to be false.

The hearing was slated for 22/1/07. It was altered by VCAT to a ‘directions hearing’, as preparation for the now deferred reassessment hearing. The reason was the OPA, through its officer Beresford-Smith, said they were not ready for the hearing. The evidence Jennifer described in her application had completely caught the OPA by surprise.

Beresford Smith demanded Jennifer submit a new medical report from a specified Doctor, and conditions under which she must obtain it – e.g. her husband was not to be present.

The presiding ‘senior member’, Carruthers, adjourned the reassessment hearing for a period of up to 2 months. It was subsequently slated for the 27/3/07.

On the 23rd of January, Beresford-Smith wrote to that Doctor.

The letter is on OPA letterhead and therefore it is an official OPA document. The substance of the letter is direction of the Doctor, and reflection on Jennifer and Peter. The force is obvious form the contents.

1. To make the Doctor bias the report against Jennifer, in order to:
2. To render the findings such that the ‘claims of the government through the OPA and STO would be upheld.

It is not merely an attempt to influence the expert witness, which itslef is perversion of the course of justice. The content is direction of the Doctor.

Four serious crimes at the least are involved: perverting the course of justice; interfering with a witness; attempting to corrupt a Doctor by trying to make them write a falsified medical report; to make the Doctor breach duty to the subject and their professional obligations, which would have meant, if agreeable, the Doctor committing professional offences, and party to perverting the course of jsutice.

The OPA’s effort, however, failed. The Doctor did not waver. The report shocked the OPA and STO; it was not what they wanted. The Doctor had reported on Jennifer in the past. The findings, several of them, showed the STO-OPA claims were false. The Doctor remained unimpeachably consistent. I will relate these documents later, and also the supporting action of the Doctor. The Doctor was not for the corrupting.

Document No. 2

The 27th of March/2007 was slated for the ‘Assessment Hearing’, set for the afternoon.

On the morning of the 27th of March, Michael Beresford-Smith, and OPA, sent a ‘memo’ addressed to the Registrar of VCAT. The memo was written by Beresford – Smith. He refers throughout the document to himself as ‘the author’. The ‘memo’ is printed on OPA official report form.

The reason it was called a ‘memo’ and not a report, as it should have been ( not that that negates one jot the charge of perverting the course of Justice), was Beresford-Smith and the OPA wanted it kept secret, as the cover sheet shows:

Confidential – for Tribunal only
Memorandum

To Register – Guardian List ( that is, it was sent for the hearing presiding senior member, Carruthers)

From Michael Beresford Smith OPA.

Topic Re-assessment of Administrative Order of 27/3/07

In the session of the afternoon, this exchange occurred:

Beresford- Smith: ‘Did you receive my memo?”
Carruthers: “Yes, I did.”

Contents:

1. Smears Jennifer’s barrister.

2. Repeats the lies told against Peter, the lies first spun by Gorgon and Hecate as related in, under the section headed. He includes the lie Peter had embezzled a large percentage of Jennifer’s funds. He adds to the lies by smearing Peter further. By this, he is painting a picture of Peter as a cold, calculating conman who has Jennifer under his control as puppet master to a puppet.

3. He lies about the reason for the adjournment of a past hearing, falsely blaming the defence barrister by telling a lie and smearing the barrister.

4. He relates he has written to the above Doctor on the 23rd of January/07, and also that he has contacted the Doctor by telephone a number of times. He makes claims about (if the calls were held as he claims - possible perjury) what the Doctor said.

He claims the Doctor held some of the concerns the OPA has about Peter and Jennifer. That is a lie, as the Doctor’s reports show and as the Doctor’s later evidence shows.

5. He distorts ‘dementia’, and adds in the nonsense of cognition, reflecting on Jennifer’s ‘cognitive’ capacity to manage her own affairs.

Why, only yesterday I wrote on the OPA’s neo-Marxist corruption of language. In that memo, the OPA uses the same tripe. As for Jennifer’s capacity to run her own affairs, later I shall quote from a documents; their force damns the OPA and the STO and pas VCAT hearings.

[To reinforce what I wrote yesterday: Everyone over the age of 30 incurs ‘dementia’, it is due to aging. While the term dementia is inadequate and should be thrown out as inadmissible in courts as a term. Doctors in their reports constrict the usage to a truthful, thus sound usage: a physical fact of the brain, due to aging, memory diminishes, everyone therefore incurs dementia. Dementia is regular; it is normal of all. According to the OPA and STO and VCAT and the Victorian Government, every Victorian over the age of 30 should be incarcerated in the Gulag STO-OPA-VCAT and have their property stolen by the Government.]

6. He uses another corrupt and perverse notion of the OPA’s against Jennifer – ‘emotionally vulnerable’.

7. He asserts the OPA’s neo-Marxist lie that Jennifer is at further risk because of isolation from ‘social networks’. Those networks he refers to are government collectivist schemes. Jennifer is not ‘isolated’, and never has been; she has her own life, her own friends, her own interests. According to the OPA, that pales before the ‘uber dream’ world of neo-Marxism.

8. Another abuse of language, in the conclusions drawn in the memo;

“the protective nature of the jurisdiction”

He explains that it will be breached if the Order over Jennifer is rescinded. (That is not the nominal force of the Act, though it is the practical consequence of the Act and its administration.)

9.There are more lies, exaggerations and fabrications told in the memo, but for now, we proceed to the conclusions drawn in the memo.

10. Conclusions reached in the memo: (surprise, surprise) VCAT should retain the administrative order over her affairs.

Comments

1. No wonder OPA labelled it a memo and not a report, reinforced by further confirmation of the 1 instance of perverting the course of justice, interfering with a witness, the Doctor, and trying to suborn the Doctor.

2. The document was written for the listed presiding member for the hearing in the afternoon session of VCAT.

3. I will relate in fuller detail the contents of the documents, it’s a very good read, OPA and Beresford –Smith, it is very illuminating, of major crimes committed by the OPA. There it is, the contents were intended to pervert the course of justice and in the ways stated of the attempt against the Doctor:

a. To direct Senior Member Carruthers what her ruling should be that afternoon.

b. To ensure the ‘right ruling’ supply her with ‘evidence’

c. To instruct her how to either ‘interpret’ evidence, rather than soundly let conclusions follow from the evidence; or by ignoring evidence supplied by the defence; or by selective usage of defence evidence.

d. To prejudice Carruthers against Jennifer, her husband Peter, and her barrister.

4. This document is an extensive demonstration of the crime of perversion of justice.

5.The OPA has also broken the the Act covering guardianhsip.

As we related in Phase 1, though in October 2005 a temporary administrative – financial order was sought against Jennifer, a Guardianship administrative was imposed by VCAT in November 2005. That Order, however, was, after a hard fight, mid 2006, and replaced with successive administrative order, as we shall relate.

In other words, after the reversal of Guardianship, the OPA, as an enforcer of Guardianship, in tandem with STO, had no standing. The OPA and Beresford Smith lied to VCAT in 2007 when they asserted they had an ‘interest’ in thecae, and thus must be represented.

Oh, they did have an interest, a joint one with STO: their joint interest was to keep Jennifer under their control – to continue controlling her and stealing her property, inclusive of her freedom of action… This is what OPA and Beresford Smith were fighting for.

They broke the ‘law’. Under the act, they are required to serve subjects by complying with their wishes and statement of interests and the actions they require be taken. OPA broke the law on those counts and compounded those criminal offences by in fact deliberately siding with the hostile parties and running their hostile case as the OPA case “in the interest” of Jennifer. These, as will be related, are also criminal offences committed by STO.

On the other hand, the ACT makes OPA an enforcer of Guardianship Orders. That also means its interests are bound up with the STO. Both are protected by VCAT. This is the crime syndicate set up by the Victorian Government, reinforced by a wall of ‘lawyers’ and co-operating law firms such as McDonald Slater and Lay.

6. OPA has a third count of perverting the course of justice, the fact that they used as their cover the lies told by the instigators of the vicious actions against Jennifer and Peter, and used those lies against them, and thus directly, supported the STO in its criminal acts against Jennifer. Until the reversal in VCAT, the OPA, and its officer Beresford Smith worked all the way through the case closely with the hostile parties, and promoted the hostile parties’ actions against Jennifer, before VCAT.

Conclusion

VCAT is the Governments’ cover and final enforcer of the crime syndicate. Faced with a mountain of evidence against it, however, VCAT began extracting itslef from what they appreciated: The whole rotten action was exposed, and about to blow up in their faces.

I charge the CIB Victoria Police, and the DPP to take criminal proceedings against OPA and Beresford Smith for perversion of justice.

We could expand with more statements of offences committed by the OPA in this case. Immediately, however, I have just laid out two very serious crimes committed by the OPA, and the direct evidence proving that is what they did:

They acted to pervert the course of justice. They failed ion the attempt, but that is what they deliberately did.

I charge the CIB of Victoria Police, and the DPP to take criminal proceedings against OPA and Beresford Smith for perversion of jsutice. Failure to do so would be a direct perversion of justice. The CIB and DPP would be culpable of the serious criminal offence themselves of perverting the course of justice.

I warn Vic Police, I warn the DPP, failure to do so also entails crime, turning on corruption - to protect the Government, who are responsible for all this sorry mess; the Attorney General, Cabinet and Premier. Any attempt to bury the case, and all other actions, and cover the Government would be major crimes.

Let it be known the Government has committed major crimes through its agents, as set out in this item.

I have been informed the Victorian Govt. has eliminated the paltry rights of many victims of the Governments crime syndicate. This was effected in an ‘Act of Parliament. Jennifer and Peter were lucky; their case ran before this measure came into force. I have to find to identify the Act, however, what I have been told is this: under the new measure, Jennifer would not have been able to fight her case.

That’s right; if that ‘law’ had been in place when she fought her case, she would have not been able to fight them at all, for she would have had no rights at all to fight back. The Bracks - Brumby administrations, therefore, would have been free to strip all her assets. What it effectively amounts to is incarceration of their many victims.

It is truly Orwellian what the Victorian Parliament, with the fulsome support of the cretins pretending to be Liberal MPS have done to many Victorians. This is besides all the other atrocious ‘laws’ the not at all Liberal Parliamentary Party has supported.

In the item covering the evidence of the criminal actions of Gorgon, Hecate, and Salome, McDonald Slater and Lay, The State Trustees Office and the Bracks –Brumby administrations, I briefly referred to the OPA and one of its officers.

The OPA is involved in this criminal racket up to its eyeballs. I have something that is explosive, and I will be posting on it tomorrow, the Thursday the 24th.

The Victorian Government uses the excuse of ‘mental disabilities’ as cover for its major criminal operations.

“Mental disabilities” and “mental health” are meaningless nonsense words. The reasons is, they are rubbery, vague expressions. Dementia is another such word that is totally useless.

‘Dementia’ and the other two vulgar expressions cover depression. Anyone who is having a difficult time can feel depressed and many do. Anyone can feel severely depressed in the face of major difficulties, and many do. It I natural, but why? We are physical beings:

Speech is physical action; ‘hearing’ is physical action. Reasoning is physical action. Aesthetic delights are physical. They are only a few of the way the brain works. Thus the ‘sensations’ of delight in mastering something, or the sensations mixed with aesthetic appreciation of, sound theory, not just say art or music, are real. They are bound up with the action of ‘engagement’ in things of that type – maths, economics, physics, music. We are not composed dualistically, a ‘mind’ residing in body. The things attributed to mind are actually, what the brain does, due to what the brain is. They are physical actions.

Thus the sensation of depression is not a ‘mental disability”, it is bound up with what an individual might be facing. The brain is incredibly complex. Aesthetics is not accidental. It has been realised in nuero-science; aesthetics is crucial to the brain. Neither is depression.

What would be the exception? When depression is generated from a neurological flaw. If I am not mistaken, that is the account of ‘bi-polar depression’. At this stage, bi-polar depression is checked with drugs. That indicates, what the neuro-logical explanation is remains a mystery. Indeed, neuro-science has only touched the surface, as it were, of the brain.

Bi-polar depression does not stop those who have it getting on with their lives in a forthright manner. I appreciate it must be very unp0leasant to have. Yet, those who do have it get on with their lives. The drugs enable them to do so. No one reasonable would ever even suggest what the Victorian Government can do to those with bi-polar depression.

Jeff Kennett has done a great disservice, to be blunt; running around, screaming depression is a ‘disease’. It is is not. That disservice has only shored up the crims called the Victorian Government. The case of Jennifer is an example. She has incidents of mild depression; she does not get severely depressed.

Dementia also covers emotional turmoil. Again, some individuals have degenerated emotionally, and for good reasons. They have had to endure something that does do that does have that effect. It’s not permanent, and many pull out of their lees as they fight their way out of their predicament, or do something about their predicament. It’s a part of what it means to be a man; it’s life.

There is an exception; emotional degeneration can be due to a physiological problem. One victim of the Government did have that condition. It could be and was rectified by surgery. The subject was back to normal straight after it. The STO was fed information about their victim, not from the doctors who treated the victim. They proceeded to impose the worst Order of all Orders used, the Guardianship Order.

To do that, the STO and VCAT refused to admit the crucial evidence, the reports of the doctors, which stated the diagnosis and the fact that it would be permanently rectified by a routine procedure. A Doctor told the criminals there is no justification at all for the actions against the patient, and supplied them the evidence of why. They buried all reports thatshowed the criminal fraud they did perpetrate:

They had the victim classed as having a ‘mental disability’, and immediately placed the victim under guardianship. They booted the victim out of their own home and shoved the victim in to a “home”. They seized property and funds and began stripping them.

Under the ‘law’, Victorians cannot fight back. The Government has stripped them of all their inalienable rights.