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.

The Office of the Public Advocate is bound up with the large scale criminal operations the Victorian Government runs through VCAT and the State Trustees Office. This will be explained in another item. For now,the focus is their corruption of language, by the use of vulgar, meaningless words and expressions. The corruption of language is a means used to conceal from the public the Victorian Government’s criminal operations, through pr and propaganda; and the Government’s websites are full of infantile propaganda.

From the webiste of the “Office of the Public Advocate” (the b.s. they are)

“A cognitive disability affects a person’s ability to think. Several types of disability are referred to as cognitive disabilities. These are dementia, intellectual disability and acquired brain injury. Mental illness can also cause cognitive disability. However, mental illness severe enough to substantially impair thinking only affects a small percentage of people.”

That is an atrocious bit of rubbish. The expression, cognition, is from the quasi-scientific -quasi philosophical tripe that is called psychology. Cognition applies to mind-body dualism, which is tripe. Let’s take the standard definition, which shows why it is tripe:

1.The mental act or process by which knowledge is acquired, including perception, intuition, and reasoning.

2.The knowledge that results from such an act or process.

To draw out further why it is tripe, consider the extension:

Cognitive dissonance is “an uncomfortable state resulting from conflicting cognitions of an object”.

Humph: for someone to progress as a scientist “cognitive dissonance” is involved, and “discomfit” is involved. Many scientists have struggled with beliefs they have had to relinquish and reject as false, due to science. It’s tough, but it has to be done to be a good scientist. The same can be said of economics, or theology. Yet, that meets the definition of, because ‘conflict’ is involved. It is an experience which, in reality, most reasonable men and women go through.

There is nothing scientific in those definitions. They are pseudo-technical vulgar nonsense expressions. Meaningless, they explainnothing at all. Yet, that rot is used by the OPA in its efforts to haul Victorians before the Star Chamber called VCAT and have them placed under “Orders”.

Notice, under the heading a whole range of meaningless, pseudo-scientific terms are used. The following puts beyond question the corruption and abuse entailed in the use of such vulgar terms:

What is a disability?
The Office of the Public Advocate operates according to the Victorian Guardianship and Administration Act 1986. Under this Act disability means intellectual impairment, mental disorder, brain injury, physical disability or dementia.

There is no universally accepted definition of disability. The United Nations emphasises that disability is a problem created by society and not an attribute of an individual. Many people have illnesses or conditions that affect physical or mental function. However, disability is created when the social and physical environment does not meet the needs of all people.

Definitions of disability and disability types are created to serve many purposes. Government departments create definitions to determine who is eligible for services. Definitions allow researchers to focus on particular disability types. People with similar disabilities often find support in talking to each other.

The United Nations emphasises that disability is ‘a problem created by society’ and not an attribute of an individual – Neo Marxism!(1) and the lie of the organistic –collectivist notions of man. This is the spring of the ‘definitions used by the Government, through its agents STO, VCAT and OPA, to strip many Victorians of their dignity, and their inalienable rights. Each of these entities is deliberately telling falsehoods to the public when they say they are protecting those very things. A lie, propaganda lies to conceal what they re actually doing. The truth is contained in the declaration:

Definitions of disability and disability types are created to serve many purposes. Government departments create definitions to determine…

What corrupt, rotten criminal scumbags they are.

Having mentioned the Bracks-Brumby-Hulls neo-Marxist take-over of Victoria, through institutions and the law, I will explain it in another article.I will substantiate the claim.

Introduction

In ‘phase I’, the hostile parties concocted their entire case against Jennifer and Peter. They built up a wallpaper of lies and documents involving extensive perjury to press their aim: to steal Jennifer’s entire private property. Criminal collusion is documented. A wallpaper of lies but it is tissue thin, as readers will proceed to find out in this instalment.

Phase I is crucial to what followed. It is necessary to tie in central actions, and pin them to those responsible. It is complex to lay out, and many details have been omitted to simplify as much as possible. Some omitted facts will be picked up in another item. For now, this puts you in the picture as to what Jennifer and Peter faced and remember, what is related below is nothing compared to what was to come next.

The crimes were perpetrated through institutions, including a bank. How else could they have been perpetrated? Their basis is the Victorian Government, operating through its criminal syndicate the STO and its Stalinist enforcer VCAT.

Names

To observe, the names Peter and Jennifer are pseudonyms. Pseudonyms are used for four of their persecutors. The reason is to protect the identities of Jennifer and Peter; they have been put through enough by scumbags. Otherwise, one would not hesitate to use the real names of those four persecutors.

Jennifer’s offspring, “Gorgon” and “Hecate”. A close friend of the siblings, “Salome”. A relative of Jennifer’s, “Sodom”. All other names are real names.

Background

1. Medical
Only a few details are required, for now. They explain, on what the entire case against Jennifer and Peter was built.

In 2004, with deteriorating eyesight, Jennifer was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. White lesions in the brain occur as a part of aging. Multiple sclerosis, demyelisation of some nerve fibres, is an acceleration of what occurs to everyone as they age; and that is that. A not tight analogy is cancer - rapid cell division.

The ms is mild, and has remained in remission to this day. This has been confirmed in numerous reports, culminating in a stunning CAT Scan report late in 2006.

Because of ms, she has impaired short-term memory. STM is important, for long term memory. It is only mild. There is no impairment of Jennifer’s facility to rationally conduct her affairs, her competence, and general enjoyment of life.

Due to the harassment, Jennifer was occasionally depressed. Her specialists recorded in their reports that it was both mild and entirely due to duress. This is important;the hostile ‘witnesses’ exaggerated it greatly, strengthened by the misuse of the word dementia, which suggests to the man in the street something worse. This was compounded by two hostile experts, who not only did not explain ‘dementia’, but also used an anachronistic, clinically useless expression, which conceals the truth.

Later, Jennifer’s partial blindness would be used against her as further proof of why the STO should have her under their control. It was cited as evidence she was irrational and susceptible to ‘con-men’. Let’s see; everyone who is blind, or ‘clinically blind’, or ,near enough, hands up. Right, you are ga ga and must surrender to the total control of the STO.

All this was admitted as ‘evidence’ against Jennifer. As we shall show later, VCAT excluded sound, thorough expert evidence, and no wonder. Those many reports drew out the deception spun out of the two defective reports the persecutors relied on as their expert medical evidence. An offence was committed in this regard, as related below.

All through the case, until the tables were turned, the hostile lawyers and VCAT members blackened Peter’s name. Their evidence was nothing but the lies spun by Gorgon and Hecate and their intimate friends, as we shall unload with the documents below.

Family.

In 2004, she met Peter. They fell in love; it was “serious”.

Suspecting they’d married, and they did in 2005, Gorgon and Hecate began a campaign to force a separation by blackening Peter’s name to anyone who’d listen, including staff at Jennifer’s local bank. They depicted Peter as an arch criminal, out to strip Jennifer of all her property. They depicted Jennifer as insane, and thus incapable of realising the danger she was in.

They assaulted Jennifer, with another close friend of theirs cheering from the sidelines. They assaulted Peter with Salome cheering from the sidelines.

Still, they had no lever to achieve their goal, seize Jennifer’s property, until their malevolent campaign came to a head in October. Then, someone pointed out to them a way to have Jennifer declared in reality insane, non-compentis, and have her declared in financial danger from Peter.

The case is launched

On that ‘advice’, on the evening of the 27th of October 2005, Gorgon contacted CATT, which is an ambulance based psychiatric unit, ” Crisis Assessment Team Triage” which sends out units of psychiatric nurses in emergency cases. Gorgon spun lies about Jennifer and added a few more. CATT telephoned Peter and Jennifer, and after a brief chat, was satisfied it was a false alarm.

Jennifer and Peter called the police that evening. The reason was to put a final stop to the long running, brutal harassment from Gorgon and Hecate. That should have been the end of the matter. It wasn’t.

A vicious CATT nurse, a Mr. Rooney, suggested to Gorgon that to obtain what they sought they could obtain a VCAT issued, “Guardianship Order, and how to do it. It wasn’t to be had by ringing up CATT. It was to be had through the STO and VCAT. They only needed the ‘right’ lawyers and, as we shall see, they were at hand.

The STO can exercise one of these only under court orders: Temporary Administration Order; Administrative Order; Guardianship Order. (1) Application must be made to VCAT, with sworn affidavits, grounds, witnesses, and representation by a barrister for the applicant(s).

Document A: Application for Temporary Administration Order to VCAT, with covering letter and sworn affidavit.

1.Covering letter

Letterhead of the firm, McDonald, Slater and Lay. Dated, 28/10/05.Addressed to The Registrar, Guardian Section, VCAT.

To quote the main statements:

“We refer to the telephone conversation with Registrar and John Waldsley of Counsel this afternoon.

[We ask for] “an urgent Order appointing a temporary administrator of Jennifer be made as a matter of emergency.”

“Our Client, has instructed us that he gives his undertaking as to damages that may flow as a consequence of this order.”

We have an agreement with the Bendigo Bank not to release funds (to Jennifer) until 5.00p.m today”

(I draw attention to the last two statements, the force of which is set out below)

2. The Application Form

Applications to the Guardianship list of VCAT must include informing the targeted individual. Copies must have been sent to the defendant. There is an exception, ‘urgent cases’, and this case was not at all urgent, did not warrant any such action at all. No copy was sent to Jennifer. The hostile parties of their actions did not inform her in any way against her. It was all initiated in secrecy – maintained by VCAT until Jennifer accidentally found out what the scumbags were doing to her.

The name listed on the application as the “Applicant” and signed by the “Applicant” is Mr. Waldsley! It is beyond question that is unlawful. Waldsley broke the law in doing even that one thing, falsely affixing his signature in the place of the real Applicant.

In the entry for cause, no cause is given. Dementia is stated but that is no cause at all, as we explained in the background brief.

Medical evidence has to be stated and enclosed as an attachment in applications as evidence. They had none and so they made a medical report up, a non-existent report: “Subject to medical report.” That is against the law. It is an offence.

For next of kin, several lies were written into the records:

Gorgon is entered as the next of kin in Australia. Gorgon’s address is outside Australia. Gorgon gave a false address; it is the address of sibling Hecate. Neither is Hecate next of kin. Peter, as Jennifer’s husband is next of kin.

The Application requires statement of “issues to be determined” in a hearing. That is, the case must be stated. What was written? This:

“As determined by the Tribune.”

No, “issues”, no “case” but, in the application, they told the tribune ‘you can cook one up for us’, and that is what that does mean. Contrast a fictional equivalent:

Police rock up to your doorstep, arrest you and haul you before a judge. They say to the Judge ‘M’Lord, we request that you invent any criminal charges you care to contemplate and convict the prisoner’. He replies, ‘Before I do this, do you have any evidence to help me?’ “No, we’d just like you to convict the felon.’ “OK, I’ll convict the prisoner of murder, armed robbery and rape, and tax him 60 years prison.”

Well, that was what was done to Jennifer.

3.Attachment, Short form of Affidavit

The affidavit is the sworn statement of Sodom. Due to a number of details that could identify the victims, one shall confine quotation to a few telling statements:

Sodom falsely swore that he had been in “regular contact with Jennifer for the last 15 or so years”. That he knows her symptoms, “ they are severe”. That Jennifer told him he was “disturbed” about Peter (this is allusion to the slander Peter had criminal intention to embezzle Jennifer’s funds). They are all falsehoods, and those falsehoods were invented by Gorgon and Hecate. Jennifer’s contact with Sodom was, at most, one telephone call a year. There is good reason why Jennifer has had nothing to do at all with that scumbag, and refuses to have anything to do with Sodom.

Summing up the Document

The application is unlawful, and the solicitors and barrister in preparing the application broke the law. Those offences are compounded by extensive perjury by parties to the document. Isn’t it also perjury for Wadlsey to have entered himself as the “Applicant” ?

The law was broken again by not advising Jennifer of the application and supplying her the documentation. Yet, McDonald Slater and Lay had the time to contact and gather together Waldsley, Gorgon, Hecate and Sodom, contact VCAT and arrange a hearing ex parte.

Giving the game away totally is that odd ‘let off clause’ in the covering letter. Notice also, there is the assumption of safety in Sodom signing off on the perjuries committed. Who would go after Sodom who lives far away outside Victoria?

What else? Well, having Sodom as the witness of the affidavit protects not only the real ‘Applicant’, Gorgon. It conceals the relations between Gorgon, Hecate and Salome. Salome is the daughter of one of the solicitors of the firm “McDonald Slater and Lay”. Try it:

In a regular court, the application would not simply have been thrown out as vexatious. Parties who attempt before a regular Judge what that lot did would swiftly find themselves on the wrong end of hard cross-examination. This is before charges of perjury in order to injure an innocent party and defraud them of their property are raised.

VCAT is different. VCAT is a Stalinist Show Trial circus. VCAT did not agree to what was sought on the 28th. Not because the application was unlawful, and not because statements needed to be tested for truthfulness. No, they wanted a “medical report’. In other words, it was OK to submit an unlawful application, and one that contained lies in the form itself and extended perjury in the Affidavit.

As indicated above, VCAT isn’t concerned whether a medical report is defective. All they want is a ‘legal excuse’ to help out their pals in crime in the STO and the law firms who surround them, aid them, abet them, and get rich quick by stripping victims of their private property.

Waldsley, perhaps without realising - (casualness showing out) has only supplied evidence of a criminal act,”We have an agreement with the Bendigo Bank not to release funds (to Jennifer) until 5.00p.m …” It is all the more explosive as evidence in the light of what is related below.

30/10/05 Wadsley submits a perjured document to VCAT

Document from Mr. Waldsley to VCAT, 30/10/05:

: I confirm that I am briefed on behalf of Mr. [Sodom] …

This refers to the lie concocted by Gorgon and Hecate, to paint Peter a criminal. The claim is Peter was already embezzling Jennifer. Original balances, they asserted were three times the real modest sum Jennifer had in savings.

The crucial evidence, account books (and the first will) were stolen from Jennifer’s home, on the 25/10/05 and the only one who could have done that was Gorgon.

Gorgon denied it throughout. To establish the truth of the funds then held, and that Peter was not embezzling, they had to wait the best part of two years to obtain evidence of the truth and, ironically, from STO. Here’s the punchline:

When the case was over, a Mr. Beresford Smith, who is in the office of the OPA, returned the stolen documents to Jennifer. The only way he could have obtained them, unless he committed the crimes of breaking and entering and stealing, was through McDonald, Slater and Lay, or Waldsley, or directly from either Gorgon or Hecate, or in the presence of all of them.

We have more to say on that bastard called Beresford Smith of the OPA later.

Criminal Collusion, VCAT fully apprised of it and accepts it. Bendigo Bank. Document 2

Without a temporary administrative Order, the firm McDonald, Slater and Lay nonetheless attempted on the 28th of October to initiate seizure of Jennifer’s accounts by requesting of the Bendigo bank the ‘stop’ them. They contacted a Mr. Neunhoffer, Corporate Solicitor Group Legal, Bendigo Bank.

Mr. Neunhoffer asked for delivery of the Order before execution, for the very good reason that it is against the law to freeze accounts without Orders, and notarising them. They replied that they have them. They assured Neunhoffer they would be sent directly, so would he freeze the accounts?

The Bank, by its senior legal officer broke the law. They froze the accounts without having seen an Order, let alone notarise an order. On the 31st, Neunhoffer wrote to McDonald Slater and Lay, on Bendigo Bank’s Letterhead:

” I refer to our conversation of the 28th, 2005 at 5.20 p.m. and the Bank’s willingness to continue the stops’ on Jennifer’s accounts pending the …VCAT Guardianship Order application set down to be heard first thing this morning.

Please note that unless the Bank receives a VCAT Guardianship order or other Court Order today, the stops…will be lifted at 5.00 p.m. today and Jennifer will be allowed to transact her accounts as she sees fit.

In the absence of one of the above mentioned orders, the Bank is unable to assist you further.”

The letter shows they lied to Bendigo Bank in saying they had an order, and would send it asap. Yet, the bank committed a criminal offence in agreeing to that action against Jennifer and her private property

On the 31st, in a hearing VCAT denied the application - on the count of lack of a medical report and not because the application was unlawful. Thus, VCAT gave the hostile parties an out. VCAT ordered a hearing for the 2nd of November 2005, so McDonald Slater and Lay could come up with a ‘medical report’.

Remember that the Application contained not mere irregularities. It is unlawful. That it also contained an Affidavit that is unbroken perjury. The real applicant, Gorgon, is concealed.

The covering letter stated: “We have an agreement with the Bendigo Bank not to release funds (to Jennifer) until 5.00p.m today… VCAT was thus fully apprised McDonald Slater and Lay, and the Bendigo Bank had arranged an unlawful agreement against Jennifer. VCAT was fully apprised of a criminal action arranged by that firm of solicitors and Bendigo Bank.

On the 31st, VCAT handed down an “administrative guardianship order”.

Bendigo Bank broke the law on the 28th, and continued to break the law until 5.00pm of the 31st.

Neunhoffer did not advise Jennifer before reversal of the stop that he would reverse it. Jennifer was not to find ut that she could have quickly shifted some of her accounts before it was too late.

STO gets its claws on private property.

On the 2/11/05, the VCAT “hearing” was held and concluded with the issuing of this order:

Headed under Guardianship and Administration ACT 1986, Section 19, guardianship act, and section 43 administration act;
‘The Tribunal is satisfied the represented person has a disability – that person needs an administrative guardianship order’.

They ordered the ‘standard fees’ be charged against Jennifer:

“…that the State Trustees Offices be paid:
“commission” on (Jennifer’s) gross income at
“3.3.% of pensions
6.6% on all other income.
1.1% per annum on administered funds
4.4% once only commission on capital assets”

If companies tried to charge those “commissions”, their customers would go on the warpath. Those charges, ‘legislated’ alone are nothing but larceny. Larceny committed by the Victorian Govt., with the full approval of politicians.

What must be noted, those “commissions’ do not include all other fees and charges STO exacts against its victims. STO is also an ‘insurance company’ and ‘tax agent’ to the ATO Thus, it charges GST and collects fee and charges on supplying ‘tax advice’ to its victims, and hitting them with taxes.

The above charges are only the beginning of the ‘gravy train’. Neither do they include real funds they siphon out of victims’ accounts. Neither do they include false charge entries to victims’ accounts. All these items will be documented in due course, as we lay out this case.

The firm delivered the VCAT order to Bendigo Bank, which ‘legally’ “stopped Jennifer’s accounts. The State Trustees was now in control of Jennifer’s savings, her cash accounts, and, her house.

The STO entered the victim’s home on its books as a capital asset. The 4.4% commission on capital has a use, besides stealing more of their victims’ property. It is the means by why they put a Queen’s caveat over the homes of victims, as they did in this case.

Treating someone’s home as ‘capital’ is one of the instruments by which the STO seizes homes, confiscates, in fact title, and, as it has done, sells those homes and boots the rightful owners out onto the streets, or, effectively, incarcerates them in ‘homes’. We will, in a later item, relate a case, which illuminates the sheer criminality and brutality of the STO, and the Victorian State Government.

Criminal Collusion- VCAT Lawyers and STO

Documents, which were extracted much later, in the last months of 2006, demonstrate a scheme of arrangement was devised.

The fees of McDonald, Slater and Lay were ordered to be charged against Jennifer’s accounts. After the best part of 2 years, Jennifer managed to obtain ‘account statements’ from the STO.

Account statements in inverted commas because they are worse than inadequate. There, are for example, dates, and contradictions in dating of items, which points to only one thing, “fiddling of books”. The statements are incomplete. Explanations are trivial.

One item in one of the statements is for legal fees paid.

In the covering letter, it is explained the legal fees were paid to the hostile lawyers. Notice: Jennifer and Peter paid their own legal and expert witness fees (though it was a struggle), not the STO.

The STO refused her many requests for increase in the allowance they doled out to her from her own means. Her requests were to meet the costs of mounting and running her case. VCAT went on to increase their costs, while they tried to starve Jennifer into submission.

While denying Jennifer the funds to run her own case, it was arranged between the STO and the hostile parties, and agreed before VCAT that the fees of the hostile lawyers would be extracted from Jennifer’s funds. Documents obtained in 2006 show the collusion between the parties in greater detail, but they are for later items.

They agreed to steal funds from Jennifer to pay part of the fees of hostile lawyers. It is larceny.

Ah,the Federal Government is party to the larceny of the Victorian Government through its crime syndicate the STO ; as it is a Federal ‘tax agent’. Yes it is. They are committing criminal offences, offences of receiving.

Conclusion

What we have outlined is how the Victorian Government, through STO, VCAT, and aligned lawyers, targets individuals, hauls them in, and then steals their property.

This is what they did to Jennifer. They had not expected Jennifer to fight back, nor that an archive be built to document their very serious crimes.

I haven’t captured all that went on in this article, and a followup is probably in order. For now, it establishes the basic lines that triggered what followed.

Already, serious offences have been committed. Before the tables are turned, Jennifer and Peter were subjected to increasingly worse abuse.

Yet, what is already outlined, and what is to follow, is not atypical: it is what the government runs on a large scale against many Victorians. There are victims who have endured even greater brutality at the hands of the Government and its agents the STO and VCAT. Remember this, as you read these articles on the case.

The “operation is the State Trustees Office”. The STO engages in large-scale confiscation of private property; savings accounts, any other capital assets they might have, and the homes of victims. They use ‘legal’ measures against their many victims to achieve their objective. What the STO is doing is no secret; it is widely known around Victoria - by law firms, accounting firms, real estate agents, and doctors. The Victorian Government, through Attorney General Hulls, under both Bracks and Brumby, is running, a large-scale criminal operation.

In the introduction, I said that a major legal “industry’ has been raised, dedicated to the advance of these criminal actions. Driving it is collusion. In this instalment, we supply direct evidence of collusion between the STO and lawyers, and that their action is sheltered by VCAT (1). The evidence shows laws are broken, the principals involved, certainly in the case to be set, commit perjury.

Those involved in these criminal activities are so habituated to what they are engaged in that they were blasé, casual, in what they did in the case to hand. They supplied the documentary evidence of their crimes that I will set forth. They did not realise that they were doing so in some instances. One instance is curious in this regard. Neither did they count on two of their many victims refusing to roll over, and fighting back. They also did not count on the victims tirelessly hunting down evidence that condemns the principals involved. In this part, we set out the opening phase which details crimes committed right at the beginning.

The hostile parties became more vicious as time wore on. They intensified their actions against the victims, and multiplied the list of crimes committed. Crimes committed during the ‘opening phase’ are numerous as it is. One expression sums up the main tactic used against the victims, “Fear” = “false evidence appearing realistic”. Perjury and collusion, are only two criminal offences committed, as the case shows.

This case is a precedent, due to the victims’ diligence and attention to detail. It is one of the few, if any cases, in which a complete archive was compiled and preserved. I have read the archives and copied the documents. The case ran nearly 3 years from 2005 of 2007. Documents crucial to the defence are direct evidence of crimes committed against the victims.

This part relates the opening phase against the victims. Those moves brought in straight away the STO.

The law firm of “McDonald, Slater and Lay”, acting for hostile parties, broke the law. Their witnesses committed perjury, at the start. An affidavit, for example, against Jennifer and Peter is a list of lies. Those lies were the core basis of all the successive actions against Jennifer and Peter. The barrister engaged by the hostile firm also broke the law when he signed the first application against the victims as the “Applicant”.

The firm broke the law again when it told The Bendigo Bank that it had a VCAT order for the freezing of Jennifer’s accounts. It had no such order.

Bendigo Bank broke the law in complying with the firm’s demand they freeze the accounts. A law firm has to hand over such orders to the head solicitor of a bank. The bank’s solicitor must, on receiving it, duly notarise it. The Bendigo Bank’s head solicitor had no such order in the first instance, yet he stopped the accounts; that was against the law.

Bendigo Bank had only a matter of days before broken the Federal Privacy Act. Staff of the branch Jennifer does her transactions at, disclosed her account details to her hostile offspring, who were the original instigators of the criminal actions to be outlined.

The STO entered a criminal arrangement with the law firm “McDonald, Slater and Lay” before VCAT. The scheme was to charge the hostile lawyers fees to Jennifer’s accounts under STO control. This was done, and it is documented; some crucial documents showing this were, ironically, extracted (after long months of pressure) from the STO in 2006.

The above is to be demonstrated in tomorrow’s continuation of ‘phase one’.The documentary evidence is incontrovertible, it is direct evidence of what was done.

(I) The STO’s operations are sheltered by VCAT. Effectivley, VCAT helped the STO commit larceny.

VCAT was established for the original stated aim of supplying a lower cost alternative to regular courts. In reality, that is not how it functions. It is the enforcer of many of the capricious “Acts” of the Victorian Government.

The rules governing VCAT are not internal rules of due process to ensure justice. The rules governing VCAT ensure it is nearly impossible for anyone rammed through a VCAT “list’ to seek redress in a regular court. In this case, the redress sought was against:

The crime of Government stripping them of their inalienable rights, their private property, Jennifer’s liberty, and their dignity; via the STO and VCAT, backed by a wall of lawyers inside and outside of the STO arranging these acts of larceny.

As for cheapness; it is not cheap at all. The case to be unfolded is one demonstration of this. Those caught in the VCAT noose face a long, gruelling, wrenching, and very expensive grind to protect their inalienable rights. For one thing, it requires top barristers to fight back. The STO practice is to starve those who resist into submission and VCAT abets STO very well.

An “industry” of lawyers has grown up around finding ‘cause’ to drag hapless victims before what are Kafkaesque trials. This case is only one of them, in which the victims were effectively put on trial. The objectives were to strip them of their rights, their private property, their dignity, and their liberty, and to destroy their marriage.

Indeed there were two victims, Jennifer’ and her husband Peter. He was unofficially on ‘trail’. The reason was a malevolent defamation campaign promoted by hostile parties and accepted by VCAT. Yes, cruel, entirely false slanders against Peter was submitted as ‘evidence’, and allowed by VCAT.

Due process and rules of justice, to serve justice? VCAT is a mockery of justice. The case to be laid out demonstrates it. To foreshadow one problem:

Unlike in cases before regular courts, defendants have nearly zero rights of discovery of hostile evidence in order to prepare their case. In this case, some crucial evidence used early against them was obtained late in the course of their persecution, only by using the ‘Freedom of Information Act’. That evidence was central to the persecutors’ “case”.

There is one important device to be noted, hearings held ex parte. That means hostile parties can engage in proceedings without the other parties being informed so that they can prepare their defence. This is not a joke, it is true. This will be shown, and how it can be used against victims, and to inflict more pain on victims.

Interestingly, the victims applied for an ex parte hearing, to discuss how to proceed in their defence, not to engage in a ‘hearing’ against their foes. Their request was soley for procedural guidance. The ‘member’ (the VCAT name for ‘judge’) agreed, but he added a twist. He, instead, ordered a ‘rehearing’ of the earlier case’ which did more damage to the victims.

A rehearing is a challenge on the grounds a previous hearing was flawed. They were not prepared for that, they were not asking for that at that stage. Naturally, they lost badly in that session.

One ‘member’ excluded a large body of crucial evidence submitted by the victims. Needless to say, that was automatic bias in favour of the hostile parties. The upshot is obvious.

In another session, the hostile parties were permitted to shout down the victims. The persecutors freely made claims, perjuring themselves with it. VCAT ‘members’ did not interfere. The defence could not cross-examine, could do nothing but sit and watch their foes and the ‘members’ reduce a hearing into a farce that left the position of STO, the hostile lawyers, and their witnesses intact.

Key hostile witnesses, whose evidence was unbroken perjury, were never required to appear in VCAT. They were not cross-examined. This, despite one of them falsely swearing in an affidavit they were willing and free to appear before VCAT. In reality, there should have been no freedom to choose.

The witnesses, because of the gravity of their slanders, should have been required to attend, and be cross-examined. There are more points about hostile witnesses which will reinforce the point Indeed, what I am describing are some of the conditions of due process and justice and they are the two things VCAT is not about at all.

VCAT ‘members’ notion of due process is the standard used in Stalin’s show trials.

This, the Introduction, is the first instalment on shocking affairs. This is due to the amount of evidence to be presented.

It is also necessary to reinforce the case by distilling the scale of “operations” and the large number of victims of the Victorian Government. The case lifts out the “operations” and what is done to the very many victims.

The torture victims are subjected to is nearly unimaginable. Their grief is softened by their decency and courage, and close friends. Others have fared far worse, and I will cite some cases in which the Government’s capacity for brutality surpassed the evil treatment they have dealt out to the decent, modest couple I write of.

This case shows what the Goverment is, what it has done, and what it continues to do to many Victorians.

The background is not novel to readers, since I have written on it before. Back then, however, I did not have the evidence available to press it further. Now I do; it is four years of carefully archived material.

The material contains direct evidence of crimes committed. It shows some crucial ways by which the parties involved commit those crimes. It supplies direct evidence of ‘officers’ of several bodies who committed the crimes documented.

The evidence provides a stunning inroad to cracking open what now has to be considered nothing less than a crime syndicate, run by the Victorian Government. It provides lines for crime investigation, for example:

One of the most difficult tasks in investigating crime syndicates is pinning down the ‘money trail’. The documents solve the starting points immediately. Those documents put detectives straight onto the money trial.

In the case the documents relate, there is sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against principals.

I warn the Department of Public Prosecution and its head, failure to take action against the responsible parties must be regarded by the public as a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice, which is a major criminal offence. The reason for this warning is:

That besides charges that can immediately be laid against those in the case I outline, criminal investigation now must be conducted against the Cabinet. Bracks is party to what is systematically run by the Government (and it is safe to say still does). The reason is:

He was Premier for a number of the years during which the case ran. He was Premier for many of the years over which the large scale ‘operation’ has been run. His successor, Brumby has taken over the ‘operation’.

Secondly, The Attorney General’s office is directly responsible for the operation. That means criminal investigation into Hulls and his staff is an imperative.

The DPP can pervert the course of justice by perverting any such investigation, even by refusing to conduct it.

I also warn that the Bracks-Hulls-Brumby appointees Christine Nixon, Overland and any other such senior officer must not be allowed contact with Victoria Police’s criminal investigation bureau. The reason should not need expansion.

I warn the Federal Attorney General; Federal action and investigation is required, such as by Federal Police. I warn him that failure to do so in order to protect his left-wing mates of the Bracks and Brumby Cabinets must be regarded by the public as also a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.

I warn media companies might be open to investigation. In this case, employees, journalists of at least one company, were apprised of the case but did not take it up. Was it because the left wing dominated media would have had to attack the Bracks and Brumby Cabinets?

I warn the liberal Party that MPs, and their advisers and Party ‘Machine men” can be investigated.

I warn the Liberal Party that one of its senior Liberal MPs is culpable of deliberately refusing his oath-sworn duty as an MP in this case. I have called for his sacking before. Now, he must be sacked. In view of what is involved, the seriousness of the crimes involved, he must be made to answer for his actions.

The complacency of the Liberal Party in these matters opens its MPs to questions of complicity. I am tracking down to as close as possible the year when the Victorian Government commenced these large-scale criminal operations. If that means it commenced under the last Liberal Party administration, that means those in that Ministry face the consequences; good!

It is also very serious evidence of what genuine Liberal Party members are attacking: the treachery of Australia’s Rightwing Establishment. Also, their cowardice, their contempt for the inalienable rights of Australians and Victorians. It is damning evidence of their cowardice and lack of any principle whatsoever.

Moreover, the Liberal Party Opposition has had three leaders against Bracks and Brumby. They are culpable for the immoral defection of the Parliamentary Party from their oath-sworn duty in such affairs. There is unmistakable evidence the Liberal Party MPS and their advisers are apprised of the criminal actions of the Bracks –Brumby administrations.

Political Parties are surrounded by lawyers as ‘advisers’. The crimes of the Government are run and committed by, amongst others, lawyers.

The Liberal Party is definitely party to covering up what the government is doing. That is, the ‘Acts of Parliament’ governing certain agencies of the Government ensures concealment is almost certain, (plainly, not quite) by lawyers.

In the name of the Liberal Party and its members, those venal, shallow, cowards, everyone of them, have fully supported any measure that strangles inalienable rights, which only economic liberty and common law advances. They have backed measures that overthrow the rule of common law, and overthrows justice. The truth of this shows through all that is to be unfolded.

Those who are called Liberal Party MPs, and the rightwing that controls the Party and have wrecked it, are a complete disgrace to the Party, and to Parliament. They are shameless, unprincipled, venal charlatans. I hold them in naked contempt for what that lot have done and have not done.

The Party’s ‘advisers’ must be investigated for what they might know.

I attacked the Bracks-Hulls “Crimes Acts” as an assault on common law and it is. In the circumstances, however, one takes pleasure in the irony of:

Those involved in the crimes to be detailed fall under the Crimes Acts. The Crimes Acts involves seizure of the private property of principals before they have been tried and convicted.

The Cabinet and the not “public service” are receivers, through the Treasurer and his office, of stolen private property, massive amounts of private property, laundered through the accounts of its agents.

The public must regard the set-up as a major crime syndicate, engaged in very serious criminal actions. What will be related makes it very plain why Victorians must regard and treat the principals involved as criminals.

The victims in the case have told me I am free to publish any document in the archives. I will do that.

I claimed that I have a major ‘scandal’ that has a detonator, explosives and it is ticking. It is not a ‘scandal’, and it exploded before I set “pen to paper”:

We are dealing with a major crime syndicate operated by the Victorian Government, and around which has been raised a major “industry” dedicated to the conduct of what is a systematic, major criminal operation.

Lastly, I said “I looked forward” to publishing on it. In reality, my motivation is humble service to a brave couple, who fought the criminal bastards all the way and won.

By “won”, I mean it in a very limited sense as in, the ‘victory’ got them off their backs. It is not a total win for them. They have not been paid their losses, expenses, nor damages. They have only got them off their backs and their dignity back. Yet, as odd as it sounds, against the Goverment and it’s criminal operation, that is a very good win.

However, total victory is required. Their win actually secured the final evidence required to mount criminal actions against the principals involved, and it must be done.

It, as related above, also launches deeper action. The signal importance of this case, therefore, is not to be underestimated. It is a crucial case because of the work it does.

My motivation is also the humble service of seeing justice is done. To see that justice is done for a staggeringly large number of victims of the criminals headed by the Cabinet of the Government of Brackistan.

My motivation is to see that action is taken. My motivation is to see justice avenged against those who are nothing but criminal thugs.

I trust that readers will rapidly acquire those motivations too.

I trust that some of those readers, who can assist in avenging justice and the victims of systematic crime, because of their capacity, will acquire these motivations and:

Act on those same motivations!

This item, “Introduction”, is the first instalment on what can only be handled serially. Part I opens with the first actions against the couple, preceded by a brief summary of background. Names are named. What those names did is stated.

Names and their criminal actions will be stated in each instalment. The crimes committed in this case alone are extensive.

It is a massive case; the archives match it, but documentary usage and transcription is stripped down to a limited number of essential documents that blow the Government and its thugs to “smithereens”.

Other cases will be cited in brief essential details, to reinforce the case, and to ensure the scale of the criminal operations conducted by the Victorian Government is thoroughly understood.

The signs of that truth are:

The Institute of Public Affairs operates as any bludging ‘public relations’ man does.

It’s a wealthy man’s version of a ‘professional dole-bludger’s office”.

Like PR men, they are shallow, and do not work for their clients at all.

Their magazine, The IPA Review, is a trash magazine, handed out as a complementary attachment, as Strider observed, when UFO nutters buy the UFOlogist magazine.

They appointed a kid as the editor of the IPA Review.

Fuelling the Institute of Public Affairs’ moral turpitude is:

The absence of intellectual integrity and that has set them adrift. It is central to why they have no moral compass. It is why they have appointed as staff those devoid of moral compass.

They irony is, like their fellow “professional dole bludgers”, The Centre for Independent Studies, they count themselves superior to leftists. We know this becuase, they take “‘credentialism” seriously. It is important to have a string of degrees. There it is, “credentialism” is a PR stunt aimed to impress. No substance just titles. It shows.

An example of what’s wrong with “credentialism”

Ah, Glenfarclas, who begs to differ, is a gullible. He couldn’t accept what another theologian and I know, there is no distinguished theologian called a Samuel Gregg. Glenfarclas doesn’t appreciate it but if Gregg was, he would be well known around the world, in Australia, amongst theologians.

He isn’t. H’s obscure and that is because he is not as Glenfarclas claims Gregg is. Gregg’s field is “moral philoposophy”.

Glenfarclas couldn’t spot a theologian if he punched him on the nose – which would be to demonstrate a theological argument.

Glenfarclas’ reason for his claim is (he supplied it) because Gregg has an impressive string of qualifications. Oh, no doubt, and because the IPA gave its imprimatur.

Glenfarclas has committed not the fallacy of arguing from authority (X says so, so there). He commits the fallacy of arguing from ‘the IPA are serious know it alls’. It shows:

Glenfarclas doesn’t appreciate how silly it is saying Gregg is Australia’s leading theologian.

For Glenfarclas’ benefit: one would not dare show Gregg’s article to other serious theologians in Australia, there are not many, and most are not in clerical collars . They’d conclude I’ve dropped the theological bundle.

Neither would I repeat Glenfarclas’ claim about Gregg. I’m not cruel and therefore I wouldn’t humiliate Glenfarclas by doing that.

Glenfarclas’ comments very much suggests he is bound up with the IPA. That he would assert that I am Gerard Jackson, is not merely idiotic but indicates an IPA “fishing trip” – they are hurting and severely embarrassed by the exposure of their shoddiness.

Let them know it isn’t over, as the rest of this article makes plain.

Who the IPA’s editor of the IPA Review is, gives the show away

Nothing is more damning evidence than that kid’s journalistic efforts.

What makes it damning is the tripe written by the ‘editor’ of what they claim is a serious “free market” journal. Chris Berg isn’t merely flippant, as his joint ‘article’ with Andrew Kemp shows. He’s worse than that, as his articles for “The Age” aka “The Spencer Street Soviet also shows.

Some are so appallingly bad he cold be mistaken for a ‘Chardonnay sipping’ leftist (they give Chardonnay a bad name). Some examples any ‘middle-class’, trendy, ‘Chardonnay sipping leftist’ could proudly write.

To begin lightly, Berg pontificated on values.

Society rhetoric just a pulp fiction,September 2, 2007

He commences with a garbled, appallingly bad attempt at refuting and attacking the organistic, collectivist notion of ‘Society’, which concludes as it begins:

Furthermore, the boundaries of society are unclear. Does society stop at the water’s edge? Does society stop when we go to work? Is it society, or is it the government that compels us to pay tax? (It sure feels like government.)

The word “value” is just as fraught as the word “society” — 100 philosophers locked in a room wouldn’t be able to decide what it means. Nevertheless, the Federal Government is convinced that as long as potential citizens can identify Sir Edmund Barton in a multiple choice list, Australia’s values will be maintained.

When we try to figure out what might be the shared values of our society, we usually end up repeating bad jokes from Crocodile Dundee. Instead, we should recognise that individuals can have values, and communities can have values, but insisting that everybody in the country recognises our Judaeo-Christian heritage won’t do much for anybody.

Excuse me! The fight against leftists is over values the Left aims at destroying - and they have gone a long way in Brackistan to doing just that. The classical Liberal school of economics, the Austrian school, make plain economics is about vlaues. In fact, Berg, the term values is repeated in standard, undergraduate, economics texbooks.

Solid theologians don’t need to waste time over ‘moral theology’. Values are intrinsic to christology and Trinitarian theology. The term of Values is central in solid philopsphy -again thwere is no need for ‘moral philosophy’.

Classical Liberalism is not an ideology, it is rooted in the facts of human existence, human action. Discussion of values is inseparable from investigation of those facts. But if Berg and Kemp, for instance, really knew the history of economics, they would know that.

He ends by asserting the great lie of the organistic and collectivist notion of “society”, which is atavism, the assertion of primitve tribalism and the ‘values’ of the tribesman. In doing that, he argues for authoritarianism - though he does not realise that either.

It would be better to drop the illusion of society and instead view Australia as a collection of varied and overlapping communities…

And governments don’t have the burden of encouraging community. Indeed, a community imposed from the top down is not a community at all.

Governments do have a role in removing the impediments to community activity, but dressing up public policy with vacuous rhetoric does nothing more than obscure the importance of genuine community…

Does Berg comprehend at all, even just a tiny, wincey bit that he has:

1.Asserted the sort of rubbish those charlatans called sociologists spew out.

2. Run an argument, such as it is, the left uses to attack liberty, free markets, and capitalism.

It is clear he does not. He is supposed to be the editor of a ‘journal’ produced to defend the very things he has betrayed in that one article. No wonder the “Spencer Street Soviet” happily publishes him - and, no doubt laughs at him, and calls him a “buffoon” behind his back.

If that seems bad enough, he is quite capable of far worse, as this article demonstrates:

Che chic: you’ve ignored the horrors, now buy the T-shirt The Age Sunday, October 14, 2007.

It is also occupies a pride of place on the IPA website.

First a couple of remarks. Berg stated:

“In 1940, Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator mocked the effete airs of Adolf Hitler, without diminishing Chaplin’s serious contempt for the Third Reich.”

It doesn’t gel with him that leftist Charlie Chaplin’s made “The Great Dictator” as a stinging attack on the Nazi regime.

He speaks of “capitalist culture”. That is the sort of expression the left uses to attack capitalism and free markets. He also doesn’t know the source for the notion of “culture” asserted by the Left, and in his flippant phrase, Hegel’s collectivist rot.

He does say,

Guevara was a Marxist guerilla who made a specialty of executing his opponents and prisoners without trial. He pioneered techniques of psychological torture. And he directed “suicide squads” that were sent into battles with no hope of victory.
He also founded Cuba’s concentration camp system, extolled the virtues of class hatred, and persecuted homosexuals.

Yet, he triviliased it by a reprehensible continuation:

Even when he wasn’t waging war against civilians, he was still a disaster. After the Cuban revolution, Guevara took a government position as Cuba’s central economic planner, and promptly drove the economy into the ground. Michael Moore and Oliver Stone may flatter the achievements of Fidel Castro, but much of the blame for the poverty of Cuban socialism must be laid at Guevara’s feet.

I see, that is why Castro has run an island gulag since the shooting of his buddy, it’s all due to Guevara and not ‘deluded’ Castro. Music to the ears of treacherous leftists and Berg is playing it.

Berg, Guevara is dead. It is his mate in mass murder and totalitarianism, Castro who went on to enjoy the perks of demolishing the Cubans, enslaving them and immiserating them further with grand economic plans. Castro ran the Stalinist show, Berg, and sought to establish it on the mainland of Latin America.

To take the rest of his disgusting tripe in, a few passages are in order:

There is hardly a more recognisable symbol of revolutionary chic. Guevara’s image is plastered on T-shirts, backpacks and posters. One online store sells clocks with his iconic portrait to emphasise just how anti-establishment wall-mountable clocks can be.

For this reason, it would be easy to chalk up the modern admiration of Guevara to dormant totalitarian fantasies in the left. But there is already too much self-righteous indignation in politics. Just because someone has a poster of Guevara on their wall, doesn’t immediately imply that they want to send homosexuals to a prison camp and execute those who are not doctrinaire Marxists.

The iconic Guevara has been devalued nearly to the point of meaninglessness. What remains is little more than a striking piece of graphic design with strong colours.

This is hardly surprising. Popular culture has a wonderful habit of appropriating meaningful symbols, processing them into accessible packages, making jokes…

But Nazi kitsch has not been so comfortably embraced by popular culture — perhaps a testament to our continued inability to fully comprehend the horror of the Holocaust.

Or, “perhaps it is testament to our continued ability to fully comprehend the horror of the Holocaust.” Perhaps Berg might ponder why neo-Nazis are reviled, and neo-Nazism a criminal offence in Germany. I have plenty of Jewish friends Berg, some who survived Auschwitz and Buchanwald – and my advice is, you burn the evidence of your appalling callousness because, if you said that in their presence, I would happily join in the flogging you invite.

He did attempt to cover his backside:

Similarly, not every use of the Guevara icon is ironic or in jest.
You are nearly right Berg. Serious, non-leftists don’t mention that name in jest.

Those who display it in deliberate solidarity with the Argentinian guerilla fighter are either ignorant or morally bankrupt.

Only those who do that? So, when Berg walks around Melbourne in a Neo Nazi kitsch t-shirt with Adolf’s face all over it, it is only a jest, a joke.

He finished by telling his own grand lie:

But capitalist culture doesn’t obey moral judgements. Ironically, Che Guevara’s longevity as a cultural symbol has been thanks to the very economic system he sought to destroy.

Well, he is the kid who could dismiss values as a vague notion. He is the kid who doesn’t have a clue free markets and capitalism involves high moral values. This is a jkid who completely ingores something else in his generalised smearing of capitalists:

It has been the Left that has been pushing Che Guevara and Castro. The treachery of the Clintons and the US Demoncrats, and their co-operation with that Stalinist regime are no secret.

It never entered the pea that is Berg’s brain it is the left who are engaged in a major propganda exercise by producing that “chic merchandise”.

During the Christmas break, sitting under the verandah of a pub, a juvenile around 20 years of age walked past proudly wearing a Che Guevara shirt. It was the Christmas season, and that vile brat paraded in the t-shirt of a totalitarian child killer. No T-shirt of Christ, nor of the Holy Family, nor of even the three wise men who travelled afar for a child, but a murdere, a butcher of children, who helped build that hell hole Communist Cuba.

Who cannot recall, with the exception of Berg, his daddy, uncle, and the IPA, as Jackson once wrote, “Aleida Guevara who had come to Australia to whitewash her father’s crimes and Castro’s sadistic regime”. How the Govt. owned broadcasters fawned all over that liar for butchers and beneficiary of their butchery.”

Or this:

Che Guevara: the media mourn a sadistic killer, Humberto Fontova

So, Berg, once again, runs propaganda on behalf of treacherous leftists, inlcuding those in the ABC and SBS who have used taxpayers money on behalf of those butchers and that liar, Alaeida.

“The IPA has no moral compass” is a slight understatement. Berg is a kid, a delinquent kid. It’s really not Berg, but those in the IPA responsible for Berg who are reprehensible and have no moral compass at all.

This will do for Part I.