Miranda Devine, the SMH Journalist who inspired a discussion on Turnbull, strikes again with an expose of New South Wales Policing.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/police-too-afraid-to-get-tough-on-our-criminals-20090805-ea1s.html

Is it time for us to accept that the Commonwealth has the power and responsibility to control the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth, granted to it by Section 51 Placitum vi Constitution and should do so.

Will a Queensland Diplomat establish a National Police Force, and end decades of Police and other Corruption in the States of Australia

Will a Queensland Diplomat establish a National Police Force, and end decades of Police and other Corruption in the States of Australia

Using the past 20 years in as a gauge I'd say it is extremely unlikely. Why ? Because all the key bureaucrats are protected by law because by law public servants can not be removed no matter how useless or damaging or corrupt. Those who try to do right thing are being persecuted & whacked by the full weight of the well, so-called law..

It would appear that the only thing lacking in the establishment of a National Police Force, is the will of the relevant Ministers. The relevant Minister is the Attorney General the Hon Robert McClelland. There is a Secretary in charge of the whole department and his name is Roger Wilkins AO, and his deputy is Elizabeth Kelly. The other minister with responsibility is the Hon Brendan O’Connor.

It has been my experience that the Australian Federal Police are derelict in their duty under s 8 (1) (b) (1) of the act cited below, because a complaint to them is not accepted by them unless specifically directed by a Minister.

Consequently the laws of the Commonwealth are a laughing matter, to State politicians and State Police are politicized, and made ineffective.
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ACT 1979 - SECT 8
Functions
(1) The functions of the Australian Federal Police are:
(b) the provision of police services in relation to:
(i) laws of the Commonwealth;
(ii) property of the Commonwealth (including Commonwealth places) and property of authorities of the Commonwealth; and
(iii) the safeguarding of Commonwealth interests;
If the Liberal Party wishes to be relevant to Australia in the second millennia, it should start to ask some hard questions of the two Ministers cited above.

It seems as if the Parliament of the Commonwealth is willing but the Ministers are not. In 1996, the High Court said the State Parliaments do not have unfettered legislative power. Without a Federal Police willing to accept complaints from the General Public, the laws of the Commonwealth are essentially irrelevant.

The first step for the Australian Federal Police should be to start to ensure that the laws made by delegated authorities like the High Court and Federal Court of Australia comply with the relevant authorizing legislation. The current High Court Rules 2004 do not and the Australian Federal Police should give the present incumbent High Court Justices and others one warning, to fix it, or prosecute them, so Parliament can appoint Justices who will obey its laws

We have the Australian Ferderal police farse, no miss spelling intendered.
It has been subject of scandals nd even murders of members.
State police commisioners of police have been in prison.
Graft, coruption, always surfaces first in police forces.
A good honest cop is worth far more than we could ever pay him/her.
Most are good cops, but tell me please how do you tell an honest cop/politician from a bad one?
Give you a hint, in NSW you can tell if a polly is lieing, watch his/her lips, if they move they are lieing.

I just wonder how the former President of the Court of Appeal, would have behaved when faced with the application of the “Kable Principle”, one Keith Mason, if a Federal Police Officer had been present in Court observing his antics. The argument put to him was that in 1996, the High Court established the “Kable Principle”, in a case in which he was senior counsel. He lost that case, but never accepted that he had done so.

He was breaking Statute law by doing so. S 23 of the Judiciary Act 1903 provides that when a majority of the High Court, makes a decision it is as binding as a Statute. The “Kable Principle” was established by a four to two majority, so it should have been binding on him, but no, he backed State Sovereignty, as opposed to Commonwealth Sovereignty, and since there was no Commonwealth Police Force to ensure the law was obeyed, he felt perfectly safe breaking it.

He was also breaking the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This Statute bans discrimination absolutely. It is a federal Law that even the Ministers in Charge of the Australian Federal Police, O’Connor and McClelland refuse to accept is law. The Priest hired by McClelland to roam Australia trying to convince us it was not enacted, would have been arrested and charged if we had an effective National Police Force.

I haven’t spoken about Christian principles a lot lately, but one of those is there shall be no God but Almighty God. In my church we accept that Almighty God is Sovereign, and sing His praises. The secular members of all State Parliaments and the Commonwealth, subscribe to the principle that Parliament is Almighty God. Like it it lump it, they have panican gods, called Judges and Magistrates to enforce their Sovereignty.

Now Kevin Rudd says he is a Christian. He can either tolerate the establishment of nine separate Religions, in the nine separate States, or he can establish a National Police Force. He is on the horns of a dilemma. Christian or not

The argument against giving Police half the fine is that they would abuse their privileges. This could happen in Australia today, where Judges and Magistrates rule, however it worked in the past because there was a separation of Church and State. Every Police Officer was a peace officer. He or she could not enforce a fine, unless it was authorized by a jury after a trial in a court. There were no Judges authorized to grant fines without consent.

When Church and State were separate, the enforcement of the law was not vested in Judges and Magistrates. These individuals could only rape and pillage the population if a jury gave them authority to do so. This did not suit the lawyers at all. They want all power and want an ineffective Police force. Walk up Martin Place in Sydney and observe and wonder at the Taj Mahal Palaces erected by lawyers, so that they may be housed in style.

A National Police Force would be completely self funding. The first victims would be Local Councils who break the Trade Practices Act 1974. The next would be the big partnerships, who sell indulgences to big corporations. The law has provisions passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, that would balance the budget by having a National Police Force. It would not matter if a few diligent Police became millionaires overnight, if the Parliament of the Commonwealth was no longer impotent. It would be fine because the same Police would pay their taxes as due.

Instead of taking bribes, and entering partnerships with the drug dealers, and protecting them, the National Police Force would be interested in taking their profits, and sending them away. I have seen Police in church. I have no doubt they would like to end up like Norman Allen, after 1970, who when he died left an estate of Four and a half million dollars, on a Police Chief salary. How much better would it be if a Police Officer could legitimately accumulate a fortune, keeping the bastards in society like the drug dealers honest by jury trials

There does not seem to be a lot of interest in a National Police Force. I just wonder how we would be with an Australia wide Policing regime. At present both New South Wales and Queensland discriminate against Police. They then discriminate against everyone else as well.

Queensland has a S 204 in its Criminal Code, Disobedience to Statute Law, and this would have to be the most broken law in Australia. The second most broken law in Australia would have to be the Constitution.

While we have no way of enforcing the Constitution, in New South Wales since 1970, when the Parliament here repealed the Australian Constitution, as far as New South Wales is concerned, and established its own Judicial Power, backed by an armed force, and a Sherif who only owes allegiance to a secular State, and who will carry out any kind of atrocity, on behalf of the Judges, the federation has broken down.

A National Police Force could attract the best and brightest. It would not break Statute Law every time it straps on its pistols, and sends out a SWAT team. These light infantrymen and women, are in breach of Statute Law. The law of s 114 Constitution prohibits an armed force, because as far as I am aware there is no specific statute permitting State Police to be armed. I know when I was a boy Police did not carry firearms, but were entitled to buy one for their own protection, and had pistols in the safe at the Cop Shop, under the control of a sergeant.

Just imagine a National Police Force, interested in obeying the law and keeping the peace, with a National Career Path. The Chief of the Commonwealth Police, would be as powerful as a Prime Minister. His officers would be the toast of society and enormously prosperous, because the Parliament of the Commonwealth has made the laws to make them so. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was enacted in 1986. A National Police Force would end the dishonesty of pretending it does not exist

People worry about the debt Kevin Rudd has run up, and will continue to run up. It would appear from internet resources that Brendan O’Connor is the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police. The Minister for Home Affairs, has an LLB Law Degree, from Monash, so can read and understand Statute Law.

The keys to a balanced budget are in Brendan’s hot little hands. Brendan must call in the present head of the Australian Federal Police. He should have with him a copy of the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) , and point out to the Federal Police, that half the Crown revenue prior to the hostile takeover of Australia by lawyers, was provided by criminals.

He should also obtain a copy of S 122 Fines Act 1966, in New South Wales where the Parliament of New South Wales has provided that half of every fine goes to the prosecutor. It also provides that if the prosecutor is a police officer he gets nothing. Brendan can point out to the Australian Federal Police, that by S 109 Constitution, coupled with S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, that provision discriminates and does not, cannot apply to Federal Police.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits discrimination on any grounds, in Article 26. So Brendan should get a copy of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 as well. To truly clear his thinking, he should also get a copy of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) where s 12 and 13 makes a Schedule part of an Act.

Lawyers are some of the biggest criminals around and have enriched themselves unjustly, since 1970. S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) makes it a crime to attempt to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The fine for an individual is set by s 4B Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), at $33,000 or five years jail. Unleash the Australian Federal Police and just watch the money roll in

Peter the Believer
Half of the fine given out goes to the "Prosecutor"? Wow, is that true? If so how many lawyers are claiming this particular bounty? I thought prosecutors were lawyers paid by the State and that the state took the fine, please explain?

The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions was created by the Hawke Government in 1983. This was to protect the criminals recruited under Fraser to staff the Federal Court of Australia, The Family Court and High Court so that the Constitution of Australia could be ignored at will, and so s 80 Constitution could no longer be used to call anyone favoured by the Commonwealth Government to account. I say the Judges and Magistrates of Australia are criminals, because the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) enacted by Paul Keating’s government makes them criminals.

The States all created the same thing, like the Office of Public Prosecutions in Victoria. These criminals have so intimidated State Police that they are almost afraid to pass wind, unless the Director of Public Prosecutions say so.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, has section 9.5 inserted in it. It reads:
(5) For the purposes of the performance of his or her functions, the Director may take over a proceeding that was instituted or is being carried on by another person, being a proceeding:
(a) for the commitment of a person for trial in respect of an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth; or
(b) for the summary conviction of a person in respect of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth; Then the Director may decline to carry it on further even if the Director has not taken it over under subsection (5).

This authorizes the Director to break the law, and effectively politicizes law enforcement in Australia. It was introduced so that Judges and Magistrates could not be prosecuted, except by the State and Commonwealth Governments, and the rope around your neck and theirs was jerked tight.

It also means that billion of dollars in lost revenue every year ends up in lawyers pockets, instead of making your taxes less. It is an illegal Act, because it acquires property the ownership of which is in private hands, until taken over, by the Commonwealth, and when it is discontinued, as it almost invariably is, then its value is destroyed

The first person a National Policeman should arrest and bring to trial is the Director of Public Prosecutions. The trial should be for every time that such person has taken over and destroyed a cause of action commenced by a private person, under authority granted by S 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). There is still provision in Melbourne, for a Private Individual to initiate criminal proceedings in the Melbourne Magistrates Court, upon payment of a sum of Forty Dollars.

One was initiated against the Federal Court of Australia about twelve months ago. The Federal Court of Australia is an illegal organisation, created by the Liberals, and continued by the Labor Party, for the benefit of lawyers. As expected the Director of Public Prosecutions took it over and discontinued it. It was initiated because the Federal Court had refused to file a proceeding sought to be commenced by a private individual. All the private individual wanted was to have a Commonwealth authority obey the law.

The offence alleged was a breach of s 45 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). This says that any attempt to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth is a crime, and Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules as subordinate legislation should not authorise the Federal Court to break the law. The Director did not want that law tested and thrown out, because he is a criminal too.

The Directors conduct is illegal. S 51 Placitum (xxxi) Constitution says the Commonwealth cannot acquire any property except on just terms. When an action is taken over and discontinued, there is no just terms, and no justice whatsoever. The amount of money the Federal Court of Australia should have been required to pay, is $165,000 because that is what is set by s 4B Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). It accrues daily by s 4K Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), so if a person went in and the Registry of the Federal Court refused to file the proceeding, every day for five days, the penalty would be $825,000

The greater the centralisation, the greater the distance between the authority and the all suffering tax payer... who is required to pay for these police services.

imho devolution works better than centralisation. I can see some merit in a federal force... like FBI in USA but not the complete celtralisation of police. I would rather see police authorities responsible to the suburb in which they serve, answering to the people they are supposed to "protect and serve" instead of some politically appointed commissioner in Spring or Pitt St.

In the USA they organise police along a devolved structure of town versus county versus state versus federal. I am certain, what we get "served" in terms of "protection" is less effective on our state / federal only basis, where police decisions are made by their political masters instead of the immediate tax paying community.

Did you know that in 1900, virtually anyone could create wealth for themselves, by simply writing up a Complaint Sworn and Summons, and filing it in a Local Court of Petty Sessions. This right to create wealth was made a Commonwealth right in 1914, with the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and it absolutely enrages lawyers.

This was the original PPP, Public Private Partnership, initiated by the Kings of England, for the preservation of democracy. Lawyers are not democrats, they are despots. To ensure it remained democratic, the English Government provided in 1487, that no Judge could dismiss a private prosecution, and the only good discharge from an allegation of a crime, was a discharge given by a democratic jury of 12. The Statute is 4 HEN 7 Ch 20, [1487] and was in force in 1828, when the Australian Courts Act 1828 gave democracy to Australia. It provided half of the total Crown revenue.

The Statute recites: much profitable to the king as well as to every of his subjects that them will sue and maintain. Because Judges were doing the Pope thing and selling indulgences, or selling get out of jail free cards, if you like, the Statute removed the right of Judges and Magistrates to give a good discharge, and made it the prerogative if a jury. Only a jury in a democracy can give a good discharge.

This is what our Constitution has preserved. It is a magnificent document, and you can download it here. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=473

There is a source of great personal wealth just waiting for you to learn how to access it. Before you can get to it you need to have a National Policeman, to give the weight of the law to your democratic rights. Your best mate should be an Irish immigrant called Brendan O’Connor the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible for the Australian Federal Police. What he needs to do is open a desk at AFP headquarters, where a clerk can accept a Complaint, and issue a Court Attendance Notice on your behalf. The AFP should then ensure a fair trial

The decentralization of the might of the judicial power of the Commonwealth does not suit the petty criminals who run the States. The judicial power of the Commonwealth is the power to enforce the Constitution, and the laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and under the Constitution, S 118 also brings in the laws of the States, however only in a so far as they are not in conflict with a higher law, That of the Commonwealth.

On the link posted below you will find the law that makes all Judges and Magistrates in Australia criminals. They are criminals because they have no Police to keep them honest. It contains two Statutes, one giving free election, which really means an election to pay a fine or go to jail, and the other the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X. which makes it a crime for a Judge to impose a prison sentence, without first offering a fine.

http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=485

Col Rouge asks who is going to pay for a National Police. The Criminals are going to pay of course. Just as in China the State makes the family buy the bullet to shoot an offending member of the family, so the law makes a criminal pay for the law enforcement that catches him.

This has been reinforced by the Federal Legislation enacted by Paul Keating’s government in 1995. The penalties of 500pounds and 1000pounds imposed in 1640, are bankcard penalties today, and no deterrent, but the penalties of 25 years and 17 years imprisonment for doing what was prohibited in 1640, imposed by Sections 268:10 and 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), are not Visa or Mastercard breaches.

17 years converts to a fine, of $112,000 and 25 converts to a fine of $165,000 and if they knew that by awarding costs orders before a trial has been had, that is the penalty, I suspect Judges and Magistrates in Australia would suddenly find a hidden streak of honesty. The lawyers who gleefully seek costs orders, are liable too. Oh just give us a National Policeman

There is one man in Canberra who can either ensure Kevin gets a second term, or probably ensure that Peter Costello comes out of retirement and does what Bob Hawke did to Bill Hayden, and makes this Labor Government a oncer. That man is the Honourable Brendan O’Connor. He is a good looking young man, like so many Australians he comes from Irish Stock, and he would like to see a republic established here. To understand him a little you should read his first speech.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/firstspeech.asp?id=AN3

While trained in law he has never been a solicitor, or admitted to the bar, and although born in London, he came to Australia aged six. He started to represent workers at the age of twenty four years old. The greatest opportunity he now has is to make the Rudd government the one that restored democracy to Australia, and the de-facto republic it was before 1952.

A republic must have a separation of powers, the separation of powers that comes about by having a fair just and impartial judiciary. Most of what Brendan hated about work-choices, was the powerlessness it inflicted on workers. The 100 workers at the Mandurajh Railway, threatened with a $100,000 fine, just for organizing as unionists. The only reason the Liberal’s thought they could get away with this and Labor even thinks they can, is because the judiciary in Australia is made up of lawyers.

Brendan is smart. He is able if he wants to, to make Australia One Nation, and follow the English model of rebellion against Roman Style Government. The Irish hated the English because the English denied them the same Christian government they enjoyed. They appointed RM’s in Ireland. Resident Magistrates, and universal jury trial was not extended to Roman Catholic Irish.

Mr O’Connor has it in his power, as Minister for the AFP, to make Australia into a republic without a referendum. All he has to do is accept that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and Constitution is Australia’s paramount law, and make it possible for us all to enforce it, by jury trial

The Americans dumped the English Crown,for the very same reason that we are calling for it to be abolished. It was dumped because it had not obeyed the English Constitution in its dealings with the Americans and we will probably dump the Crown here as well while we continue to let the States think there can be a separate Crown in every State. See

http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=365

Brendan O’Connor is probably a Christian. He would know the fundamentals of Christianity which are that there can only be one Almighty God. His Boss certainly knows that, but the politics of the Labor Party have suited the atheist belief in multifarious Gods, because they have State Governments in their power. If Brendan cannot fix the State governments of Australia, and bring them under the Commonwealth Crown, before Rudd must face the next Poll, Costello will be able to harness the dissatisfaction with all State Governments, and use it to unseat the Rudd Government. The reality is that Rudd must face the electorate before any of the States Governments that are absolutely on the nose throughout Australia.

To establish the Paramount Commonwealth Crown, Brendan O’Connor must accept that Labor enacted S 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) to ensure the continued republican government in Australia established by the Constitution, and enacted s 28 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) to ensure that democracy continued. The State of New South Wales has introduced Court Attendance Notices, and authorized clerks in the Police Force and other authorities to issue them. Brendan should take a leaf out of their book.

In every major town in Australia, there should be a clerk employed by the Australian Federal Police, with a Rubber Stamp, so that a Court Attendance Notice can be issued to any one who seeks, backed by the full might and glory of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. That power and glory is manifested by the words in Ch III Constitution, and the binding nature of S 80. The judicial power of the Commonwealth can be exercised by a jury of judges, not by a Judge

Just so we know why I advocate a National Police, I believe we need one because we are currently living in a godless Nation, ruled by pagan Judges. I happen to believe the Parliament of the Commonwealth is ordained by Almighty God, and unlike the Pope is not infallible. It is created in the image of the Anglican Church, and unlike the Roman Catholic Church, is not beholden to one man, no matter how Divinely Guided that one man may be.

This radical republican government was established in England after the English Catholics rejected Papal infallibility, and enacted the Gospel of Matthew 18:15-20, as the Magna Carta: The Great Charter of Liberties. It has had its bloody episodes, and in one case a Statute contained these words: Whereas the Late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counselors, judges and ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom: Pages 40 Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 ( Vic).

I also happen to believe that no State Parliament is so ordained, and if the Brumby leading Victoria, is not to destroy the Commonwealth Government, the system established to check and balance arbitrary power, by the Australian Constitution, must be enforceable, and enforced.

The power to indict, by issuing Court Attendance Notices is the power to revue and call in question the deliberations of a not infallible Anglican Protestant Government. The Governments of every despotic State are based upon the Roman Catholic model. The States are despotic. The Premiers are the equivalent of Godfathers, in a mafia like system. We elected Kevin Rudd to end the cooperation between the States and the Liberal Party in oppressing Australians. He has not yet done it but he has chosen Mr O’Connor.

The exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, must be universally available, and evenly applied. Its power is demonstrated by this extract from a Textbook.

http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=238

This textbook was discontinued in Australia after Universities started to teach that the States can be Gods in their own right

Peter the Believer,
I don't believe the Police Force or our court systems should have anything to do with religion or Gods, given the diverse number of religions and Gods worshipped in this country.

Wasn't the original decision for creating an Anglican church, as opposed to a Catholic Church in England, decided by the King Henry the eighth so he could divorce his present wife and marry his mistress?
I don't think it was originally because they didn't want to follow the Pope.
I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

For goodness sake Peter the Believer you have completely hi-jacked this whole debate you have more posts then the rest of us put together. You never answered my question I put and dribble on and on.
Give it a rest for goodness sake who remembers what the original article is now?
I agree politicians have effectively allowed lawyers to rob and pillage and they themselves are in many instances pedophiles and fraudsters and their colleagues protect them.
I think what we need is a federal police squad devoted to investigating all lawyers especially those who go bankrupt to avoid paying tax. One QC was said to have been bankrupt six times? A national disgrace but expecting the wallopers (Who are mostly boneheads) to do something about this is too much. I think we need a national federal crime commission and its charter is to DO something rather than report on what should be would be done.

Wasn't the original decision for creating an Anglican church, as opposed to a Catholic Church in England, decided by the King Henry the eighth so he could divorce his present wife and marry his mistress?
I don't think it was originally because they didn't want to follow the Pope.
I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

When I went to school way back in the fifties, before Ming the Merciless set out to destroy Australia’s legal system, the entire story of how the English broke from Rome, was taught to primary school students. The break from Rome occurred in 1215, at Runnymede on the Thames, when some Barons and their English Churchmen, abolished what was until then the Divine Right of Kings.

Continental Europe, vulnerable to armies sponsored by the Pope, from countries like Spain and France, was brutally oppressed until Napoleon came along. With their ditch, the English were safer, and able to adopt the Holy Bible as their Constitution. The law that made the break with Rome official was the Magna Carta Statute, in 1297.

Professor Neil Rees said one day at Newcastle University, the law is all about power and money. The Roman Catholic Church by 1533, in England had accumulated enormous wealth, and in the name of Almighty God, had vast estates paying no taxes to the British Crown, with enormous numbers of virtual slaves on them doing the work. Henry VIII broke with Rome totally and gave the land to the indigenous English who were working it. The issue of his wife was just the one popularly promoted.

The next great change occurred under James the Second, when he set out to restore Roman Catholic Rule. The English had to find a Protestant King, and called in William of Orange, to restore the Constitution. The Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) here did that:

http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=456

That law is still in force in Australia, but we need a National Police Force to ensure it is obeyed. Paul Keating’s government has enacted all the laws we need but the States refuse to accept them

I was fortunate today, Monday 11th August 2009, to attend at the Australian Federal Police headquarters in Sydney. I was in the company of a very worried person, who is the victim of a scam being perpetrated on a lot of people in New South Wales involving money laundering, and loan fraud. Afterwards I did a troll through the Act that gives the Australian Federal Police its power, the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) .

Here is what it says about Banking fraud.

The Australian Federal Police has jurisdiction in any matter involving National Infrastructure, by reference to Ch 10 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) .

S 400.1 sets out Definitions:

1. Every Bank is an authorized ADI.

2. Instrument of crime include all the forged approvals, the forged mortgage, the forged Taxation Statements and Balance Sheets.

S 400.2 Meaning of dealing with money or other property.

1. A person deals with money or other property if:
(a) The person receives,
(i)possesses, conceals, or disposes of money or other property
(iii) Engages in banking transactions relating to money or other property: and:
(b) The person does any of the matters referred to in paragraph (a)
(ii) by means of a communication using postal, telegraphic or telephonic service within the meaning of Paragraph 51 (xx) Constitution. or
(iii) In the course of banking.

2. S 400.3 (2) A person is guilty of an offense if:
(a) The persons deals with money or other property and
(b) Either:
(i) the money or property is proceeds of crime; or
(ii) There is a risk the money will become the proceeds of crime.
(c) The person is reckless as to the fact that the money or property is proceeds of crime, or the fact that there is a risk that it will become an instrument of crime ( as the case may be). And
(d) The value of the dealing, the value of the money and other property is $1,000,000 or more.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 years or 720 penalty units or both. ( 720 penalty units is $79,200). That’s real money

i agree with belly their are good cops and bad cops and politicians ,and lawyers, new south wales still covers up daruk boys home , maybe our new head of police will look into this as he should over ride all other police so that we can get the coruption in every state clean , will this happen who knows only can hope their is such a thing as justice but so far their is not look at all the forgotten australians , just being wipe and swept under the carpet in the courts sysytem . if this is not corpution what is , i even wrote to our G.G and sent her the emails i sent the previous G.G can only hope she will act for us forgotten australians and give us justice as our prime minister isn't