VWA Your loss is their GAIN COMPLAIN!

Dean Clifford interview

2011-08-21T17:35:00.003+10:00

Open your mind and listen to this... you never know where it may lead you in your quest.

Investigation into record keeping failures by WorkSafe agents May 2011

2011-08-01T05:02:00.002+10:00

http://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/New_-_Report_Investigation_into_record_keeping_failures_by_WorkSafe_agents.pdf

Ombudsman Report Investigating into record keeping failures by WorkSafe! CGU included in report. Happy reading!

Book on Workcover VWA Kathleen Grayson

2011-05-15T00:14:00.002+10:00

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55425253/Kathleen-Grayson-Book-on-Workcover

Phosgene CG Effects & Affects of Exposure to Animals & Humans.wmv

2011-01-12T00:46:00.001+11:00

Phosgene deaths of bids, fish and people per Colleen Thomas

2011-01-10T15:27:00.000+11:00

Common Law at work in England

2010-10-25T18:40:00.001+11:00

English Freemen Standing In Court - Council Tax Hearing - The Takedown Begins! from Rebel Leader on Vimeo.

Most of my links have been taken

2010-08-31T18:36:00.000+10:00

Hi everyone... it has come to my attention that a lot of those links have mysteriously dissapeared..or go to nowhere land NICE WORK.
So for those of you that got and copied the information from those links I would appreciate some help with the information I discovered while researching for years on the internet...
Please drop me a line A.S.A.P.

Cheers

PM

Australian's Say No Internet Censorship:Sign the petition to save the Net

2009-09-24T23:46:00.003+10:00

It's decision time for the Government on internet censorship - with results from their flawed live trial due any day now.
Now is the time to make it clear how deeply unpopular this scheme is. Already over 100,000 Australians have signed one of the largest petitions in our history.
If that's not enough to make decision makers sit up and take notice, we're displaying our petition in a massive ad that can't be missed in The Australian across the nation this Friday. How many signatures will be on it? That's up to you. Add your name today, before we go to print:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/AddYourNameToSaveTheNet
The Government is admitting it has no criteria to determine if the trials of the scheme are a success, and refusing to disclose details of how they're being conducted. This leaves the door open to impose a scheme experts say simply won't work and will do little to prevent prohibited content.*
We have to act fast - with serious question marks hanging over the integrity of the trials, the Government has indicated it will make an announcement before the end of this month. Their plan is to allow the government of the day to add any 'unwanted' site to a secret blacklist.
Join over 100,000 Australians who have already spoken out against draconian government censorship - before our petition is put on their desks in a national newspaper ad that can't be missed this Friday:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/AddYourNameToSaveTheNet
Few petitions in Australian history have ever hit the 100,000 signature mark. Your signature may push this one into the record books - and it's a brave government willing to ignore that; especially for a scheme that does little more than divert funds away from where they're needed most.
Every new signature before Friday will make the grand total displayed in The Australian even larger. Add yours today to make it too large to ignore.
Thanks for making it happen,
The GetUp team
PS - When politicians open this Friday's newspapers they'll see just how many Australians have taken a stand against internet censorship. Make sure your signature is included to make that number too large to ignore.
*www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroy-urged-to-end-net-censorship-farce-20090902-f7n3.html
__________________________
GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.
Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 5, 116 Kippax St, Surry Hills NSW 2010

Easy Meditation Very Relaxing Enjoy!

2009-08-14T22:15:00.002+10:00

Free Hugs Campaign - Official Page (music by Sick Puppies.net )

2009-08-05T13:45:00.000+10:00

Dr Deagle Swine/Bird Flu ..make up your own minds outside the mainstream media

2009-07-25T12:57:00.001+10:00

Lost Little girl please pass it on copy paste it to email

2009-07-07T13:34:00.002+10:00

Subject: Girl missing, help please [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

IF YOUR CHILD WAS MISSING WOULDN'T YOU PRAY THAT EVERYONE PASSED THIS EMAIL ON?!!! PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING. LOOK AND FORWARD.

A 3-year-old girl named Reachelle Marie Smith is missing!

You never know where this e-mail could end up and I'm not going to stop passing this one around if it means a little girl can be found!!!
Please spread this picture far and wide....You just never know. Someone you know might know her!
cid:F598EF1E17354FD3A189E1C7FD215ED3@KateSchubert
BEFORE YOU DELETE THIS, LOOK AT THE CHILD.
DO IT AGAIN.
NOW SEND IT TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. IT TAKES ONLY 10 SECONDS.
THANK YOU!

Attorney General's Department of NSW - Promoting a Just and Safe Society
Visit us at www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au

Comment by PDM:
I think this is worth looking at and passing on. I do not know this girl. I simply received an email which I have copied and posted here, in the hope that if she is missing someone will see her and help to send her home.
If you have trouble copying this for an email... just send people to the url on the top of the page so they can have a look.
This post is definately allowed to be copied and sent. You all have permission to do so, so please pitch in and help find this little girl.
Thank you.

Worksafe BC Destroys Families

2009-07-03T15:31:00.000+10:00

Sovereign Australia Interesting!

2009-06-28T21:50:00.002+10:00

Another Injured worker speaks....

2009-06-27T15:40:00.002+10:00

Wretched Slaves & Illiteracy Brokers
NOVEMBER 23rd 2007

Labour market re-entry (LMR), suitable employment or business (SEB), and non- economic loss (NEL) policies define the profit margins for the WSIB. Wording in the policies, such as "suitable for the worker," "and is available," and "calculate the percentage of permanent impairment," can be read in many different ways. Intentional vagueness leads to bad interpretations by the WSIB that negatively affect injured workers. It is my belief that, in order to extort extra profit, the WSIB have been misinterpreting the meanings of their LMR, SEB, and NEL programs.

Unfortunately, injured workers do not have the right to choose a new job or career. The WSIB has the final say in all LMR plans. Sad, but true, the WSIB have total control because it is written in the act. When an LMR program is improper or it is contrary to injured workers restrictions, they must comply or appeal the LMR. Even though some LMR plans are illegal, injured workers must comply during the appeal processes. Most injured workers do not appeal their LMR out of fear of reprisal. LOE benefits are subject to suspension if the WSIB feels the case warrants it, and this tactic keeps injured workers in line and silent. Regrettably, in the act, the WSIB has the final say, thus leaving injured workers only two choices: suck it up, or appeal and face the executioner who has the right to cut off all benefits.

Suitable employment or business only means suitable if the WSIB says it is suitable, so they can hurry up and get those injured workers back to work. Nowhere in the act does it explain the, (suitable business), and the WSIB does not support self-employment. Even if injured workers were self- employed their entire lives, the WSIB forces them to become employees. Although the act clearly states that the work must be “suitable to the worker,” and the plans be mutually agreed upon, it also states that the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction to examine, hear and decide all matters and questions arising under the act, except where the act provides otherwise. Lawfully, the WSIB holds the exclusive rights to the meaning of suitable. The SEB wage determined solely by the WSIB forces injured workers into acceptance. If injured workers disagree with their SEB, they can appeal. The same rules apply to both the SEB and LMR appeals: that injured workers must comply until the appeal is final and hope their benefits remain active. There is nothing suitable about a life changing decision that forces injured workers to suck it up because of a WSIB exclusive decision.

Injured workers who have a permanent injury are entitled to a non- economic loss award, and the WSIB have sole-ownership of that decision. Charts, graphs, pre-determined calculations, assessments, and medical reports are the sources that the WSIB use to determine the dollar value of the NEL. However, if proper assessments are not done, the calculation of the whole person’s being will be grossly inaccurate, rendering the percentage of loss as a bad guess. NEL processes that are missing pertinent information such as a psychological assessment are biased and un-fair.

Pg2 Wretched Slaves and Illiteracy Brokers
Injured workers must choose a doctor from a roster list supplied by the WSIB that could lead to a biased assessment. Injured workers may appeal the NEL award amount within thirty days. Unlike the LMR and the SEB appeals, the WSIB have no “fail to comply rules” that affect LOE benefits. Sole-ownership of decisions that the WSIB have regarding injured workers sends them the clear message of dictatorship.

It is my belief that there are no logical or ethical reasons behind the use of inadequate WSIB assessments, and I believe, that money is the motive behind the inadequate assessments and all missing assessments that the WSIB refuse to do! Money is the WSIB's, number one choice of weapon, because they use it to make and coerce injured workers to comply. Furthermore, it is like bait during the LMR and SEB appeal processes. While the WSIB dangles money at the end of the appellant's rainbow, they are lead to believe that they can reach it if they comply. Because of the fear of loosing their benefits, they know they must comply during the appeal processes. I believe the wording for these short forms should read as follows:
• LMR (lamed minimum-wagers refurbished,)
• SEB (second-rate employment or bamboozlement,)
• NEL (notional embellished looters.)
These interpretations make sense, because the WSIB treat injured workers like this, and in all matters of this writing. I know this, because this is the treatment I have received, and I bare witness to it all. Furthermore, I believe that the act does not protect injured workers from mal-treatment. In certainty, I truly believe that the act was written by the friends of the WSIB, because it is fundamentally against injured workers rights. Any law written that gives sole ownership of decisions like the WSIB have is bias, unethical, unconscionable and criminal. This too shall pass!

Truth’s Judgment
November 30, 2007
Thank you for causing me pain. It is your lying words that drive me; me who loves to reveal all lies and secrets. Your ramblings old man have caused me to seek you; because you have fallen
The man: the WSIB chair, permanently attach him to a chair. Medicine is what he needs, not being an addict, they will not affect him. Oh no, he will rise above any addiction that he causes, but it will not be him causing them.
Rain on him and those who help him; and stop raining on the ones that refuse to. Then it can become a violent rain, like they have never known. The unknown will bind them, so then the others will no longer be afraid, then they can speak the truth.
Once again, Truth will come forth and lay them to rest.
Unacceptable, they are!
Truth has condemned them, for their choices are evil.
They will look up to the sky, but they are not part of it.
They will cling to their lies, because lies are their nature.
They have failed to be redeemed to forgiveness, as they have so declined.
They will fight for their lives as in days of old; they believe in their lies, but their judgments have long ago been foretold.
They will pray for their lies to save them; but they will parish in defeat.
Truly I tell you; they are not who they seem to be, not even the least of them.
But soon they will be seen for what they truly are.

If two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in Heaven.

Comment sent by Al King thank u Al.

(PDM)

Thank you Al for taking the time to send us your poetic words and insights.
Good luck in your quest for truth and injured workers rights!
We need more people to stand up and spread the truth out there than we are getting.

Warm regards,
PDM

Christina Forbes Radio Interview Injured Worker

2009-05-31T17:51:00.002+10:00

(URL)

Listen to the interviews on youtube. Educate yourselves.

Take care all.

PDM

WSIB Cripples the Injured MUST WATCH!!

2009-05-26T13:52:00.004+10:00

Federal Public Judicial Inquiry into Wrongdoing by Workers Compensation Boards Across Canada

2009-05-25T12:38:00.001+10:00

http://www.gopetition.com/online/19942/sign.html

Although this petition is for Canada, we are all in the same boat as far as being wronged.
If you care about this, please sign the petition.
Thank you.
PDM

YouTubeVideo "If we build it; the people will be victorious"

2009-05-25T12:21:00.000+10:00

Political Joke Of the Day

2009-05-14T20:42:00.002+10:00

Rudd , Gillard and Swan are flying on the Executive Airbus to a gathering in Canberra when Rudd turns to Gillard and says, chuckling,

'You know, I could throw a $1000 bill out the window right now and make someone very happy .'

Gillard shrugs and replies, 'Well, I could throw ten $100 bills out the window and make ten people happy.'

Not to be outdone, Swan says, 'Well I could throw a hundred $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people happy.'

The pilot rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, 'Such arrogant jerks back there. Heck, I could throw all three of them out the window and make 21 million people happy.'

Taking Action: Speaking Out

2009-04-05T14:24:00.002+10:00

Dear Readers,

We really need more truth out there about the cause and effect of simply being injured at work and put through this unfair "worksafe" "workcover" system.

The reason VWA Worksafe/ Workcover & Employers Insurers etc are getting away with it is by spending lots of money on looking good and making injured workers appear to be bad people or lazy, via advertising and the media.

The public really needs education on the facts and reality of this system to understand what it really entails for individuals who are injured at work.

In order for any changes to happen, we need to tell others what has happened to us in the hope that they read it and tell someone else.

It is the only hope we have. We cannot sit down and say nothing and expect things to change for the better. If the general public understood what the facts were they would not stand for it so changes would have to be made.

As it stands now.. more and more legislations are going to be written and have been written to make the system worse and worse.

The parliament will not help us. They will not listen to us because it is not about human beings it is only about profit.

So please, start submitting your stories, issues, results of how u feel since being treated this way. What you had before and do not have now. How did it effect your family. How does it feel to be lied about by IME's?

So please, take the time to write to us, so that you can be a cog in the wheel of change, enlightenment and education for other injured and non injured workers.

Thank you,
PDM

Escaping the System 1/6

2009-04-04T22:31:00.000+11:00

Rights at Work Re: Senator Fielding we need the fairer IR laws NOW

2009-03-18T17:14:00.002+11:00

(PDM) Rights at Work email please guys look into this and make up your own minds.

Dear Your Rights at Work supporters,

It really is crunch time now!

We need your help to send a message to Senator Fielding that Australians want the Parliament to pass the new, fairer IR laws without delay.

Family First Senator Steve Fielding is holding up the new, fairer IR laws that are set to replace WorkChoices.

Instead of supporting the changes, Senator Fielding is proposing amendments that would mean fewer rights for more than three million workers.

They would mean more than a third of the workforce (36%) would have:

Less protection from being unfairly sacked.
No right to union support in the workplace.
No help from the independent umpire to get better wages.
Senator Fielding’s amendments would also mean that low paid workers would be unable to make use of collective bargaining to be lifted above the minimum wage.

Workers in small business are more vulnerable to exploitation and rip-offs than employees in big businesses and need the protection that unions can provide in the workplace.

Senator Fielding has been a vocal critic of WorkChoices and was one of the first to warn about the damage it would wreak on working families.

But the changes he is proposing would in many ways be worse than WorkChoices.

What can you do?

Senator Fielding needs to be reminded that Australians voted to restore their rights at work at the last election, and don’t want to see greater fairness in workplaces hijacked at the eleventh hour.

Send the Senator the message – Pass the new, fairer IR laws without delay! http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/fieldingIRaction

Need more information?

Visit the Rights at Work campaign site - http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/newIRlaws

Who IS Responsible? WorksafeVic! WCV

2009-02-23T21:01:00.001+11:00

"Slave" poem by Mark

2009-02-21T02:24:00.000+11:00

WCB A Secret meeting with Lorne Audio Video Staff's names kept secret

2009-02-14T11:59:00.004+11:00

The man in this Audio is a seriously Injured worker in BC Canada. His disgraceful treatment includes, hungry children, losing everything, house, car, forced to go shopping for himself as WCB refused to have his Wife or Children go with him in 2 full casts and in incredible pain.
(When WCB finally agreed to transport for essentials.)
When he stopped in at a legal firm in the same block as the supermarket he was called and harassed about fraud even though he did not make the WCB car drive out of its way. No nursing provided, his wife had to give up her job to care for him. Dress him, bathe him,toilet him. They have been forced to utelise a food bank to survive.

First payments were wrong and so little that the first time he was injured he had no choice but to go back to work in drywalling due to WCB's negligence to provide a duty of care or enough money for his family to survive. He then fell off scaffolding and injured himself shattering his arms, and now his whole family is forced into poverty. His wife has put their story on youtube backed up with paperwork to educate the world about how wrong this system is.. amoungst her families living chaos at the hands of this system. WCB forced him into their requirement systems which are incredibly lacking in support. Having been forced to partake in training that is unsuitable more than once, enduring it in extreme pain, including other attrocities.

This audio is a secret meeting.. after having seen all the video's over a period of time WCB contacted this family and asked them to attend this meeting with them.
When they arrived they found out that the staff inside wish to remain anonymous.
They are making Lorne re-live and rehash the unthinkable devastating treatment he and his family have been through at the hands of their failing system.

While WCB profits and everyone outsourced by them profit. While they pay for surveillance, and write their rights away, with crazy words like the very exceptional tests. Families are forced into a living hell of extreme duress, poverty, inhumaine treatment to say the least.

So I suggest that everyone who cares to learn what is real in Canada Australia America all over the world for Injured workers go and watch the increasing amounts of video's posted on youtube in desperation to show the public exactly what is really going on at the hands of these so called worksafe systems.

Injured workers need all the help they can get. Not close to what they are getting in reality.

Here are these families video's in excess of 80 of them.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CannabisWitch&view=videos
Copy and paste it in your browser. They are usually shown as most recent so if you would like to track back to the first click on the pages down the bottom right of the page.

PDM

Australian Bushfires Trauma EFT #3 Lost Loved ones

2009-02-11T22:16:00.001+11:00

EFT for Australian Bushfires - Lost Loved Ones (#3)

2 days ago 96 views EFTjourney
This video is offered to possibly help those who are dealing with the emotional distress of losing loved ones in the Australian (Victorian) bushfires that are still burning.

Bushfires have claimed at least 108 lives and destroyed at least 750 homes in Victoria, Australia in recent days. There are apparently still 30 fires burning which may take three weeks to contain.

This is the third of a series of videos offered to possibly help those watching from afar and those dirtectly involved. It uses EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) which is a gentle finger tapping technique to balance the body's energy system with regards to traumatising events.

You don't need to know anything about EFT to make use of this video, just follow along with Grant, tapping the points shown, listening to the words, & maybe speak them too. You can re-use it too.

This clip specifically address the loss of of loved ones. It is focused more on those directly impacted, but may also be useful for anyone else who is following the events & feels connected in some way.

I hope that we can come together accross cyberspace & tap to help release some of the trauma of these last few days. When we tap for someone else's concerns we often help clear something of our own as well.

Grant Horsfall
Tags: "Australian bushfires" Victoria bushfire australia EFT "emotional freedom" "Victorian bushfires" "loss of lives" "loss of loved ones" bushfires wildfire

Source:http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C0946931136BC271

Australian Bushfires EFT #2 Lost Homes

2009-02-11T22:15:00.003+11:00

EFT for Australian Bushfires - Lost Homes (#2)

2 days ago 135 views EFTjourney
This video is offered to possibly help those who are dealing with the emotional distress of losing their home in the Australian (Victorian) bushfires that are still burning.

Bushfires have claimed at least 108 lives and destroyed at least 750 homes in Victoria, Australia in recent days. There are apparently still 30 fires burning which may take three weeks to contain.

This is the second of a series of videos offered to possibly help those watching from afar and those dirtectly involved. It uses EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) which is a gentle finger tapping technique to balance the body's energy system with regards to traumatising events.

You don't need to know anything about EFT to make use of this video, just follow along with Grant, tapping the points shown, listening to the words, & maybe speak them too. You can re-use it too.

This clip specifically address the loss of homes. It is focused more on those directly impacted, but may also be useful for anyone else who is following the events & feels connected in some way.

I hope that we can come together accross cyberspace & tap to help release some of the trauma of these last few days. When we tap for someone else's concerns we often help clear something of our own as well.

Grant Horsfall
Tags: bushfires wildfire "Australian bushfires" Victoria bushfire australia EFT "emotional freedom" "Victorian bushfires" "loss of home" "lost homes"

Australian Bushfires Victoria Trauma Help Video #1

2009-02-11T22:12:00.002+11:00

EFT for Australian Bushfires (#1)

2 days ago 200 views EFTjourney
*** Please tap along to #2 & #3 also! ***
This video is offered to possibly help those who are dealing with emotional distress from the Australian (Victorian) bushfires, and those who feel connected to the story.

Bushfires have claimed at least 108 lives and destroyed at least 750 homes in Victoria, Australia in recent days. There are apparently still 30 fires burning which may take three weeks to contain.

This is the first of a series of videos offered to possibly help those watching from afar and those dirtectly involved. It uses EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) which is a gentle finger tapping technique to balance the body's energy system with regards to traumatising events.

You don't need to know anything about EFT to make use of this video, just follow along with Grant, tapping the points shown, listening to the words, & maybe speak them too. You can re-use it too.

This clip is more general & possibly useful for anyone who is aware of the fires & is having some response to them.

The two clips to follow, specifically address the loss of homes & then the loss of lives. These are focused more on those directly impacted, but can may also be useful for anyone else who is following the events & feels connected in some way.

I hope that we can come together accross cyberspace & tap to help release some of the trauma of these last few days. When we tap for someone else's concerns we often help clear something of our own as well.
___________________________________________
NOTE:
Please also tap along to Parts #2 & #3 whilst thinking about all those who have lost their homes and loved ones. As we do this we are potentially helping release some of their trauma, as well as some of our own.
___________________________________________

Grant Horsfall
Tags: bushfires wildfire "Australian bushfires" Victoria bushfire australia EFT "emotional freedom" "Victorian bushfires"

Workcover Review Hanks Report Release

2009-02-11T21:53:00.002+11:00

[http://www.cpsuvic.org/news-cpsu-and-you/224-open-channel.html]
The State Government finally released the Hanks report into Victoria’s
Accident Compensation system and the timing of its release on Grand Final
eve isn’t the only embarrassment for Labor as the report contains many
regressive recommendations that will make life harder for injured workers.

The report fails to adequately recommend fair and just compensation to
workers injured in Victoria and will make it harder for workers suffering
stress related injury to claim compensation.

The report recommends that the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service
be stripped of the power to issue directions to employers to pay compensation
to injured workers. This will effectively neuter the current dispute resolution
process and is reminiscent of the deleterious changes the Kennett government
made in 1992.

Other changes diminish workers rights to return to work and / or to have
appropriate representation through the disputes process and the return to
work process.

Victoria already provides the lowest percentage of pre-injury
earnings for 120 weeks of incapacity to workers according to the
9th Edition of the WorkPlace Relations Ministers Comparative
Monitoring Report.

Victoria also has the highest rejection rate of any other
Australian compensation system with 14.1% of all new claims
being rejected according to this comparator.

Victoria has the second lowest return to work rates of any
of the other States except South Australia according to the
Heads of Workers’ Compensation Authorities Return to Work
Monitor.

Victoria has the highest percentage of injured workers that are
either sacked or retrenched with 18% of injured workers surveyed
were either sacked or retrenched this report also states.

The Victorian system already fails to provide fair and just weekly payment,
an appropriate dispute resolution process with real powers, and does not
provide adequate return to work rights for injured workers. If the
Government adopts the Hanks’ recommendations the system in Victoria
will make life even harder for injured workers under Labor.

Click here to view/print a copy of the Hanks Report Recommendations; www.compensationreview.vic.gov.au

Click here to view/print a copy of Trades Hall’s response;
http://www.cpsuvic.org/public_docs/FixWorkcoverRepsMeeting0810.pdf

September 29th, 2008.

So WCV's would like to know, going by the above figures, why is worksafe
claiming that they have Record levels of return to work sustainability in their
2008 Annual Report?.

Why is it that, Worksafe are claiming they cannot afford to include
all injured workers who missed out in the Bracks Changes, but they are
claiming a record performance from insurance operations in the high
millions?

Who is telling the truth here?
(Jo)

Well I have to agree once again Jo by saying.. The truth is always the truth.
If something feels wrong and doesn't make sense it usually is.
If there are contradictions .. one must use logic discernment and look for the facts buried underneath the profiteering.
(PDM)

--
Posted By Workcover Victims Victoria to Workcover Victims Victoria at 2/11/2009 08:37:00 PM

Victorian Bushfire Trauma help EFT free help Video

2009-02-11T21:42:00.000+11:00

"Workcover Victoria, teambuilding with Corporate Commandos"

2009-02-11T01:11:00.004+11:00

[http://corporatecommandos.com]

Conference for "Workcover Victoria, teambuilding with Corporate Commandos" at Flowerdale Retreat Estate.

Can someone please tell me whats wrong with this picture? Why is Worksafe Victoria training their staff with Commandos? Are Injured Workers the ememy? Does this mean that injured workers are at war with Worksafe Victoria once they have a workplace injury?
WTF ! (Jo)

Wow ! YES YES YES AND YES! I believe so! What other conclusion can we get from this one?

What do the readers have to say about this juicy bit of information? Thoughts???

I wonder if we asked the questions if we would actually get any answers this time? (PDM)

SMH A Human Rights Act Susan Ryan

2009-02-08T00:04:00.001+11:00

Law to bring level playing field
Email
Printer friendly version
Normal font
Large font
Susan RyanJanuary 18, 2009
Page 1 of 2 Single page
Advertisement

A human rights act would be an important step towards a fair go forall Australians.
Many of us may know of an episode of cruel treatment of an old person in a nursing home, have felt for parents struggling to get their disabled child a school place or shared the agony of a family whose mentally ill son was jailed instead of being cared for in hospital.
These things happen - all too often. Yes, we have the common law as a bulwark for our rights, a free press and a democratic Parliament. But for people whose basic rights are violated in these ways, those protections simply do not kick in soon enough, if at all.
Australia kept children behind barbed wire in mandatory detention for years. Through our free press and tireless advocates, we found out most of those children became mentally and physically ill. Several tried to kill themselves. After years of media coverage and pressure on our Parliament, this barbaric treatment of children stopped, but not in time to prevent many of them suffering long-term damage.
If a human rights act - a charter of rights - had been in place, mandatory detention of children would have been publicly measured against these rights. The policy would have been found wanting much earlier, perhaps even before it was implemented.
If public servants and others hired by government to carry out its polices were trained to recognise and respect human rights laid out in Australian law, much of the poor treatment inflicted on the disabled, the old, and children would not occur.
It is no use telling a single mother who has been kicked out of public housing because of bureaucratic bungling that the common law is perfect.
Strange that the vociferous opponents of protecting rights by an act of Parliament are rich, powerful men: former NSW premier Bob Carr; former High Court judge Ian Callinan, QC; and successful barrister Peter Faris, QC. They are light years away from the mentally ill public housing tenant or the wheelchair-bound young man trying to get a job. So they argue against a human rights law, claiming concern about "unelected judges" invading the territory of our parliamentary legislators.
These arguments could only apply if a constitutional US-type bill was being proposed. But such a bill has been ruled out of the Government's human rights consultation and ruled out by more than 70 community organisations in a human rights network I have been working with.

We are discussing an ordinary act of Parliament that can only be changed by Parliament. If a court found a particular government policy violated Parliament's own human rights law, it would be up to Parliament to respond, to change the policy or keep it. But we would all know about it and our elected politicians would be under pressure to justify to voters why, for example, mandatory detention was to be maintained.
Those who oppose such a law must know this. Do they persist in arguing against something that is not going to happen because the status quo has served them so well?
They know as well as anyone that indigenous Australians suffer terrible disadvantage and often appalling living conditions. Do opponents of a human rights bill believe that the status quo gives Aborigines a fair deal in relation to the law, education and health?
The solutions for indigenous problems are complex, requiring many actions from government, business and the community. But might these opponents not consider, along with all interested Australians, that the blinding evidence of the denial of a fair go provides a good case for Parliament making a new law to protect those missing out? This law would be only one step but an important one towards dignity and security for all in Australia.
In true democratic spirit, the Rudd Government has set up a public consultation, with a panel of impressive Australians, to hear the views of all on how to protect human rights better in this country. I hope all Australians who know of human rights failures in any context will let the panel know what they think. This consultation must not be derailed by a few power-wielding men. It is a chance to move forward towards a fair go for all.
Susan Ryan, AO, is a former Labor senator and chair of the Human Rights Act for Australia Campaign.
By Invitation Only is a space for people of influence to have their say. Edited by Kerry-Anne Walsh. kwalsh@fairfaxmedia.com.auSource: The Sun-Herald

2009-02-07T23:24:00.000+11:00

Common Law Benefits
Workers injured in the course of employment on or after 20 October 1999 may have a right to sue for damages for those injuries.
To be entitled to sue for damages the injury or injuries must be "serious", as defined in the Accident Compensation Act 1985. You can view the Act online at www.legislation.vic.gov.au
Before any court proceedings claiming damages can be commenced, the degree of impairment arising from the injuries must be assessed and the worker must make an application to the Authority seeking its determination as to whether or not the injury is "serious".
Further Information
Ministerial DirectionsMinisterial Directions setting out the process and requirements for an application to the Authority for a determination of serious injury came into operation on 20 December 2001
view the Ministerial Directions
FormsAs outlined in the Ministerial Directions, you will need to complete and submit a copy of Form A to the Authority for a determination of serious injury to be undertaken.
A copy of Form B (Statutory Offer) and Form C (Statutory Counter Offer) must be completed before a proceeding can commence in the court, following a determination that an injury is "serious".
download Form A
download Form B
download Form C
Legal CostsLegal costs payable to a worker's legal practitioner are set out in the WorkSafe Legal Costs Order 2001 which came into operation on 20 December 2001.
view the Legal Costs order

Source:( http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/WorkSafe/Home/Injury+and+Claims/Benefits+Support+and+Entitlement/Common+Law+Benefits/)

2009-02-07T20:19:00.002+11:00

Tim Holding... so polite such a helpful fellow

Our concerns nicely ingored... oh he is so mellow

Compassion is void... as he is okay

He hires QC's to write our rights away.

Tim Holding a servant... OH no he FORGOT

Oh WorkCover Victims... they matter NOT!

Dear Timmy sits up high on the HOCK

Rubbing his 6 carat ROCK

Sending Auto replies to the public letters....

Spending up BIG.. oh he thinks "thats better".

Incompetently awaiting his pay

What else does he do with his day?

"It only peripherally relates to the bullshit I spew"

OOOH Timmy OOOOHH YES Timmy...

WE LOVE A GOOD SCREW!

Copyright 2009 all rights reserved (agent) PeopleDoMatter

WorkSafe WorkCover HOW MANY.....

2009-02-05T01:30:00.002+11:00

How many tears must I cry ?
How many people must die ?
At the hands of the Government Lie

How many tears must we shed ?
Living in poverty pain and dread ?

How long can we sit by and suffer ?
So Government profits get higher....
Legislation gets tougher

How many people suicide ?
How many people really have died ?

From paychecks to poverty...
Unlimited pain

With WorkSafe you lose...
They GAIN!
COMPLAIN!

All Rights Reserved copyright 2009 Agent-PeopleDoMatter

Slogan Suggestions

2009-02-05T01:04:00.005+11:00

WORKSAFE VICTORIA
"Crapping on you to make a difference!"

Worksafe Victoria (for the School Play advertisment)

"FAMILY" Our Corporation doesn't give a S**T!"

Worksafe Victoria
"If you get injured....
GET F***KED!"

Worksafe Victoria
"Working hard at giving you HELL!"

Jeff K
Wash your hands Jeffery
You're an A**hole Jeffery!

Wash your mouth Jeffery
It is your A**hole Jeffery!

Worksafe Victoria
"WORKING TO MAKE OUR PROFIT BIGGER!"

Worksafe Victoria
"Creating doormats out of injured workers!"

Worksafe Victoria
"Creating crap to slog at you!"

Worksafe Victoria
"Working" HAHA! NOT!

Worksafe Victoria
"Screwing the injured indefinately!"

Worksafe AUSTRALIA
"If you think we are SAFE
THINK AGAIN!"

WorkSafe Victoria
"Screwing you because we CAN!"

WorkSafe Victoria

"You want logic and safety.. don't come here!"

Not Ready To Make Nice WCV

2009-02-04T23:50:00.003+11:00

True Blue Government Blunder Worksafe WCV

2009-02-04T23:45:00.000+11:00

Injured Workers Reality by WCV

2009-02-04T21:46:00.003+11:00

Sad but true! Injured workers suffer, their families suffer, ripple effects, including depression, every kind of stress you can think of, poverty, injustice, discrimination,insanity in dealing with these amoral agents.While everyone else profits out of the system who is employed by the system to best screw the injured worker...INCLUDING the GOVERNMENT! It has to be STOPPED but we need REAL PEOPLE to stand with us and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Demand change!Give us our dignity and our rights back, we are human too! (PDM)

NEW GOV LOGO LOL

2009-02-02T22:55:00.004+11:00

Quote

2009-01-30T12:58:00.000+11:00

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
- Albert Einstein

WCB a disturbing letter from Frederick Palmer his torcherous experience

2009-01-29T15:20:00.006+11:00

Does anyone out there care about this? ( PDM ) I DO!

Thank you for such an eloquent and timely expose of the current WCB system in Canada.
I have never appealed except to say to WCB I was thrown from, dragged, and crushed, by three railway cars carrying at least 30 men. With at least 42 witnesses.

That was on August 30, 1979 and I have never been fit for any type of labour work since. Soon it will be thirty years of total disability from employment.

I receive about $220.00, a 10% disability pension, forced onto welfare, cut off retraining every time because I had a pension, called a fraud, an alcoholic, a pedophile, crook, a lazy no good, and every other lies they heap on me.

I have been crippled, slandered, impoverished, stressed to the point of suicide many times, suffer multiple injuries not being treated except what I can provide myself out of my welfare money, no transportation, housebound 95% of the time, and I will NOT APPEAL!
They knew I was crippled from day one. No man could withstand the smack in the back I took without being crippled for life, or the head first onto the track at forty miles an hour like a bullet out of a barrel, or the second car running over my ankle and crushing it.

Your time has come WCB.
A CBC crew is coming to my apartment to see me. I have been begging for help for thirty years. I might only get 1 and a half minutes but that is enough.
I am knotted up in pain. It is cold and I am living in one room with the rest of the heat turned off, the windows are frozen, there is mold, the roof leaks, and I can barely use the vacuum.
I am not allowed to invest money or buy property because welfare has rules too.
I believe they have been trying to assassinate me with 1. Pain 2. Poverty 3 Stress.
Too much for many to bear.
I mourn for my brothers who have been murdered by WCB. For my Father who died of a heart attack in the mill after having pneumonia because he went back to work too soon with pneumonia.
An only Son left abandoned at nine to the wolves.
If my father were alive to witness my abuse he would personally hang every one of you. I am coming for you WCB.

Mark my words I will see the murderers hang. And you can take that message all the way to Rothschild.

Update; Jan 28 2009 A CBC film crew just left my apartment. I dont know what the final product will be, over that I have no control. I dont know if I said the right things to help injured workers, or myself for that matter.
I was mesmerized with documents. I am in so much pain. I never got to bed till 4:30 in the morning up at 8 after tossing and turning, exhausted, at the end of my rope, but I will not falter. I cannot.
My mission is too important to mankind. No matter how they slander me, no matter how they physically abuse me, I will endure.
No matter how they cut me off financial aid, I will prevail.
To you, my family, my friends, my fellow Canadians, I will not let you down.
I have told all, shared all, and confessed all, on camera, for all to see.
Forgive me my trespasses, as I forgive yours.
May the Spirit in us all rise to the occasion and take us forward for the good of all. The total reform of the workers compensation system is needed, necessary, imminent, and I offer my services, my knowledge, my good faith, in harmony with humanitarian principles common to all.

Regardless of my confused past, my crimes, I can tell you I never seriously hurt anyone. To those hurt I have made amends with the greatest sincerity. There may be more but I am willing to pay the price of my freedom for any wrong I committed against another individual.

I am guilty of being brain injured and the consequences of that combined with everlasting pain, poverty, and stress, have altered my behaviour. Changed me to a wanker, to relieve stress because I had no other way.
No medical follow-ups on my condition, no diagnosis for 18 years, no further treatment, left in agony of body and mind. Please forgive my outrageous behaviour.
Please understand I have never laid a hand on a child and would never, have never done so.

The RCMP has my fingerprints and mug shots, and even my DNA, which I freely gave, with knowledge I am innocent and a smile upon my face. No charges laid or pending.

I did not know what was happening to me, migraine headaches for four days straight. Wishing I would die. Nausea constant and getting worse. Pain increasing because I was forced to work while injured and still not fully healed. Later trying to work not knowing the full extent of my injuries.
The company lying and saying they were going to give me a light duty job. There is no light duty on the railway unless you work in the office.
Retraining denied to learn computers or any other course, constantly cut off funding from government agencies after spending a year or more getting medical reports, being accepted into programs because of my physical disability and then being cut off because I had a $200.00 pension.
Suffering constant trauma psychologically litigating my case with no help and a brain injury. For 20 years I had these headaches. Depression, fear, pain, none being treated. Total disability from employment Crippled from a crushed ankle, a shattered shoulder, a broken arm and a broken collar bone, herniated disks, severed and crushed nerves, teeth shattered with microscopic cracks. Broken nose, scarred from head to toe.
Thousands of dollars in debt trying to retrain myself, property taken because of bankruptcies because no will give me the compensation or help I need to become independent again.

Drinking to relieve physical pain and stress, depression, enraged, and sometimes violent while drinking Well CBC was here today and they saw the documents from WCB saying I am totally disabled from employment,
The government of N and L saying I am totally disabled from employment, Every specialist in Ontario and N and L saying I am totally disabled from employment. Since 1979 this has been the case.
For the last 30 years this has been the case, the truth. I am entitled to 75% of my gross wages ( currently over $48,000 + per year union contract) and medical care for my injuries. I have received neither for almost 30 years now.
Because WSIB Ontario will not give me an email address to send this letter to, please forward it to directly to the head of the WSIB, carbon copy to the President, and all adjudicators who have ever been involved in my case and medical staff.
I WILL NOT APPEAL!! There is a court case in Canada where a man was injured so seriously any reasonable person, after looking at all the medical evidence, would have to conclude with certainty that they can no longer function at previous employment. Yet the Case showed the WCB purposely ignored all this overwhelming body of evidence when even a child could tell the seriousness of the conditions caused from these injuries. T
housands in Canada in this same state of total disability from employment caused by their employer are dumped off onto welfare programs that further hinder and traumatize the individual.
Well no more will this happen in Canada. It cannot happen if we are a civilized people, gathered under the flag of Canada, respecting the rights of all citizens, and not discriminating against any group.
Canada has done that with a group called injured workers, which could be you.
Rights taken include,
1.Right to make your own decisions on career and place of employment or business.
2.Right to retrain after suffering total disability from former employment
3.Right to sue the company for their negligence
4.Right to have a say in your own medical care
5.Right to charge company with any crime including slander, fraud, mail fraud, omissions and errors, minimizing injuries for the purpose of withholding benefits to patient.
6.Right to timely and appropriate health care
7.Right to financial compensation approximating actual wage loss as promised in legislation. 8.Right to be treated with dignity and respect and fair treatment.
9.Right to make your own decisions concerning your own life. (A hostage)
10.The only right you have is to appeal to the same criminal board that cut you off in the first place for no good reason.

David facing Goliath without even a slingshot or a rock. The workers of this country deserve better. The people of this country deserve better. For the sake of our sanity, our good name, our peace and prosperity, we must endure.
For those that come after us, we must ensure good health, opportunity, and justice. Join me in making Canada the best workers compensation system on the planet. I personally have the knowledge, the wisdom, and the experience to be a great benefit to my fellow Canadians.
Please work with me to ensure none are left by the wayside, especially our most vulnerable and needy, who by the very act of working and contributing to society, are now discarded and forgotten.
No more will the people of Canada accept an unfair social contract that leads to the death of many.
In their memory I stand, proud, free, determined, as a citizen of Canada to end this abusive process that drives men mad and leads to their destruction.

Respectfully with the utmost sincerity, Frederick Palmer Founder - V.O.C.A.L. (Victims Of Compensation Abuse League)

V.O.C.A.L.
Injured, abused, forgotten by society. Cheated, robbed, destroyed by a heartless system. Look at this and realize the next victim may be YOU! Thousands across Canada are being cheated out of benefits by workers comp policies and procedures combine...

PDM: If anyone has this interview to put on youtube please send me the link. What can I say!

PEOPLE DO MATTER! This screams out HELP your poor damaged fellow human beings... NOW!

Workers Compensations "Reviews" = "Right Offs"

2009-01-28T00:24:00.004+11:00

[http://www.vthc.org.au/latest-news/2008-latest-news/review-of-the-victorian-accident-compensation-act-1985-june-2008/index.cfm]
Ref: VTHC, Friday 13 June 2008

In December 2007 the Minister for WorkSafe, Tim Holding, announced an inquiry into the Accident Compensation Act.
The State Government appointed Mr Peter Hanks QC to conduct the review.
The report goes to the government in July.
A little history In 1985 the Accident Compensation Act (WorkCare) was introduced by the Cain Labor Government.
This had a focus on providing rehabilitation services as soon as possible after injury to return injured workers to gainful employment and also to enable the worker to return to normal community life.
Work Care gave weekly payments (80% of pre injuryaverage), quickly and ongoing until return to work or retirement age.
The premiums for employers in the meat industry were reduced dramatically with the introduction of WorkCare.
In 1992 when the Kennett Government got in WorkCare was changed to WorkCover and there were numerous changes.
The first wide spread changes were to throw more than six thousand long term injured workers off compensation; limited workers’ rights to claim compensation; reduced access to rehabilitation and abolished union representation in policy making.
Approximately every 6 months for the next 7 years there were changes to the Accident Compensation Act.
Most of these changes reduced worker’s entitlements to compensation.
By October 1999 (when Labor got back in) entitlements for workers had dropped dramatically.
Specific reductions included:
• a requirement to prove that employment was a significant contributing factor;
• the exclusion of a significant proportion of stress claims;
• the exclusion of compensation claims if workers had not told potential employers that they had (in the dim and distant past) suffered illness or injury;
• removed compensation rights unless an injury report has been made within 30 days;
• the removal of the specialist appeals structures - replaced with conciliation and the magistrate/county court;
• the exclusion of injuries that occurred on the way to or from work;
• reduced weekly payments to:o 95%of PIAWE (excluding penalties and overtime) for 13 weeks;o then after 13 weeks and up to 104 weeks:?
payments dropped to 75% for people who had no capacity to do anything at all;?
payments dropped to 60% for people who had a capacity to do anything other than pre-injury work (whether a job was provided or not);after 104 weeks:?
workers who could still do absolutely nothing, forever, continued to receive 75%; and ? workers who could theoretically do something, either now or in the future, get NO WEEKLY PAYMENTS;
• medical expenses were terminated 12 months after weekly payments were stopped.
• common law (the right to sue negligent employers) was abolished since 1997;
• compensation for permanent injury had been taken away from or reduced because they had established new ways of measuring impairment- American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment- with a 10% whole person impairment as a threshold for physical injuries.
These guides state that they should not be used for this purpose.
Psychological Impairment had to meet a threshold of 30% before any payment.
Psychological injuries that come from being permanently physically injured don’t count at all. The impact of these changes meant that many workers with permanent injuries did not get any lump sums for compensation;
• rehabilitation was reduced so that it was only available for return to work, workers had no choice of who was the rehabilitation provider and no there was no rehabilitation to improve quality of life or participation in the community.
After Labor got back into government, There have been minimal improvements for workers since Labor returned to government.
• After October 1999, Common Law was reintroduced for some workers (fewer than before November 1997). People who were seriously injured through negligence between November11, 1997 and October 20, 1999 were left in the black hole.
• Calculation of pre injury average weekly payments was changed so that regular overtime and shift penalties were counted in for calculating weekly payments in the first 26 weeks.
That improvement cuts out after 26 weeks so the workers who have serious injuries and can’t work at anything are still as badly off as they were under Kennett.
For example a supermarket butcher who worked Thursday to Monday earning $1000 a week before injury, who is too badly injured to do any work receives $555 from WorkCover after 26 weeks.
• In 2004 the threshold for a lump sum payment for permanent impairment from musculoskeletal injuries (backs and limbs) was reduced from 10% to 5%and the minimum payment went from $5000 to $9190.
• By 2006 the weekly payments for workers who have a capacity to do something went from 60% to 75%.
• In 2006 the cut off for weekly payments for most workers was changed from 104 weeks to 130 weeks. Gifts for employers - Premium Reductions After Labor got back into government the employers have been rewarded handsomely and repeatedly.?
2004 - premium reductionof 10% that is $180 million a year. ?
2005 - a further 10% premium reduction of $170 million per annum.?
2006 - another 10% reduction in the average premium rate that is $170.00 million per year.? 2007 -this time 10% premium reductions gave employers around $167 millionper year.? 2008 - a further saving of 5% for employers of $88 million was announced during the review process i.e. pre-empting any recommendations from the review.

In 4 years employers have beengiven a 45% average premium cut! Across the board employers have been saved $1,984 million.
It is time for improvements to WorkCover for workers.
Workers are the people who suffer from injuries and illnesses that we get in the course of, or arising from, work.
We want a system that provides adequate and just compensation to injured workers.
What do we want?
Compensation must be paid for workers with injuries or illnesses arising out of, or in the course of employment.
It should not be harder toget compensation for some injuries and illnesses such as psychological conditions, heart attacks and strokes.
We argued to repeal sections 82(2A),82(2B), and 82(2C) of the Act in order to have “adequate and just compensation”.
Some changes that we asked for to simplify the system and make it fairer
for injured workers, are:
• a WorkCover Certificate of Capacity, requiring time off work; limited hours of work or medical treatment should serve as the lodging of a claim;
• failing to put injuries in a register within 30 days should not be grounds to reject a claim;
• claims for injuries that are made worse by work should not be rejected because the worker did not disclose some previous injury or illness to a company when they applied for a job;
• it should be illegal to threaten, discriminate against or sack anybody forclaiming workers’ compensation, assisting another worker to claim or reporting risks.
Improved weekly payments The union movement has recommended that payments should start within 7 days of a claim being made (not waiting for 45 days which is what happens now with most claims).
This was called ‘provisional payment’. It is not a new idea. Payments start that soon in NSW.
The union movement strongly recommended that weekly payments should be based on “normal weekly earnings” (NWE) that includes piece rates, penalty rates, overtime, allowances, commissions, bonuses, salary packaging and the like. We also argued that superannuation should continue to be paid.
The union movement strongly supported the VTHC recommendation thatweekly payments be 100% of the NWE for the first 52 weeks and then 80% of NWE.
The VTHC recommendation is that the period of entitlement to weekly benefits for workers with a capacity for employment suited to the worker (meaning employment for which the worker is currently suited and work that is available) should be increased to 260 weeks.
Rehabilitation - Return to Work The VTHC proposal is that the AC Act be amended to require the employers to consult and reach agreement with the injured workers and their treating practitioners on offers of employment suited to the worker.
Unions recommended that the AC Act should be amended to recognise the health and safety representatives elected under the Occupational Healthand Safety Act 2004 and recognise their powers.
They also recommended that the AC Act should state that the injured workers have the right to be represented by HSRs, Job Delegates orUnion Officials.
The VTHC recommendation is that the employers’ obligation to provide pre-injury employment (when the worker is fit to perform them) or suitable employment (if the worker has a capacity to work but is not fit for pre-injury employment) should be extended to be the period of the weekly payments.
It also supported the development of a Compensation/Return to Work Inspectorate who had similar powers and responsibilities to inspectors appointed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Dispute Resolution Unions argued that Conciliation Officers have limited powers to resolve disputes when the agent/employer maintain their position and will not consider any alternative.

The employers’ freedom of choice of claims agent (from the VWA list) can result in the claims agents being unwilling to contradict employers, for fear of losing the account.
These claims go to Conciliation where they are not resolved and usually go on to be settled on the steps of the Court because the powers of the Conciliation Officers are so limited.
The worker does not get paid for months or years, does not get essential treatment and work relationships break down.
The VTHC also recommended that:
• The powers of the Conciliation Officers at the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service (ACCS) be amended to provide for a full Administrative Review of any dispute relating to a claim for compensation, with the right to appeal to the Court.
The AC Act should provide that Conciliation Officers can affirm, amend, or replace a decision of an agent/employer/self insurer that has created the dispute.
• The AC Act be amended to unequivocally provide that a worker be represented throughout the dispute the process.
• The Conciliation Officers be given the powers to issue directions with respect to return to work obligations.
Permanent ImpairmentUnions do not accept that the AMA Impairment Guides are the appropriate\way of evaluating the impact of permanent injuries.
We also argued that stress, anxiety and depression that come from having pain, not being able to do the work that you want to or live a normal life should be compensable.
We argued that further work needs to be carried out on developing an appropriate method of measuring the pain and suffering from disability and impairment.
Until appropriate measures have been developed and agreed on the unions support the threshold of 5% for all injuries including psychiatric.
These are not all of our arguments and recommendations, but it gives some idea of what the unions have said about the Accident Compensation Act.
NB: The VTHC website acknowledges the AMIEU for the research and preparation of the above information.

Thanks to Jo for sending me this (PDM will be commenting on this at a later date ...Stay tuned.)

Quote

2009-01-27T16:04:00.000+11:00

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
-- Thomas Jefferson

ANOTHER GOVERNMENT RIP OFF!

2009-01-25T00:17:00.001+11:00

Friday, January 23, 2009

Blind woman claims Government has ripped her off over compo
LOSING out ... Queensland grandmother Anita Dawson's
pension was cut after she won compensation.
THE Rudd Government has been accused of ripping off a blind
woman by cutting her pension to claw back money awarded to
her in compensation.
Anita Dawson, 54, was recently awarded Government compensation
after she was injured while working at a Queensland TAFE. But before
the money could even be deposited into her bank account, the
Government had helped itself to $30,000 - the equivalent of two years'
pension.
In a second stinging blow, Mrs Dawson was told she was also
being stripped of her pension for a further two years thanks to her
winning a six-figure compensation payout."I was told by the Government
that they couldn't have me double dipping into workers' compensation
funds and the pension pot," she said."They said I shouldn't think I'm
any different to anyone else just because I have a disability."I find it just
absolutely appalling. It is just a way for the Government to get away
with not paying me the compensation I am owed for the accident.
"Grandmother Mrs Dawson, of New Beith, south of Brisbane,
previously received $565 a fortnight from the Centrelink pension,
which is not supposed to be income tested.Without it she is unable
to claim pharmaceutical benefits, mobility allowance, up to 40 per
cent off her rates bill, and discounts on public transport and taxis.
Her pension will not automatically be restored to her in two years.
Instead she will have to undergo painful tests to determine whether
she remains eligible.Requests for help from the Government and
Centrelink officers have fallen on deaf ears.
Yesterday she was reduced to tears after speaking to a public servant
from Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin's office.
The department refused to comment when contacted by The Courier-Mail.
A spokeswoman for Centrelink described the situation as a "policy matter"
and said that although the blind pension was not income tested, compensation
payments had to be taken into account when pensions were issued.
Mrs Dawson's former husband Lee is disgusted."The Government is
ripping off a blind woman," he said. "It's nothing short of victimisation.
"Details of Mrs Dawson's accident and compensation amount cannot be
revealed for legal reasons but Mrs Dawson said it was a low six-figure
sum.
Picture: Glenn BarnesArticle: By Hannah Davies - Courier MailJanuary 06, 2009
WCV's: This is so typical of the Government! How blind do you need to be?
Centrelink recuperate what they have paid to any injured
worker or TAC victims from any compensation payments, so you lose out
again, by having to repay part of what you would have earned had you not
been injured and still able to work, then you have to give up part of your
compo as well. Does this ever end?
Don't get injured at work readers because if you do, your life will be totally
stuffed,you will have no job and no ability to work, and your income will be
reduced to the poverty line levels by the DSP or sickness
benefits and you will be treated like a leper by many, and that's the reality
of a workplace injury!
This is not a way of life nor is it a living, so to all of those who judge injured
workers, "up yours" and "get a life" because injured workers are not enjoying
themselves here or is it a lifestyle, they are suffering at the hands of all they
encounter, so readers next time you are speaking to someone who is injured,
take a minute to walk in their shoes, before you judge them.
Posted by Workcover Victims Victoria at 7:44 PM
Labels: Government, injured workers

Source:( Courtesy of Jo WCB)

Comment by PDM
Jo well said.
This is the ultimate rip off.. who are we really fighting for.. we fight for survival on welfare and struggle to live. FORCED to utelise the welfare system and live like this, then if we are lucky enough to fight for justice in a court and actually get any form of compensation the reality is the Government dips into any previous payment you have received and TAKES FROM YOUR fight!
Yet we are fighting against the Government in court!
Against all odds we lose out.
Not that the payments are anywhere based in what we would be able to earn before we are injured!
So why is it that the Government bothers to fight us so much? If they are in a win win situation?
BECAUSE THEY CAN!
IT FILLS ME WITH DISGUST!

So the next time you think about stomping on another human being who has had their life devastated beyond any logical understanding, begging to survive.. THINK AGAIN!

If we are really valued where is the proof?

2009-01-20T16:54:00.003+11:00

Hi Everyone,

If we are truly valued as sovereign beings by "public servants", then why is it that our rights are written away often in secret or as good as secret?!

I like many others have also written MY WILL letters to the appropriate governmental beurocrats about workcover issues in particular, including writing against new legislations coming in to take more rights ( yes hard to believe there are more to take I know!).

I have been told that my concerns only peripherally relate to the matters.
I have been ignored or given a substandardised automatic reply.
I have not been sent to submit any issues with the appropriate public submission sections.
In fact the time line given to these submissions were very small indeed!

I do not believe that any of this is pure accident.

Why do we sit idly by and allow this to happen?

We do not have a say even when we do speak up because something fishy is going on and will continue to do so, unless everyone researches into the facts behind the smoke screens and takes away their unspoken consent.

It's hard when there are so many of us starving and suffering financially because we are injured or sick.
It is made to be hard. There is a reason why it is so hard. What is that reason?

I think if we are all really honest and switched on about things we will discover the truth.

The truth may be hard to find... one reason for this is the media coverage and the media ownership is all connected in with the powers that be.

If you look behind most stories... and in fact like myself have bombarded ALL of the media with issues relating to workcover and exactly what is going on and what it is like to live in that system for every day people... it really makes you wonder why they are not interested.

One part of discovering the ultimate truth out there is to be very very discerning.
Think more than what you are told to think and "brainwashed" to think.

Think deeply, look at what is really happening. Compare it to the past and you will start to notice that more and more of our basic rights are written off and they show up in our every day lives.

How free were you 10 years ago? How many of us have been led to believe that we are safe and protected and have all our rights in tact?

Only to experience the opposite of that?

I dont know about you, but living like this has really been an eye opener for me, not the happiest of eye opening but I would much rather face the truth and try my best to protect my rights and freedoms and those of my fellow living breathing Brothers and Sisters existing on the earth right now and whoever may be exposed to worse in the future.

What I am starting to realise is that unless you are wealthy, you suffer huge losses of dignity and rights in so many ways. As simple as the right to competent health care. A right to afford food, basic living expenses.
A right to legal counsel -the best legal counsel is only available to the wealthy... especially the government.

What I would really love explained to me is why is it that someone who worked to earn a living, and became injured in that work is now so worthless that they have to beg for a payment on welfare rather than being supported decently, and appropriately.]

What is wrong with our legal system? Well maybe I should be asking what is RIGHT with our legal system?

It seems that it all bases back to the government again. They are meant to serve us... but I am quickly learning that is not the case.
The more I learn the more I dislike about what is really going on.

I am not crazy! I am not abnormal. I am not worthless and I am not illogical.
What I am is fed up.
Fed up with the lies.

How many of you remember the simple things, such as governmental claims there would be no GST... what did we get? GST.

Why is it okay for those in power to continually lie and sweep our concerns under the carpet.

Doesn't the simple reality tell you something is very wrong here?
Where there is smoke there is fire!

Never forget who you really are... never lose the sight of your inherent rights.

Never lay down and let someone else tell you who you are and what u must do, in order to make them more money more power and more greed.

We ARE the people. We are the majority. We do matter and its about time we were treated decently!

I was born here. I did not ask to be born here. I did not ask for this treatment for my family or for anyone else.

I am not happy about it and it does matter!
ARE YOU HAPPY ABOUT IT?

Lets discuss real issues... not just workcover.
Lets awaken others to do the same.

I am here screaming out on your side... somebody stand beside me and hold my hand, somebody speak with me, somebody stand up.

I did not ask for a life of poverty. Did you? Where is the contract we wrote to ask for this treatment?

If there is such a contract I hereby revoke any consent to it!

Are we safe? Are we free? Are we lucky? Are we secure? Are we heard?

Quote how true

2009-01-17T19:16:00.000+11:00

"When the government fears the people, you have liberty.

When the people fear the government, you have tyranny."

US President Thomas Jefferson

United People Power Interesting reading!

2009-01-17T18:43:00.000+11:00

(Source ) United People Power
http://www.ja.olm.net/succeed/ http://users.bigpond.com/succeed/upp

Mission Statement.
Purpose of "Alternative Three" Project is to:
Present to the Australian people an opportunity to have a say via an input into a fresh Constitution.
Draft a fresh Constitution suitable to take Australia through the twenty-first century and beyond.
Develop a Constitution that establishes and enshrines the power of the people over government.
Produce a fresh Constitution that establishes finite limits on government. And thereby guarantee and enshrines the fundamental rights of the Australian people based on the Great Charters of England.
Have the final draft of the fresh Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia considered for adoption by the Australian people before 2005, by referendum.

The rights of People
THE CONCEPT OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
It is popular belief that the concept of a written constitution was invented in our modern era.When the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution was drafted reference was made to the Swiss and the American constitutions. (Ref: Quick and Garran, Annotated Constitution)A nation's constitution, apart from setting in place the style of government, it sets in place rules designed to limit and control government.If Government seems to be beyond control, that is, it ignores the will of the People, then the constitution is inadequate.Australia is in a situation where government repeatedly ignores the clearly demonstrated will of the people.
MEDIA DECEPTION
It is important at this point to make a distinction between the agenda of the media and the will of the people. Rarely if ever are they the same, especially now that money rather than principle drives the media.The will of the electorate is not expressed in the popular media, as government would have us believe.The implementation of a GST is one recent example, where the party now in power, which campaigned on the implementation of a GST, received about 43% against the opposition's 48%.These percentages are arrived at after disenfranchising 20% of the Australian electorate, by manipulation of the Electoral Act, and robbing the 20% of their choice, which was for neither of the major parties, and certainly against the GST. The best result the GST proposal could be seen to have received was 30% support, all of this 30% was from loyal party supporters, who themselves opposed the GST, in about the same percentages as the remainder of the population, reducing the real result to about 85% against the GST. But the government claim a mandate.Turning this massive electorate refusal into a mandate for a GST is an indication of not only what is possible under our existing constitution, but what is actually happening. Such events are rather commonplace, irrespective of which major party is in power. All such occurrences are an absolute and blatant denial of democracy.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Some constitutions include, or have attached, what is called a Bill of Rights, a list of the Peoples' rights.
The system we inherited guarantees liberty and the delivery of justice via a system of limited government - as opposed to limiting the people - via a Bill of Rights. The system we inherited is a far better system than any other so far developed, including a Bill of Rights system such as America has.
One worldwide problem with the protection and delivery of Peoples' rights is that the few in power run roughshod over the rules under which they have been granted authority to govern. In Australia's case government simply ignore the constitution when it suits them, making democracy only a word without meaning.
What is missing from our Constitution is a totally reliable method of enforcing it. An easily accessible, responsible, prompt method, where the people have ready access to the machinery required to apply and enforce the constitutional rules on government.
Our understanding is that in democratic nations the People are required to give their approval to the nation's constitution. As Australia claims to be a democratic nation it must meet this universally accepted standard. Australia currently fails in any test on the delivery of democracy
REPUBLIC - DEMOCRACY
At this point we should give consideration to the word "republic". The dictionary describes republic as --- "Where the supreme power is vested in the people - OR - its elected representatives"
This description clearly sets out that there are two types of republic ---
1.
One where the people are the supreme power. Let us call this "type one", and
2.
The other where the parliament is the supreme power, "type two".
Type two, where the Parliament is the supreme power, this is not what the People believe to be democracy.
Unfortunately the word democracy also has the same double meaning in the dictionary where "democracy" is explained in exactly the same words the word "republic" is described, ie. "Where the supreme power is vested in the people - OR - it's elected representatives"
It seems inconceivable that there are two confusing interpretations, in reality opposing meanings, for these two extremely important words.
One may say that the second option is a "delegated supreme power", but this does not alter the fact that the supreme power has in fact changed hands and gone from one to the other of two historical enemies - the people v government.
The fact that the people and government are enemies is not the intention behind the concept of government; if government observed the rules, neither would it be the reality. Government's sole job is to ensure and uphold the liberties and justice of the people, not the reverse as seems to be the case.
The dictionary's description of the words, republic and democracy are a dictator's dream, they allow a dictator to hold out that a democracy and a republic exists when the opposite is reality.
It is arguable that "type two" in both the republic and democracy models, where "delegated" supreme power is the system of government, that there is little to no difference between the power delegated to a monarch, who as legend has it, exercises the power of the people and a president with the same delegated supreme power. In both cases it depends on the rules in place to control either the monarch or a president and the peoples ability to enforce the rules. So it is the rules that we cannot survive without.
CONSTITUTION - RULES
In the case of a British monarchs, they are restrained by the Laws of England, Common Law, and the British Constitution. In the case of a president they too are restrained by the constitution of the particular republic. . . It is the rules that we must rely on to control people in all systems as opposed to perceived good intention that may or may not exist.
In Australia's case, the rules are to be found in the Act to Constitute Australia and the supporting documents and the Laws of England. The means of restraining a president and a monarch are the same, a set of rules under which the People agree to be governed. If there is no general agreement then anarchy ensues.
The importance of all this illustrates the importance of the rules, the Constitution. Good government will flow when the "rules that rule the rulers" are such that they guarantee good government. The most important element of such a set of rules is the People's ability to enforce them.
To argue that the monarchy is better than a republic is therefore a red herring. If government is not delivering good government then we must look to the rules, not to who the figurehead is or the position held.
If the people who compile dictionaries are confused and allocate opposite meanings to two of the most important words in our language, it is little wonder that the People are confused, and even less wonder that the politicians use the double meaning to further their own agenda, a use they are most expert at.
Australian government claims to be both a democracy and the supreme power - dictionaries say this is ok, - when in reality this is not possible. We must find words that distinguish between "type one" and "type two" democratic republics and democratic monarchies.
The current republic proposal is designed to enshrine an all but totally unlimited government system with supreme power over Australia vested in the elected representatives --- the type of republic we don't need, and don't want at any price.
THE WAY AHEAD
The republic we need, seeing that the monarchical system has placed itself in a position that is not retrievable, is the "type one" republic "Where the supreme power is vested in the people". This is the undeniable concept of the English Monarchy, given the events of Magna Carta and the other documents making up the British Constitution. But it has failed to work this way.
The English people won self-government as a fundamental principle. Unfortunately, rarely have they had it delivered --- this is also the case in Australia. The reason it has rarely been delivered, is that the people never in fact wrote the rules, they relied on an elite to do it for them. As a result they have never had built into the rules a reliable means of enforcing the rules.
Not a modern concept
Popular belief is that a written constitution, that is, a document or documents written as a constitution, is a modern concept --- this is wrong.
The concept of a constitution was invented with Magna Carta back in 1215 when Magna Carta was imposed on the ruler (government) of the day: Magna Carta was the first written constitution.
The process of imposing Magna Carta on the ruler established some very important and fundamental principles, principles that form the basis of modern "type one" democracies; of which there are not many. Australia is not one, nor is America. Switzerland and a few smaller countries may be entitled to be called type one democracies.
Britain would be entitled to be called a type one democracy if the Monarch was willing and able and actually did carry out the intent of the Coronation Oath, but unfortunately this has not been our experience.
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES
The fundamental principles established by Magna Carta are not limited to only the principles that are written down in the document, such as -"a man may not have taken from him, his life, liberty or property, except under the law of the land on the judgement of his peers", and - "no man shall be deprived of the means by which he earns a living by any act whatsoever" (authors translation).
The "Law of the Land" refers to Magna Carta and the principles enshrined therein, not parliamentary made law, not court made law that is repugnant to Magna Carta, but God's laws, which are the basis of the law of the land: - this is what our rulers are bound to deliver under our heritage of law and the Coronation Oath to which they are all absolutely bound legally and by oath of office.
The additional fundamental principles established by Magna Carta include:
Common Law, law that is common to all, common to the King and the People.
The right of the governed - to agree with the rules under which they are governed.
The right of the governed - to draft a fresh set of rules under which they agree to be governed.
The right of the governed - to collectively impose rules on the ruler.
The right to place limits on government.
The right to the delivery of limited government.
History tells us that having established a fundamental principle does not guarantee that it will be adhered to by government. This fact is made very clear by the need to re-impose Magna Carta on a long list of rulers, no less that 37 times over 400 years.
LESSONS OF HISTORY
The lesson here is that liberty and justice are not automatically delivered. The reverse is the case, whereby the people in power continually increase their control over the population; and in doing so whittle away at the Peoples' fundamental rights.
The whittling continues until the people say enough is enough and move to re-establish their fundamental rights. Australia has reached that point in time, where we need to re-establish the fundamental limits and the checks and balances required for the delivery of good government.
And so the right to self-government and Common Law was enshrined forever by the precedents set and accepted as a result of Magna Carta. This is our heritage.
These rights and the principles on which they are based are clearly spelt out in the American Declaration of Independence in the following words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."
In the lead-up to federation in 1901 the principles set out above generally guided activities, even though they were not clearly defined. In the final draft these principles were not followed. A brief examination of the facts surrounding the preparation of the Commonwealth Constitution exposes many problems, not the least of which was vested interests.
FEDERATION
The idea of Federation, where the six independent self-governing colonies joined together under a commonwealth umbrella, originally came from Britain in around 1850, and was not taken seriously until thirty years later. Federation was not an Australian people-driven idea, but general agreement with the principles and the reasons for federation existed at the time. This was not the case for the "constitution" as drafted.
The concept was, that the then colonies entered into a power sharing arrangement by establishing a central government and transferring some of their existing powers to a new central, "federal" government to administer. It is important to remember that all the powers of the various states were limited by the Laws of England or in other words the British constitution, in other words Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. The Laws of England likewise limited all powers transferred to the new federal system.
This arrangement / contract -cum - Constitution is as a result, a contract between the six colonial governments (not the People), a contract where the six colonial governments agreed to remain independent self-governing states within the proposed new federation, but to hand over some of their existing powers to the new central body. No new powers were created.
The 1890s convention that was given the job of drafting the contract cum Constitution consisted of 57 lawyers, politicians, big business men and eight journalists, a total of 65 out of the 66 people responsible for drafting the original contract. (The vested interests).
Britain required that the colonies held referenda in order to obtain the approval of the People, the referendums failed to get approval with 52% of the few allowed to vote rejecting the document.
The draft document, which in fact took the form of a draft Bill prepared for the consideration by the British Imperial Parliament, on its arrival in Britain, was subjected to major changes, and only then it was passed by the British Parliament and from there imposed on the people of Australia.
The document that eventuated after the British authorities altered the draft delivered to them, was not returned to Australia for the People's approval either before or after it became a British Act.
The Australian people never approved the document called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
The only time the people generally got involved in the 1890s debate was when interest was stirred up by the church. This saw pressure brought to bear on the drafting of the contract, pressure to include God in the draft and to not give the new central parliament any power over religion.
It is important to note that the draft document sent to Britain for approval did not contain the required references to God. The reference to God in the preamble of the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia was put there by Britain. What is now claimed as our Constitution, the isolated section 9 of this Act contains no reference whatsoever to the Almighty, God.
Fortunately the Commonwealth Constitution is not only section 9 of this act. The whole Act makes up the constitution and in addition, the essential Letters Patent of Queen Victoria of 1900 setting out the duties of the Governor-General along with other events and documentation that relate to constituting of Australia. Section 9 was separated by the word Constitution because it contained provision for it to be amended by other than the British Parliament.
The fact that Australia was constituted by a British Act of Parliament and received the assent of the Monarch makes it subject to the Laws of England, the British Constitution which includes Magna Carta.
The powers-that-be prior to federation, recognised that it was advisable to seek the "people's" approval of this contract before it went to Britain for final approval. Referenda were held, but the population's approval was not sought or obtained.
At this time in our history, the moneyed elite had a right to vote --- not many other people did. In fact the landed gentry had as many as six votes each under the system that operated at the time. Records show that less than 12% of the population voted and more than half of those who did vote, rejected the contract but it went ahead regardless.
HOW AND WHEN TO FOOL THE PEOPLE
It appears that there was a rush to have this contract approved and in place ready for the turn of the century. Hindsight would indicate that the best time to fool the people would be at the turn of the century when the People's minds can be concentrated on other things such as celebration --- and into believing that there is some defining urgency, when there is not.
The fact that we too are now at the end of a century, being rushed blindly into constitutional change without proper time to debate and properly consider what we are being forced into, must ring some very loud warning bells, particularly so when we add in celebrating the Olympics and the end of the Millennium as major distractions --- far, far from the best time for the people to make important decisions, decisions that will have long term repercussions on just about every aspect of their lives.
At the time immediately before federation, in the late 1890s, there were no proposals to change anything of substance; it was simply a transfer of some of the existing state powers to the proposed new central government. The peoples' rights were never debated, were not part of the contract and there was no intention at any time to make them part of the contract.
The peoples' rights were well entrenched in the Laws of England, which limited the power of all state governments, this power was transferred to the proposed central government with all limits intact. No need to because this was a contract that at all times was subject to the Laws of England.
After all, it was a simple matter, - where the six state government's planned to contract-out some of their existing powers. The states were at the time British Colonies, requiring British approval for any such contract / Constitution. Approval came in the form of a British Act of Parliament and the Monarch's Assent.
The Commonwealth Constitution was never a Peoples' constitution; the People did not draft it. The People did not approve it. The People have no built in right to propose an amendment to it - only the politicians have this right, this one fact alone totally cancels any claim that it is the Australian Peoples' Constitution.
MONUMENTAL CHANGE
Eighteen years after federation, on 28 June 1919, Australia, then a British Dominion signed The Peace Treaty of Versailles as an independent nation. Prior to this event Britain always signed for Australia.
On 10 September 1919 Prime Minister Hughes addressed the Federal Parliament proclaiming that "--- Australia has now entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. Australia has been born in a blood sacrifice ---" - referring to Australia's losses in the First World War.
On 10 January 1920 Australia signed on as a founding member of the League of Nations in its new capacity as an independent Nation, equal politically and in sovereignty with Great Britain and the twenty-eight other independent nations joining as foundation members. This is Australia's Independence Day.
Signing on as a member of the League of Nations involved the signatories in undertaking not to impose their laws on other member nations. Heavy penalties were agreed to for any member nation doing so.
Britain and Australia were fully aware of these conditions and agreed to them. These conditions became International Law.
The repercussions from these events meant that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution was no longer enforceable in Australia, because it was part of an Act of the British Parliament. In addition this "constitution" had not received the approval of the Australian people. All this left the Federal Parliament without proper legal authority to act in the government of Australia.
These events not only left the Federal Parliament, the High Court and the Federal Government generally without proper legal authority. It left them with only one proper legal course open to them, which was to notify the Australian people of these momentous events; and to put in place procedures, to have the people approve a fresh Constitution. This was never done, and unfortunately the Federal Parliament, the High Court and government departments continued on without proper authority - and contrary to law.
The Australian population was never made fully aware of complications flowing from the events of the time, nor have they been made aware since, not by government, or by the monarch.
There is only one direction Australia can take, even at this late stage and that is to have a fresh Constitution approved by the People via a referendum.
Such a fresh Constitution must build on the substantial foundation of fundamental principles of freedom provided by our rich heritage and it must also be the will of the People the beneficiaries to this heritage.
A compact of the People, drafted by the People then approved by a majority of the Australian People at a referendum.
This process should not be rushed. Every Australian should have ample time, with all the facts before them, before they are asked to vote on a fresh Constitution.
If this is not the case, then the very least that the people should accept, is that any constitution on which they are asked to vote must include the Peoples' (as opposed to the politicians) right to propose amendments to the Constitution, and only then should a fresh constitution go to referendum for the Peoples' approval. This provision would give the People the opportunity to put right any built in wrong.
THE PEOPLES' RIGHTS.
Under the inherited English system of government the fundamental rights of the People are protected by placing limits on government.
A constitution is a set of rules designed specifically to limit and control government, it is not just a document that only sets in place the framework of government as we are being led to believe it is.
The so-called Commonwealth Constitution while in operation as part of an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain was bound by the Laws of England, in other words bound by the British Constitution, Magna Carta Habeas Corpus etc. The Laws of England place specific limits on government and in so doing guarantee the Peoples' fundamental rights.
When in 1920, British Law ceased to have legal effect on, or bind the Federal Government. Government, it assumed it was no longer bound by the Laws of England, with the result that, the People's rights were incorrectly seen by government as no longer guaranteed at a federal level.
This may be the government's preferred position, but it is not sustainable because of the fact that Captain Cook and the first settlers who followed brought the Laws of England with them. Laws that were and remain today the property of the people not the property of government. Remember that Magna Carta stated that,- a man's property can not be removed except by the law of the land.
We are talking about the Law that the People had devised and imposed on the rulers of England, the Peoples' law, the Peoples' property, not the property of government.
Australian government, whether it is State or Federal has no mandate or legal right whatsoever to take away the Peoples' legal property. The Laws of England became the Laws of Australia by virtue of the fact that they are the property of the Australian people.
Both State and Federal governments remain bound by the Laws of England, because these laws are the property of the Australian people and as such are the Laws of Australia. Laws that only the People themselves can cancel. No court, no parliament, not even the Queen can cancel the Peoples' Laws.
State governments remain bound by the Laws of England. But if we accept the position that all Australian governments have taken, we find the following totally unacceptable position exists, where up until 1986 and the Australia Act(s)*, the Government view is that the Peoples' rights remained protected via state obligations under the Laws of England, until 1986, when they, the politicians arranged between themselves to cancel all rights and the delivery of justice.
Under the system of limited government inherited from England, state governments were prevented by law from passing legislation that was repugnant to the Laws of England. This very important limit on state governments was cancelled with the enactment of the Australia Act(s) 1986.
The result, according to current government thinking and action, is that the Australian People are left with no legal claim to, or guarantee of, fundamental rights or the delivery of justice.
This is not to say that the laws that existed in Australia at the time of passing the Australia Act were cancelled. What took place was, the politicians granted unto themselves a situation where they acquired totally unlimited power to amend existing laws or make new laws where either or both deny the fundamental rights of the People. In other words it gave politicians absolute power over the lives of the Australian People.
Even if what is claimed to be the Commonwealth Constitution remained legally in force it would be time for a fresh Constitution, because of the momentous chances that have taken place and most importantly because the Australian people have had their inalienable rights cancelled by totally repugnant law, leaving them at the mercy of totally unlimited government - politicians - courts and bureaucracy at all levels.
It should be noted that the High Court has apparently assumed the role of, "giver of rights", assumed the position of God. Since 1986 the High Court has read into the "Constitution" the right to free speech, when it is clear that no such right is written there. Furthermore there was never any intention or need to write it there.
The High Court has in the past reversed decisions when it has been politically expedient to do so, which means, that what it gives it can take away, when it suits. The High Court is a body made up of political appointments and as things stand, a body without proper legal authority for its existence. A body of people that has demonstrated the fact that they hold views contrary to the Australian peoples' bet interests.
At the end of the day the freedom and prosperity of the Australian People will depend on two things:- the quality of the rules that limit government and the Peoples' ability to enforce the rules.
The set of rules we rely on today have neither of these two basic requirements. Making a fresh constitution absolutely essential.
WHAT OPTIONS DO WE HAVE
The Alternative Three proposal for a fresh set of rules encapsulating the fundamental principles and the checks and balances provided by what now are the Laws of the People of Australia, Magna Carta, etc.
The Alternative Three - Fresh Commonwealth of Australia Constitution - is the Great Charter of Australia, Australia's Magna Carta.
On November 6, mark both your ballot Papers with an A3 or write Alternative Three across both papers. Do not answer any of the referendum questions.
Neither a yes or a no vote is in your best interests or the best interests of present or future Australia. Get your copy of the Alternative Three draft Constitution; get to understand what the possibilities really are and where your future freedom will be secure.
When you cast your vote for Alternative Three you will be voting on a fresh Constitution, this vote is not subject to the laws that apply to a referendum to amend the existing "Constitution". Under existing Law your Alternative Three vote must be also be counted in the republican referendum, where it falls into the same basket as a no vote.
Section 128 par 5, of the Constitution is clear, ----a majority of ALL the electors voting -is required to change the Constitution-- no mention of only formal votes, it clearly states ALL votes.
The Constitution prevents government from making laws that disenfranchise electors by providing for all votes to be counted. It is clear the that for a vote to be counted as a yes it must be clearly a YES vote , all other votes cast on the day must fall into the NO basket simply because they are not YES, and thereby the elector refuses to approve any change.
The Act that is used to control referendums.- the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, is contrary to the Constitution and should not stand if challenged in the High Court, but as do all Australian Laws, constitutional or otherwise, they stand until a citizen challenges them in the High Court. This unbelievable and unjust situation exists because Governor-Generals have not carried out their duty since 1920, their duty is to not grant assent to legislation that is repugnant to the Law of England, - Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. but they have repeatedly done so.
If the Referendums (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 is relied on, it clearly defines what constitutes an informal vote 1(a) Ballot paper not initialled on the back by issuing officer
(b) no vote marked on ballot paper or electors choice is not clear. (A3 is a clear choice).
( c) has more than one choice marked on the ballot paper.
(d) the name of a person.
Claims that an Alternative Three vote will be declared informal are misleading as the law states otherwise, such a situation would be unconstitutional and against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act.1984. There is no other law. We realise that desperate men turn to desperate measures, if this the case then the chance of a honest referendum just does not exist. Particularly when one considers that dishonest people can vote as many times as the like simply by going to as many polling booths as they choose and voting.
The biggest obstacle to bringing about positive change to Australia's disastrous constitutional circumstances is the peoples' dominant belief that they need government permission, when they don't, and once more they will never get it. We need to act within our long established fundamental, God given right, to implement new government as the need has certainly been demonstrated.
Do you know that:
The Australian people, that is, you and me, have been played for fools, and that so far the activity has been extremely successful and that we have been well and truly fooled?
We had all our legal claims to liberty and justice removed by Act of parliament in 1986.
Since 1986 the High Court has set itself up as God and that it now determines what rights people have and what justice they will get?
Australia is being prepared for entry into what is called the New World Order (NWO) system that will take control of our rights and what justice is delivered? The next step for us, in this massive power grab, will be regional government under the name of APEC already lying in ambush?
Under a regional government system every person of the region will have one equal vote and that Australia's 19 million people will be outvoted by Indonesia's 210 million, not to mention Japan and China's numbers? Then, longer term, consider the odds in a One World Government system.
The reason our industry has been wound down and given away, is all part of the plan? For the NWO to get control, the independence / self-sufficiency of all nations must be eliminated. This is being accomplished by allowing a nation with no natural resources including energy, such as Japan, to build a massive manufacturing capability, while Nations such as Australia must have no manufacturing capability. The result will be totally dependent countries such as Japan and now Australia, where control over all nations can be exercised by outsiders running the NWO, simply by cutting off Japan's energy and raw materials, or in Australia's case, cutting off the supply of manufactured goods and worse the people's income, by cutting tourism.
This whole operation can be manipulated into place through the control of money? All that is required is to allow Japan access to funds at say 1% and force Australia to pay 10%. In the early 1990s it was, Japan 2% Australia 20% and our manufacturing capability was simply hosed out.
The November referendum is another part of the process of preparing Australia's legal position for entry into the regional government phase of the planned New World Order.
If you continue to sit on your hands and do nothing, you will soon be living in a world of one central, big brother-style government, one religion with one standard of living which will be abject poverty under total oppression and with no means of change or even improvement?
Australia is placed in the unique position where it can head off what the NWO has in store for us? We can do so by installing a true Peoples' Constitution and we can make this happen as early as the November 1999 referendum, if we choose to? What will you choose, hand sitting or freedom?
Magna Carta first established the right of the people to draft a "constitution" and to serve it on the government of the day? Since this precedent, government permission to do so has not been required.
If you don't make a stand now, you may well lose all opportunity to do so at any future time? It will certainly be too late once the NWO trap has closed so far that it finally snaps shut.
The People's Constitution is ready, available for your inspection and approval, from Alternative Three at $5 a copy posted. A full Constitutional Kit is also available for $20 posted
Freedom / tax havens
The freedom to use a public place without fear of being accosted.
Freedom to be able to call your home your castle to the exclusion of all others.
Personal freedom, - economic freedom.
The freedom to do as a responsible freeman would providing that it not interfere with the freedom of another.
Freedom to be productive and to retain the reward for production.
Freedom to be able to store your rewards in the country's exchange mechanism in absolute confidence that they will retain their value.
Government has one purpose and that is to protect these freedoms. At least this was always the intention. The outcome unfortunately, demoralisingly and destructively is quite the opposite.
Do you know why Australia is not a tax haven and many countries are?
The reason we are not is that Australian government does not want us to be free.
A tax haven is simply a country that has no income tax, or next to none. A tax haven usually is not interested in your personal activities, a place where privacy is a right.
Those of us that have thought about it realise that taxes on production such as income tax, are not necessary. In fact they are destructive. We also realise that the same amount of tax can be collected in a number of ways other than taxes on production.
Australia could collect double the tax it collects with a simple 'transaction tax' of less than one percent,* thereby making it totally unnecessary to have any other form of taxation, with the exception of a tax on all assets leaving** Australia: - in other words a tax haven designed for Australians and to protect Australians from international pirates. A tax haven is no more than a country that has no income taxes. There is no reason why Australia should not be a tax haven.
All that is required is the will, then Australia could be a tax haven within a few weeks. As the politicians do not have the will, it is then up to us, the people, to exercise our will and make Australia a tax haven.
People are coming to realise that the elite in Australia pays virtually no tax as they make use of overseas tax havens. Australia must have a system where all pay their share and a transaction tax coupled with an export tax will accomplish this objective.
Let us reduce Australia down to the size of your back yard, where you run a few chooks and grow all your vegetables. Would you allow a freeloader to whom you gave shelter, to gather up most of the eggs and harvest most of the vegetables and take them with him - or would you invite in a foreign national to do the same, leaving you and your family to go short, in fact force them to steal from another backyard to survive? No you would not, but this is what is happening in Australia and all we can see to do, is sit around and whinge about what the politicians are doing, when all the time we have the remedy at our fingertips. You see, we the people have a universally recognised right to set the rules that govern the politicians; but we will have to make the effort at the next referendum to introduce a fresh set of rules.
All that is required to make yourself free and Australia a tax haven can be found in the Alternative Three fresh Constitution. All that is required to make it happen is the will of the people at the next referendum. Get your copy; find out just how simple the solution really is. Then simply write Alternative Three across both your referendum papers and refuse to be bluffed into answering either of the elite's referendum questions. Freedom and prosperity are at your fingertips, they can be yours and your children's by voting Alternative Three.
* People wishing to know more about the concept of a transaction tax, consult us for "debit tax" information.
** Both the transaction tax and export tax are dealt with in the Alternative Three Draft Constitution.

The Lima Declaration ------- an overview
What is the Lima declaration?How does it effect you and your family?
The correct title is:-
Lima Declaration and plan of ActiononIndustrial Development and Co-operation
It is an international trade agreement similar to G.A.T.T. (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs), Australia is a signatory to The Lima Declaration as it is to many GATT agreements.
Australia signed The Lima Agreement with the total support of all major political parties.
It should be clearly understood that the 'Lima Declaration' is one of many hundreds of international agreements and treaties signed by Australia, usually by one man The Minister for Foreign Affairs or his nominee, who signs on behalf of all Australians.
It should also be clearly understood that 99.9% of Australians do not know what such agreements and treaties are about, nor how they effect their lives, and they are not told -- if they were, there would be instant riot.
This paper deals very briefly with just one of the blanket of agreements and treaties now in existence. The Lima Declaration of 1975.
International treaties in the main are the handywork of the United Nations and have been used by Australian Governments to undermine Australian Sovereignty. The High Court decision on the Franklin Dam issue in Tasmania is a case in point. Used to put in place processes the impact of which the Australian people are completely unaware, and if they were aware, would be totally opposed to, processes that "get-around" "The Australian Commonwealth Constitution." In other words, treason. And treason is being committed in the name of International Treaty, or the other names given to them, such as conventions, or in this case declaration, The Lima Declaration.
You may say treason is a strong word, but after reading this brief you will say it is not strong enough, without doubt sufficient reason to impeach the Australian Government and opposition on charges of treason..
A copy of The Lima Declaration may be obtained from the United Nations in your Capital City, or the department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra, by phoning the treaties support unit on (06) 261 3590. While you are on the phone ask them how many treaties, declarations, conventions, etc exist. Ask for copies. Ask for the complete set including with The International Treaty on Civil & Political Rights. (The Bill of No Rights).
How can Governments give effect to The Lima Declaration ?
Simply, The Lima Declaration is an agreement to wind down Australian manufacturing by around 30% and to import that amount from other preferred Countries together with as much primary produce as we can consume. Such as fruit, meat etc. The 30% was a target that has now blown out, current estimates are that 90% of our production capacity has gone, and our jobs with it.
There is no mention in the agreement about what will happen to the Australians who lose their jobs, their factories or their farms, it appears they are expendable.
How can Government wind down Business Activity?
Simply by making an un-level playing field. Increase taxes, interest rates, the cost of employing people (without the worker gaining any benefit) Environmental planning controls all these things in combination either destroy or increase our ability to produce.
A good example would be:....
If you wished to manufacture widgets in Western Sydney, you may require, say, 5 acres of industrial land at around 2 million dollars, on which you will pay 25 thousand dollars a year rates, and 25 thousand dollars land tax, it will cost some hundreds of thousands in 'contributions' to Council coffers, and environmental studies, all of which you may borrow at 15-20% interest then, if you are lucky you will be up and manufacturing in maybe 2 to 5 years. Then the unions will step in and cause loss of production, the Government will make you subject to time consuming unnecessary costs, paperwork, insurance and payroll tax and force you to collect sales tax (GST) on your product, and threaten you with heavy penalties including jail sentences for late or non-compliance.
or
You can simply set up business offshore and export your ideas back to Australia. Our offshore neighbour, also a party to The Lima Declaration will give you the land, assist you in every way and not tax you for the first five years, their interest rates may range from nil to 4%, not to mention the Australian Governments incentives available to importers from preferred countries, and so the playing field is drastically tilted to get the result required by a combination of Government and financial activities.
How does The Lima Declaration effect me?
* Simply 50% of the productive Australian workforce becomes unemployed.
* Taxes on the remainder in employment increases, to pay for the unemployed
* With new shortage of income you are forced to buy cheaper -- imports, or go without thereby aggravating the spiral of well planned economic transfer (oppression)
Government (unproductive sections) will increase their numbers to cover up the real unemployed statistics or/and change the definition of unemployed; if you work 10 hours a month you will be considered employed. We then have more people in Government at all levels with little to do, other than think up more ways of controlling those who are left to produce what little we don't import, employed thinking up new revenue raising schemes, and raising penalties to ensure their salaries. And last but not least, the obscure reason behind The Lima Declaration, Australia becomes a dependent nation, dependent on other nations for it's shoes, it's machinery, it's food, it's survival.
There is no doubt, that within the grand plan of international control there is no room for self-sufficient nations. Any nation that has all the minerals it needs and can grow all the food and fibre it needs cannot be totally controlled by any international body such as the United Nations the International Monetary Fund or The World Bank.
An independent nation (independent in it's production of all the things it needs) cannot be bought to heel by sanctions, such as in South Africa was and Iraq is at the present.
The international control cannot starve the infants of an independent nation, nor deny them medication, as is the case in Iraq.
If Australia cannot make it's own shoes, clothes, and machinery, then others will control us. That is the real purpose of The Lima Declaration, and that is why those who support the Lima Declaration, including those in influential positions are all traitors. Joe Bryant. Jan 1992
Briefly, How the Treachery in Lima Occurred
The second general conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (U.N.I.D.O) met in Lima, Peru from March 12-26, 1975,. The outcome of that meeting was The Lima Declaration, a blue print for the transfer of technology, tools and jobs to 3rd world or developing nations, leaving the "Developed" nations such as Australia short of technology, tools and jobs.
This is now a reality with around 90% of our productive jobs gone and insufficient income from the remaining 10%, to fund the loss of jobs that alone the importing of what we once made right here in Australia with Australian hands, the result yet another 3rd world country in the making.
Whitlam, Frazer, Hawke, Keating, Hewson, Howard, Beasley, the democrats, greens and the Nationals all subscribe to this type of economic genocide, albeit under different names "North South Dialogue" - "G.A.T.T." - "Internationalism" - "Inter-dependence" - "International Monetary Fund" (I.M.F) "World Bank" or the newly uncovered "New World Order".
All different names for the same plan of total control of the world through the money system - control by sick minds, treasonous politicians and bumbling academics and bureaucrats.
The following are some of the recommendations of The Lima Declaration.
Resolution 5........Recognising the urgent need to bring about the establishment of a New International Economic Order based on equity, Sovereign equity, Inter-dependence and co-operation as has been expressed in the declaration and program of action on the establishment of a New International Economic Order in order to transform the present structure of economic relations.
Comment....In 1975 Australia. (or at least one Australian) agreed to destroy our economy so that it fitted into a "New Economic Order"
Resolution 27 -------- Developed Countries such as Australia should expand it's imports from developing countries.
Resolution 28 ------ Requires that developing countries increase their Industrial growth by more than the 8% recommended in earlier United Nations meetings and increase their exports by 350% by year 2000.
Resolution 35 -------- Developed Countries (Australia) should transfer technical, financial, and capital goods to developing countries to accomplish resolution 28 above.
Resolution 59 ------The developed countries should adopt the following measures.
(a) Progressive elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and other obstacles to trade, taking into account the special characteristics of the trade of the developing countries, with a view to improving the international framework for the conduct of world trade. Adherence to the fullest extent possible to the principle of the "standstill" on imports from developing countries and recognition of the need for prior consultation where feasible and appropriate in the event that special circumstances warrant a modification of the "standstill".
(b) Adoption of trade measures designed to ensure increased exports of manufactured and semi-manufactured products including processed agricultural products from the developing to the developed countries:
(c) Facilitate development of new and strengthen existing policies, taking into account their economic structure and economic, social and security objectives, which would encourage their industries which are less competitive internationally to move progressively into more viable lines of production or into other sectors of the economy, thus leading to structural adjustments within the developed countries, and redeployment of the productive capacities of such industries to developing countries and promotion of a higher degree of utilization of natural resources and people in the latter
(d) Consideration by the developed countries of their policies with respect to processed and semi-processed forms of raw materials, taking full account of the interests of the developing countries in increasing their capacities and industrial potentials for processing raw materials which they export;
(e) Increased financial contributions to international organizations and to government or credit institutions in the developing countries in order to facilitate the promotion or financing of industrial development. Such contributions must be completely free of any kind of political conditions and should involve no economic conditions other than those normally imposed on borrowers;
For further detail get your own copy of The Lima Declaration
Note.... It would seem that basic economic considerations are ignored to lock the world into a New Economic Order, by which complete control of the world and it's people is planned, through the total control of their economy - their means of existence.
The basic economy I refer to is "people". People create the need, the need is then supplied by people's activity.
All that is required for economic growth is for people to supply their own market, the proposed New Economic Order, is not about developing 3rd world countries economies for the benefit of their people , it's about developing for the establishment's benefit, our would be masters. The would be masters of The New World Order.
It is an absolute nonsense to say a country needs to export to survive and prosper. Of course one must export an equal amount to that which it imports to balance trade, but the less it imports the less it needs to export to effect the offset.
What is required is a locally owned and controlled credit system, the essential ingredient in remaining independent of International finance the exact opposite to the plans of The New World masters
Every country should work toward import replacement exactly the opposite to the strategy set out in The Lima Declaration and exactly the opposite to the current policy of export - export - export. Currently Australia exports below the cost of production, therefore the more we export the faster we go broke. Some years of this policy has seen our foreign debt go to $630billion in 1999. By November 2000 expect it to be $750billion and the IMF to walk in and demand drastic cuts in pensions a 25% GST.
If the fundamentals on which The Lima Declaration is purported to be built were half-correct, our world would have to carry out export/import trade with another world in export-to-survive. This is quite obviously nonsense. The whole world will continue to fall for this treachery while ever the man in the street remains as a mushroom, under the spell of bankers trickery and that of their stooges who fill both elected, and public service positions.
Footnote.... The New Economic Order is mentioned no less than 21 times in The Lima Agreement, that is what The Lima Agreement is all about, locking the new developing countries into "their" economic trap and "their" plans for total world economic control, at the same time reducing developed countries to third world status, clamping the shackles of International debt on every human being, bringing about total world slavery, and the legally enforceable shackles of debt, chained to the slave master, money power.
Every Australian is immediately required to make a decision between debt controlled slavery in perpetuity- or the age of prosperity. Both are eminently possible, one we will have! Which one? Now rely on your gut feeling, ignore the controlled media propaganda - it's owned by your would-be masters, but decide now between perpetual slavery or the age of prosperity.
Joe Bryant 1992.
Alternative Three, PO Box 270, St Marys, NSW 2760 Ph; 02-9623-6177 Fax: 02-9826-1670. E-mail: succeed@tsn.cc
Web: users.bigpond.com/succeed/upp Written, authorised and printed by Joe Bryant 418 Roper Road St Marys NSW 2760.
Draft constitution
For your copy of the current A3 Draft Better Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia please send $5 with your request to PO Box 1010 St Marys NSW 2760.

Alternative Three (A3) Not a republican proposal. Not a Monarchist proposal.A proposal for a Constitutional Democracy

Email: info@alt3.net www.alt3.net www.better-constitution.com.au

Human Rights Defenders ( Source)

2009-01-12T21:43:00.004+11:00

Human Rights Defenders (Go to: http://onevoice.freeservers.com/level2/case.htm)
One Voice One People

MISSION STATEMENT
OVOP's mission is to play an active role in the global quest by ordinary people for the true implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in the United Nations Universal Human Rights Declaration and Covenants, thus empowering individuals to have a voice in promoting human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the advancement of democratic institutions and processes that respect and implement the UN Declaration and Covenants.
In addressing this mission OVOP will take a wholistic view of the issues, looking not just at immediate cases of human rights abuse but will also seek to understand the chains of input factors that give rise to abuse. OVOP notes the following.

1. The principles and rights set out in the Universal Human Rights Declaration were adopted by many UN Member states as legally binding international instruments known as the International Covenants, and entered into force in 1976.

2. OVOP is a non-party-political, independent, non-profit organisation for the implementation of Human Rights and is dedicated to act according to the "Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms".

3. OVOP is very concerned about increases in:
a) Poverty (Poverty itself is a violation of numerous basic human rights).
b) Injustice (Injustice is caused by deterioration of democratic processes, corrupt judiciary and legal systems, inconsistent application of the law and refusal to fulfill well-established obligations).
c) Violence and crime (Today's human rights abuses are the causes of tomorrow's conflicts).
d) Illnesses and disabilities (Many are a direct result of denials of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all human beings to safe working conditions, even more are indirectly so linked).
e) Environmental pollution and destruction. (Consequences of the ignorance and disregard of the human rights which are embodied in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

(OVOP notes where the ultimate responsibility sits and that, despite the UN's comprehensive legally binding legislation, violation of human rights occurs not only in "underdeveloped" countries but also in "developed" countries. Human Rights legislation is governed by the United Nations but ultimately controlled and managed by the various national governments.)

4. OVOP agrees with the United Nation's warning "that the denial of Human Rights and the fundamental freedoms not only is an individual tragedy, but also creates conditions of social and political unrest, sowing the seed of violence and conflict within and between societies and nations."

5. OVOP is committed to promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms and to contribute to the promotion and advancement of democratic societies, institutions and processes in that, OVOP will:
a) Carry out its own worldwide research and investigation campaigns to find out from individual people their understanding of Human Rights and also their concerns regarding failure to apply these Rights.
b) Assist individuals who rights have been violated. OVOP will support the individual victim who intends to bring the violations before the International Human Rights Committee.
c) Explore the non-application of Human Rights in developed countries by gathering the facts from victims of human rights abuse, present the evidence to the UN and to the global community and demand a satisfactory solution as set out in the International Covenants.
d) Prove to the UN and the world governments that Human Rights are issues which most people take very seriously and that the individual person tries very hard to protect his or her rights, the rights of their children and the future generations.
e) Undertake education campaigns through various channels including schools, colleges and universities to:
i. Explain the meaning and the application of Human Rights in the life of an individual person .
ii. Make people aware of the alarming implications should their Human Rights be further eroded or abolished via national legislation.
iii. Advise the individual person not only about his or her responsibility, duty, obligation but also about the rights as a citizen of the global community to request that the International Human Rights are implemented and made part of the law in each Country
iv. Inform people that "The global quest for commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights involves everyone. The campaign relies heavily on thousands of dedicated individuals and citizens' groups who often risk their lives for the cause. Increased involvement in the defence of human rights helps to build an environment where freedom and dignity are expected and respected. It is up to each and every one of us - from Presidents and Prime Ministers to business executives, farmers and students - to work toward this dream." (United Nations Publication)
v. Make people aware that without respect for Human Rights, Freedom and Justice for everyone there will be no Peace on Earth!

6. OVOP remind that the ideal and the objectives of Human Rights are only achievable if the various national Governments comply with the International Covenants they have agreed to put into force and:
a) Protect all persons from being subjected to torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
b) Place into their national law the international Human Rights instruments they have ratified so providing equality before the law, protection by the law , and to thus strive to deliver justice and create "freedom from fear and want" for every person.

7. OVOP demand that the UN:
a) Persistently act to ensure UN member states, who signed to ratify the International Covenants, honor their signature and implement these rights in their national law codes and statutes, or revoke their signature and so withdraw from these International Covenants.
b) Invite all the UN member states to reconsider their position, as regards to their legal obligation as a result of them having signed the International Covenants.
c) Terminate the Human Rights Committee membership of Governments who revoke their signature or refuse to comply with their legal obligation to implement the International Covenants into their law. Any related privileges under the International Covenants, (e.g., the right to consult, advise and the right to vote on or about any Human Rights issues) must also be cancelled.
d) Expose countries which do not fully acknowledge and adhere to these principals of Human Rights.

8. OVOP will consult with Governments and the United Nations to assist and support the implementation of the proclaimed rights and freedoms into the law of the countries who have signed the covenants.

9. OVOP request that no more funds to be wasted to create yet more "paper treaties/covenants" because 50 years after the Human Rights Declaration the UN member states still do not comply with the existing International Covenants.

10. OVOP believes that in the absence of a real intent to implement these treaties the people on this planet are being misled. People are loosing faith and trust in promised rights and freedoms. For the future of mankind it would be disastrous if today's upcoming generation question the validity of international treaties/ covenants because these promises have proved to be nothing more than empty words.

How did ONE VOICE - ONE PEOPLE Human Rights Defenders (OVOP) start
ONE VOICE - ONE PEOPLE Human Rights Defenders is an international, independent, non-political, non-profit, Non-Government Organisation (NGO), founded by Brigitte Straulino and Erica Studer as a direct result of the human rights violations they personally suffered.
They researched the issues, contacting others, thinking at first that their experience with the Australian legal system had to be rare or even unique. But they discovered that many of other people had suffered similar violation and injustice.

It became increasingly clear that a mass of ordinary people suffer, going through appalling traumatic experiences with no help offered, as no equality before the law exists and a basic right of access to natural justice is ignored.

Having suffered the trauma of such violations themselves, and now aware that similar suffering had to be very widespread Brigitte and Erica sought ways of helping others and of letting the world know the extent of the heartbreaking experiences so many people were being subjected to. The outcome is the developing One Voice - One People, Human Rights Defenders which is funded only via member's subscriptions and donations.

ONE VOICE ONE PEOPLE is an independent, non-party-political, non-profit organisation committed to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms and to contribute to the promotion and advancement of democratic societies, institutions and processes.
(C) One Voice One People. Last updated: March 2000

Letters Contact OVOP

As a temporary measure FLAC (For Legally Abused Citizens) will forward mail:
OVOP c/o FLAC NSW P.O.Box 1199 Maroubra Junction NSW 2035 AUSTRALIA

(comment by PDM: I suggest u also look at this link... very interesting reading;).
http://onevoice.freeservers.com/legal/auslaw.htm

Injured Workers Comments

2009-01-10T19:52:00.001+11:00

Thanks PDM the issue I have at the moment is that I have been through the process up to the stage that my claim for loss of earnings and pain and suffering has been rejected as in the opinion of the " totally unbiased assessment" of the medical panel after a one hour consultation that my injury is only 4%.
It has been reported that the : "totally unbiased assessment" of the medical panel is usually unscrupulously LOW in PERCENTAGE, regardless of the actual impact on the injured workers ability to function or work in every day reality and physical injuries, or whole person impairment.It has also been said on numerous occasions they are paid an extravagant amount to make these kinds of assessments.

I am unsure what your actual injuries are but if you feel to, you might like to let others know what suffering you experience on a day to day basis... how difficult every day tasks are etc.

My GP and osteopaths opinion varies greatly but apparently the medical people that see me on a regular basis and have only my health as a concern, opinions don't count.
The question I have to ask here is... are they qualified to establish injury level? If not then why does workcover pay them to treat you for any period of time, and why are they requested to write reports, endless reports, when compared with workcover "outsourced medical professionals" are paid pittance for their time/reports in comparison?
If they cannot have medical factually based opinions?
Our readers will start to see the insanity behind the real logic here.

I have been in touch with my solicitor and have an appointment to discuss my claim but he has pretty much said that if his firm decide they do not wish to cover future costs that will be the end of my claim.

Isn't it sad that it all comes down to the cost effectiveness of a Legal Firm who are not going through their clients pain and suffering to whether an Injured Worker gets their chance in Court.
Everyone is apparently entitled to their day in court.
I would like to see this happen more often.

Despite hours of searching for information I cannot find anywhere that explains clearly what, if any, options I have a this point.

I agree its like trying to find a needle in a thousand haystacks!
This is why we all need to educate the general public into the madness we face, when we or our loved ones are injured at work. Then never give up in finding a way to put a stop to it once and for all, for the benefit of the actual injured workers.

My solicitor has been very good considering this is a no win no pay claim but once again my whole life and future is in someone Else's hands.

Yes agreed and how is that fair?

Like every other process I have been through the decision will not have anything to do with me-how much I have and will suffer but will be totally based on the monetary consideration of the person making the decision.

Yes and no doubt more and more rights will be written away in legislation's to come in the future if someone is lucky enough to get what they actually deserve in compensation.

In the true fashion of today's society I am fully disposable and recyclable. There will be many more injured workers to take my place making great incomes for medical "experts", "independent" medical panel members, insurance companies,lawyers and workers taking the same job I had with my former employers and possibly suffering the same injury.The cycle continues !!!

Unfortunately this is how it seems to be going for most. We are all human beings and every one of us counts and matters. Where are our human rights? Why is it okay to suffer and fight against a never ending battle with a total disadvantage in every way.
YES every one of them PROFIT out of our suffering! In a system "designed for the benefit of Injured Workers".

Meanwhile despite my contribution as a worker for almost 40 years has no value whatsoever and my old age will be spent in poverty,pain and fear. (Yvonne)

This is what is happening and this is WRONG! I for one thank you for your contribution and wish you all your rights including appropriate compensation for ALL suffering in your life incurred as a result of being INJURED AT WORK, and MISTREATED by this SYSTEM.
You should not be left to feel this way. You should not be at a loose end. This system is not fair.
But hold your head high knowing that you did nothing wrong. You did work... you did contribute and you do deserve so much better than this!

Another comment I would like to make. Is everyone aware that although the Bracks Government restored workers rights after the Kennett debacle, the American assessment guide used for measuring workers percentage of injury was bought back into use EXCEPT the last part of the assessment formula which relates to the workers amount of pain. Why ??? possibly because a majority of workers can't go back to work not because of the actual injury but because of the pain and drug dependence they have managing the original injury. Just my opinion possibly because of my own situation. (Yvonne)

A very valid point made here. Why??? BECAUSE THIS ISNT ABOUT THE HUMAN BEINGS ITS ABOUT CORPORATE PROFIT!
As you have noticed.... the very things that needed to be in place have been taken out of the equation... and there is no mistaking that. There is nothing good about leaving that out.
You are 100% right in how you feel in my opinion and I am sure the opinion of all the Injured Workers that are facing these very issues in their logical minds right now.
You most certainly are NOT in the minority here and the only difference between you me and the gate post is that we are speaking out. Not sitting idly by with our hands folded. Or laying down as doormats.

( Purple text are replies to Yvonne by PeopleDoMatter)

New Comment by Jo

Well done PDM you hit the nail right on the head with this post!!! (Jo)

New Comment by Yvonne
Posted by Yvonne to VWA Your loss is their GAIN COMPLAIN! at January 11, 2009 2:11 AM

Thank you so much PDM this is the first time some-one has actually listened to ME and responded to My concerns it has made me feel like I worthy of being heard.I will when I feel up to it share my story. Thank you so much. Yvonne

Dear Yvonne,
You are most welcome! Thank you for all your wonderful years of hard work and contributions to this country. Its very disheartening that for being so deserving you are treated so badly and unjustly. I am very distressed about how you have been treated and that's why I am here.
Dealing with it and actually experiencing this insanity is such an eye opening and shocking experience, it really changes your reality on top of everything else.
Why? Because greedy bureaucrats sign our rights away, then brainwash us into thinking they are really looking after us and we are the lucky country. I expect fairness and justice for all and something that really works for the injured.

As for those very Bureaucrats "looking after our interests" in such a disgraceful way.

I have to ask... why then is everyone else paid better and put above genuine people who are injured? Why is it okay to spend on surveillance, queens council including Mr Hanks, IME's, outsourced agencies who have proven to be useless, the list goes on and on.

Why do our treating doctors, therapists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, chiropractors, counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists, get so little in comparison to the workcover based "health providers"? Even when compared to the amount they would earn in the time taken to fill in your demanding reports?

Why don't the bureaucrat's take a pay cut? Why is it okay to reduce Injured Workers entitlements and rights? Why pay so much for advertising?

For all our readers out there. I hope you care enough to offer some support to Yvonne. As you have read, she lives with pain and suffering and no one has even bothered to listen to her up until now.

Why should Yvonne have to fight for her rights and be treated this way along with everyone else, who has been injured at work?

EDUCATE yourselves on what really is going on right now for your fellow human beings.

Yvonne, don't let them win. Do not believe you are recycleable. You are worthy and you do matter.

Never give up.

PDM

Yvonne comment

2009-01-08T19:45:00.000+11:00

Hi I'm new to this site and have been scr*** by workcover too, could you explain what class action you are referring to?
(Yvonne) 1.14am

Hi Yvonne,
We are looking for interest from other injured workers in a class action lawsuit.
People that are definately interested without backing out at the last minute.

Feel free to share your issues with us on this site.

Have a great night.
Cheers

What have you got to lose by speaking out?Standing up?

2009-01-05T19:17:00.000+11:00

Hi,
What is everyone so scared of?
It has come to my attention that very few of you are willing to speak out about issues you are being bombarded with every day at the hands of the worksafe workcover system.

What have you got to lose?

Unfortunately there are a lot of unscrupulous types out there willing to make a quick buck out of other peoples suffering.

Even willing to steal ideas and others hard work and try to create things that do not belong to them.

This is NOT the place for anyone who is interested in that.

Why no interest in a class action?

Why no interest in helping others who are suffering on a daily basis and financially ruined due to their injuries?

Why are there so many people viewing the information contained in this blog but are too scared to type their stories up and post them?

Why does it seem like only very few people are even willing to stand up and say this situation is wrong?

No wonder this keeps happening... are we really all too scared to stand up together?

To make a change for the better? To help each other?

What is wrong?

Why are we so scared to speak the truth?

Somebody out there please enlighten me, or at least send me your stories and prove that you are not too scared to stand up have your say and attempt to make a difference.

Cheers,
StandUp

This Site is Produced for Injured workers and Effected Parties Personal Use only and NO Businesses are Permitted to use information on this site

2009-01-05T18:56:00.000+11:00

No Business may use my research or information contained in my site for their own profit or gain whatsoever.
This site is NOT intended for profit of another agency, firm, corportation association, government body or any other form of business venture.
This includes any Legal Firm or Non Profit Business Associations, and all who would like to profit off another persons hard work for their business profit or pretence of education etc.

This site is ONLY permitted for use of individual people who are Injured in either traffic accidents or Workplace Injuries or their effected families friends and loved ones.Or for Individual People who know something is wrong and wish to educate themselves.

Any use of materials contained in this site is strictly for personal use only!

I do this work in the best interests of these individuals and NOT for any other purpose.

Without express written permission from me, no business has the right to steal information and my hard earned hours of work and research and anything else contained in this site whatsoever and if found to have done so will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I suggest if you are a business you do your own work and research away from this site. If unsure about the intention of this site or unclear about the above message. Feel free to contact me. Do NOT use this site if you are a business. Strictly Private Individual use only. ESPECIALLY LEGAL FIRMS YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!

Word meaning of Sovereignty From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008-11-14T20:08:00.000+11:00

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
"Sovereign" redirects here. For other uses, see Sovereign (disambiguation).
Sovereignty is the exclusive right to control a government, a country, a people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority.

An important concept in sovereignty is its absoluteness. A sovereign power (whether an individual or an assembly such as a parliament) has absolute sovereignty if it has the unlimited right to control everything and every kind of activity in its territory. This means that it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or behaviour are reserved as being outside its control; eg. parents are not guaranteed the right to decide some matters in the upbringing of their children independently of the sovereign power, municipalities are not guaranteed freedom from its interference in some local matters, etc. Theorists have diverged over the necessity or desirability of absoluteness. Historically, it is doubtful whether a sovereign power has ever claimed complete absoluteness, let alone had the power to actually enforce it. This last point raises, in passing, the important distinction between de jure and de facto sovereignty. De jure, or legal, sovereignty is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over one's subjects. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. It can be approached in two ways:

1) Does the governing power have sufficient strength (police or whatever) to compel its subjects to obey it? (If so, a type of de facto sovereignty called coercive sovereignty exists.)
2) Are the subjects of the governing power in the habit of obeying it?
Another distinction is between external and internal sovereignty. External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and political bodies outside itself, such as other nation states. The central question is, under what conditions do nation states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory? The following criteria, used by Britain in regarding other powers, are typical:

"Sovereignty." A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country is a foreign sovereign state. (The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A.C. 256)

– Strouds Judicial Dictionary

External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another's territory permissible?

Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a political body (or individual) exercise authority over its subjects? Possible answers are, by divine right, by natural right, or — the consentual or contractarian hypothesis — that each of its subjects has actually or tacitly transferred to it that right.

Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Different Views
3 Territorial sovereignty
4 Sovereignty in international law
5 Sovereignty and United States federalism
6 Miscellaneous
7 Sovereign as a title
8 See also
9 References
10 External links

[edit] History
Ideas about sovereignty have changed over time. The Roman jurist Ulpian observed that:

The imperium of the people is transferred to the Emperor,
The Emperor is not bound by the law,
The Emperor's word is law.
Ulpian was expressing — although he did not use the term — the idea that the Emperor exercised a rather absolute form of sovereignty. Ulpian's statements were known in medieval Europe but sovereignty was not an important concept in medieval times. Medieval monarchs were not sovereign, at least not strongly so, because they were constrained by, and shared power with, their feudal aristocracy. Furthermore, both were strongly constrained by custom.

Sovereignty reemerged a concept in the late 1500s, a time when civil wars had created a craving for stronger central authority, when monarchs had begun to gather power into their own hands at the expense of the nobility, and the modern nation state was emerging. Jean Bodin, partly in reaction to the chaos of the French wars of religion; and Thomas Hobbes, partly in reaction to the English Civil War, both presented theories of sovereignty calling for strong central authority in the form of absolute monarchy. In his 1576 treatise Six livres de la république ("Six Books of the Republic") Bodin argued that it is inherent in the nature of the state that sovereignty must be:

a) Perpetual, not temporarily delegated as to a strong leader in an emergency or to a state employee such as a magistrate.
b) Absolute. On this point he said that the sovereign must not be hedged in with obligations and conditions, must be able to legislate without his (or its) subjects' consent, must not be bound by the laws of his predecessors, and could not, because it is illogical, be bound by his own laws.
Bodin rejected the notion of transferrenc of sovereignty from people to sovereign ; natural law and divine law confer upon the sovereign the right to rule. And the sovereign is not above divine law or natural law. He is above (ie. not bound by) only positive law, that is, laws made by humans. The fact that the sovereign must obey divine and natural law imposes ethical constraints on him. Bodin also held that the lois royales, the fundamental laws of the French monarchy which regulated matters such as succession, are natural laws and are binding on the French sovereign. Bodin described the sovereign as a ruler above human law and subject only to the divine or natural law. He thus predefined the scope of the divine right of kings, stating "Sovereignty is a Republic's absolute and perpetual power "[citation needed].

Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651) introduced an early version of the social contract (or contractarian) theory, arguing that to overcome the "nasty, brutish and short" quality of life without the cooperation of other human beings, people must join in a "commonwealth" and submit to a "Soveraigne Power" that is able to compel them to act in the common good. This expediency argument attracted many of the early proponents of sovereignty. Hobbes deduced from the definition of sovereignty that it must be:

a) Absolute, because conditions could only be imposed on a sovereign if there were some outside arbitrator to determine when he had violated them, in which case the sovereign would not be the final authority.
b) Indivisible: that is, the sovereign is the only final authority in his territory; he does not share final authority with any other entity. Hobbes held this to be true because otherwise there would be no way of resolving a disagreement between the multiple authorities.
These characteristics would decisively shape the concept of sovereignty, which we can find again in the social contract theories, for example, in Rousseau's (1712-1778) definition of popular sovereignty (with early antecedents in Francisco Suárez's theory of the origin of power), which only differs in that he considers the people to be the legitimate sovereign. Likewise, it is inalienable – Rousseau condemned the distinction between the origin and the exercise of sovereignty, a distinction upon which constitutional monarchy or representative democracy are founded. Machiavelli, Hobbes, John Locke and Montesquieu are also key figures in the unfolding of the concept of sovereignty.

Enlightenment philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract[1] argued, "the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government," with the understanding that the Sovereign is "a collective being of wonder" (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from "the general will" of the people, and that "what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law" (Book II, Chapter VI) – and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, "there is no law without a sovereign."

Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) defined sovereignty as "the power to decide the state of exception", in an attempt, argues Giorgio Agamben, to counter Walter Benjamin's theory of violence as radically disjoint from law. Georges Bataille's heterodox conception of sovereignty, which may be said to be an "anti-sovereignty", also inspired many thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, Agamben or Jean-Luc Nancy.

[edit] Different Views
There exist vastly differing views on the moral bases of sovereignty. These views translate into various bases for legal systems:

Partisans of the divine right of kings argue that the monarch is sovereign by divine right, and not by the agreement of the people. Taken to its conclusion, this may translate into a system of absolute monarchy.
The second book of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du droit politique (1762) deals with sovereignty and its rights. Sovereignty, or the general will, is inalienable, for the will cannot be transmitted; it is indivisible, since it is essentially general; it is infallible and always right, determined and limited in its power by the common interest; it acts through laws. Law is the decision of the general will in regard to some object of common interest, but though the general will is always right and desires only good, its judgment is not always enlightened, and consequently does not always see wherein the common good lies; hence the necessity of the legislator. But the legislator has, of himself, no authority; he is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone (that is, the sovereign or general will) has authority to make and impose them.
Democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty. Representative democracies permit (against Rousseau's thought) a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty from the people to the parliament or the government. Parliamentary sovereignty refers to a representative democracy where the Parliament is, ultimately, the source of sovereignty, and not the executive power.
Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and governments. Anarchists often argue for a specific individual kind of sovereignty, such as the Anarch as a sovereign individual. Salvador Dalí, for instance, talked of "anarcho-monarchist" (as usual, tongue in cheek); Antonin Artaud of Heliogabalus: Or, The Crowned Anarchist; Max Stirner of The Ego and Its Own; Georges Bataille and Jacques Derrida of a kind of "antisovereignty". Therefore, anarchists join a classical conception of the individual as sovereign of himself, which forms the basis of political consciousness. The unified consciousness is sovereignty over one's own body, as Nietzsche demonstrated (see also Pierre Klossowski's book on Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle). See also self-ownership and Sovereignty of the individual.
Republican form of government acknowledges that the sovereign power is founded in the people, individually, not in the collective or whole body of free citizens, as in a democratic form. Thus no majority can deprive a minority of their sovereign rights and powers.
Imperialists hold a view of sovereignty where power rightfully exists with those states that hold the greatest ability to impose the will of said state, by force or threat of force, over the populace or other states with weaker military or political will. They effectively deny the sovereignty of the individual in deference to either the 'good' of the whole, or to divine right.
The key element of sovereignty in the legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction.

Specifically, when a decision is made by a sovereign entity, it cannot generally be overruled by a higher authority. Further, it is generally held that another legal element of sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. ("No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty.") In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements.

A more formal distinction is whether the law is held to be sovereign, that is, whether it is above political or other interference. Sovereign law constitutes a true state of law, meaning the letter of the law (if constitutionally correct) is applicable and enforceable, even when against the political will of the nation, as long as not formally changed following the constitutional procedure. Strictly speaking, any deviation from this principle constitutes a revolution or a coup d'état, regardless of the intentions.

[edit] Territorial sovereignty
Following the Thirty Years' War, a European religious conflict that embroiled much of the continent, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the notion of territorial sovereignty as a doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of other nations. The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.

[edit] Sovereignty in international law
In constitutional and international law, the concept of sovereignty pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in some contexts to various organs possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision. Determining whether a specific entity is sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute.

While many purists regard the individual or an individual nation state as the sole seat of sovereignty, in international law, sovereignty is defined as the legitimate exercise of power and the interpretation of international law by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so.

For instance, in theory, both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China considered themselves sovereign governments over the whole territory of mainland China and Taiwan. Though some foreign governments recognize the Republic of China as the valid state, most now recognize the People's Republic of China. However, de facto, the People's Republic of China has jurisdiction only over mainland China but not Taiwan, while the Republic of China has jurisdiction only over Taiwan and some outlying islands but not mainland China. Since ambassadors are only exchanged between sovereign high parties, the countries recognizing the People's Republic often entertain de facto but not de jure diplomatic relationships with the Republic by maintaining 'offices of representation', such as the American Institute in Taiwan, rather than embassies there.

Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power. The Holy See was in this position between the annexation in 1870 of the Papal States by Italy and the signing of the Lateran Treaties in 1929, when it was recognised as sovereign by many (mostly Roman Catholic) states despite possessing no territory – a situation resolved when the Lateran Treaties granted the Holy See sovereignty over the Vatican City. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is likewise a non-territorial body that claims to be a sovereign entity, though it is not universally recognized as such.

Similarly, the governments-in-exile of many European states (for instance, Norway, Netherlands or Czechoslovakia) during the Second World War were regarded as sovereign despite their territories being under foreign occupation; their governance resumed as soon as the occupation had ended. The government of Kuwait was in a similar situation vis-à-vis the Iraqi occupation of its country during 1990-1991.

[edit] Sovereignty and United States federalism
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page. (January 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes.
Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (January 2008)

In federal systems of government, such as that of the United States, sovereignty also refers to powers which a state government possesses independently of the federal government; this is called "clipped sovereignty."

The question whether the individual states, particularly the Confederate States of America, remained sovereign became a matter of debate in the U.S., especially in its first century of existence:

According to the theory of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun, the states had entered into an agreement from which they might withdraw if other parties broke the terms of agreement, and they remained sovereign. These individuals contributed to the theoretical basis for acts of secession, as occurred just before the American Civil War. However, they propounded this as part of a general theory of "nullification," in which a state had the right to refuse to accept any Federal law that it found to be unconstitutional, regardless of judicial review.
Likewise, according to the theory put forth by James Madison in the Federalist Papers "each State, in ratifying the Constitution, was to be considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution [was to be] a federal, and not a national constitution." In the end, Madison likewise compromised with the Anti-federalists to modify the Constitution to protect state sovereignty: At the 1787 constitutional convention a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it saying, "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."Rives, William (1866). History of the Life and Times of James Madison 2. Retrieved on April 2008.

In his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, James Madison wrote that "The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” Madison even made a dire prediction of what would happen if this was denied, stating that “If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself, as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it, there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the state constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared."

During the first half-century after the Constitution was ratified, the right of secession was asserted on several occasions, and various states considered secession (including, for example, the Hartford Convention after the War of 1812) in response, not a single state objected on the grounds that such was unlawful. It was not until later, c. 1830, that Andrew Jackson, Joseph Story, Daniel Webster and others began to publish the theory that secession was illegal, and that the United States was a supremely sovereign nation over the various member-states. These writers inspired Lincoln's later declaration that "no state may lawfully get out of the Union by its own mere motion", based on the premise that "the Union is older than the Constitution or the even states," in effect an assertion that the 1781 confederation had consolidated the states into a single nation.

Opponents of Lincoln's claim argue that the states, in forming the union of the Constitution, each seceded from the prior Confederated union of 1781, thereafter nine of them joined in Constitutional union on June 21, 1788 – when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution, thereby establishing it among those nine states as per Article VII; meanwhile other states refused to ratify until various conditions were met – including the addition of the Bill of Rights, ultimately ratifying by 1790. Therefore, their argument proceeds, both unions continued to exist in perpetuity between 1788 and 1790 (whereupon the final state of Rhode Island likewise joined the Constitutional union, thus ending the original confederated union. For this reason, the United States could not have been a single sovereign nation at any time prior to the Constitution, if ever.

[edit] Miscellaneous
Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of tribes or of federally recognized Native American nations to exercise limited jurisdiction within and sometimes beyond reservation boundaries.
In some regions of the world, such as Quebec and Indian Kashmir, the word "sovereignty" has become the preferred synonym for national independence (referring in this case to "national sovereignty" or the right of national self-determination, as explicited by example in U.S. President Wilson's Fourteen Points - 1918). Compare the Māori term rangatiratanga, and the concept of self-determination.
The Holy See is recognized as sovereign subject under international law (separate entity in international law vis-à-vis Vatican City, which has a very small amount of territory enclaved in the Italian capital Rome).
A case sui generis, though often contested, is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the third sovereign mini-state based in an enclave in the Italian capital (since in 1869 the Palazzo di Malta and the Villa Malta receive extraterritorial rights, in this way becoming the only "sovereign" territorial possessions of the modern Order), which is the last existing heir to one of several once militarily significant, crusader states of sovereign military orders; in 1607 its Grand masters were also made by the Holy Roman Emperor Reichsfürst ('prince of the Holy Roman Empire', granting a seat in the Reichstag or Imperial Diet, at the time the closest permanent equivalent to a UN-type general assembly; confirmed 1620), the sovereign rights never deposed, only the territories lost; several modern states still maintain full diplomatic relations (100) with the order (now de facto 'the most prestigious service club'), and the UN awarded it observer status.
Just like the office of Head of state (whether sovereignty is vested in it or not) can be vested jointly in several persons within a state, the sovereign jurisdiction over a single political territory can be shared jointly by two or more consenting powers, notably in the forms of a condominium or of (as still in Andorra) a co-principality
Thomas Hobbes wrote that Sovereignty was the very soul of the Leviathan.
Christianity and more specifically the systematic theology of Calvinism asserts that God is sovereign in all things, including salvation.

An underdeveloped aspect of sovereignty is individual sovereignty meaning the ability of individuals to have effective control over their everyday lives. Individuals have no genuine sovereignty unless they have secure income sufficient to satisfy basic need and rare is the politics or economics, such as binary economics, which consciously upholds individual sovereignty by guaranteeing that income.

[edit] Sovereign as a title
In some cases, the title sovereign is not just a generic term, but an actual (part of the) formal style of a Head of state.

Thus from 22 June 1934, to 29 May 1953, (the title "Emperor of India" was dropped as of 15 August 1947, by retroactive proclamation dated 22 June 1948), the King of South Africa was styled in the Dominion of South Africa: "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India and Sovereign in and over the Union of South Africa." Upon the accession of Elizabeth II to the Throne of South Africa in 1952, the title was changed to Queen of South Africa and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, parallel to the style used in almost all the other Commonwealth Realms. The pope holds ex officio the title "Sovereign of the Vatican City State" in respect to Vatican City.

The adjective form can also be used in a Monarch's full style, as in pre-imperial Russia, 16 January 1547 – 22 November 1721: Bozhiyeyu Milostiyu Velikiy/Velikaya Gosudar'/Gosudarynya Tsar'/Tsaritsa i Velikiy/Velikaya Knyaz'/Knyaginya N.N. vseya Rossiy Samodyerzhets "By the Grace of God Great Sovereign Tsar/Tsarina and Grand Prince/Princess, N.N., of All Russia, Autocrat"

[edit] See also
Seigniorage, the sovereign power to issue money
Basileus
Rousseau's classic theory of popular sovereignty
Carl Schmitt's theory of sovereignty as the power to decide the instauration of the state of exception (according to Giorgio Agamben, a response to Walter Benjamin's theorization of a "pure violence" unrelated with law)
Choice can it be
Colonization
Constitutive theory of statehood
Declarative theory of statehood
Dictatorship
Divine right of kings (Bodin, Hobbes, etc.)
Leadership
Montevideo Convention
Neo-medievalism
Non-intervention
Pareto
Parliamentary sovereignty
Popular sovereignty
Plenary authority
Self-determination
Self-ownership
Social contract theories (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau)
State
Sovereigntist
Suzerainty
Westphalian sovereignty

[edit] References

^ Of the Social Contract, Book II, Chapter III.

This article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913.
The Changing Character of Sovereignty in International Law and International Relations by Winston P. Nagan and Craig Hammer of the Levine College of Law, University of Florida
Etymology OnLine
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
The Extinction of Nation-States
Protection of national sovereign rights under international law
WorldStatesmen
Catalan bid for 'sovereignty', BBC NEWS
The Jacobs Elements of Sovereignty
[1] George W. Bush: "Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." Washington, D.C., August 2004

[edit] External links
Philosophy portal
A Brief Primer on International Law
Official United Nations website
Official UN website on International Law
Official website of the International Court of Justice
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty"
Categories: Constitutional state types | Emergency laws | Heads of state | International law | International relations | Monarchy | Political philosophy | Philosophy of law
Hidden categories: Cleanup from October 2007 | All pages needing cleanup | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since November 2007 | Articles with limited geographic scope | NPOV disputes from January 2008 | All NPOV disputes | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2008

Comment by PDM:
It has recently been brought to my attention that the media has been maligning the word Sovereign and associating it with a CULT!
Above is one description of the word Sovereign, educate yourselves and do your own searches into the true meaning of the word. ( I am advised that Blacks Law Dictionary is a must have to educate yourself in the true meaning of the hidden language of the law.)
Just because a small number of people are finding out the truth and facts and their real rights does not make them a CULT. It just makes them EDUCATED.
Do yourselves a favour and look beyond the media,make your own enquiries, and do not let the buck stop with our Government bodies. If you have suffered as a result of Government you will understand a lot more than if you haven't.
The truth is out there.... don't let anyone brainwash you! We deserve better dont you think?
Warm Regards,
PeopleDoMatter

Another Injured Workers Story

2008-11-14T18:30:00.000+11:00

I have sent letters to the ministers involved in workcover. One of the latest
letters is below.

I am requesting an immediate, fully transparent, independent investigation
into the serious difficulties faced by people in Australia in obtaining appropriate
health care and accurate medical reporting in regard to current and future
Workcover, Accident and other compensation claims.

In particular I request an in depth investigation into, the corruption in the
Health system, the accuracy of patient radiology scans and reporting, the
accuracy of the medical assessments and reports when involving patients
on Workcover, Motor Accident Claims and other insurance claims.

Why is there a wide spread practice in Australia of inaccurate reporting and
processing of radiology scans when it involves current and future compensation
claims especially in regards to people who have Motor accidents and WorkCover
claims.

Medical Specialists and General Practitioners subsequently accept the radiology
reports. The patient would therefore not receive appropriate medical treatment
and would be left with untreated injuries which results in the patient being in
pain and not be able to return to work or normal daily activities.

This cost saving system has and would have a negative effect on the recovery
of the injured people. Is this is a cost saving system used by the State
Governments to reduce compensation payments in CTP, WorkCover
and other insurance claims?How many people are suffering with medical
conditions left untreated due to inaccurate medical reports?

How many people have died or will die as a direct or indirect result of the
inaccurate and incomplete medical reports and medical assessments?

Are Doctors required to ignore serious medical conditions that are clearly
visible in the radiology scans but not reported on paper?

Why are Doctors paid several hundred dollars for a half hour medical
assessment and a short incomplete and inaccurate medical report on patients
with Workcover and accident claims?

Why is there an increasing number of Medical Specialists in Australia, who
will not provide medical treatment or medical assessments for people with
Workcover and accident claims?

Why is it that Neurosurgeons in South Australia will not provide an
appointment for people who are on an insurance claims?

This is very dangerous in regard to life threatening conditions.

Why is it that the Neurosurgery Department at the Royal Adelaide Hospital
will not provide outpatient treatment for new patients who have active
CTP and insurance claims?

Is this unsafe cost saving system used in the emergency departments of
the public hospital system to cut costs on medical treatment for patients who
don't have private health insurance?

Is, or at anytime in the past, the Medical Indemnity cover for Medical
practitioners in Australia subsidized by the Government?If the Government
subsidies exist or existed, what are or were the requirements by Doctors
in return for these subsidies?

Do Medical practitioners obtain any advantages in return for producing
inaccurate and incomplete medical reports in regard to Workcover, Accident
and other insurance claims patients?

Do Insurance Company in particular EML and Allianz have any involvement
in the inaccurate reporting of radiology films and the incomplete and
inaccurate medical reports and medical assessments of injured people on
Workcover and accident claims?

Why does the medical and rehabilitation treatment have to be agreed to by
a claims manager, who does not have a medical degree, before treatment can
begin for the injured person?

Is this a way of limiting the medical treatment costs of the people on Workcover,
Motor accident and other insurance claims?

Why is there an arrangement which allows Doctors to bill Medicare and the
insurer for treatment given to insurance claim patients?

Are the people of Australia on Workcover and accident claims being denied
appropriate medical care because of inaccurate reports and opinions from
medical professionals?

Mr. Tony Abbott MP asked Dr Rohan Hammett, Principal Medical Adviser
to the TGA, to meet with me to discuss the Medical Research I have completed.
Dr Rohan Hammett contacted Professor Chris Baggoley in relation to the
several serious problems brought to his attention in obtaining appropriate
health care for my family and for people who have WorkCover and Motor
Accident insurance claims.

I attended a meeting in August 2007 with, Professor Chris Baggoley Chief
Medical Officer of South Australia, Dr R. Webb Director Public Health and
Clinical Coordination, Assoc Professor Kaye Challinger Executive Director
Acute Services Central Northern Adelaide Health Service, Dr Rima Staugas
Chief Executive of Children's, Youth and Women's Health Service in South
Australia. At the meeting it was agreed all of my families radiology films
would be accurately re-reported, followed by appropriate medical assessments
and medical treatment for my family and me.

In January 2008 a second meeting was called by Dr. R. Webb, to discuss the
progress and to listen to my views. There had been no progress in obtaining
accurate re-reporting of all our radiology films or appropriate medical treatment.

Mr. John Hill MP, Health Minister of South Australia, had also requested me
to attend the meeting so as to move forward in finding a solution to obtaining
quality health care in Australia.

A positive outcome or solution to the persistent problems of the quality in
radiology scans, incorrect reporting, inability to obtain appropriate medical
treatment for my family and me, or for the people injured at work, in car
accidents, or other insurance claims, has not been achieved during the meetings
with the Health Department Representatives.

Ms. Toni Hoffman made several complaints to the Health Departments in
raising her concerns of patient safety at Bundaberg Hospital, she was disregarded.
I, like Ms. Hoffman will continue to raise these concerns until a solution is
found.

I, again, request an immediate, fully transparent, independent investigation
into the corruption in the Health system, in particular the accuracy of patient
radiology scans and reporting, medical assessments and reports when
involving patients on Workcover, Motor Accident Claims and other insurance
claims.
(Sent to me by Jo WCV)

AUS GOVERNMENT TO CENSOR INTERNET

2008-11-04T23:55:00.000+11:00

Source AustraliaMatters.com

AustraliaMatters.com comment: ISP Internet control by government described below in the CNET article is a two edged sword. Web sites like ours here would no doubt be targeted for censorship as well. Free software to stop children accessing porn sites etc has been around for many years. Sites like ours here that calls a spade a spade, are more so the reason for the new sort control.

No opt-out of ISP filtered Internet
Policy to be set after trial
Darren Pauli 13/10/2008 15:10:00
Computerworld

Australians will be unable to opt-out of the government's pending Internet content filtering scheme, and will instead be placed on a watered-down blacklist, experts say.

Under the government's $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety, users can switch between two blacklists which block content inappropriate for children, and a separate list which blocks illegal material.

Pundits say consumers have been lulled into believing the opt-out proviso would remove content filtering altogether.

The government will iron-out policy and implementation of the Internet content filtering software following an upcoming trial of the technology, according to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

A spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the filters will be mandatory for all Australians.

“Labor’s plan for cyber-safety will require ISPs to offer a clean feed Internet service to all homes, schools and public Internet points accessible by children,” Marshall said.

“The upcoming field pilot of ISP filtering technology will look at various aspects of filtering, including effectiveness, ease of circumvention, the impact on internet access speeds and cost.”

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) contacted by Computerworld say blanket content filtering will cripple Internet speeds because the technology is not up to scratch.

Online libertarians claim the blacklists could be expanded to censor material such as euthanasia, drugs and protest.

Internode network engineer Mark Newton said many users falsely believe the opt-out proviso will remove content filtering.

“Users can opt-out of the 'additional material' blacklist (referred to in a department press release, which is a list of things unsuitable for children, but there is no opt-out for 'illegal content'”, Newton said.

“That is the way the testing was formulated, the way the upcoming live trials will run, and the way the policy is framed; to believe otherwise is to believe that a government department would go to the lengths of declaring that some kind of Internet content is illegal, then allow an opt-out.

“Illegal is illegal and if there is infrastructure in place to block it, then it will be required to be blocked — end of story.”

Newton said advisers to Minister Conroy have told ISPs that Internet content filtering will be mandatory for all users.

The government reported it does not expected to prescribe which filtering technologies ISPs can use, and will only set blacklists of filtered content, supplied by the Australia Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

EFA chair Dale Clapperton said in a previous article that Internet content filtering could lead to censorship of drugs, political dissident and other legal freedoms.

“Once the public has allowed the system to be established, it is much easier to block other material,” Clapperton said.

According to preliminary trials, the best Internet content filters would incorrectly block about 10,000 Web pages from one million.

computerworld sourse link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia pushes further Web censorship

By Jo Best
Special to CNET News.com
Published: September 21, 2007 6:09 AM PDT

A bill introduced this week by Australia's Parliament would give the Australian federal police the power to control which sites can and cannot be viewed by Australian Web surfers.
Introduced on Thursday, the bill--titled the Communications Legislation Amendment (Crime or Terrorism Related Internet Content) Bill 2007--would empower the federal police to alter the "blacklist" of sites that are currently prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The list currently includes pornography and "offensive material." However, under the amendment, federal police would be able to add other sites to the list, including content that the AFP Commissioner "has reason to believe...is crime- or terrorism-related content."

The definition of material that may be liable for censorship includes Internet content that "encourages, incites or induces," "facilitate(s)" or "has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating" a crime.

Once such content has been identified by the AFP, Internet service providers may be responsible for blocking their users from accessing it.

According to the government, the legislation is designed to target phishing and terrorist sites, among other online criminal activity.

"The new arrangements will allow harmful sites to be more quickly added to software filters," said Eric Abetz, a senator for Tasmania, who introduced the bill. "Of course the best outcome is for these sites to be taken down and their hosts prosecuted. But this takes time, particularly as most of these sites are hosted overseas.

"Rapid blacklisting means that the damage these sites can do can be more quickly reduced whilst takedown and prosecution processes are pursued, usually overseas," Abetz said.

Privacy groups have already criticized the legislation as an attack on free speech.

"This government's extremism has reached new heights today," said the chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation, Roger Clarke.

"How can a politician claim the right to hold office if they set out to undermine the critical democratic right of freedom of speech, and blatantly decline to evaluate the impact of measures put before the Parliament?"

Jo Best of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney.

Download Documents and Further Information from Basicfraud website

2008-11-02T13:26:00.000+11:00

Basic Fraud (PDM:SOURCE: http://www.basicfraud.com/main-0/# )

AUSTRALIA - THE CONCEALED COLONY "The Truth Will Set Us Free"

Downloads
Are you being pursued unfairly through an alleged Court of Law by the Banks, Local Councils, Government Departments (such as the Police for traffic or parking infringements), or alternatively hounded by Debt Collection Agencies and don't know what you can do to fight back?

Once you understand that the Government (Federal, State and Local Councils) including the various Government Departments (Tax or Police Departments, etc.) and the whole Judicial System are totally illegal and invalid for the reasons covered within this website and that if your Human Rights are violated, you can then place on notice those people or institutions wanting to infringe on you financially. (Refer to the document called 'You have been put on Notice!!!' found also at the BOTTOM of this page, or alternatively the relevant defence documents if you have a Court Matter pending).

If they then continue to persist with their action to force you to pay against your will, whether by a Court Order or a Letter of Demand, you may be able to pursue a Human Rights Compensation Claim against them.

The following documentation below is provided as a guide to allow you to accumulate the evidence you will need to pursue a claim for compensation against individuals in your country and/or the British government which assists them. If someone is impinging on your human rights (including economic rights) you might well be in a position to make a compensation claim for Human Rights abuse.

To do so you will need all the evidence you can accumulate against those from whom you will be claiming. Imagine that at some point in the near future, you will have to prove everything you did to notify and educate these people. For each and everyone against whom you are collecting evidence, you will need to have everything documented as proof for when YOU pursue them!!

This will include the presiding Judge or Magistrate, the Police Prosecutor or the other opposing Law Firm and their Solicitor, the Police Officer or the Sheriff acting on behalf of the Court, any Debt Collector or Collection Agency and the other party instigating and continuing the action against you, after you have placed them on notice.

Buy yourself a lever-arch folder and keep copies of all your documentation somewhere safe.

Keep in mind that if you approach most lawyers (even yours) with this information, they will most likely dispute the information for three reasons. The first is that it is a possible threat to them financially, secondly that unless they have qualifications in International and Constitutional Law, their belief system will not accept the evidence, or thirdly they do not want to go up against the Judicial System and the Law Society!

Under the Human Rights Charter, the Compensation Claim for 'Economic Deprivation' under British Law, is at the top end of the penalty scale with a maximum multi-million UK £ (Pound) payout. Now we are not stating or guaranteeing that you will ever receive that, or any amount of money, however unless you use this information as part of your defence and retain the evidence of doing so, you will not be able to mount a claim.

In order for us to rectify this rampant corruption in our political and judicial systems and bring about the desired result to change these systems, we need to educate the many millions of people in the countries that are affected, as this will be the most decisive way in which we will win a victory, as these people in power will not give up their positions easily. Only through the masses of people being made aware of the truth, will positive change become imminent!

It will also be the only way to ensure any possible Human Rights claim, in which if eligible, you will receive a lucrative compensation payout for the duress, anguish and financial suffering you have endured!

So start right now by forwarding this website link to ALL your family, friends and colleagues!! Below are some links for the Human Rights Act, 1998 (UK), for you to reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/index.html

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/hra.htm

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Legal/Legal+briefing+The+Human+Rights+Act+1998.htm

These are some links for the Human Rights Act, 1998 (UK) Compensation

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3

http://www.ukcia.org/pollaw/lawlibrary/humanrightsact1998.html

Instructions on How to Submit Your Documents
Annexure A
Annexure B
Annexure C
Court Registrar Letter
Queens Letter
Queens Letter PERSONAL COPY
Baroness Cathy Ashtons Letter
Baroness Cathy Ashtons Letter PERSONAL COPY
Generic Defence Document
Local Council Letter
Queens Alternative Letter
Queens Alternative Letter PERSONAL COPY
RTA Letter
Supreme Court Common Law Defence
The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation Defence

(PDM: For these above documents:Please go directly to the downloads section of http://www.basicfraud.com/main-0/# copy and paste the link directly to your browser, and any other link that is not "clickable".)

The document below can be printed off (recommended double-sided) and given to a Police Officer, Sheriff, Debt Collector and to anyone else who alleges they have authority, who are either intending to issue you with a Traffic or Parking Infringement Notice, a Court Document or maybe a Letter of Demand.

It is not guaranteed to work or persuade them from proceeding, however if you do present it to someone who is impinging on your human rights (including economic rights), then make sure you get their full particulars, so in the future when the truth is revealed about our invalid Judicial System you might be in a position to make a compensation claim for Human Rights Abuse.

YOU HAVE BEEN PUT ON NOTICE!!!

Copyright 2008

Australian Government or is it?

2008-11-02T12:58:00.000+11:00

Synopsis Videos Documents Articles Australia - The Concealed Colony Australian Government Australian Law Correspondence PM Keven Rudd General Correspondence Her Majesty's Government Compare the Queen's Signature Litigation UK Legislation Vice-Regal Appointments Miscellaneous

(PDM Source: http://www.basicfraud.com/main-0/# Posted with permission granted THANK YOU)

SYNOPSIS
We are involved with a growing number of Australian people – numbering in the many hundreds of thousands, at least - who have for some time become aware, concerned and disgusted about the corrupt behaviour of both the Australian and British Governments.

It involves the British Parliament, a succession of British monarchs (including Elizabeth II), other members of the British royal family, British and Australian politicians and the Australian, British and European Courts. As should soon be evident, news stories rarely get any bigger, have as many consequences, or as many people working against the truth.

This is without doubt the greatest perpetrated fraud within our modern times, which has continued for decades and definitely will be one of, if not, the largest news & media story ever uncovered. The documented facts on our website will show how the corrupt past and present British and Australian politicians, the judicial systems of two countries, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, have deliberately lied, misled and manipulated the Australian people for their own personal financial gain, greed and political appointments.

We assure you that every claim and accusation within this Website can be easily substantiated and verified with the official evidence, court documents and even Australian and British Government legal records, which we have uploaded for you to do your own research.

From 1919 every Australian Politician, Judge, Magistrate, Defence Force Personnel, Federal & State Police Officer, Sheriff, Local Mayor, etc., in other words the people in Authority, have ALL either knowingly or not, committed an ‘Act of Treason’ against the Australian People, by swearing allegiance and subscribing to an oath to serve Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland and therefore the government of a Power foreign to Australia.

Since 1919 the Monarchs of the United Kingdoms (and there have been two: the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland and of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) have allegedly appointed a Governor-General, who has in turn sworn into office the Federal Government of Australia. This Federal Government then had the rights and privileges to administer the laws and run the Commonwealth of Australia.

However, for reasons outlined in the documentation provided, these Monarchs have had NO legal basis to do so! Elizabeth II has NEVER been crowned the "Queen of Australia" and has absolutely NO legal authority within Australia!

You may then start to understand how our Australian Constitution, the appointment of our Australian Governments, and the establishment of various government departments have been for decades - illegal and invalid.

The whole Judicial System in Australia is not only invalid, it is also corrupt!!! Most Judges (especially those in the High, Federal and State Supreme Courts) are aware of this invalidity and know that their own appointments are totally unlawful. However, these same Judges have continued to preside and rule against hundreds of people, even when the invalidity of their appointments and position were actually questioned and also challenged in legal documents filed in their own courts and who were aware of this when making their rulings! Innocent people have been ordered to pay fines, had property re-possessed, been forced into bankruptcy or imprisoned by corrupt Judges who are more interested in protecting their own livelihoods, positions, power, superannuation and the status quo.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is also an organization with NO lawful authority. Yet people once again had their lives ruined to the point of suicide for being unable to pay their supposed taxes.

In October 2005 an action against the British Government was submitted and accepted by the European Court of Human Rights for “Human Rights Abuse”. The matter related to a legal action by Mr. David Claude Fitzgibbon, Australian Barrister-at-Law, for Human Rights Abuse against himself as someone resident in Australia. The British Government had 90 days to lodge their Defence, which was NOT entered. This was perhaps the FIRST time in the history of the Court that a Defence had not been lodged!

In October 2006, the Court mysteriously ruled that there was NO evidence of Human Rights offences having occurred within Australia. How can you possibly lose a court case when the British Government does not even submit a Defence, especially when there was an abundance of overwhelming evidence to substantiate the action filed by Mr Fitzgibbon?? What deals were struck in order to have the case quashed??? (Mr. Fitzgibbon was told personally by Justice Lightman, that Australian Prime Minister, John W. Howard actually put pressure on him to decide as he did).

Refer to: Mr Justice Lightman of the High Court Of Justice Chancery Division DAVID CLAUDE FITZGIBBON -v- HM ATTORNEY GENERAL
http://www.basicfraud.com/main-0/content/pdfs/Litigation/Mr%20Justice%20Lightman%20of%20the%20High%20Court%20Of%20Justice%20Chancery%20Division%20_%20DAVID%20CLAUDE%20FITZGIBBON%20-v-%20HM%20ATTORNEY%20GENERAL.pdf

"The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act ( UK ) by the Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom. After joining the League of Nations in 1919 Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper with another nation’s legislation. Authority over the Australian Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the Australian people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the authority to repeal this legislation ..."

The late Professor G. Clements
Eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in Law at Cambridge University

Most people would agree that Australia is recognised globally as an Independent & Sovereign Nation.

Well what does the word ‘Sovereignty’ mean?

According to ‘Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia’:

Sovereignty ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty ) is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. In constitutional and international law, the concept also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision.

The United Nations Resolution adopted by The General Assembly 50/172
( http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/ares50-172.htm ) Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes, states:

1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;
4. Reaffirms further that electoral assistance to Member States should be provided by the United Nations only at the request and with the consent of specific sovereign States, by virtue of resolutions adopted by the Security Council or the General Assembly in each case, in strict conformity with the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, or in special circumstances such as cases of decolonization, or in the context of regional or international peace processes;
7. Reaffirms that all countries have the obligation under the Charter to respect the right of others to self-determination and to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development;
By all accounts it seems that Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and also termed “Queen of Australia” has no detrimental influence or significant consequence over the citizens of Australia. Or does she??

Well...the first thing we have to do is to establish whether the position of "Queen of Australia" does exist? Now our first issue is that Elizabeth II has never been crowned the "Queen of Australia". So what does that mean if we have a fictitious Monarch and what are the consequences?

A letter from the 'Commonwealth of Australia Attorney' General's Department dated 7th May, 2001 states that Mr Henke wanted to see a copy of the document issued by the government of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) empowering the Queen of Australia to use the Royal Sign Manual. (Refer: The Attorney-General's Department, the Commonwealth of Australia regarding 'the Queen of Australia' )

In the 2nd paragraph of that letter is the response which clearly states that there is NO SUCH DOCUMENT!!

Then there is the response from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom in London, to Mr William Bolton that the Queen has NO EXECUTIVE POWER within the Commonwealth of Australia. (Refer: Letter form Foreign & Commonwealth Office regarding the Queen )

By letter dated 18th October 2004, this time to Mr Sempf and once again under the Freedom Of Information Act, similar material was sought and this time the same response was received from the Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet. (Refer: Lyall Sempf Response Letter from Australian Attorney General's-Department re Queen of Australia )

Yet clearly on Official Government documents such as the ‘Commissions of Governor-Generals or Governors’ both here and the UK, we can see that they contain the words QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA! [Click on the Tab 'Documents' and then refer to the link 'Vice Regal Appointments'].

Now, whenever you sign a legal document, be it an Affidavit, a Loan Contract from a Bank or your Will, you must always sign on the bottom of the page... it means that you agree with what is written above your signature.

Why then does the Queen sign her name on any legal Australian document at the top of the page? [Click on the Tab 'Documents' and then refer to the link 'Compare the Queen’s Signatures'].

Is it because she knows and understands the significant problems and ramifications with what is evident here in Australia and she does not want to be dragged through the European Court of Human Rights? She is fully aware and has known this for many years. [Click on the Tab 'Documents' and then under 'Correspondence' refer to some of the previous letters sent to her, such as:
W Levick Letter to Queen Elizabeth 4th January 2005]

So, if we have now established that there is NO Queen of Australia and that there is NO Royal Sign Manual, this then makes ALL the appointments of Governors-General of the Commonwealth of Australia NULL & VOID!!

So, we now have a Governor-General who has not been appointed legally, who unlawfully swears the Prime Minister and his Cabinet into Office, which now makes that Prime Minister’s appointment and his cabinet also NULL & VOID!!

So each and every one of the Government Departments whether Federal or State, the Local Councils, the Judicial System and the laws of the land, are now ALL totally NULL & VOID!!!

Are you seeing a pattern here?

Do you recognize that if the root is poisoned the fruit is poisoned?

Do you understand the difference between 'Authority' and 'Power'?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Article by Peter Gillies

Question: Has the Queen of the United Kingdom committed a crime?

Question: Should the Australian Government be allowed to vote in the United Nations General Assembly?

At the outset I say that I am not a lawyer. I am an ordinary bloke who happens to believe in a level playing field. I believe that those that make the laws should be the first to obey them. This is not the case in Australia.

Some time ago I had a dispute with my local council. A senior planner told me that the council knew they were breaking the law, but that they did not care. “We’ve always done it” he said. They claim that all their authority derives from the Local Government Act 1993. So I set about finding what authority they actually did have.

What a can of worms I opened. Talk about lies and deceit.

First of all I went to our 'Australian' Constitution, which is not really ours. It is an Act of the UK Parliament and has never been part of Australian legislation. My first thought on finding this was, "How can this be right in an independent country?"

However, this aside, I did ascertain that what powers have not been conferred by the Constitution cannot be taken. That is hard legal fact. The Constitution allows for Federal and State governments but does not allow for a third level of government. A Constitutional inquiry (1985) also found this so it was decided to take it to a referendum of the people, which is the only way we can alter the Constitution. This referendum was held in 1988.

The question was asked, "Do you want to recognize Local Government?" All States came back with a resounding "NO" vote. Despite this denial by the people, all State Governments later passed a Local Government Act.

Not good so far, I thought, for a supposed democracy. But I looked further. For a government to be legally valid in Australia, under both State and Federal Constitutions, the Government must consist of three parts. It must have a lower and upper house, and it must have a Governor (State) or Governor General (Federal) who has been appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom under her Royal Sign Manual.

OK. So now it’s getting really weird. First Australia, this independent country, has as its supreme law – the ‘Australian’ Constitution - a law of another nation. Then, for the governments of this independent nation to be legally valid they must have a representative appointed by the leader of another nation, appointed according to the laws of that other nation’s parliament. Surely this could not be right?

So I checked with the United Nations. They told me that one of the essential ingredients of the Charter of the United Nations is that the laws of one independent nation cannot be enforced within the territories of another independent nation.

So… if the Queen has done what her own UK Act says, and has appointed a State Governor, or a Federal Governor General in Australia, then is she guilty of committing an offence against international law?

But had she really appointed these people?

I started with the Local Government Act of New South Wales. The Governor who gave this Act Royal Assent was Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair. I emailed the House of Lords and asked, "Where are records of appointments made under the Sign Manual kept? They promptly replied that they were all kept in Folio C_ _ in the UK Archives and provided a link to that web site. I return emailed and thanked them but asked, "What about records of appointments of persons overseas?" They replied, "Records of ALL appointments under the Sign Manual are kept in this folio in the UK Archives."

The UK Archives web site quickly provided the subject folio, but it is not readily accessible to the general public. However, a list of accredited researchers was provided so I engaged one to locate and forward a copy of the documents of appointment of Peter Sinclair.

She eventually came back with the reply, "There is no record of any such appointment."

"How odd!" says I. So I placed a Freedom of Information request to the NSW Premier for a copy of the documents. They definitely did NOT want to give them to me.

While I was waiting for them, I went to the Newcastle University Law Library and found the UK laws relating to appointments made under the Royal Sign Manual. There are four essential ingredients necessary for an appointment to be valid. These are: -

1.The person MUST be a British Subject;
2.The appointment MUST be signed by the Queen of the United Kingdom;
3.It MUST be countersigned by a senior member of the UK parliament; and, most importantly,
4.It MUST bear the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.
OK. So these rules are set in concrete within UK legislation.

First, I found that Peter Sinclair is an Australian Citizen. He is NOT a British Subject.

Second, when the documents arrived, they did have a signature I presume was that of the Queen of the United Kingdom. However it was at the top right hand corner of the front page, BEFORE any other writing on the document. There was NO signature where it said, "Signed at Our Court of St James on….".

Third, there was NO signature of ANY member of the UK parliament.

Fourth, there was NO Great Seal of the United Kingdom.

AHA!

We now have NO record of the appointment at the UK Archives, and NO compliance with the various UK Acts that dictate what the Queen must do with regard to appointments under the Sign Manual. But what about other Governors, and what about Governors General? A similar check on several other ‘appointees’ at various dates revealed a similar situation.

Obviously the Australian public has been deceived. But by whom? None of these persons had been appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom under her Sign Manual. According to our State and Federal Constitutions, a law does not become a law until it receives ‘Royal Assent’ by someone who has been appointed under the Sign Manual. Obviously then, the Local Government Act (NSW) 1993 never received Royal Assent and so never became a law.

You beauty! I've got the bastards! But hang on. Why was a signature of the Queen there at all? Clearly she hadn’t made the appointments, or a record would be at the Archives, and the documents would have been signed at the 'Court of St James' bit.

So who did sign them?

A little more digging revealed that several decades ago, several Acts were passed both in the UK and in Australia. One of these Australian Acts – the Royal Styles and Title Act, 1973 – created some person called "The Queen of Australia".

Who the hell is she? I didn't vote for her. And in any case, the Constitution of Australia (and the Constitutions of the Australian States) only gives executive authority to the Queen of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So this 'Queen of Australia' has no permission to do anything anyway.

Multiple queries later I was reluctantly informed by both UK and Aussie governments, that the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia are one and the same person; that they are 'indivisible', but the Queen of Australia acts on advice from "her Australian ministers".

Now I have two major problems with this, and this is where the bit about the Queen committing a crime comes in.

First, nowhere does this 'Queen of Australia' have permission to hold the Executive Authority necessary to make appointments and laws legally valid. She certainly was not given that permission by the Australian people, and she does NOT have that permission under the UK Act, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900.

Second, under certain UK legislation, she is only allowed to be known as the Queen of another country if the foreign policy of that country is controlled by the United Kingdom Parliament. Quite clearly Australian foreign policy is NOT controlled by the UK parliament so the Queen CANNOT be known as the Queen of Australia under requirements of her own laws.

Now I did find out that the Queen is immune from most laws, but I also found out that she is NOT immune from laws that relate to her. So has she committed an offence?

Has she allowed her law (The Constitution Act) to be enforced in another independent nation in contravention of international law?

Has she allowed herself to be known as ‘Queen of Australia’ in defiance of her own parliament’s Acts?

AND…

If the Australian Constitution requires that a valid Australian government consist of an Upper House, a Lower House, AND a Governor General appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom under her Sign Manual, and the Governor General HAS NOT been appointed in that manner, then does Australia have a legally valid government?

If it does not have a legally valid government, then does it have a right to sit on the UN General Assembly and vote on issues before that assembly?

It goes back to a level playing field. If I have to obey the law, then so do they.

Just as an aside…

If no Australian laws have received Royal Assent as required by the Constitution, are any of these laws themselves legally valid?

Just as a besides the aside…

The Australian Constitution has NEVER been agreed to by the Australian people. What WAS agreed to prior to 1900 was sent to the UK for enactment, but the UK made over 60 alterations to the document and then legislated it. The altered document was never sent back to Australia to be voted on by the Australian people.

We demand that Iraq have its own Constitution freely adopted by the people of Iraq, but what about Australia?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT AUSTRALIA? By Michael Baker

How much do you know about Australia’s constitutional/political system: Past & Present? Try this simple TRUE / FALSE TEST.

1. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 is United Kingdom legislation. TRUE / FALSE?
2. Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 sovereignty rests with the Queen and not with the Australian people. TRUE / FALSE?
3. That Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is appointed to Her position as Queen by the U.K. Parliament. TRUE /FALSE?
4. That clause 8 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 describes the Commonwealth of Australia as a colony. TRUE / FALSE?
5. That under 'Australia’s' Constitution all Australian politicians, judges, lawyers and many others must swear allegiance to a Sovereignty that has not existed for more than 86 years. TRUE / FALSE?
6. That the ‘Australian’ Constitution – being a colonial Act of the U.K. Parliament – does not contain any elements of civil rights (such as; the right to private property, freedom of expression and freedom of movement, etc). TRUE / FALSE?
7. That under the ‘Australian’ Constitution the unelected Governor-General is commander in chief of the Australian military forces and that he holds this position because he is the Queen’s representative. TRUE/ FALSE?
8. That Australia is the only O.E.C.D. nation not to have a constitutionally enforceable Bill of Rights. TRUE / FALSE?
9. In the years 1973, 1983, 1985 and 1986 the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia consistently rejected Bills of Rights for the Australian people and consequently have denied Australian citizens even the fundamental human rights enshrined in the U.N.’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; although the Australian government was a signatory to that Covenant. TRUE / FALSE?
10. That unenacted British law (common law) continues to be applied in Australian courts even though those to whom it is applied are denied all entitlements under British law (and this situation can apply to tourists to Australia). TRUE / FALSE?
If you answered 100% TRUE to each and every question, not only are you 100% correct, you are also not an Australian politician, judge, lawyer or academic. CONGRATULATIONS!!

(For an in depth analysis of Australian political philosophy and practice refer to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll).

Yes, that’s right – The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 is legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster, being enacted into law on the 9th of July, 1900, to come into effect on the 1st of January, 1901. Which of course, it did!

Under that Act – being an Act of the U.K. Parliament – sovereignty rests with their Queen. The Oath of Allegiance which still must be used by all of Australia’s politicians, judges, public servants and others, is contained in a Schedule to the Act and reads: "I, A.B. do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!" ( www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution - Referenced under the link ‘The Schedule’).

Largely unrecognized by most people, because its not something that grabs the attention, the Monarchs of the United Kingdom have been Statutory Monarchies since the Act of Settlement, 1701 (U.K.). That is, the Kings and Queens of the U.K. have been appointed for more than 300 years by an Act of the Westminster Parliament. The oath of allegiance quoted above makes this crystal clear: "…Her heirs and successors according to law," and, what’s more, the law that decides Queen Elizabeth’s heirs and successors is not Australian law, its purely U.K. law and always was!

This hardly noticed fact has some interesting consequences. It means that the U.K. Parliament is the supreme authority in the U.K. – with or without a monarch, after all they appoint them! It means that currently a monarch of the U.K. cannot be a Roman Catholic and remain as the monarch.( see the Act of Settlement 1701). Essentially and literally, the U.K. Parliament is the supreme Authority within Australia’s political system and has been since Captain James Cook landed at Botany Bay on the east coast of the Australian continent in 1770. The chain of command runs like this: U.K. Parliament> the Monarch> the Australian Governor-General> the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (from which is selected a government).

As an extreme example, but one that proves the point: if the U.K. decided to become a republic where would that leave the so-called independent nation of Australia? The Australian political, judicial and public service systems cannot operate without a Monarch who is appointed by the U.K. Parliament!!

Also and unrecognised by the Australian public at large, 'their' constitution works simply because it is no longer adhered to. Take, for example, the powers of the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General. This individual can act under the 'Australian' Constitution like a dictator! The fact that since 1901 they have not done so is beside the point. The dismissal of the popularly elected Labor Party federal government in 1975 by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr demonstrated to all who cared to see that in the late twentieth century the non-elected Queen’s man was still a force to be reckoned with in the free democracy of backward looking Australia.

Moreover (and here the situation becomes truly laughable) the 'Australian' Constitution – being trapped in a time-warp at the end of the 19th century - only recognises the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which is a political entity that has not existed since the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922!

So, what are the practical, down-to-earth consequences of all this?

First, that the Australian people have been denied their freedom, independence and sovereignty since at least 1945, when Australia became a member of United Nations. That the Australian people have been denied an effective say as to how they run their country and hence their own lives! Second, that the obligations contained in all of the international treaties to which Australia – through its governments - is a signatory, may be unenforceable. This could have very wide implications. Third, of debatable importance but of definite interest, will be how Australia’s politicians, judges and lawyers try to justify themselves. They can either admit that they knew the truth and therefore that they were parasites of the system, or they can admit their ignorance and thereby the fact that they were negligent by not understanding the very basis of the profession from which they have all happily gained so much. It will be an excruciation choice but one made all the more so for Australia’s highest Judges – the various Chief Justices – by the fact that important documents explaining the situation in detail were delivered to them by courier as long ago as 1999.

But surely Australia’s politicians know that the political system, which gives them so much, is flawed? Unfortunately, the majority do not! A politician needs no formal qualifications to attain high office and history shows that the average Australian politician is below average! Moreover, any new idea, much less any new critical idea based on history, law and exhaustive research, must begin as a minority opinion and there are no vote-winners in minority opinions. Why rock the boat, particularly when you have a first-class cabin (albeit on the Titanic)?

Some may wonder why the media has never 'picked up' on the story, but the answers are obvious. In Australia the media is interested in sensationalism and sport. Sensationalism sells and sport is one of Australia's few fields of successful endeavour. If the international media was at any time interested – and for the most part it was not – their investigative journalism skills vanished after any of their initial suspicions were refuted by the Australian government’s own Department of Foreign Affairs. One telephone call was all it took, for modern investigative journalism always takes the line of least persistence!

In short, the rest of the world was preoccupied. Moreover, the parasitic existence of the United Nations as a self-congratulatory organization for those involved in its self-perpetuating, busy-body activities can be all too clearly seen by anyone who wishes to take even a cursory look! That august body never raised a finger to even try to prevent one of its founding members from continuing to breach its own Charter (in particular Articles 2, 4, 6, 102 and 103, all of which guarantee the right of self-determination!).

The machinations of the United Kingdom's power-brokers remain largely motivated by a polished reticence to relinquish the trappings of empire. By applying their legislative power to lands no longer under the sovereign authority of the U.K. parliament and in jurisdictions no longer dependencies of the U.K., the very best that can be said is that Queen Elizabeth II has been misled and the laws of Her own kingdom subverted. This is the best that can be said.

The lack of any effective action by 'those in the know' to redress the problem – both in the U.K. and Australia – and despite numerous opportunities to do so, is proof of many things, not least being that corruption gives power and absolute corruption gives absolute power. The United Kingdom's courts failed to do the right thing – with Justice Lightman admitting that the Australian Prime Minister, John Winston Howard flew to London and put pressure on him to decide Mr. Fitzgibbon's case in the way he did!!

With the problem ready to replicate itself in Canada and New Zealand and the possibility and consequences of such action spreading, perhaps we should all wish the British people the best of their own luck! They may yet need it, because even if the U.K. government has a brilliant 'Spin-Doctor' the world can be a very lonely – if more democratic – place. Ignorance of the law is no defence; all the more so if you were instrumental in putting that law in place!

So why not visit Australia – a land lost in time? Simply 'put a shrimp on the barbie' and settle back and watch the nation struggle to reclaim its 19th century colonial past as it lurches into the 21st century backwards.

Never happy with its advance from being a child of Britain to a sovereign adult nation, Australia may yet declare its adolescent longings to the world: almost free, semi-independent, burdened by responsibility, awkwardly immature and not quite certain why it feels so proud of its 'hand-me-down' Constitution, borrowed legal system and second-hand politics.

Believe it, or not!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joosse's Case

Joosse's case is important because it was one of the first in a long line of matters where Australians placed the crucial issues of our history and the foundations of our future before the Australian and eventually, British and European court systems.

All of these courts sold out on every Australian, New Zealander and Canadian.

Joosse's case – transcript and judgement – lays out those issues.

Refer to:

'Joosse' High Court of Australia Transcript and Judgement

Letters sent to Injured Workers Treating Psychologists

2008-11-02T00:06:00.000+11:00

WCV’s has acquired a copy of a letter being sent out to many injured workers
treating psychologists. This letter informs these doctors of Worksafes imaginary
right to your medical information without your consent!

Please read this post and forward your complaints letters to:

Coralie Hadingham
Manager, Clinical Panel
Worksafe Victoria

In October of this year, Worksafe Victoria sent out letters to Injured Workers
Psychologists In this letter was an apparent explanation of Worksafes right
to injured workers private medical information. Worksafe has stated in these
letters that this request was clinically justified and to improve return to work
outcomes.

The Worksafe Clinical panel is in charge of this review process and apparently
consists of experienced medical and allied healthcare professionals. This clinical
panel includes psychologists whom Worksafe believe are more qualified than
any other treating psychologists in Victoria, because they can offer advice to
your treating psychologist which WCV’s believes would be in line with getting
injured workers kicked off their benefits, without the appropriate treatments
being offered or completed.

(PDM comment: Of course they believe this:How very convenient!)

The review will consist of a member of this panel contacting your doctors either
by phone or in writing and they will be asking these treating psychologist to
discuss the workers current and future psychology management with or without
your consent.

(PDM : Make it clear when having discussions with your treating psychologists or doctors that at any time you speak to them, you are doing so in complete confidence and you expect they will uphold their own medical ethics and oaths and therefore expect that VWA's expectations will not exceed your rights to treating confidence and privacy law!)

Worksafe state that these clinical reviews are lawful and are being conducted
in accordance with the ACA. WCV’s will be looking into these panels and their
entitlements further.
(PDM: We wish some legal firms out there would confirm whether or not these clinical reviews are in fact lawful: If so; It is reasonable to expect a change in legislation for the better.)

Worksafe are permitted to collect medical information about injured workers
but it clearly states that, only medical information that pertains to your
workplace injury so why, is Worksafe saying that they have the right to ask
any of your treating medical practitioners to breach your privacy rights and
discuss you or your claim without consent?

(PDM: My guess is because they have far too much power and no real outside sources police these claims)

Any treating Doctor whom supplies this information to Worksafe without
your permission is in breach of their own ethics, the privacy act and its
principals.

(PDM: Please make sure and speak your truth with your treating practitioners, and your expectations of them.)

Your treating doctors are not legally or ethically bound by Worksafes clinical
review processes. They are bound by their own set of medical ethics and this
clinical process is not one of them.

(PDM: Thank goodness for that! Lets hope they never are bound by W.S!)

Worksafe state that “The WorkCover claim form, completed by all injured
workers, contains an ‘Authority to release injury appropriate medical information’
Worksafe also believe that this authorises a psychologist, who provides services
to an injured worker to give injury appropriate health information relevant to
the workers claim, to Worksafe and its agents.

The Worksafe claim form does not inform injured workers that the consent
also waives their right to Doctor Patient Confidentiality.

The privacy collection statement in Worksafe claim forms tells the claimant
that they are giving consent to Worksafe collecting information about their
workplace injury it does not state that by signing this claim form that you
are giving Worksafe permission to waive your right to doctor patient
confidentiality.

(PDM: Surely the pathetic income provided to Injured workers would have to be a hell of a lot more to sign your right to privacy away, and any other rights we would reasonably expect, in the same circumstances.)

I note that this letter also asks the treating doctor to make a request to the
patient to waive this right so it’s not enough for Worksafe to be lying about
their entitlements to your medical information they are now telling doctors
what information they want and how they will be acquiring it.

(PDM: Interesting how the situation is easily twisted to suit, I think that is a very serious issue in many areas of this Worksafe legislation and the handling process of the legislation.)

Worksafe state in this letter also “However, importantly, it is noted that
under the health records act it is lawful for you to disclose health information
about the worker to the clinical panel even without their consent”. This is
because the purpose of disclosing the information to the panel is directly
related to the primary purpose for which you collected it and the worker
would reasonably expect you to disclose the information. In addition, the
disclosure is authorised or permitted by the accident compensation act 1985.

(PDM: It is about time that these issues become transparent and are completely fixed up so that the public and workers are aware of all of these facts before they make a claim, which is meant to be no fault insurance somewhere in amoungst all of this mess!)

I would like Worksafe to show me where this un-consented disclosure is
authorised within the ACA?

(PDM: I would like to see that too!)

What injured worker would reasonably expect a treating psychologist to
disclose this information?

What is Worksafe thinking?

(PDM: Do they actually think?)

Injured workers would not confide in their psychologists if they thought
for one minute that Worksafe would demand their private and personal
details being released without their consents!

The privacy act only allows for information to be collected for a primary
purpose which in this case would be your Workcover claim. There is no
entitlement by Worksafe for any information to be disclosed under a
secondary purpose therefore, Worksafe cannot ask for any treating doctor
to disclose information for a secondary purpose in this instance and it is
also extremely unethical for them to request a treating doctor to breach
patient doctor confidentiality.

Worksafe is clearly breaching this act and is also acting negligently by
requesting any treating doctor to breach their medical ethics.

When will Worksafe stop bullying and badgering injured workers and
intimidating good ethical doctors and show some ethics and fairness
themselves?
(PDM: HERE HERE!)

WCV’s want to know from Worksafe, What are the RTW benefits from
this process and what part of breaching patient’s privacy is clinically
justified?

WCV’s believes that nothing in this letter is justified or ethical.

Worksafe are just trying to bully and intimidate the ones who can’t
fight back and injured workers have had enough!

PDM:Thank you WCV for this post!

VWA Complain agrees that this is unethical and unjustified!

What do you the readers think?

Please share your experiences if any of you have experienced this horror mentioned above.
Maybe you are an Injured worker; a psychologist treating injured workers?

Thank you for reading.
Warm Regards,
PeopleDoMatter(PDM)

2008-10-28T16:00:00.000+11:00

Chronic Back Pain Limits Brain Power

28/08/2008 - Jesse Cannone CFT, SPN, CPRS

You don't need to be a scientist to know that chronic back pain can have
a negative impact on your life, often bringing with it anxiety and depression.
It can affect your ability to work, sleep, and perform other daily activities.
Until recently, it has been assumed that whatever changes occurred in the
brain as a result of chronic back pain were only temporary and that the
brain would revert to a normal state once the pain stopped.

Recent findings by researchers from Northwestern University have turned
this assumption on its head. What they found was that chronic back pain -
defined as pain lasting six months or longer - can cause significant and long-
lasting damage to the brain, aging it up to 20 times faster than normal.

Shades of gray
In fact, chronic back pain actually shrinks the gray matter of the brain -
the part responsible for memory and information processing - by as much
as 11 percent each year. In contrast, normal aging of the brain results in
just a 0.5 percent loss of gray matter a year.

Scientists compared 26 healthy volunteers with 26 patients who had been
suffering with chronic lower back pain (some with sciatica) for more than a
year. Those with chronic back pain with sciatica had the largest decrease in
gray matter. Another significant finding: The longer a subject had had
chronic back pain, the more brain loss he suffered.

One theory on why there is such a large decrease in gray matter is that
chronic pain forces nerve cells to work overtime. Even more troubling is
the possibility that if chronic back pain is allowed to continue, it may become
harder to reverse and less responsive to treatment due to these changes in
the brain. Experts say the findings should sound a warning to patients with
back pain to seek care as soon as possible.

Driven to distraction
The Northwestern study is consistent with other research on chronic pain
and cognitive ability. Scientists at the University of Alberta have confirmed
that chronic pain can impair your memory and concentration.

In testing done by Drs. Bruce D. Dick and Saifudin Rashiq at the university's
Multidisciplinary Pain Centre in Edmonton, Canada, two-thirds of participants
who suffered with chronic pain had a difficult time paying attention and
remembering simple facts.

Participants in the study - all of whom had pain lasting six months or longer -
were given computerized memory tests, along with a neuropsychological
test of attention on what were identified as "pain" and "less pain" days.
On a "less pain" day, participants were tested after they received a pain-
reducing procedure as part of their ongoing treatment at the Centre.
On a "pain" day, participants were tested without getting any pain-
reducing procedure. Sixteen of the 24 participants - 67 per cent - s
howed signs of cognitive impairment on their pain-testing day.
Although the sample of participants was small, the findings were
statistically significant, according to the lead researchers.

You must remember this
Further evidence of a link between chronic pain and brain function
comes from a study done at Keele University in the United Kingdom.
Scientists compared the "prospective" memory - such as remembering
to pick up groceries or keep a doctor's appointment - of 50 subjects with
chronic back pain to the memory of 50 subjects who were pain-free.
Investigators used something called the Prospective Memory
Questionnaire, a self-rating scale that requires users to record the
number of times their prospective memory fails in a given period
of time. The scale measures three types of prospective memory:
long-term habitual, short-term episodic, and internally cued.
Those with chronic pain had significantly impaired short-term memory
compared with subjects who were pain-free. No differences were observed
in the other types of prospective memory.
"One explanation for the observation of short-term prospective memory
deficits may be related to the link between pain and stress and the impact
of this relationship on cognitive function," Ling's team reported.
The ideas is that when pain kicks in, it triggers a region of the brain known
as the lateral occipital complex (LOC). When this happens, it overrides a
person's ability to concentrate and accurately recognize images.

Strategies to improve memory
The investigators said they hope that these findings will help guide the
care of patients with chronic pain and encourage the development of
skills to offset memory problems.
Here are a few quick tips to improve your memory:
Read out loudIf you want to remember something, saying the words out
loud will help burn the information into your brain. If you can turn it into
a rhyme, even better.

Write things downMental clutter makes it hard to recall data. Use address
books, datebooks, and calendars. Jot down notes on more complicated
material and reorganize your notes as soon as possible. The physical act of
rewriting can help imprint facts into your memory.

Rehearse and reviewGo over what you've learned the day you learn it,
and review it periodically. Researchers call this "spaced rehearsal,"
which has proven to be more effective than cramming.

Get your vitaminsNutrients such as vitamins B, C, and E can nurture
brain function. Dietary sources of B include spinach and other dark
leafy greens, strawberries, melons, and black beans. Vitamins C and
E improve the flow of oxygen through the brain. Good natural sources
are berries, sweet potatoes, red tomatoes, green tea, nuts, citrus fruits,
and liver. Omega-3 fatty acids - found in cold-water fish such as salmon
and tuna - are also associated with improved cognitive function.

Surprise your brainAnother way to help your brain perform better is to
stimulate it through novelty. For example, brushing your teeth with your
left hand (if you're right-handed) will fire up seldom-used connections on the
nondominant side of your brain. Or try "neurobic" exercise, which forces
you to use your faculties in unusual ways - say, getting dressed with your
eyes closed, taking a course in a subject you know nothing about, or
cooking a recipe in an unfamiliar cuisine.

The brain maybe affected by pain but you should never let pain control
how or what you think about. If pain relief is what you are after you must
hold a firm belief that you can achieve your goals and if believe heart and
soul and keep you're your thoughts concentrated and coordinated there is
no way that you can not achieve what you are after.

Comment by PeopleDoMatter

This is so true. So interesting we have seen this for ourselves.
Our loved ones with back injuries have definately got the signs mentioned above.
Memory loss... etc.
Who else has noticed this as a result of a back injury suffered by yourselves or a loved one?
Feel free to comment if you can also add to this post.

Thank you for your time to educate yourselves.
Thank you to W.C.V for bringing this to my attention.

Kind Regards,
PeopleDoMatter

DOES WORKCOVER INSURANCE =STATIONARY POLITICS AND SHAREHOLDER INTERESTS?

2008-10-24T00:29:00.000+11:00

I wonder what I mean when I say stationary politics?

All of the positive looking speechy policies that are simply UNTRUE.

We are yet to experience ANY TRUTH in ANY of these policies?

Are you experiencing the same?

Well I am here to listen to what has been going on for you.

Not only listen...

Make it LOUD and CLEAR what the real TRUTH is in these matters.

Especially relating to WORKCOVER/WORKSAFE/INSURANCE COMPANIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FORMER.

I have had enough of being scammed, ignored, talked down to, frustrated.

I also have had enough of you .. yes YOU experiencing this!

Who has not been returned to work?
Who has not been retrained?
Who has had their complaints IGNORED?
Who has lost medical and like expenses?
Who has been fobbed off by their treating doctors?
Who has been lied about in IME reports?
Who has been suicidal since being on workcover?
Who has been suicidal since being cut off workcover?
Who has been denied work cover unfairly?
Who has been treated unfairly?
Who has been lied to by the Insurance agents?
Who is waiting for a payment from Centerlink after 130 weeks because they are too injured to work?
Who became depressed due to any of the above systems?
Who is struggling to make ends meet?
Who is sick and tired of being treated this way?
Who does not want to take it anymore?
Who has the guts to speak out and fight these issues?
WE DO and WE ARE!
If you are.. dont forget to write to us.. Make comments... Join up... join us here now in the FIGHT to stop this once and for all.

"If we continue to do nothing; We continue to get nothing."

If We Want To Make a Difference We Must Stand Together

2008-10-11T16:38:00.000+11:00

Hi all,
“Of what use to make heroic vows of amendment
if the same old lawbreaker is to keep them?”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Firstly Thank you for searching the Internet for answers, and for stumbling upon this site.

If people are saying the Work cover System isn't working or fair... Chances are IT ISN'T.

I really would like to hear your stories and comments.
To get anything done we seriously need to get our issues together.

Times are tough and it seems our Public Servants are not Serving us as the sovereign people of Australia and are least inclined to do so when we speak alone.

Together we need to stand up, and a way we can help each other to do that, is to share our personal issues and how the System is not working for us in Truth.

I am using my time productively here, and I am feeling disappointed in my fellow injured workers & their affected adult partners, carers etc. not stepping up and helping actively in this situation.

It is great that you are researching, but we really need to stand together as a whole unit in order to be heard here.

If you are not happy then it is worth fighting for those rights. Chances are you are not the only one.

Some of these seriously injured workers are single and have no voice, so just consider the large scale of lives this system is in fact effecting every single day in many many negative ways.

It is a ripple effect. If you give all you have to help another, then chances are someone will do the same to you and there will be a change.

I know if every injured worker or his/her closest representative stood up and said this was not good enough then it would become so BIG that we could no longer be ignored and they would have to listen to us.
If we simply resign to the fact that things are bad but there is nothing we can do, then they get what they want.

That anger, that frustration we all are feeling can be turned around to the passion to strive for achievement.
To right the wrongs.
To make a difference in the world we live in.
Make the bureaucrat's listen and serve us as they should be doing.

It is our complacency and our giving in, that is allowing this kind of legislation in the first place.

So please do not just think you are only a number, do not believe you don't deserve better, do not sit idly by and watch yourself and your loved ones thrown at the mercy of this unmerciful system.

Give me something to take with me on this journey.
I for one am NOT going to resign to any of their "facts" any longer.

I have experienced this system and all its pitfalls for myself and I realise there are people out there forced into wrongful needless suffering.

I have the passion to fight for change.
Please stand up with me and together we will show the facts for what they really are.

You can make a difference! We can make a difference together!

Thank you

Now is the time to act. Why? Because it is too late to do it sooner!
- Steve Bhaerman (AKA Swami Beyondanonda)

EXAMPLES OF MY WILL

2008-10-04T20:01:00.001+10:00

"If people are screaming out they are not happy; then why does it fall on deaf ears."
By PeopleDoMatter

The great aim of education is not knowledge but action.
Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)

It is MY WILL, that I as an Australian more than peripherally relate to my concerns of anything raised to ANY public official!

It is MY WILL that I do matter and I do have a say!

It is MY WILL that I am more than a speck of dust tossed aside and sent mediocre replies from the parliamentarians that work for me, as a member of the Australian public!

It is MY WILL that we as Australians command respect, support, safety, the freedom of choice without beuracratic "blackmail", that we know what issues we are facing because of our OWN LIFE EXPERIENCES. That we command honesty, integrity and respect from all who Govern us.

It is MY WILL that these who Govern us do so in conjunction with our wishes, needs, financial issues, beurocratic flaws in mind and 100% integrity.

It is MY WILL that if there is "not enough money available" to establish those rights, that those who Govern us take a pay cut. Also.. reduce spending in elaborate ways, that are unecessary for the good of all Australians.

It is MY WILL that if any Governmental individual lies to the Australian public in order to obtain legislation that takes away our freedoms and rights as human beings, that they face charges and that legislation is deemed null and void.

It is MY WILL that injured workers are NOT treated in such an unethical way as they are in daily reality, and that the legislation be changed fairly with those injured workers input!

It is MY WILL that injured workers are treated with total RESPECT!

It is MY WILL that all documentation put to parliament is written for the layman so that it is represented transparently, and ANY persons that the recomendations effects, must be given the right to vote on the asaid legislation and its changes in all transparency, thus having the right to prevent that legislation from being accepted, above all others!

It is MY WILL that we are all made equal before the law, and injured workers are not put at a disadvantage via legislation taking away their right to a just fair result that would be reasonable for the public to expect, facing the same circumstances.

It is MY WILL that within those rights INCLUDE the RIGHT TO BELIEF OF INNOCENCE.
That the government is banned from expenditure on television advertising, queens council access and anything else putting an injured worker to an unfair disadvantage, or taking their rights to PRIVACY in ANY FORM.Or any other form of "blackmail" to complete tasks designed to further upset the individual by being forced to believe they are meaningless and worthless.

These are SOME of my WILL's... lets see yours!

Thank you,
PeopleDoMatter

Education... has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
G. M. Trevelyan (1876 - 1962)

Save Aus Information

2008-10-01T11:57:00.000+10:00

Injured Workers may have better sucess with this information in being heard.
Welcome to the Save Australia website (Source)
THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOWHow to Express Your Will
Know and understand what your true Constitutional powers are, and how you can lawfully use those powers to obtain the results you want your elected parliamentarians to produce.
This site is dedicated to those Australians who wish to conserve the freedoms provided to us by our founders and the authors of the Australian Constitution.
As individuals we are created by God and are under God, not under the government,which is the creation of people.
Government has limits on it, and those limits are placed on it by the people (who have the ultimate authority over government) and not the other way around.
In Australia, it is the Constitution that sets out the limits on government that the people consider appropriate.
(comment by Peopledomatter I have links to the consitution on the RHS of this site)

Australia to a large extent has lost the purity and clarity of the freedoms originally provided by the framers of our Constitution, and indeed our pond has become very muddy.
The site is maintained by a loose association of Sovereign men and women united in a common cause with the aid of the seven natural laws they were born with to live, uphold and protect the rights provided by this country's founders, to ensure that their fellow Sovereign men, women and children will retain those rights and to become educated themselves about those rights.

"Quote". A Sovereign man/woman asks questions and gives direction.A Slave answers questions and takes direction.

What you will find here:http://www.saveaus.info/index.php?title=Home

There are many who perceive that something is not right, but are unable to source the correct information, or don't know how to initiate a response.
This site seeks to rectify that problem and to become a repository of information for the benefit of all Australians.
You will find here material to assist you to educate yourself on your responsibilities and equip yourself to uphold your rights and freedoms.
Please feel free to browse and use the material on this web site.
Finally, we thank you for your patience, parts of this site are still under construction.

Quote:"To teach a man how he may learn to grow independently, and for himself,is perhaps the greatest service that one man can do another".Benjamin Jowett

Retrieved from "http://www.saveaus.info/index.php?title=Home"
Posted by Jo at 11:41 AM 0 comments Links to this post

I have found this site extremely helpful in educating myself.
I believe that every person in Australia deserves RIGHTS! Injured workers deserve a lot more rights than they are getting in an every day life.
I am committed to researching to find out as much as I can to uphold our rights. Are you?

Well hopefully you will now.

I think it is very important!
With the way things are going we all need to educate ourselves so that we are NOT at the mercy of a Government body that WE the people elect!

I am guessing many of you are thinking oh not politics and law! I must admit it is a very boring subject BUT....

It has come to my attention that it is necessary for self preservation.

I am providing links on this site so as to help you to educate yourselves as I discover them myself.
In the hope that together we can and will make a difference.

The Workcover Victims site is doing the same.

The more we learn, the more we understand how things are effecting us.

Unfortunately Injured Workers understand just how WRONG a system can be and how that in turn effects their whole lives and their families too.

Lets learn together! Injured Workers are just like you, they are real people with real lives and are severely hurt by the legislations passed by the governments in Australia.

It is a HUGE problem and they do need everyones support! Whatever their story, background, race or creed... most of all they are PEOPLE and people do matter!

Thank you for visiting this site and I wish you all the best in your new discoveries.

Kind Regards,
PeopleDoMatter

Knowing is not enough; we must apply.Willing is not enough; we must do.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

REALISTIC STORY AND REALITY OF V.W.A

2008-09-16T20:34:00.000+10:00

Email from another Injured Workers Family who's complaints have been ignored by the VWA
Complaints Handling Project VWA Complaints PolicyPosted by an Anonymous Reader.

Hi, I have to agree with you whole heartedly!
Everything on their paperwork is made to look good, it has NO SUBSTANCE!
I have asked this question to workcover complaints many times! Who is accountable when this is not followed? I still do not know!
Just when I think I cannot learn anymore illogical rubbish about workcover up pops a new demented experience!
I deal with them on behalf of my partner who was injured at work.We have fought with them for most of the time for retraining in non physical work equal to the payment he was able to earn pre-injury. Which VWA assures is his entitlement.
In order to do this you must be on a partial work certificate which enables them to delay all training until you are cut off payment.
Interestingly, their IME'S and a LOT can be said about those! Will NOT send him back to his previous job but just love to throw in here say that maligns the injury.
There is nothing fair just or humane about workcover! Their paper is notworth the cost of ink for printing.
Instead of retraining, this moronic vocational assistant sends him mailings of so called appropriate very physical bottom feeder jobs he cannot do and therefore sends his already depressed levels and low self esteem plummeting to new lows!
What gets to me is EVERYONE who works in this system realises how disgusting it is. Yet no one changes anything!
I am sick of hearing yes just send a letter to your state member of parliament. I have sent letters until I am blue in the face. (please try a MY WILL letter)
This is why, I believe that we ALL need to get together. BE SEEN BE HEARD.
Get in numbers and get things changed!
They do not even warn us of the truth before we are applying for claims!
They do not tell us even if we ever can work again that no one will employ us!

Who can understand the accident compensation act with all the back and forwards revisions?
Is that even close to ok?

The interesting use of the percentage of injury scale! How wonderful it is to manipulate reality! How convenient!
The no work capacity with a likelihood to continue clause. Likelihood to continue? Oh sorry you are too young the medical panel will not pass you on that. Too bad u cannot do physical work and earn a decent living. Oh and the wonderful, you cannot appeal the medical panels decision. Oh, they are not biased! Well who pays them? When does it end?
Never, if no one puts a stop to it.

Class action? QC's helping the cause?
How is it that the majority of Australians have been brainwashed into thinking all of this is merely put in place because of a couple of scammers on the system?Were they even scammers? After this experience I really have to question the manipulation of evidence in any of those cases.

Surely if it was about the actual injured employee's then the Government agencies wouldn't be profiting!

Wake up Australia... it so easily could happen to you!

WCV's response:
This shows another injured workers families struggle to survive in a system like workcover which has been designed to beat you inside out!

Dear Reader:
You have hit the nail right on the head here with your statement of who pays the medical panels, the doctors, the advisory service etc.... yep its the government!

I also believe that if your agency/department is being funded by the federal or state government then your policies and procedures are not impartial or fair to any injured worker in Victoria!

Worksafe uses procedures and policies derived from Parliament which is government funded.
The VWA advisory service is funded by the government.
The workplace ombudsman's office is funded by the government.
The medical specialist we are made to see are paid for by the goverment.
Mr Holdings office is funded by the government.
So with all of your options covered by government funding how can worksafe and its processes be impartial?
Even to a layman you can see that this system is not protecting the workers nor is it showing any form of impartiality in its claim handling.

This work injury insurance system is a big scam when it is leaving its victims physically and financially ruined.

All injured workers should be entitled to no fault workplace insurance.
All injured workers should be entitled to common law recourse.
All services that are required as part of the claims management processes should be outsourced to unrelated companies whom can make a truthful and impartial decisions on payments, not be left to government funded worksafe and their paid providers.

We all know that doctors working for worksafe will provide unfavorable reports on the claimants. We also know that they are paid exuberant amounts of money by worksafe to see us and then that exuberant amount of money also seems to give them the right to treat you like dirt and to pre judge you and your injury!

Don't bother complaining to worksafe about the doctors behavior during your assessment because worksafe will either completely ignore it or just tell you its not up to them even though they (worksafe) are paying these rude and arrogant doctors a fortune for a report based on prefabricated evidence supplied by worksafe and in many instances unsubstantiated accusations and a guilt before innocent verdict on your personality, your nature, your way of life or just your look!

This is not fair and reasonable treatment of injured workers who are already being screwed by an unfair and government coffer based system.
Worksafe show huge profits each year and yet we seem to be entitled to less and less.
Mr Holdings office has told us here at WCV's that the reason injured workers from the Kennett era are not entitled to common Law compensation is because the government cannot afford to include us in the changes already made.

Injured workers are sick and tired of being ripped off by a government who is clearly discriminating against injured workers of the Kennett era.
WCV's is calling for injured workers to register their interest in forming a group to take legal action in this issue.
Please forward your interest to: workcovervictims@westnet.com.au

There is greatness in doing something you hate for the sake of someone you love.—Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

WORKCOVER VICTIMS PLEASE SPEAK UP

2008-09-16T19:46:00.001+10:00

Please EVERYONE who has any insight and issues with the reality of WORKCOVER.

Please do not just sit down and STOP working on these issues.

I think if everyone sends letters to those who care in bundles.. we have a better chance at CHANGING this system.

Please take the time and send your stories to those who care... I am one of those people.
The useful link to workcover victims is another.

WE need your HELP as we cannot do this alone!

You do have a voice... don't let them win! YOU CAN DO IT!

Stand up and be counted... PEOPLE DO MATTER!

You are NOT A NUMBER YOU ARE A PERSON AND YOU DO COUNT!

WE ALL MATTER! Not just the GOVERNMENT! THEY WORK FOR US!

TAKE BACK YOUR POWER AND DEMAND CHANGE!

YOU CAN DO THIS! WE CAN DO THIS TOGETHER!

WHERE THERE IS A WILL THERE IS A WAY!

I KNOW YOU ARE OUT THERE... I KNOW YOU ARE NOT HAPPY ... AND I UNDERSTAND IT IS WRONG!

THANK YOU

SOLICITORS PLEASE

2008-09-15T00:21:00.000+10:00

Posted with the written permission of the blog holder... visit http://workcovervictims.blogspot.com/

Monday, July 21, 2008

Solicitors Required
We are searching for solicitors who are interested in representing "WorkcoverVictims" clients and have a genuine interest in legislations changes.Please email mailto:workcovervictims@westnet.com.au for more information.
Posted by Jo at 11:33 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: common law, law, legal, legislation, Workcover, workers rights

Victims Free to Sue Decades Later
This hearing is a break through for injured workers of the Kennett era and beyond. Now that this case law is available, all injured workers who have found themselves out of time for their claim can now go ahead and sue for their injuries.
Make an appointment with your legal representative asap.

VICTIMS of workplace accidents could now sue for damages decades after the event, following a landmark High Court decision that will force former ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark to defend claims he led the 1971 pack-rape of a 16-year-old girl.
The judgment, which was opposed by Justices Michael Kirby and William Gummow, specifically applies to Victorian law, but will have ramifications around the nation.

It means that more people who have suffered personal injuries will be able to explore their rights beyond the statute of limitations. That will be the case particularly in circumstances where there is delayed onset of injury or where they do not have access to information or knowledge about the cause of their injury.

Cases that could now proceed include medical negligence actions in which, for example, a surgical object is left inside a patient but the effects are not known for many years; and cases involving exposure to occupational hazards, such as cancer-causing chemicals, where an illness takes years to emerge, also where psychiatric injury has taken years to manifest.

Even those cases in which a claimant knows they have an injury, but does not become aware for years later than the injury was caused by someone else's negligence, would be affected by yesterday's judgment.
Source: Natasha Robinson, The Australian. 21.07.06
Posted by Jo at 11:26 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: common law, legislation, Workcover Victims

Inspirational Quote - Quoted by Abraham Lincon
Nearly, all men can stand adversity,
but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Psychological Injuries - The Hidden Pain of Trauma.
Injuries of this type can occur at any time, and in any situation.
Whether it's a teller in a bank hold-up or as witness to a major traffic accident, maybe an employee subjected to continual harassment and/or victimisation in the workplace,or someone else's experience of another human disaster, the result is almost always the same, some form of personal trauma for the innocent people involved.

Quite often, these hidden injuries, such as Depression, Anxiety and/or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), may just remain that way (hidden), for avery long period of time before they are detected, diagnosed or even remotely visible to others.

For people who experience these severely debilitating conditions, constant feelings of isolation, segregation and desperation can fill almost every minute of their day. It is therefore extremely vital, that anyone who has experienced or is experiencing any of the above situations or similar, should seek both legal and medical advices for their own circumstances, as soon as possible.

Psychological injuries, in a lot of cases, are regarded as potentially more serious than many physical injuries, due to their severity and permanence, and particularly so if the correct specialist treatment is not administered.
People involved in car accidents often suffer some form of emotional injury also.
Some statistics indicating that up to 30 per cent develop a mild form of trauma, with a definite proportion also contracting PTSD.
But the law can go a long way to easing the effects of such resultant injury.
People affected by a traumatic event are often entitled to compensation, where negligence on the part of another party associated with the trauma can be proven. This is where the expertise and contact with a Personal Injury Lawyer is imperative.
They can provide understanding, support, advice and if necessary, representation in the process of your claim. But please remember, " TIME WAITS FOR NO-ONE ", and although certainly an old cliche, it is a most significant factor in this specialist area of Law.

Contrary to many beliefs, HELP IS OUT THERE, and you DO NOT have to suffer this in Silence. Courtesy: Personal Injury Lawyers.
Posted by Jo at 8:24 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Stress Injuries, Workcover, Workcover Victims

Workcover has Serious Flaws

2008-09-12T23:57:00.000+10:00

Hello everyone,

I am hoping to offer a chance for those of you who have had bad experiences with Workcover to voice your stories, complaints and issues.

I am thankfully NOT affiliated with Workcover in ANY WAY.

This is not a government website or blog. I am a real Australian who has simply heard, seen and experienced enough to know that someone needs to try and allow the opportunity for the real public who are NOT happy with the whole workcover system in Australia to voice their stories.

Acting as a go between if you like... without any expectation of profit.. as hard as that may seem for those of you already beaten down by the whole experience of Workcover.

I have come up with this idea simply to allow everyone who is sick of the whole Workcover "System" and its seemingly unworkable and unfair abolishion of your injured lives, to be heard.

I am hoping to hear and see all of your stories and present them to the State Member of Parliament in HUGE piles of emails... that hopefully will not go unheard! Just for STARTERS!

I just hope... although this experience would have been or is right now, extremely hard for you.. that you still have enough strength to stand up and have your say.

I for one have had ENOUGH! While the Victorian Agent for Workcover PROFITS for their shareholders. IME's Profit from their often questionable reports. Private Investigators PROFIT.

Government PROFITS... Solicitors PROFIT... everyone else PROFITS... but NOT those who ARE HURTING!!

Who ever thought IN this country... you could be doing the right thing.. working away... and hurt yourself and be in this extremely illogical unfair unjust situation.

Losing battle!?

Its enough to be in pain... injured hurting to do all the simplest tasks that were a breeze before.

The first experience of your claim... will be a lovely cut of your income.. forget about superanuation.

You think sheesh this is aweful! How can this be right.. but as time goes on you learn... that isnt even the tip of the iceberg.

Whoever thought... Oh YES.. lets profit from another AUSTRALIAN WORKERS SUFFERING!

Lets write up a whole lot of stuff on paper that looks respectful and totally do the opposite and profit from it!

Lets make the whole legislation so crazy to read that no-one can understand it.

Lets even make it extremely UNFAIR!

Who thought... that it was OKAY to profit out of someone elses pain?!

Does that seem right to you??

What happened to CIVIL rights, HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE, the right to income, the right to live respected, protected, privacy, safety, innocent until proven guilty?

Why don't the media want to do MORE stories on the REALITY of WORKCOVER?

Why is it always more about the scammers?

Do ALL Australians even know about how bad the legislation is? Educated public? The TRUTH?

Chances are.... the only people who really know are unfortunate enough to have experienced this "system" for themselves.

By then... its TOO LATE.

So please... speak out... tell the truth... say NO! I am not going to stand for this anymore!

State what is wrong... why its wrong... speak about your suffering... let them know.. you are people not numbers! They don't deserve to profit! Give yourself the chance to ask for a FAIR GO!

Lets demand a FAIR GO!

Only genuine people may reply to this post in relevence to its content. Email will be provided to those who send their email first for these purposes only. This is not a debate. It is a reality.

Disclaimer

2008-09-08T01:55:00.000+10:00

Disclaimer
Disclaimer:This web site has been prepared by interested members of the community based on the results of their own research into relevant areas.All data, information and material are provided for information and education purposes only and should not be construed as legal or other expert advice. Rather, all material is provided with a view to informing you about the issues.We do not provide advice in relation to any particular offence. Any legal decision should be made with the advice of a trusted and competent legal advisor. Individual circumstances may vary and require specific legal advice from a qualified legal practitioner.The information provided on this site is a factual analysis of the data. Where calculations are made all of the applicable assumptions are provided to allow independent replication and confirmation to be undertaken. Where reference is made to text, the source of the reference is quoted and if available, a link is provided to the document for verification. Where an interpretation has been provided, it is up to the reader to satisfy themselves about the veracity of the conclusion.Many of the arguments contained in this web site have not yet been tested in court or provide a challenge to existing law. They are provided as reasonable arguments only for which we believe there is some legal and/or technical support.Neither we nor any of our data or content providers shall be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.We provide links for your convenience only.We shall not be liable for any damages or costs of any type arising out of or in any way connected with your use of the data, information or material provided on this web site, whether or not such damages were foreseeable or contemplated and whether arising under contract,negligence or any other legal or equitable basis.