Problem viewing this email? Click here for online version.

Tips, Links and Tidbits Newsletter


Twitter Facebook Google
Read or Condemn Yourself to Death by Ignorance

The newsletter for those prepared to look and see what is there.

No place for those who blindly bow

to the unholy alter of tyrannical authority.

Wednesday 29th August 2018


Here is a sampling of all that crossed my digital desk over the last week.

I hope you get something from it!

Free Graphics Site

Tech Shielding

Dagerously Awesome Level Of Freedom!

Who Packs Your Chute

Friend Requests From Strangers

Goal: To Remove Love From Sex

The Fourth Ape Has Evolved

Learn Your Constitution!

Prosecuting bankers is not enough

Free Online OCR

Scott Morrison Said WHAT?!?!?!?

Home Schooling

Frill Necked Mail Box


Free Graphics Site

Unlike others I have tried, this one is a gem!

Tech Shielding
Tech Shielding

Dagerously Awesome Level Of Freedom
Dagerously Awesome Level Of Freedom

Love it!

Who Packs Your Chute

From Larry Meredith:

I saw this years ago, and it’s a great story!! Very well worth the time to read and share!

Charles Plumb was a US Navy jet pilot in Vietnam. After 75 combat missions, his plane was destroyed by a surface-to-air missile. Plumb ejected and parachuted into enemy hands. He was captured and spent 6 years in a communist Vietnamese prison. He survived the ordeal and now lectures on lessons learned from that experience!

One day, when Plumb and his wife were sitting in a restaurant, a man at another table came up and said, ’ You’re Plumb! You flew jet fighters in Vietnam from the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk. You were shot down!

’How in the world did you know that?’ asked Plumb.

’I packed your parachute,’ the man replied.

Plumb gasped in surprise and gratitude.

The man pumped his hand and said, ’I guess it worked!’

Plumb assured him, ’It sure did. If your chute hadn’t worked, I wouldn’t be here today.’

Plumb couldn’t sleep that night, thinking about that man. Plumb says, ’I kept wondering what he had looked like in a Navy uniform: a white hat; a bib in the back; and bell-bottom trousers. I wonder how many times I might have seen him and not even said ’Good morning, how are you?’ or anything because, you see, I was a fighter pilot and he was just a sailor.’ Plumb thought of the many hours the sailor had spent at a long wooden table in the bowels of the ship, carefully weaving the shrouds and folding the silks of each chute, holding in his hands each time the fate of someone he didn’t know.

Now, Plumb asks his audience, ’Who’s packing your parachute?’ Everyone has someone who provides what they need to make it through the day. He also points out that he needed many kinds of parachutes when his plane was shot down over enemy territory - he needed his physical parachute, his mental parachute, his emotional parachute, and his spiritual parachute. He called on all these supports before reaching safety.

Sometimes in the daily challenges that life gives us, we miss what isreally important. We may fail to say hello, please, or thank you, congratulate someone onsomething wonderful that has happened to them, give a compliment, or just do something nice for no reason. As you go through this week, this month, this year, recognize people who pack your parachutes.

I am sending you this as my way of thanking you for your part in packing my parachute. And I hope you will send it on to those who have helped pack yours! Sometimes, we wonder why friends keep forwarding jokes to us without writing a word. Maybe this could explain it! When you are very busy, but still want to keep in touch, guess what you do - you forward jokes. And to let you know that you are still remembered, you are still important, you are still loved, you are still cared for, guess what you get? A forwarded joke. So, my friend, next time when you get a joke, don’t think that you’ve been sent just another forwarded joke, but that you’ve been thought of today and your friend on the other end of your computer wanted to send you a smile, just helping you pack your parachute.

Friend Requests From Strangers Won't Infect Your Computer

There's a warning being spread around Facebook about accepting friend requests from strangers. It reads: "Please tell all the contacts in your messenger list not to accept friendship request from Andrea Wilson. She is a hacker and has the system connected to your Facebook account. If one of your contacts accepts it, you will also be hacked, so make sure that all your friends know it."

Goal: To Remove Love From Sex
Goal: To Remove Love From Sex

Undermining Morals

When a city or society is confronted with riots resulting in violence, destruction and death of it’s citizens, its not surprising when law-abiding citizens ask, “how could this happen?” or “why are people so violent?” or “what is wrong with the youth of today?” All sorts of explanations, justifications and unusual solutions are advanced, but they rarely provide the answers or uncover the root causes of the problems.

To gain a broader understanding, we must look at a quite different long-term factor that has been an insidious cause of deteriorating social and family standards and conditions.

In the 1940s, psychiatry’s leaders proclaimed their intention to infiltrate the field of education and the law and bring about the “re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong.” G. Brock Chisholm and British psychiatrist John Rawlings Rees, co-founders of the World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH), bluntly told their peers at the time: “If the race is to be freed from the crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.”

Governments were eager to implement new ideas and ideologies of the “new psychology” as society recovered from the devastation of war.

The attempt to undermine morals and consequently the deterioration of society and the family unit can be traced back to the influence of psychiatry in these different fields.

In its formative years, WFMH conferences were held in London in 1940 and 1945 where the leaders eagerly laid out their goals and objectives. Rees proclaimed: “We can therefore justifiably stress our particular point of view with regard to the proper development of the human psyche, even though our knowledge be incomplete. We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life…. We have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult are law and medicine.” Dr. John Rawlings Rees, “Strategic Planning for Mental Health”, June 18, 1940

Canadian Psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm, President of the WFMH in 1945 proclaimed:

“The re-interpretation and eventually (sic) eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith... ...are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. The fact is, that most psychiatrists and psychologists and other respectable people have escaped from these moral chains and are able to observe and think freely.” Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, 1945

The Fourth Ape Has Evolved
The Fourth Ape Has Evolved

Learn Your Constitution!

The purpose of our Constitution (as with all Constitutions) is to set forth law permanently governing and guiding government (the executive, legislature and judiciary) in order to remove all possibility of injustice and crime against (the) People at the hands of government (Common Law Crime of Tyranny).

Parliament and congress do not make ’constitutions’ through any of their statutes because that would enable government to authorise it to do as it pleases whenever it wants and create a state of total parliamentary despotism over the population; quite the opposite of what a constitution is supposed to do!

So, first of all, you are wrong to imagine that any government-made statutes are “constitutional.”

In the case of the 1689 Bill of Rights—this firstly, illegally reaffirmed statutes premeditatedly introduced to deny the greater part of the people from selection to serve on a jury and thus their ability, right and duty to judge and annul enforcement of unjust laws; secondly, illegitimately denies monarchs their duty and regal authority to withhold enactment of statutes which they deem unjust or unconstitutional, de facto, seizing spurious sovereignty for parliament over the People and monarch; and thirdly, treasonously forces the monarchs to breach their Coronation Oath to uphold the Law of the Land, codes, charters and customs of the People—this rebellious, contumacious (stubbornly resistant to authority; wilfully obstinate) Bill of ’Rights’ statute exemplifies how parliament makes repugnant and void statutes which intentionally oppress by breaching our Constitution.

Explanation is detailed within the essay, The Tragedy and Treason of the 1689 Bill of Rights.

Incidentally, Section III of the 1689 Bill of Rights upholds and acknowledges the validity and supremacy of the Great Charter and the previous “law of the land” Charters and Coronation Oaths sworn to by monarchs, as follows:

Bill of Rights: “III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.”

The Bill of Rights explicitly guarantees the supremacy, force and effect of the 1215 Great Charter Constitution. This assurance in fact annuls the Bill and all the renegade terms of the Bill’s insurgent instigators.

But we digresss… Regarding your e-mail, understanding how commoner citizens’ control of Common Law Trial by Jury is the only (peaceful) method known to mankind by which to hold government to the Principle of Equal Justice for All, quells misgovernment and protects the population is essential primary learning.


Article Thirty-Nine is paraphrased as follows: “No one may be punished or disadvantaged in any way except (i) according to the judgement of his peers or (ii) according to legem terræ (the law of the land of which Trial by Jury is the single legal method of trial).”

Not only does the Great Charter inscribe the common law of the land legem terræ—of which Trial by Jury is the only justice system—but it also specifies in particular, judicium parium, the judgement of peers; i.e., the Common Law Trial by Jury, as the means of settling causes.

In this one Article Thirty-Nine, Magna Carta effectively emplaces Trial by Jury twice, emphasising instalment of the people’s judgement of peers, the Common Law Trial by Jury, as the mode of trial: once naming “the judgement of the peers,” judicium parium, the Trial by Jury itself (which was central to the traditions of legem terræ) and a second time as “the common law of the land legem terræ,” of which Trial by Jury is the only method of trial.

NOTA BENE: The words, “…according to the judgement* of his peers” mean the jury sets the sentence. *To this day, law books use the words judgement and sentence synonymously. See translation from Latin; also see Articles 20 & 21, page 153.

6. In addition to Article 39 asserting that punishments are set by the jurors, i.e., “according to the judgement/sentence of his peers,” further proof in Articles Twenty and Twenty-One of Magna Carta (below) makes it conclusive that juries, not the government (judge), set the sentence:

Article Twenty: “A freeman shall not be amerced (fined) for a small crime (delicto) but according to the degree of the crime; and for a great crime in proportion to the magnitude of it, but saving to him his contenement (the means of making a living); and after the same manner a merchant, saving to him his merchandise; and a villein shall be amerced after the same manner, saving to him his waynage (plough-tackle and cart), if he fall under our mercy; and none of the aforesaid amercements* shall be imposed (ponatur) but according to the assessment of a jury of reputable* men of the neighbourhood.”

*In the Great Charter, “amercement” is a fine; and “reputable” meant men who were not convicts, ill or lunatics. We know this from various sources of that era, including the following from the Mirror of Justices:

“Persons attainted of false judgements cannot be judges [note that the jurors were the judges of all aspects of the cause], nor infants, nor any under the age of twenty-one years, nor infected persons, nor idiots, nor madmen, nor deaf nor dumb, nor parties in the pleas, nor men excommunicated by the bishop, nor criminal persons.” Mirror of Justices, pp. 59-60.

“Old men above three score and ten years, being continually sick, or being diseased at the time of the summons, or not dwelling in that country [locality], shall not be put in juries of petit assizes.” See Ruffhead’s Statutes, St. 13, Edward I, ch. 38, 1285.

With the important characteristic inherent to profoundly cerebral constitutions, observe that Article Twenty of the Great Charter makes a point of stressing that punishments should be in proportion to the gravity of the crime. See DD Essay EIS#14: “The Crime-Generating (Inherently Illegal) and Other Degenerate Properties of Bad Laws and Disproportionate Punishments.”

Article Twenty-One: “Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their peers (equals), and according to the degree of their crime.” In setting the sentence and formulating just punishments, the jurors are advised to bear in mind the degree of malice, and the gravity or effects of the crime, and any mitigating circumstances.

Fines were the most frequent punishments. Whereas fines under the common law observed by the Anglo-Saxon kings went to the victim or his or her surviving relatives, the government of Norman kings illegally seized upon fines as a source of income. If the amounts of fines had been left to be set by the king it would have represented an irresistible pecuniary temptation for him to impose oppressive amercements on people.

Similarly, if the king or his servants the justices were allowed to set sentences other than fines, they could be seduced by corrupt motives into threatening or imposing harsh sentences to achieve criminal aims.

In short, for the best of reasons, the Constitution forbids government functionaries from interfering in any aspect of the judgement of a citizen’s behaviour. Magna Carta inscribed that all aspects of the case were to be judged by the jurors. It was and remains the purpose of Trial by Jury to protect the people from all possible oppression by government. The jury and only the jury set the sentence.

The fact that the jury sets the sentence requires that the jury always try every aspect of the case (the law, admissibility of evidence, facts, the nature and gravity of the offence, motive, mitigating circumstances, etc.), in order that the jurors know whether a sentence of punishment is to be imposed, and if so, what the suitable sentence should be.

The Great Charter Constitution affirmed that punishments were henceforth to be set by the jury, as they had always been according to the law of the land. This is, after all, a definitive attribute intrinsic to the judgement (or sentence) of the peers; that is, a Trial which is by Jurors. If someone other than the jury makes such decisions then the process cannot be defined as a Trial by Jury. If the law or evidence or the sentence or anything at all could be dictated to the jury then the trial would not be by jury. It would be by someone other than the jury.

7. Magna Carta does not prescribe that the government must punish according to the sentence of the peers, but that government shall not punish “nisi per,” “unless according to” that sentence. It does not oblige government to execute the sentence; but it forbids government from going beyond the sentence. The Constitution forbids government from punishing, except according to the judgement of peers.

Government justices might lessen (moderate) the sentence or acquit on grounds of law, or even pardon. Note well, however, these latter functions are always applied judiciously, with care, fairness and caution, because bias in the actions and decisions of judges and government personnel are not immune from citizens’ cost-free private prosecution by single or multiple plaintiffs before a Trial by Jury; viz. Articles 36 and 40; see Chapters Three and Four.

Item: As only a jury may set a sentence (Article 39) following a legal Trial by Jury, convenors (’judges’) cannot ’pronounce’ sentences unless they have been set first by the jury following a lawful common law Trial by Jury.

Item: Legally, judges and magistrates cannot proceed summarily (without a Trial by Jury) or inflict a sentence of punishment in any case whatever, even when a plea of guilty is entered and even if a defendant “agrees” to be “tried without a jury.” For judges, convenors, arbitrators, ombudsmen or others to proceed summarily breaches common law Article 39.

All enforcement of law and regulations remains subject to the decisions of juries. In this way, unjust and arbitrary legislation, vexatious regulations, government-prescribed sentences and fines (amercements), and judges’ decisions may be seen by jurors as due for Annulment by Jury at trial, with the result that such legislation may subsequently be permanently expunged from the statute book at the behest of (the decisions of) juries.

Thus, the common law Jury forms the People’s Supreme Legislature and Judicature. Apocryphal legislation, courtroom litigation and related expense are reduced exponentially.

Item: By ascribing judgement to the peers in Trial by Jury, The Constitution allowed punishments neither to be prescribed by statute, that is, by the legislative power, nor in any other manner by government or judges. Consequently, all statutes or regulations prescribing particular punishments for particular ’offences’, or giving the government’s judges any authority to set punishments, were, and are, void. Such sentences pertaining thereto are Miscarriages of Justice. All people suffering such persecution are owed a real Trial by Jury (re-trial); and if found to have acted without malice aforethought, are due (overdue) Amnesty and Restitution.


Article Thirty-Nine dictates: No one may be fined, punished, or penalised but by the Verdict and Sentence of a jury following a Common Law Trial by Jury. All questions of liability, responsibility and damages must be and can only be decided by the Jurors. This explains why all civil and fiscal causes, as well as criminal cases, have to be tried by jury 1. Issues may not be decided by means other than Trial by Jury; parties may not ’waive’ their right to be tried by jury, the modern corrupt statutory and judicial ’decisions’ to the contrary notwithstanding. 1 Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Article 39 stipulates that summary judgements and punishments (as wielded today by government magistrates and judges); and judges’ punishments for ’contempt of court’ are gross infractions of the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the rule of law. All right and power to try, judge and punish are unequivocally and uniquely invested in the jury. Judicial power is completely denied to government and judges (convenors) expressly to disarm government from arbitrary power over the populace.

Moreover, regarding ’contempt’: Common Law Article 39 stipulates that no one may be punished except according to the legal sentence (judicium; judgement) of the jurors. As a peace officer with responsibility for arranging security, the convenor (’judge’) has power on behalf of the jury or him or herself, to order the arrest of an offender for a contempt (remove him from the court if necessary; and hold him to bail or imprisonment for default of bail)—but no punishment may be inflicted against a person’s life, liberties (rights) or property unless and until the ’offence’ has been tried and decided upon as for any other offence: that is, at Trial by Jury. Then, the judgement (sentence), if any, must be the jury’s, and not that of a judge.

Today, in crude criminal breach of common law, magistrates and judges have again appropriated to themselves the completely illegitimate arbitrary power to sentence, fine, incarcerate and summarily punish, including for contempt of court. If the judge has the power to punish for contempt, and to determine what comprises a contempt, all the procedures, rights and duties of jurors, witnesses, counsel and parties are subject to the whim of a government judge. With such unjustifiable and illegal power, the entire administration of justice is seized into the judge’s hands and the process is no longer a Trial by Jury. Everyone who presumes to offer anything contrary to the judge’s caprice or corruption is at risk of incurring his displeasure. In this way, the outcome of every cause can be guided to the government’s or the judge’s favoured ’verdict’ by the judge’s intimidating, restraining and punishing anyone he or she pleases, whether it be the parties to the case, counsel, witnesses, or jurors/ the jury. Every process wherein the justice or judge has summary power to punish is a flagrantly felonious pretence of a trial or ’process’: a mistrial.

Spooner; a lawyer’s observation:

“This arbitrary power, which has been usurped and exercised by judges to punish for contempt, has undoubtedly much to do in subduing counsel [lawyers] into those servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits which so universally prevail among them, and which have not only cost so many clients their rights, but have also cost the people so many of their liberties.”

Definition. usurp, take a position of power or importance illegally, often by use or threat of force.

For good reason, Article 39 permanently removes all power to punish from judges and government. If the people wish to have their rights respected in courts of justice, it is manifestly of the utmost importance that they jealously guard the liberties and rights of plaintiffs, defendants, counsel, witnesses and jurors against all arbitrary power on the part of the government or court. Let us march forward to RESTORATION!

Ref. DEMOCRACY DEFINED: The Manifesto ISBN 978-1-902848-26-6.

Kenn d’Oudney

Prosecuting bankers is not enough—predators must be locked out

The Financial Services Royal Commission has accused CBA and NAB of crimes in relation to their gouging of superannuation accounts. Counsel assisting Michael Hodge QC concluded in a 223-page report released on 24 August that it is open to Commissioner Kenneth Hayne to find that CBA committed more than 13,000 crimes, and that NAB was in criminal breach of its duties under superannuation law.

Hodge also took aim at the regulators, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). He said the evidence indicated “that the approach of neither APRA nor ASIC to regulation of superannuation entities is sufficient to achieve specific or general deterrence. The evidence suggests that APRA is reluctant to commence court proceeding and to take public enforcement action. … It might be thought APRA’s objective of ensuring financial system stability is not readily reconciled with being an effective conduct regulator.” (Emphasis added.)

The spectre of criminal prosecutions is a culture shock, given how few bankers in Australia and around the world have gone to jail for the myriad crimes in the banking system in recent decades. But even jail is not enough of a deterrent to fully protect customers from financial predators.

While paedophiles know they will be jailed if they are caught, we still take precautions to keep them away from children, such as requiring working-with-children clearances for staff in childcare centres and schools, because a deterrent is not enough to guarantee against abuse. Likewise with banks. Jailing bankers to send the message that financial predators will be punished if they steal, defraud or gouge bank customers’ savings is very important, but many bankers would still be tempted to prey on depositors. In most cases, bankers rationalise their actions because they don’t put the money they gouge from customers directly into their own pockets, but into the bank’s profits, which earns them fat bonuses. Also, they can employ armies of lawyers to tie up prosecutions in the courts.

The only way to protect depositors from financial predators is to change the structure of the banking system to lock predators out.

The banking royal commission has already proved that the structure of the banking system, and of regulation, is responsible for the scale of the criminality and misconduct that has been exposed. The major banks are conglomerates of all types of financial services, including traditional commercial banking, investment banking, insurance, wealth management, financial advice, stock broking and superannuation.

This integration of financial services has enabled banks to: prey on the trust of their depositors to lure them into all sorts of risky investments and unnecessary products; overcharge their retail superannuation funds for services provided by other divisions of the bank to the tune of $15 billion per year; and use deposits to collateralise risky investment-banking speculation in securities and dangerous derivatives.

Bank regulation is structured to accommodate this criminality and misconduct. Previously the banks were regulated by a single authority—originally the Commonwealth Bank when it was Australia’s national bank, and then the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). Now regulation is shared between APRA, ASIC, and to a lesser extent the RBA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). This regulatory structure leaves gaps in which much banking misconduct is missed, while APRA and ASIC constantly pass the buck to each other.

This obvious ineffectiveness is not incompetence, but by design—it reflects the neoliberal belief in self-regulation that has been the consensus in Australian and world politics. The regulators are a fig leaf for no regulation.

The only measure that will protect depositors is the Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018 that Bob Katter MP introduced in Parliament on 25 June, for a Glass-Steagall structural separation of deposit-taking commercial banks, from risky investment banking and all other financial services. Contact your MP to demand Parliament debates this bill.

Join the campaign to pass banking separation!

Contact your local MP and as many Senators as you can, via phone, email or mail, to demand they debate the Separation of Banks bill. (You can find the Senators from your state by clicking on this link, and clicking on your state under the heading State/Territory on the right-hand side.)

Ask for a written response.

Share this message widely on email and social media.

Free Online OCR (Optical Character Recognition)

A free online OCR (Optical Character Recognition) application could come in very handy in saving you a lot of time at some point so keep this link as a resource.

Scott Morrison threatens to cut states' GST share if they oppose fracking
Scott Morrison

Saack this ignorant, irresponsible environmental criminal NOW!

Home Schooling
Home Schooling

The longer a shild is in the current education system the less creative are they. We are turning out too many propaganda fed youngsters who cannot think and reason.

Frill Necked Mail Box

You want your mail? Come at me bro!


Until next time,
dream big dreams,
plan out how to achieve them,
be continually executing your plans,
enlist people to your causes,
travel and/or read widely, preferably both,
all the while observing what you observe
rather than thinking what you are told to think,
think well of your fellow man,
take time to help your fellow man,
he sorely needs it and it will help you too,
eat food that is good for your body,
exercise your body,
take time to destress,
and do the important things
that make a difference -
they are rarely the urgent ones!



Most of the content herein has been copied from someone else. Especially the images. My goodness some people are talented at creating aesthetics! The small bits that are of my creation are Copyright 2014-2018 © by Tom Grimshaw - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Back Issues | Feedback | Subscribe | Unsubscribe

Software Development
Festival Management Software
Healthy Snacks
How to Live The Healthiest Life