NEVER - EVER - EVER TRUST A COP (a mate that has a cop as a mate) or a POLITICIAN !!

In the SA legislation, SOCCA (Serious and Organised Crime Control Act) it provides for people who in the "course of their employment" are exempt under the Act.  So this means that those shop keepers, teachers, doctors, nurses, people who are at work when the declared individual approaches them for normal HUMANITARIAN issues, are not guilty under the Act.   Then, POLICE (oh, they get a BLANKET exemption as do politicians)..
But I need to explain further on this..
It still means those people will have secret files kept on them (to be used for the convictions of offenders under the terms of the Act), so as to determine whether they were in the "course of their employment" or private contact.

For example:

- You are subject to a control order as a declared person.
- you see your doctor, that's OK for the doctor, his receptionist and nurse, not guilty at this point,
- but then you see your doctor at the local Foodland and say g'day and the good doctor simply acknowledges that - HE IS THEN GUILTY UNDER THIS ACT!!  (Because it was not part of his professional contact in the conduct of his business!)

There will have to be a secret file kept on everyone so that when the proscribed number of associations is reached, that person can then be charged and thrown in gaol. They will not be able to see that information, nor cross-examine it. This applies to the DOCTOR at this point!

The problem here is significantly compounded because the onus of proof here is that the Act assumes guilt and it is up to the person charged to prove his / her innocence. Which is impossible because the defender CANNOT see the evidence tendered against them!  (Remember the secret bit..)

Another scenario that arises, if that is not enough..

Your immediate family is also exempt under the Act (I am referring to the SA Act in all of this). That exemption is, wife, husband, daughter, son, parents.  ONLY.   So how many people "out there"' have aunties and uncles? Cousins? Just think for one moment the impact of this on the Aboriginal peoples!!  They often have "uncles" as mentors to the young'uns, commonly call elders uncle or aunty.  They are not exempt and will be subject to criminal persecution!  (Oops, that should have read "prosecution".)

If you are the subject of a control order under this Act you cannot attend a social BBQ at Christmas time without those not exempted from racking up "demerit points". (6 associations in a 12 month period in SA - automatically GUILTY, go to gaol, (which  by the way, is where you can freely associate as much as you want !).

In the SA legislation, it also accounts for these associations to dismiss recklessness as an excuse for that association. Recklessness under the law is where you did not know that the person you met was the subject of a control order, but it is not an excuse. Simply put, that is bullshit in anybody's language.

Please,,, think carefully about the SECRET files bit. That is where this is extra smelly. Totally innocent people who have absolutely no connection or even a tenuous link to a declared organisation MUST by the very nature of this legislation, have a secret file kept on them. How else can the police KNOW that a certain person has racked up the 6 associations in a 12 month period??

FINALLY.

It is up to everyone here, your friends, your families, to TELL people "out there" about what I have just said here. Everyone, every member of the public is clearly at risk under these types of laws. (as I have identified here in examples)  Print this out and memorize it or hand it out.

This is far far worse than can be imagined. Personally, I refuse to accept any laws that "give" me my freedom ONLY by the good grace of some constable NOT charging me!! My freedom is absolute and a basic human right, not something to be negotiated or "granted" by legislation.

NEVER - EVER - EVER TRUST A COP

HALF OF THEM COMMITTING A CRIME - THE OTHER HALF COVERING THEIR MATES

Western Australian police could be sued in a landmark case for repeatedly Tasering a Perth businessman and his son in front of their family.

And the Corruption and Crime Commission is poised to reopen an investigation into the incident after a magistrate, who threw out all charges against the pair, suggested police used "excessive force" in their arrest.

Steve Smilkovic and his son Nathan claim they were Tasered 11 times between them in front of Steve's wife Julie and their three other children after an argument with police at a roadblock.

The incident occurred on May 11, 2008, as the family were on their way home from a Mother's Day lunch.

Mr Smilkovic, a 48-year-old self-employed pool builder, said after telling officers that he intended to drive through, police swore repeatedly, including telling him to "fuck off" to the pub.

He claimed two officers slammed him on the bonnet of his wife's car and one Tasered him in the back and four more times despite his wife's pleas that he had previously experienced chest pains.

This left him convulsing and turning blue. An ambulance was called, but Mr Smilkovic was taken away by police before it arrived.

In a 2009 criminal case following the incident, police alleged Mr Smilkovic first assaulted a constable by driving into his shins, but Magistrate Doug Jones found the allegation "not proven". Steve and Nathan Smilkovic were cleared of five charges each.

Now they are seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages from three police officers in what lawyers believe will be the first time police have been sued for excessive Taser use.

The legal action will allege assault, battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution in an incident they claim left them with broken fingers, whiplash and other injuries.

Their lawyer, Terry Dobson, sent the officers letters this week demanding they accept liability, or legal action would be launched for damages and said the incident left his clients feeling "like the victims of torture".

Nathan Smilkovic, 23, claimed he was Tasered six times after trying to rescue his father by pushing an officer off him.

Mrs Smilkovic said officers repeatedly swore at her daughter, Naomi, who was 13 at the time, and her son Brodie, who was 14, telling them to "shut the fuck up".

A 2008 Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) investigation sustained complaints about "use of obscene language . . . by police", but did not uphold other complaints, including the allegation of excessive physical force. It also found an internal police investigation had been adequate.

But in the 2009 court hearing, Magistrate Jones said: "The evidence clearly raises a real issue in respect to the use of excessive force."

A CCC spokesman said on Friday that "in light of the reported comments by the magistrate, the Commission is prepared to have another look at the case".
 

A WA Police spokeswoman said an internal investigation was thoroughly conducted and found to be adequate by the CCC. She said as a result one officer received counselling over his use of language, but the use of force by the officers was found to have been justified.

"In the event a writ is lodged against any member of the WA Police, this will be assessed at the time and an appropriate response determined on the basis of all the evidence."

Go to:- United Motorcycle Council

VISITOR# Hit Counter