Author – Ms Initially No, policy writer
Australia has this difficulty – obstruction of citizens, and thousands of years denied rewards, power, status – and that on every Australian citizen that thinks about that, and wants that no longer obstructing. It is against country to violate citizens in that way.
The legal matter, that goes against country, it isn’t a matter of being caught in-between. Either a person is with country, or not – and a person whom is with country should not be denied for that. It isn’t reasonable to boycott a citizen for being patriotic.
A holocaust prevention writ, that is an amendment to the Constitution, should be complied with in all legislation, and reinforcing that necessity, is patriotic – and should not be further obstructed.
Even if a person migrated to another country – that is still there for the country born-to, that understanding and demanding – Still denying your citizens Australia? Why! You were invaded 240 years ago; the invaders rules don’t apply any longer, they were greedy horrible pirates, and you know that! And stop obstructing the recognition and power to knowledge of thousands of years prior to invasion. A country must always honour, and give power to the that which is ancient understanding – it is the country.
A legal matter, that needs to never be allowed – the obstruction, sabotage, of the Right To Work.
Achieved
Values
Money
Returns
Recovering royalties (from artwork, writing, performing arts)
Providing information
Prosecution of intercorporate cartel violating the rewards
Unarmed-citizens, civilians, they should never be obstructed, and then boycotted by lawyers. Citizens should be able to recover money owed, and prosecute the violators that need to be jailed for slavery, torture, arbitrary detention, theft of biometric ID and violent exploitation of workplace, and work that is copyright.
Why would lawyers boycott civil rights? They are not permitted to do that! There is a blame-shift on legal matter (that must not be put into medicalisation, or subjected to prejudices and profit by exploitation in a horrible usurp of civil rights.)
Lawyers whom are repeating a capture and arrest procedure, used in other contexts, have other life matters, when their homes are attacked, or office, and don’t want –
To have to re-lease after homeless (living in short term accommodation isn’t a home, though, is shelter, it isn’t a home).
Injury and potential persuasion to be hospitalised, or taken there while unconscious, is a nightmare, when there has been improperly through out charges against a group of people whom actually did have the right to land packages, or insurance payout, and really did not think the charges against them justified anything beyond petty argument after all they’d been through and never got to prosecute for. The injustice and outrage – and that the lawyer would want to take the side of the violator that had stolen so much from them already.
Children whom should have been the love and means of existence shuffling instead of looking proud, and fostering fake attitudes and angry looks of the criminals that paid big sums to be defended in courts; the children rarely at home, at friends all the time, even when arrangements made to be together.
Seeing the coat of another person stuck in the revolving-door to the building and fearing going through that thing ever since, when there is a crowd.
Bounty and benefit offered, given by government, to induce, take action, and perform a service that seemed misdirected at the victim of crime, and at citizens whom were not government office (though, were not criminals). Then, having to hunt for someone charged or suspected of a crime to maintain rewards, outside of government office.
If, an adversary were to be boycotted, to achieve the social or economic isolation of the adversary, by the concerted refusal to do business with the adversary – that would have to be justified, or it is outrageous prejudice, denial, discrimination.
Ruthless treatment the adversary perpetrated against citizens, is reasonable to name as reason to boycott and ostrasize. Ruthless is: slavery, torture, arbitrary detention, horrible exploitation by espionage. That, is reason to refrain from dealing with such a ruthless criminal.
It is when there is a breach, or infraction of law – that any neglect, refusal, resistance or inaction of official duty, that is an obligation or agreement to uphold – that makes the infraction/ breach worse, to not action that which is duty to act.
It is essential, that civil rights of Australian citizens, unarmed-civilians (whom have been violated in a way that is war crime), that they are not further boycotted. There is no reasonable excuse to boycott civil rights of citizens, that haven’t perpetrated crimes and have worked to stop the breaches, schisms, and other security violations as well as the slavery torture and arbitrary detention.
Denial of the work that a person does, by another that usurps and claims the work of a civil rights activist, in an old insult of salvage. It isn’t acceptable for anyone to aid and abet that.
Lawyers should not believe they have more power in sanctioning a criminal, or a non-citizen, for violating a gag-order; than a person that must not be boycotted. People whom perpetrate crime, take revenge when they know they’re being falsely sanctioned; in more violent ways, when they feel they are righteous in doing that.
People whom should not be boycotted, must when give contract agree to, they must not violate the contract agreed to, though, same principle, they don’t want blame-shift, though they’re more likely to then attempt to legally challenge the lawyer, if they do something wrong.
Legal personnel whom believe they agreed to a contract to never warrant and arrest espionage – whom would they be?
Legal personnel whom believed they agreed to a contract to never warrant and arrest RANZCP fellows, psychiatrists, for offenses of slavery, torture, arbitrary detention and serious cartel conduct, including obvious covert tactics, and sabotage of the right to work of a citizen that should not be boycotted – whom would they be?
Comments