Category Archives: Corruption

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp caught bribing Australian Crown

In the public interest.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp caught bribing Australian Crown Prosecutor for news stories

Kangaroo Court of Australia

WHY RENT A LAWYER WHEN YOU CAN BUY A JUDGE

Independent Commission Against Corruption – ICAC

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp caught bribing Australian Crown Prosecutor for news stories

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation are heading for another major scandal regarding bribing government officials and this time it is in Australia and involves NSW Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen.

Murdoch’s News Corp has a long history of bribing government employees for stories. This was exposed by the UK phone-hacking scandal which also revealed the bribing of UK police and other officials.

The Australian bribery scandal is being exposed as the UK phone-hacking scandal, which has run for about 4 years, is coming to a close although some of the victims are demanding it continues.

News Corp UK phone-hacking crimes – Also paid police for stories

“Several former News of the World executives were put on trial for hacking, and one former editor, Andy Coulson, was found guilty as was Glenn Mulcaire, a specialist hacker placed on a regular retainer by the tabloid. But another former editor, Rebekah Brooks, was acquitted, and she has since been reinstalled as chief executive of News UK.” (Click here to read more)

Below is a video of News Corp executive Rebekah Brooks admitting paying police for stories which is a crime. So the question has to be asked has News Corp also been paying Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen for stories which is also a crime? What has motivated Margaret Cunneen to commit the crime?

.

In the video Rebekah Brooks then known as Rebekah Wade openly admitted to paying police for information. This was in front of a British Parliament select committee in March, 2003. The person sitting beside her, Andy Coulson, interjected and quickly tried to cover it up. It must be noted that there is no way to pay the police within the law. It is bribery full stop. Andy Coulson was clearly lying.

The video is from a previous article I wrote in June 2014 titled Will Rupert Murdoch and News Corp face charges for breaching Australian International Bribery laws?” which is of relevance again now given the Margaret Cunneen revelations.

Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) v Margaret Cunneen – Operation Hale

Last year, after an investigation ICAC named Operation Hale, ICAC tried to have a public hearing into allegations that Margaret Cunneen had acted in a criminal manner and Margaret Cunneen took legal action and stopped the public hearings. It was reported in the SMH:

“Cunneen was accused of advising her son’s girlfriend to fake chest pains to avoid a breath test after a car accident. The high court ruled that ICAC did not have the power to investigate the allegations because they did not fit the definition of “corrupt conduct” in the legislation establishing ICAC’s scope.”  (Click here to read more)

The evidence was then handed to the DPP and eventually swept under the carpet by the NSW Solicitor-General Michael Sexton SC. (Click here to read more)

That probably would have been the end of it but there has been a massive push by Margaret Cunneen, her supporters in the legal fraternity and News Corp to have ICAC Commissioner Megan Latham removed.

One of Cunneen’s biggest supporters has been ICAC Inspector David Levine who has oversight of ICAC. Last week Mr Levine handed down a report which seemed to shoot everyone in the foot except it’s intended targets of Megan Latham and ICAC.

The biggest story in the report has been the fact that Margaret Cunneen has been abusing her position as a Crown Prosecutor and illegally leaking stories to the media. The media have by and large ignored it or only mentioned it to a minor degree.

I have written about the ICAC/Cunneen matter in 4 other posts which are worth reading for a background to this story. In December 2014 (Click here), April 2015 (Click here), May 21st 2015 (Click here) and May 27th 2015 (Click here).

ICAC Inspector David Levine’s report

Levine’s report is openly biased in favour of Cunneen but who cares as it is also extremely explosive because of what it says regarding journalists and Cunneen’s leaking to them. Levine’s best days are obviously behind him because he has helped destroy his friend Cunneen.

It is a criminal offence for a prosecutor to leak information about a trial to anyone including journalists.

The report refers to a disc of material labelled “Operation Hale – e14/1466 Journalist Disclosures – exhibits”

The report says on page 48 “This disc contains 2,274 pages of material constituted by SMS and other mediums extracted from Ms Cunneen’s telephone made up of a “Full Report” and eight extract reports in relation to named journalists.” (Click here to read the full report)

The named journalists would be extremely worried about being named and are clearly the ones (or their friends) who are attacking ICAC and Commissioner Margaret Latham.

News Corps The Daily Telegraph says: “Those communications were between Ms Cunneen and senior Daily Telegraph reporter Janet Fife-Yeomans, and between Ms Cunneen and Channel 7 news director Jason Morrison.” (Click here to read more)

I wonder how many other names The Daily Telegraph has deliberately left out. Jason Morrison is only new at Kerry Stokes’ Channel 7 but 7 have been vocal supporters of Margaret Cunneen and they have done exclusive interviews with her recently which suggests she has been leaking to 7 as well.

I suspect there are more journalists than just 2 as Cunneen gets a lot of favourable coverage from numerous News Corp journalists. The police should be asking how many senior managers at New Corp knew that Janet Fife-Yeomans and others were getting tips from Margaret Cunneen and did they pay Cunneen?

A bribe doesn’t have to be money. It can be anything such as favourable media reports which Cunneen has received over the years and especially recently when the media should have ended her career given her corrupt conduct but certain journalists have spread lies on her behalf in an attempt to support her. The journalists are paying Cunneen for her leaked stories with favourable media reports which would constitute a bribe although cash being paid to Cunneen is also is a strong possibility given News Corp paid UK police.

News Corp’s Sydney Bunker

The key journalist at News Corp who is driving the attack on ICAC and Latham is The Australian’s Legal Affairs Editor Chris Merritt.

Chris Merritt

Mr Merritt has been the everywhere man attacking ICAC. In April Mr Merritt joined Alan Jones to attack ICAC.

Alan Jones and Chris Merritt on 2GB Monday April 20, 2015 (Click on the audio below to listen)

Audio Player

.

Alan Jones interviewed The Australian newspaper’s Legal Affairs editor Chris Merritt a couple of days after the High Court handed down it’s judgment in the Margaret Cunneen / ICAC matter.

They went hard attacking ICAC and defending Margaret Cunneen. In the tape you will hear Alan Jones refer to journalist Janet Fife-Yeomans as a source who we now know is one of the beneficiaries from Margaret Cunneen’s leaks.

Lies by Margaret Cunneen which the media help spread

Margaret Cunneen has told a lot of lies about what did and did happen and many of those lies have been exposed in recent days. The biggest lie is that Margaret Cunneen says she has fought so hard this time because it involves her family and she was trying to protect them.

We know this is lie because Ms Cunneen tried to blame her sister for complaining to ICAC and initiating the investigation. The reality is that the Australian Crime Commission referred evidence to ICAC which sparked the Operation Hale investigation into Cunneen.

Margaret Cunneen has never apologised to her sister nor have the journalists that know about it and they still ignore it when defending Cunneen.

This has caused Margaret’s sister Caroline Cunneen so much distress she wrote to ICAC as per the below letter:

Caroline Cunneen - Media Statement - 19-8-15 - 2

Only the tip of the iceberg

What the evidence from Cunneen’s mobile phone does not show is other times that Margaret Cunneen has tipped off journalists and what other journalists have been beneficiaries to Margaret Cunneen’s inside information.

Two of the obvious people are 2GB’s Alan Jones and Ray Hadley who have been big supporters of Cunneen.

News Corp journalists have been very busy over the last few months demanding an inquiry into who has been leaking information from ICAC to Fairfax journalist Kate McClymont. I agree that we should have an inquiry and include Margaret Cunneen’s leaks to journalists. I wonder how keen News Corp journalists will be on that idea.

The story is not going away anytime soon although News Corp journalists and others are working overtime to try to make sure it does. But it’s too late as the cat out of the bag now and we have former Supreme Court judge David Levine to thank for that.

Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and help promote this post.

This website is independent and reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)

If you would like to follow this website you can by email notification which is at the top right of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.

You can also support this site by buying a t-shirt or coffee mug at my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)

Thank you for your support.

Is Google Corrupt?

Google Exposed: New Evidence Reveals an Extreme Level of Manipulation, Corruption

(ANTIMEDIA)  — In September of 2011, Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt testified before Congress that Google was not manipulating search results to favor its own shopping service (it was). Schmidt also denied allegations that the company was a monopoly, citing a research paper written by David Balto, former policy director of the Federal Trade Commission. What Schmidt neglected to tell the Senate Judiciary antitrust committee was that Google had funded that research paper.

And that’s not the only one, according to a recently published report by the non-profit, non-partisan watchdog organization, the Google Transparency Project, which identified “329 research papers published between 2005 and 2017 on public policy matters of interest to Google that were in some way funded by the company.”

What’s more, the academic research funded by Google covered “a wide range of policy and legal issues of critical importance to Google’s bottom line, including antitrust, privacy, net neutrality, search neutrality, patents and copyright.”

[A]cademics, think-tanks, law firms, and economic consultants from some of the leading law schools and universities in the country, including Stanford, Harvard, MIT, University of California Berkeley, UCLA, Rutgers, Georgetown, Northwestern Law School, and Columbia.”

Internationally, GTP reports, “Google-funded studies were written by academics at some of the most prestigious universities in Europe, including Oxford (U.K.), Edinburgh University (U.K.), Berlin School of Economics (Germany), Heinrich Heine University (Germany), and KU Leuven (Belgium).”

The Wall Street Journal took their research a bit further, and what they discovered is astounding. WSJ reported:

“Some researchers share their papers before publication and let Google give suggestions, according to thousands of pages of emails obtained by the Journal in public-records requests of more than a dozen university professors. The professors don’t always reveal Google’s backing in their research, and few disclosed the financial ties in subsequent articles on the same or similar topics, the Journal found.”

University of Illinois law professor Paul Heald neglected to disclose the $18,830 he received from Google to fund “an idea on copyrights he thought would be useful to Google.” When he was questioned in an interview about his failure to mention his sponsor, Heald replied, “Oh, wow. No, I didn’t. That’s really bad. That’s purely oversight.” The professor also claims the money had no influence on his work.

Google has paid anywhere between $5,000 and $40,000 per paper, and the number of studies surged the highest in 2012 when the company was being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission and European regulators for antitrust violations. At least 50 studies on antitrust issues authored between 2011 and 2013 were bought and paid for by Google.

According to a former employee and a former Google lobbyist, Google officials in Washington compiled wish lists of academic papers and then searched for willing authors to complete the desired work. Google often provided working titles, abstracts, and budgets for each proposed paper. Upon completion, they were pitched to government officials. The former lobbyist told the Journal that Google would “sometimes pay travel expenses for professors to meet with congressional aides and administration officials.”

Google’s massive influence on academic research should come as no surprise given the former CEO’s openness in discussing the company’s hand in writing legislation. At the Washington Ideas Forum, Schmidt described his experience working with the U.S. government, revealing that “The average American doesn’t realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists…and it’s shocking, now, having spent a fair amount of time in the system –  how the system actually works.”

Shocking is an understatement. It’s absolutely terrifying how the system works. A multi-billion dollar company with a monopoly on the internet not only writes the laws, but funds academic studies to shield them from further laws that might prevent them from becoming even more dangerous, all while harvesting private data from over a billion people and developing AI technology that allows two neural networks to communicate using inhuman cryptographic language indecipherable to humans.

And the executive chairman of this disturbingly powerful corporation is a man who has stated that Google’s famous “Don’t be evil” slogan was “the stupidest rule ever.” This is the same man who told an audience in Washington, D.C., that “We don’t need you to type. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

What could go wrong?

Former Victorian Premier Brumby Quits Huawei Board and Joins La Trobe University

My first feeling in this is of the IT trade war between China and the United States.  My next feel is those in prominent positions joining industry and the revolving door that exists between government and industry.  The original intent of government was that these entities were separate as government ensured neutrality so that it could represent the people.  Unfortunately in the ruling class they all know each other, they discuss the Boards the are on and they have their own agendas.   Business is business.

The video I produced today is on greed.  I see the blindness of economic objectives outside of human wellbeing.  The disconnect is furthered as industry profits become the goal and the impact on civil society a minor issue.  This becomes increasingly evident when one investigates the range of views about 5G and the race between the US and China with IT industry lobbyists taking up positions in Communications as the regulator of the industry.  Clearly it is not possible to regulate an industry in the public interest if a person has come from the very industry that is to be regulated. That means they know the people, and often, if not always, have an agenda to promote that industry. This is where the public interest is neglected.  We have seen this in the United States and the health implications for civil society are sending out alarm around the world.

The article below informs that the former Victorian Premier John Brumby was on the board of Huawei.  There is discussion about Chinese criminality and the potential for the Communist party to spy and gather data.  I wold assert all the IT companies are spying and data gathering and are contracted to share data with intelligence agencies, notably the 5 Eyes spy network.  When you investigate the Boards of IT companies you see the vested interests sitting there which include multinational companies, big data, IT companies, military, intelligence, Accounting firms, universities, former government ministers or public servants and the list goes on.  In the country they operate in the people believe the company is owned by the nation or they have no idea that their data is traded without their real consent and used to sell products and services.  The greed is what moves this disregard for privacy.

Clearly Huawei would be influenced, if not directed, by the Chinese Communist Party, they are the largest telecommunications company in China note $8.7 billion in profits.  Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei

The issues for Australia are to what extent can the Chinese government penetrate Australia through high level appointments and economic power.  Refer foreign ownership of homes:  https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/fears-one-million-aussie-homes-could-soon-be-owned-by-foreign-buyers/news-story/c50a4112bab4f3ed8fae27277f313f54

Australian land sales https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/china-increases-its-stake-in-australian-land-20181220-p50ng0.html

I recall Alexander Downer some years ago attempting to ban protests of Falun Gong outside the Chinese Embassy. The government went to court with Falun Gong and the latter won.   Refer http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1389732.htm

I interviewed on radio a Chinese woman whose husband had been murdered in China as they practiced Falun Gong.  Just last week I noticed they were protesting in Melbourne about organ harvesting of practitioners.  This is the very core of the argument about recoupling human rights to trade.  Clinton was the one who decoupled human rights.   This link refers to Hiliary Clinton favouring economics over human rights when it serves US interests refer https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/4735087/Hillary-Clinton-Chinese-human-rights-secondary-to-economic-survival.html

This second link reverses this and places human rights first as it serves US interests.  The issue of Guantanamo Bay, 911, the Middle East wars, rendition and its own human rights violations inclusive of leaving the UN Human Rights Council are largely ignored internationally.  One rule for one another rule for others. It is all about the money but the argument will frame it as benefiting the people.  The core issue is the economic war that seeks to use issues to weaken the competitor. This is where the nation state serves economic interests and is not representing the people. Refer https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/sanctions-over-china-human-rights-may-strengthen-us-position-in-trade-talks.html

Therefore, where do executives and high profiled people draw the line or is there no line?  If the focus is strongly on career, profits, political and business interests at the expense of the public interest then where do we end up?  We are walking in the shadow of the United States and the ideological economic rationalism of privatisation of public assets. This utilises government taxation to take on the risk in projects to enable the private sector to lower risk and project high profits.  This dominants the discussion as equity financing replaces government taxation attracting high interest rates (exponential) and demands for profits through users pay e.g. toll ways. The original purpose of government provision of public services quietly transforms into private provision of government services in million and billion dollar public/private partnership deals.

The contraction of global markets with a mentality of cut and move on (acquisitions, arbitrage, futures markets, speculation in profit maximisation) diminishes the public purse which typically had longer horizons with cross subsidisation built into government funding planning to ensure egalitarianism as advancing Australia Fair and public order.

Ultimately under the new rules of private engagement the public pay more (in taxation, GST, direct fees, fines, taxes) out of ever more diminishing incomes.  The multiple propensity to consume (MPC) shrinks which impacts economic growth but is hidden by activity from both foreign and domestic companies.  The chairs rearrange.

This most favoured status given to the megolithic multi-nationals (changing names, subsidiaries, rebranding) gives the impression of wealth but the reality is equity finance is expensive, the risk is carried by the equity firm and attracts high costs and interest rates. It deepens indebtedness which is the lever that can be used to influence domestic policy that would have funded social programs. Thus the left/right propaganda is used to weaken calls for public expenditure as unrealistic and economically unviable. This is how the middle class becomes pauparised as the extremes start to polarise between those with extreme wealth and those living in extreme poverty.  This is how policy creates social unrest and blames the public through repressive techniques.  The shape changer of democracy takes on a totalitarian profile with increasing calls for surveillance, funding a security apparatus with intrusive technologies (purchased from these IT companies) removing human rights and privacy to ensure control rather than squarely facing the reality of an economic mismanagement and greed as the driver of market concentration and serving of specific foreign interests.  Egalitarianism and social democracy transforms into a compliance framework that favours the few over the rights of the many and is ultimately de-stabilising, globally as we are all connected.  The public believes the propaganda that budgets are balanced when the debt is off the balance sheet as the risk was transferred.

So powerful companies like Huawei and Google for example, both titans in the IT industry have disproportionate concentration of power and hence, political influence and penetration into markets to serve interests and agendas that may provide token jobs (benefits) but ultimately are the old paradigm of profit maximisation. The profits move off shore and we see the economic cake unravel to be replaced by AI and automation.  At the same time ‘greed’ as dis-ease is not in balance with ecological limits (silent spring) takes more than it needs and is non responsive to natural rhythms that rebalance planetary systems. This is why the titanic is sinking and the planet is goaning under the strain of humans who have no real connection to themselves, each other or the natural sytems.  The nature of ‘greed’ is to follow selfish interests not respond to expanded best interest that includes resources (natural bounty).  This disconnect renders many of the capitalist/communist (whatever) business interests blind to the dangerous situation they have set up.  Some may smile and decide to fly to the moon or mars, but ultimately karma follows as the real problem was never solved at its inception. The real insecurity, fear and greed fuelling imbalance. When this is investigated inequality disappears, natural imbalances recalibrate and we begin to see ourselves in each other. This is the shift in consciousness I refer to in my video.  I felt the video permeate this blog as I feel inspired to integrate it into an example given by the article.

So a few questions for society to consider:

Is it in the national interest for political or influential figures to join with foreign multinational companies and share their knowledge, resources and networks?

Given the US trade war any persons or entities involved in Huiwei becomes a ‘threat’ as US penetration in Australia evokes its influence in networks, government, policy, security and regulatory environments.  Is this in the Australian public interest?

Thus the wicked webs we weave that continues on a trajectory spiralling to the bottom until we awaken.

Only the truth sets us free.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/brumby-quits-huawei-board-days-after-us-criminal-charges-outlined-20190201-p50v10.html

Brumby quits Huawei board days after US criminal charges outlined

Former Victorian premier John Brumby has resigned from the board of Huawei’s Australian operations in a damaging blow to the Chinese technology giant just days after the US government outlined a criminal case against it.

Mr Brumby’s decision to quit comes two days after The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei executive at the centre of the alleged global criminal conspiracy, established and oversaw the company’s activities in Australia between 2005 and 2011.

Former Victorian premier John Brumby.
Former Victorian premier John Brumby.CREDIT:PAUL JEFFERS

The former Labor politician’s future at Huawei Technologies (Australia) has been under a cloud since June, after he announced he was reviewing all his directorships upon assuming the role of Chancellor of Melbourne’s La Trobe University.

This week’s release of an indictment against Huawei and key executives by the US Justice Department has increased interest in Mr Brumby’s position on the company’s board.

RELATED ARTICLE

Mr Brumby said on Friday that the timing of his resignation, which will be effective from next month, was unrelated to the scandal enveloping the company.

He said he had informed the board a year ago of his intention to resign and was proud of the firm’s local growth.

‘‘We have had some challenging times … Huawei Australia has continued to go from strength to strength.’’

Ms Wanzhou is alleged by the US to have been a key player in a conspiracy to defraud international banks and US officials about the company’s Iran operations. The criminal case against Huawei also involves allegations it stole trade secrets from rival T-Mobile.

Though there is no suggestion that Ms Wanzhou was engaged in any criminal activity in Australia, the US Department of Justice case against her and the company includes the period of time she was overseeing Huawei’s corporate governance and strategy in Australia.

The December arrest of Ms Wanzhou in Canada at the request of the US government triggered a strong response from Beijing, with two Canadian citizens and Chinese-born Australian writer Yang Hengjun detained in China.

Mr Brumby will become Chancellor of La Trobe University in March.
Mr Brumby will become Chancellor of La Trobe University in March.

Ms Wanzhou is the daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei, a former engineer in the Chinese military.

Mr Brumby joined the Huawei board in Australia in 2011 shortly before the departure of Ms Wanzhou. Former foreign minister Alexander Downer and former Navy rear-admiral John Lord were also appointed to the Huawei board in an effort by the company to build political and defence credibility.

The high-profile Australian trio have been outspoken in defending Huawei against criticism from Australia and the US, whose respective intelligence agencies fear the company could be vulnerable to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party to spy on or sabotage data and phone networks.

Mr Brumby, Mr Lord and, until his 2014 appointment as Australia’s high commissioner to the UK, Mr Downer, have all previously pointed out that there has been no hard evidence produced anywhere to show Huawei was involved in espionage activities on behalf of the Chinese government.

The company has made a priority of ensuring its Australian directors have been looked after well at home and abroad. It is understood some Australian-based directors have been paid as much as $250,000 a year, though Huawei has declined to confirm this.

Despite its high-powered Australian board, Huawei has been prevented by successive Australian governments from participating in the NBN rollout and the 5G mobile network, with security agencies warning against the involvement of the Chinese firm.

Australia’s hard line position on Huawei has emboldened other western allies to restrict the Chinese company’s involvement in sensitive infrastructure.

Advertisement

In a statement released in the wake of the US charges, Huawei said it was disappointed to learn of the charges and believed the US courts would find no evidence Ms Meng or the company breached US laws.

Hillsong Church, Boys Town and the Conspiracy of Silence

This blog covers issues about pedophilia in respect of Hillsong Church, Boys Town and the Conspiracy of Silence due to those in power being part of pedophile rings  It is absolutely unacceptable for child abuse to be covered up and ignored.  Imagine if you were that child.  To force sex on an innocent child reveals this emotional disconnect from the suffering of the ‘other’ and drives to the heart of how and why abuse happens.  It is a sickness not an ‘orientation’ as has been stated, thus objectifies the suffering of children and projects fantasy’s onto them. These children may become so traumatised that the mind disassociates from the experience which is why later in life they get flash backs.  The mind does this as a survival mechanism as the trauma was too great.

I will look into some of the links that indicate that there are some commentators attempting to normalise pedophilia.  This is very concerning. Yet it is what those who abuse do as they are in denial of the gravity of the crime. Some call it ‘boy love’, it is the extreme opposite of love.

What prompted me to produce this blog was a news feed from the ABC entitled ‘Scott Morrison dismisses report he wanted Hillsong pastor Brian Houston to attend events during US state visit’.   I suddenly had inspiration to look at Hillsong and pedophilia. 

This is the ABC article refer
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/scott-morrison-dismisses-report-he-wanted-hillsong-pastor-brian-houston-to-attend-events-during-us-state-visit/ar-AAHEhoN?ocid=spartandhp

I recall Fiona Barnett, a child ritual abuse victim from Victoria, Australia bravely making public a VIP pedophile ring.  She remembered those involved in ritual child abuse as she was flown around the world as a child given to men to abuse. I am extremely concerned about this issue.  If it is true then there must be an investigation into high level pedophilia. This is a serious crime and no-one is above the law.
Fiona’s website is:  https://pedophilesdownunder.com/

I have found another story on the Exclusive Brethren, Pedophilia and links to conservative politics.  I note that John Howard has links to them given they approached him to give donations.

For some reason my blog page is not allowing me to post the link, I’ve just gone to an another private browser that blocks data gathering and I’ve been able to paste a link.  Take note of that if you have difficulties when blogging.

This is the article.  Brethren bid to cover up sexual assaults on girls
Refer https://www.theage.com.au/national/brethren-bid-to-cover-up-sex-assaults-on-girls-20061230-ge3w60.html

The public demand to know if there are pedophiles in high profile positions still at large. These matters must be investigated in the public interest.

The first video is from 60 Minutes Australia exposing Frank Houston the founder of the Hillsong Church.   The second video is explosive called ‘Conspiracy of Silence’. It exposes pedophilia in Boys Town and speaks about pedophilia at the highest levels. I will feature the article in the next blog.

60 minutes YouTube video highlights pedophilia in the church.

Money Laundering $1 billion through Australia’s biggest Casino

Money laundering of drug proceeds through Casinos enables the drug trade and impacts vulnerable people in the society who become hooked on drugs for a range of social reasons.

The questions raised for me in this ABC documentary were about the Casinos providing privileged interactions with those gambling large sums of money and holding accounts on the premises.  I contemplated the extent Casino’s are involved in money laundering.  Gambling, prostitution, organised crime are dark industries that do not promote the wellbeing of people but exploit the social issues and loneliness many feel.

I was asked many years ago as a market analyst to do a study at a RSL club into gambling.  I was tasked to identify what made them gamble, the drivers.  I had $20 in my bank account at the time and I said no.  I said no as I will not participate in anything that I thin harms society.  I am homeless today living on $35 per week as a result of my decision to live a principled life.  I recall people surprised at me not taking the money for the sake of it.  It was legal to do the research.  Yet I would say the abundance I feel today is that I didn’t betray myself, that is what deception and disconnected commerce does.  I can look in the mirror and feel integrity.  So many just get addicted to the greed and go for it, as it is only about the money.  One day they wake up and perhaps the realisation of the many lives the harmed through drug money, crime or prostitution dawns on them.  I know at some point that will happen. 

Here are some links on Crown Casino and corruption.  Is greed good?

Crown casinos hit by China corruption crackdown – BBC NewsYour browser indicates if you’ve visited this link.

A crackdown on corruption in China has prompted Australian casino operator Crown Resorts to spin off its international assets into a separate company. The new company will take over Crown’s 27.4% …
 

 

The story by 7.30 Report is provided below.  The video is accessible via the website link and the transcript of the documentary is available..

Video Player failed to load.

How did this man launder nearly $1 billion through Australia’s biggest casino? 

 

A drug trafficker laundered hundreds of millions of dollars through Melbourne Crown Casino, but how did he get away with laundering so much money for so long?

Transcript

plusminus