Article  POSTED on 30/06/2009.

 Newspaper Media that have been contacted to cover Domestic Violence and have shown no interest.

The Australian Media is failing to protect civil liberty in Australia.

The Australian Media is controlled by Politicians heading in the same direction as Hitler during the 1930's. Control the Journalists, control the media. Feed the people propaganda they want to hear.

Is this a Myth , Fallacy or the truth..

I wrote to Journalist Ken McGregor, Advertiser Newspapers Pty Limited. 26/03/2009., To Radio Station 5AA, Talk Back, Mr. Jeff Burzacott., Amanda Collinge, Series Producer, Q&A, ABC TV, collinge.amanda@abc.net.au.

(1)   South Australian Premier Mr. Good News Media Mike RANN.

        (a)  He was no good as a Journalist.

        (b) He was no good as a Premier Advisor.

        (c) He seeks fellow Federal politicians as to supply money and advice of how to stimulate the state.

        (d) He does u turns in government policy every term in government. (Flip flop agendas)

        (e) He does not select the best person for the government Ministers.

        (f) He is no good as a Premier.

        (g)  He seeks Liberal Party men to advise him what to do.

        (h) He seeks fellow Federal politicians as to supply money and advice of how to stimulate the state.

(2)  Government Media Censorship.

        (a)    To control the masses one has to control the media. Mussolini did that.

       (b)  To control the masses one has to control fear in the community by the use of street gangs.

                Mussolini did that with the use of the Red Shirts.

       (c)  To protect the Red shirts one had to control the Court Judges. 

                Mussolini did that with selecting Judges to the bench that would punish citizens indicating opposition to the Government.

            Opposing Mussolini was a sentence of guilt and punishment. Irrespective of the facts before the court or relevance.

       (d)  To get support from the poor Mussolini gave child payments to single mothers so that more children would be born

            to increase the ranks in the armed forces.

(3)   Government Court Control.

       The Government control of the courts is through the selection of magistrates and Judges without going through the due process of

        (a) No open advertising of the positions.

        (b) No assessment of the persons through their pears.

        (c) Selection not based on qualification.

        (d) Selection not based on experience.

        (e) Selection not based on empathy characteristics of the person.

        (f) Selection not based on debate and scrutiny in Parliament,

(4)    Indication of Corruption of democracy commences with the selection of Government department heads by one or two persons.

        Either selection is made by the Responsible Minister or by the Political Leady in Government.

        (a) First sign of Corruption of democracy commenced with the selection of the South Australian Police Commissioner Herald Salisbury.

        (b) The second sign of Corruption of democracy commenced with the selection of the South Australian Governor after Sir Mark Oliphant.

        (c) Then there has been a litany of similar offences selecting Federal Government Family Law Magistrates.

        (d) There has been a litany of similar offences selecting State Government departmental Heads.

                Guess who was the advisor to the then South Australian Premier?

=================          =================

Domestic Violence Federal Government Policy.

Prime Minister John Howard spent millions of dollars publicizing anti-violence against women.

Yet all the time the Defence Force may have been involved in  bustard-isation.

Yet by the letter of defending their own. Major Saker and Major Young have not got the message Violence is wrong.

As high up the command as Colonel Quirk have not familiarized with Government policy. Or have not the comprehension of the English language what "violence against women is not acceptable"

Or they deliberately challenge the authority of their Commander -in-Chief and should be sacked.

====================          ====================

Domestic Violence and violence in general South Australia Labor Government Policy.

(1)   South Australian Premier. Mr. Good News Media Mike RANN.

        (a)  I attended Findon High School in 1963. There was riff school yard bullying back then.

        (b) My 3 children attended Woodville Primary School during 1980 to 83 and the Head master kept control of school yard bullying.

        (c) Then 2 of the children moved to Seaton Park Primary School during 1984 and being bounded by the same main roads as Findon High School there was wide spread school yard bullying once again.

        (d) The school Principal was Laisser-faire, (slack) When approached said " I will try" I can not do anything about it" etcetera.

        (e) When asked by me for the addresses of the students so that I could approach the parents. They said " because of the privacy laws I can not give that information.

        (f) I then followed the troubling student to their home. Knocked on the door and asked to speak to their parents.

        (g)  They said. "Please do not tell my parents. I will not trouble your children again.

        (h) Problem stopped. But the teachers noticed the changes between them and my children and had the ordacity to approach me and say

                " your children seem to have a dominance over A, B, and C pupils.

        This is how pathetic the Teachers behave about school violence.

        Laisser-faire mentality towards observations within their responsibility.    

        Feather punishment towards violent behavior.

        The Labor Education Ministers either educate the teachers not to respond (interfere) between parents because the Party may loose votes

        The Labor Education Ministers say there is not enough funds to employ school social workers to follow up problems with the parents of students.

        The Labor Education Ministers says the police should be called and then the police, the courts are refrained from name and shame the problem students.

        This failure to threaten discipline (name and shame) and show that the threats can not be carried out. Only gives the message to criminal mentality student to increase bad behavior as a means of dominance, power, and boosting at how many offences can be committed.

Rann was in politics when

Labor Premier Don Dunstan was in power.

Labor Premier Bannon was in power.

Labor Premier Arnold  was in power.

When Liberals were in during 1993 to 1997 I tried to change the School Bullying and school violence Agenda

Only to be attacked by the Socialist teachers and Socialist media Journalists to be run out of town and politics.

I believe feathers float on water and do not change the flow. Only rocks and wood change the flow of water.

Tough teaching, tough punishment changes behavior. Old wife's tall No pain no gain.

Find out what the children love most and deny the avenue to their bad behavior.

Like to blow their bags at what they have achieved. Not Tell the same listeners of their intended conquest that failed.

Labor South Australian Premier Mr. Good News Media Mike RANN. has done nothing to change to crime rate in this state by children and adults alike.

Do not expect any changes to school discipline. School policies. Reductions in general crime within the community now or in the future under the 3 stooges, Mike Rann, Kevin Foley and Pat Conlin.

====================          ====================

What is tolerance.

(a)  Tolerance is means a different view to different people. In my view tolerance is based on the perception of what is normal.

(b) What is normal. Normal is what experiences one has learnt or observed from childhood.

(c) A person who has witnessed a father bashing a mother weekly. May think it normal and should be tolerated by the wife.

        A person who has witnessed a father bashing a mother monthly. May think it normal and should be tolerated by the wife.

        A person who has witnessed a father bashing a yearly mother monthly. May think it normal and should be tolerated by the wife.

The tolerance yearly may consider it extreme to witness the violence of that of weekly, and the weekly behavior not to be tolerated.

Yet the tolerance from a person who has witnessed violence weekly may well think "what has the yearly victim got to worry or complain about."

What is the tolerance  of Magistrates and Judges in the Family Law courts.

I observed and been told by lawyers which Judge to have to get the desired out come. This is based solely on tolerance and experience of and gender of the Judges. It has nothing to do with the written law in the statute books or litigant's profiling.

Joint Parenting with Violent Partners is a Australian Government farce.

=======================================

ABC Radio and TV restrictions displayed on their own web site.

4.2.1 offensive content;
4.2.2 obscenity;
4.2.3 abuse;
4.2.4 defamatory content;
4.2.5 contempt;
4.2.6 incitement;
4.2.7 copyright infringement;
4.2.8 brand names or registered trademarks;
4.2.9 company or organization names;
4.2.10 names of high-profile or public figures; or
4.2.11 names promoting political, religious, social or economic issues

====================          ====================

26/03/2009.

To:  Ken McGregor,

Court Reporter,

Advertiser Newspaper,

Adelaide    SA     5000.

Reference: Mother Screams for help- no body comes

Advertiser page 5 26/03/2009.

Dear Ken,

I have been consistently involved with the Federal Family Court since April 2008.

The article is not spot on in details. It is not the state laws that need changes.

 It is the direction to Federal Court Judges assigned in the family Law Act 1975 that need urgent amendments’

It is the Federal Judges that need a good rap on the knuckles.

The buck passing of state courts and federal courts reminds me of the buck passing of medical treatment between federal and state governments.

The Family Courts are the one’s that allow access to children to violent parents.

I have found that Magistrates are bombastic; do not pay attention to details.

Magistrates have tunnel vision.

Independent children Lawyers are not responsive enough. They take time to investigate complaints. They do not take due care. (6 months after complaint. Send some else to investigate instead of themselves. They Get money for jam.)

I do not mind having my all my details issued to who ever requests them.

I do not mind mentioning the law firms that I have been evolved with.

I watched the Channel 10, 7 and ABC news 27/03/2009, about child deaths t

.The government persons who spoke were SA State Minister for status of women and the SA Attorney General about Police domestic violence orders.

The state Police are doing their best and have in my experience been excellent. Restraining orders given, and served promptly.

The problem I have encounter is the Federal Magistrate s and Judges that give unsupervised access to children under the age of 10 to proven violent parents (cases of convictions of domestic violence with grievous bodily harm and recorded convictions of giving life threats to members of the victim’s family). Yet the Magistrate says “I am not here to punish some one who has already been punished in another court.”

Then give Court orders to have the Narcissist Husband and father unsupervised access to the children. Example: boy age 4, daughter age 3 and twins aged 12 months.

There would be few victim parents who would have the money, tenacity and mental balance to pursue the Gods of the family Court.

Joe Rossi.

260309. 

Article  POSTED on 30/06/2009.

Anti-competitive conduct

Some anti-competitive conduct is prohibited on the basis that it has particular anti-competitive purposes or effects (i.e. cartel conduct such as price fixing ( This price fixing can also apply to policy fixing by the 2 major parties by extra monies, by giving preferences to each other over the independent candidates as has been practiced with Pauline Hanson, SA Robin Millhouse and the like which I believe is collusive conduct among competitors was very effective in the South Australian election on March 2010 was practiced by the  2 major parties being Labor and Liberal.) or bid rigging), while other conduct is prohibited if it substantially lessens competition. A substantial lessening of competition may occur, for instance, when the ability of buyers to shop around for a deal that suits them is significantly diminished by an anti-competitive agreement among suppliers.

There are some circumstances in which an individual decision by a supplier to refuse supply is unlawful under the Act. These include a misuse of market power, third line forcing, boycotts, resale price maintenance and placing limitations on buyers and resellers that substantially lessen competition. Further information on these restrictive trade practices can be found in the ACCC publications,

Considering that Thousands of lives have died to protect democracy since man kind. Not to mention lives lost in world war I and world war II. It is equality and costs to protect democracy that should be paramount for all media outlets to uphold.

Considering that there are many thousands of refugees fleeing countries that have no democracy, we in Australia should not vote blindly or have it acceptable  or tolerate for the major political parties to stoop low by last minute defamation pamphlets being distributed . No matter if it is the party we normally support or not.

The  Adelaide News paper charges some $14,000 a full page for political advertisements.

Radio 5AA charges about $280 a thirty second commercial. The ministers and shadow ministers of the major parties get free air and paper reporting free of charge. At local government ( Council elections- with only rubbish collection responsibilities ) candidates get about half a page free advertisement in the local Messenger Press. Yet at the higher responsibility of HEALTH, LAW, EDUCATION, DEMOCRACY, independent candidates get zip, nothing.

====================          ====================

March 23^rd. 2010.

To Chairperson

ACCC.

GPO Box 922,

Adelaide         SA       5001.

Reference: Election media coverage discrimination.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I, Joseph Rossi do hereby place a formal complaint regarding the following discrimination implied and effected by the Messenger Press Newspaper group.

My email to Messenger press of the complaint is as follows:

I know full well that the Weekly Times an issue of yours and comes under your responsibility.

I use a very wide brush when organizations are large and policies effect just as wide a community.

Management is responsible to train, issue guide lines and supervise Trainee Journalists.

Management is responsible to maintain equality under our democracy system.

I am extremely worried at the deterioration of the future generation with ever controlling one government management.

.

I have No problem with title Page 4 of the Weekly Times, Headed Transport high on our agenda.

Then the throat bug, the discrimination offence, - Candidates speak out on tram line.

This is the bug.  In general “candidates” include all.  Not some.

You did not mention it referred to “Candidates of Major Parties”

Nor did you stick to major party candidates.  But mentioning RAH.  Greens that are independents are the other offensive parts of the article.

Then under fact file Quick bites Page 5.

The names of who was asked and who responded were not mentioned.  It would have been good if it was mentioned.

These two pages totally gives the impression to the readers that Independent candidates representing within the area in which the Weekly Times was distributed, did not care a dam.

Those Independent candidates if they won the election would not have a clue about trams.

I have found this election Champaign very discriminatory in the Advertiser and the media in general.

The worst undemocratic election I have experienced in 45 years of political involvement in Australia.

Considering that Candidates from major parties are not

(1)    At liberty to issue press statements without the expressed authority and drafted by their head office.

(2)    That the Ministers or shadow ministers of major parties are always given free media space on policies.

(3)    That the major parties are given slash donations or corrupt brown paper bags with money to pay for advertisements.

(4)    Considering that Independent candidates use between $1,200 to $30,000 of their own money to uphold democracy.  It is absolutely unfair morally and Anti- competitive legally.

(5)    Also considering that the State and Federal Constitution has been in my view sabotaged where by originally political candidates were each independent and slowly without referendum but collusion formed political parties as expediency.

In conclusion

I await your confirmation of receipt of this my email and also your considered reply.

Yours sincerely, Joe Rossi. 230310.

One either has and practices 24/7

Or one talks 24/7 about respect and practices

when it suits them.

I find people that want to win at all costs practice the latter. (disloyalty)

I find people that have to win at all costs have no morality.

I find people that want to win at all costs can not be trusted.

I find some people have to win by morality before they win publically and physically.

I find people have to win by morality usually practice it first with family members then with business and publicly.

He who fails privately can not be trusted publically by the voters.

Reference: Comparison Political and religion.

Political.

1.       Political Structure:

(1)   Party Constitution.

(2)   Party Rules.

a)       Party Donors (Gods

b)       The Political Leader

c)       Inner Circle( the selected minders, Interpreters and enforcers of the

Political Principals)

d)       Political Candidates and back Benchers

e)       Voters (the believers)

(3)   Actual conduct of organization.

a)       Party Donors (Gods) select Party Leader.

b)       Party Leader selects party inner circle office bearers

c)       Inner circle office bearers.  Select Party Political Candidates and back Benchers

d)       Inner circle office bearers talks and refers to parts of the party constitution as it suits them.  (10 percent of whole constitutional facts)

e)      Most Party policies are kept secret from the members.

f)        Members are asked to donate but to keep their own views quite.

(4)   Who benefits from organization?

The Party Fund donors.

(5)   Who is out of pocket?

The Party members acting like blind mice.

 ============================

Religion,

1.       Religious Structure:

(1)   The Holy Bible, Koran, or other scriptures.

(2)   A Spiritual Selective named fearful Gods.

(3)   The Spiritual Leader,

a)       Spiritual Party Donors (Beneficiaries) make up the Inner Circle)

b)       Inner Circle (the selected minders, Interpreters and enforcers of the faith)

c)       Inner circle office bearers select the Priests and Church organizers.

d)       Inner circle office bearers talks and refers to parts of the Church doctrines as it suits them.  (10 percent of whole parts only of the Bible or similar )

e)      Congregation ( are the believers )

(6)   Actual conduct of organization.

a)       Party Leader selects himself as a God in the name that is fashionable Leader and appealing to modern day atheists.

b)       Party Leader selects himself from a selection of Bibles, Prophecy scriptures and talks and refers to parts of the Church doctrines as it suits him/her (10 percent of whole parts only of the Bible or similar )

c)       Congregation Party Leader selects himself as a God in the name that is fashionable (are the believers)
Party Leader selects a God’s name that is fashionable and appealing to modern day atheists.

a)       Party Leader selects party inner circle office bearers

b)       Inner circle office bearers become beneficiaries.

c)       Inner circle office bearers Select Promotions of Congregation members

d)      Most spiritual scriptures are kept secret from the members

e)      Members are asked to donate but to keep their own views quite

.

(4)   Who benefits from organization?

The Party Fund donors.

(5)   Who is out of pocket?

The Party members acting like blind mice.

 ============================

Media, news papers, radio, television.

1.       Media Structure:

(1)   Shareholder Owner.

(2)   Journalists ( good, bad, indifferent)

(3)   Editor (Bias)

(4)   Government Minister Advertising revenue.  (Major Political party donors)

(5)   Readers.

2.       What sells newspapers

a)       Criminals doing crime. (Robbery, murder, bashings and prison escapes)

b)       Sports,

c)       Garage sales, second hand cars etcetera.

d)       Sensational Journalism

3.       No room for :

a)       Independent Honest Political State or Federal Candidates.

b)       Good news love stories.

c)       Honest Journalism.

(6)   Who benefits from organization?

The Media owners.

Major Political Parties.

The criminals were kept up to date with Court leniency punishment judgments.

(7)   Who is out of pocket?

The media readers and voters acting like blind mice.

What is the difference between Australian Corrupt Political members of Parliament and the behavior of religious cult Leaders mentioned below.

The dictionary defines cult as "a system of religious worship or ritual"; "devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc." According to this definition, any believer in any god is a member of a cult. In the popular media, a cult is typically defined as a religious sect whose members are "controlled" by a manipulative organization or individual. This kind of cult is usually portrayed

as deceptive, requiring absolute loyalty from its followers. Members are often removed from their prior lives altogether, including their jobs, homes and families. The Hare Krishnas, Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, and Moses David Berg's Family of Love are some popular examples of this type of cult.

Religious Cults: The Christian Perspective
Christians define religious cults from a different perspective. Simply, a cult is any religious group that deviates from the fundamental teachings of the historic, Bible-based, Christian faith as confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds. Generally, if a religious organization follows Jesus Christ, but denies or distorts essential Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the resurrection, or salvation by grace alone, that organization is considered a cult.