Terms of Use of this Website

Disclaimer and Site Context

The content on this website comprises my personal, lived experiences, disclosed under the protection of the relevant Public Interest Disclosure Acts. Please be advised that some material may be disturbing.

This site is continually updated as new evidence and developments emerge. It also employs advanced artificial intelligence—with models such as 

• OpenAI GPT-4
• HuggingFace Transformers
• Spacy en-core-web
• Google T5
• NLPAUEB Legal BERT—

to analyze data objectively. These AI tools are trained on various legal datasets, including HFforLegal, lexpredict, lighteval, pile-of-law, CognifuseRL, and multiple umarbutler legal corpora.

I continue to face ongoing retaliations and interferences, particularly from state actors undermining the course of justice. This website was created under duress, amid the threat of a fourth unlawful imprisonment.

This site is established under the following statutes, which empower any individual to make disclosures or inquiries in the public interest:

• Victoria:
   
  • Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012: Defines improper conduct, police complaint disclosures, and allows any person to report detrimental actions.
  • Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011: Permits public reporting of corrupt conduct and protects whistleblowers.
  • Ombudsman Act 1973: Enables anyone to raise administrative concerns.
  • Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006: Upholds human rights obligations.
• Commonwealth:
   
  • Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013: Covers disclosures related to Commonwealth agencies.
  • Corporations Act 2001: Allows public disclosure of corporate misconduct and provides whistleblower protections.
  • Freedom of Information Act 1982: Grants the public access to government information.
  • Ombudsman Act 1976: Authorizes the raising of administrative concerns.
• Constitutional Provisions:
   
  • Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act: Empowers Parliament to legislate for the peace, order, and good government of the nation, ensures executive accountability, and sets out the resolution of inconsistencies between state and federal laws.

State capture occurs when external interests—whether private sector entities, criminal networks, or other groups—exert undue influence over government policies and institutions to serve their own financial or strategic goals. This is achieved through corrupt practices like bribery or extortion, and differs from regulatory capture by affecting multiple government branches rather than just regulatory bodies.

I have preserved my grievances against the alleged respondents over many years to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing. The allegations presented here represent only one side of the matter and should not be seen as denying the right of the accused to a fair trial before an independent judiciary. Past cases, such as Borg v R [2020], AB v CD [2018], Slaveski v Victoria [2010], R v Marafioti (2014), Slattery v Manningham City Council [2013], and Coroneos v Medical Board [2001], remind us that behaviors perceived as unusual should not automatically be equated with criminality.