By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
VICTORIANS are standing up against municipal tyrants who are imposing spy camera networks that will eventually replicate the Communist Party of China’s total surveillance network with facial recognition and “social credit” scoring for “correct” or “incorrect” behaviour.

A Melbourne (Montmorency) man, who is a member of the My Place community network, has issued his local council and the Victorian Local Government Association with a Notice of Withdrawal of Consent to have his private life monitored by camera networks. The notice employs contract and commercial law principles and has been used in Victoria in several instances – apparently with success.

The Peoples Trust of Victoria, which operates in conjunction with the My Place groups, is reviewing various procedures and appropriate courses of action in relation to fines, rates and land taxes. Members will be advised of future, appropriate action.

In Geelong, local community activist Gary Oraniuk issued a lawful notice (explained in this YouTube video) to the Geelong City Council which was planning an Agenda 20-30-style bike lane on a street that would have effectively wiped out parking that the businesses rely on. The council dropped the plan, which is unusual as councils usually proceed with such projects regardless of so-called public consultations.

The lawful notice in effect warned councillors and staff that they, as paid employees of a corporation with an Australian business number (ABN), would be commercially and personally liable for losses incurred by the businesses. In fact all Australian government employees are corporate employees under the corporatised system of government, which is arguably unconstitutional and illegal.

Cairns News welcomes any comment on that lawful notice process, which is controversial and unlikely to be admitted to as valid by councils, government or the legal fraternity in general. But when silence and the desired non-action follows one being served, the question begs resolution. Given that even a simple letter can carry legal force, it seems likely that a notice employing legal terms does have force.

Oraniuk also plans to notice the Victoria Police and Geelong City Council CEO over the city’s so-called “Eye In The Sky” surveillance system. He argues that the police and council are still liable under their legislated duty of care obligations. The legislated Victoria Police mandate is ‘to protect life and property’ because, “although they are watching potential perpetrators, the fact is that they know these incidents occur, regularly, but will not put boots on the ground and make their presence known, either by day, or at night, on party nights,” Oraniuk says.

The Montmorency (City of Banyule) man David Coman’s notice “withdraws any and all consent to being under surveillance by any device in operation of any council within Banyule or within Victoria including but not limited to facial recognition device, numberplate reading device, audio recording device or GPS… you are noticed: This withdrawal is permanent and not negotiable” and “the undersigned has never willingly agreed to being tracked, monitored by any government or incorporated body…”

The notice states further that the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (No. 21 Part 2) prohibits a person from installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device to record or observe a private activity “to which the person is not a party, without the express or implied consent of each party to the activity”. The penalty is imprisonment (2 years maximum) or a level 7 fine (240 penalty units maximum) or both. In the case of a body corporate it is 1200 penalty units.

It also states: “As the Act states implied consent is considered consent, meaning if the undersigned remains silent then consent is granted, the undersigned now emphatically withdraws any form of consent.”

The notice demands that any and all records that are held by the LGA or councils including Banyule City Council and any arm, or department of the Victorian State Government that include any facial recognition, numberplate recognition, audio recording or GPS location that holds data containing the undersigned’s image, voice or numberplate data be destroyed, with proof of destruction required in the form of a sworn affidavit.

The entities noticed are given 28 working days from the date of receipt of the correspondence to comply, which includes a demand to cease and desist from any further breach of the Victoria Surveillance Devices Act 1999, or from taking any retaliatory action against the undersigned, or any other type of retaliatory harassment or actions.

“Further to paragraph 8, You are requested by the Undersigned to acknowledge receipt of this Notice-of-Withdrawal-of-Consent as well as Your agreement to CEASE AND DESIST from the above-described activities by signing below and returning the signed original document to this office within 28 days from the date of receipt of this correspondence.”

Those noticed are warned that failure to submit the signed acknowledgement of the notice may result in legal action, including the filing of a criminal action or a civil lawsuit. “The Undersigned will continue to monitor the situation to ensure Your compliance with this demand and any further violations of Criminal and or Civil Law, and the Undersigned reserves the right to draw this letter to the attention of a court relevant to any injunctive or related action that may be taken against you and as to costs which may be sought against you…”

The concluding section of the notice offers those noticed to direct any questions to the residential address provided.