Harry Palmer speaks candidly with controversially sacked Senator Rodney Culleton about his rise, fall and pending resurrection in the Australian parliament. How he placed the Senate and High Court squarely behind their created hurdles thought to silence this patriotic, independent politician leading the charge to restore your parliament to the people. This interview is without parallel, riveting in content while exposing the backdoor Rod has opened the establishment thought locked and sealed tight…Click here to hear podcast
Attorney General George Brandis QC next to go: says government insider
We have been made a Republic without a Referendum. The High Court of Australia is not even ashamed of itself for failing to read the Sections 16 and 34(2) Constitution, and the ABC in the form of Anthony Green tweets that those Sections of the Constitution, were exhausted in 1901 with the first Election. In this republic we never agreed to there must be some sort of magic that turns people into gender neutral robots, who fail to understand the plain words of the English language. It is time the whole Parliament, the 76 Senators and 150 members of the House of Representatives met in a joint sitting and asked some hard questions of the seven members of the High Court and the judiciary generally but especially the High Court, because we need these questions answered.
What do you not understand about Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900? It says , This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under this Constitution, Shall be binding on the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State. If the High Court Judges are people, they are bound. If not or they do not understand that the Constitution binds them, and if Anthony Green of the ABC does not understand that he is one of the people referred to in that Section, the Commonwealth and ABC should let them go. If someone who earns $350,000 at least tax free cannot read and understand plain written English, then it is time that we got someone in there who can. That is what S 72 (ii) Constitution provides.
S 16 Constitution deals specifically with the Qualification of Senators, and S 34 (ii) Constitution deals with the qualification of Members of the House of Representatives. These sections say that if they have been in the country five years and owe allegiance to the Queen, they are eligible. Clear straight forward instructions, to the courts judges and people and once again the High Court is defying the Parliament of the Commonwealth and the Laws of the Commonwealth. So too are Judges and Magistrates all over Australia and a regime of institutional theft has been introduced by the States, for the benefit of the States because the High Court needs to go to Specsavers. So too it seems do all the lawyers who had their expenses paid by the Commonwealth and failed to make this argument to the Apex Club sitting at the top of the organised crime gang, presently operating in Australia and severely burdening the people with greater and greater expenses keeping children in poverty, and old people poor while our wealth is exported and the Banks pay huge dividends and make enormous profits.
If the High Court were not really ordinary people and did not have to eat as we do, drink as we do, and die eventually as we do, they would be entitled to consider themselves as Gods. They will all die eventually, they will all retire at seventy, but they should on their performance since 2004, be all sacked after their response to my first question. I asked Senator George Brandis the Commonwealth Attorney General, on the 12th September 2016 why for 12 years they had felt free to defy the Laws of the Commonwealth by leaving the Name of the Queen off all process issued out of the High Court. If they had bona fide set out to correct the High Court Rules 2004, after they admitted they were wrong, then this debacle of supposedly sacking six duly elected Members of Parliament would never have happened. I have incontrovertible evidence on the High Court letterhead that they were advised of this problem in 2006-7 and did nothing for nine more years.
They may look like a Golden Calf, and Act like a Golden Calf, but the same fate as befell those who worshipped that Golden Calf in Exodus, should all make their exodus, with their lives, but little else. The Sins of the High Court are many. They believe, if the Record is examined that they are the Government and the Parliament is an inconvenient nuisance to be ignored. I and every other member of the people of the Commonwealth, have been given authority to call them before the Queen they deny is the Sovereign, the Queen to whom I swore allegiance when I became a Senator. I have got Senator George Brandis as George Henry Brandis before that Queen on criminal charges, and when a person, any person reads S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and then S 147.1 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) it is quite clear that it is a serious crime to put violence on a Commonwealth Public Official. The head -butter who assaulted Tony Abbott is prosecuted by the Australian Federal Police but they have not yet prosecuted the High Court for assaulting by Paper Order they expect to be obeyed, 6 out of the eight sitting Members illegally haled before them, and thrown out of Parliament by them. There is a special punishment prescribed for people who are Judges and Magistrates who assault Members of Parliament. Instead of ten years imprisonment the Parliament says they must get 13 years . It’s all there in black and white.
As for the lawyers of the Commonwealth. Not one of them publicly pointed out that Ss 16 and 34(ii) Constitution make the politically murdered perfectly qualified to be in Parliament. As for the lawyers of the Commonwealth. Not one of them publicly pointed out that Ss 16 and 34 (ii) Constitution mean they are perfectly qualified if they were here for five years and owe allegiance to the Queen. Not one of them.
Lets get to the Court of Disputed Returns. After I attempted to intervene to save the other five elected representatives in this proceedings, by pointing out that S 77 (i) Constitution prohibits the Parliament of the Commonwealth from legislating to define the jurisdiction of the High Court, which it has done in the Court of Disputed Returns, and pointed out that since 1986 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is definitely part of the Laws of the Commonwealth, they ploughed on regardless. The Court of Disputed Returns is illegal and has been ever since it was created. It is being used not for its intended purpose but to intimidate Members of Parliament. It exercises a defined jurisdiction. So intimidated are the Members of both Houses the High Court and Federal Court of Australia have been allowed to get away with political murder.
For 498 years from 1372, to 1870 lawyers were banned from Parliament in the United Kingdom. Perhaps we need a referendum to ban them from this nations Parliament in the House of Representatives. If the best we have can get it so wrong, what are we employing them for? I am a rainmaker. The drought certainly broke for the lawyers I employed to defend me in the High Court and the Federal Court of Australia has arguably by sitting without a jury, which I requested, broken the law in S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) which bans the arbitrary infliction of imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty upon any of us, and a Sequestration Order in Bankruptcy, is a severe deprivation of physical liberty carrying Seventeen Years imprisonment , and this Order of the High Court is another. Where are the Australian Federal Police when we really need them? They should march up to the High Court as Moses did to the worshippers of the Golden Calf, and lay the charges that ought to be laid on them for political murder. A political murder that should not go unpunished in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. It is utter and complete contempt by them for your elected representatives, and must be fixed. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has the power. For our Nations sake it must use it. from Rodney Culleton’s law research team
from Gil Hanrahan in Melbourne
One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, two of her senators and Attorney General George Brandis QC, have had criminal conspiracy charges filed against them in the Melbourne registry of the High Court of Australia.
The complaint was filed by former One Nation WA Senator Rodney Culleton on Friday June 23 and includes former colleagues senators Brian Burston (NSW) and Malcolm Roberts (Qld).
They have been charged under Section 43, Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
The summons will be served by Mr Culleton on Monday, June 26.
Former senator Rodney Culleton, was sacked from the senate on Jan 12 after being found bankrupt by the Federal Court. His brother-in-law Peter Georgiou was nominated by the High Court to sit in his place as a One Nation senator for Western Australia.
Mr Culleton filed criminal charges of intent to attempt to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
Mr Cullleton accused the senators of “seconding a motion in the Senate on the 7th November 2016, to refer the question of the possibility that Rodney Norman Culleton would be subjected to a term of imprisonment by a Magistrate at Armidale, and the Senate did refer the said Rodney Norman Culleton’s eligibility to the High Court.”
The charge further reads “…..and you allowed the matter to continue, even after an agreed Statement of Facts was filed in that Court proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the said Rodney Norman Culleton was never under potential imprisonment and thereby in breach of your sworn public duty, attempted to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
“ (this is) An Offence against S 43 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Under S 129 (5) Evidence Act 1995, the transcript of proceedings in the Senate are admissible against you.”
The charges were filed in support of a notice under 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 of a constitutional matter alleging the Attorney General had withheld the agreed statement of facts of the referral to the courts by a motion instead of a mandated petition which in any case exceeded the 40 day requirement to lodge an objection to the eligibility of a sitting member.
The agreed statements of fact were not filed in the HCA by the Attorney General.
Culleton said the statements of fact clearly show that he would never have been sentenced to imprisonment for the alleged theft of a truck key two years ago.
“I got no say and the agreed facts were never presented to the bench,” he said.
“Brandis should have filed the agreed facts that were signed of off by the Australian Government solicitor stating that I would never have been sentenced.
“Sect 25 (1) (a) of the Crime Sentencing Procedure Act says the local court must not make an order of imprisonment if the offender is absent.
“This matter has never been held at trial but was only based on non-agreed facts put to the HCA by Brandis.
“He has used taxpayers money to unlawfully remove me from senate at the request of the banks.”
No date has yet been set for a hearing.
Senator Hanson was unavailable for comment.
During Culleton’s short tenure sitting in the senate he forced the High Court to restore the Queen in legal process.
He says the restored ‘Queen of Australia’, does not exist. Culleton has been a huge thorn in the side of the banks, calling for a federal inquiry into banking practices after presenting evidence of widespread corruption involving farm foreclosures.
View documents of charges lodged;
Validity of the Australia Act 1986 comes into play
Litigants in all four levels of Australian courts have long complained about spending sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars for lawyers and counsel to wade through thousands of pages of the Corporation law or any other law only to have a single judge throw out their case.
This time around a high profile victim of judicial chicanery, the erstwhile senator, Rod Culleton, wants natural justice after his brush with a bankruptcy finding.
A single judge of The High Court of Australia, or the Federal Supreme Court, on March 2, 2017 struck out Culleton’s appeal against bankruptcy, previously handed down by the Full Bench of the Federal Court.
“I am outraged and disappointed Justice Patrick Keane of the High Court did not ever read my written submissions yet he handed down his finding in spite of me asking for more time to prepare,” Mr Culleton said.
Coincidentally, March 2, 2017 was the 12 month anniversary when he was convicted of larceny in absentia in the Armidale Magistrates Court over the disappearance of a truck key worth $7.50, a charge for which he would not ever have been jailed.
“My counsel clearly told Justice Keane that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with my position in the senate,” he said.
“Counsel told the court only the senate could deal with it and Justice Keane only had to read Section 47 of the Constitution which says any question over the qualification of a senator or a member of either House, ‘….shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.’
“The High Court says it gets its power from the unlawful Australia Act 1986 which was introduced two years after a referendum of Australian people said they did not want the Commonwealth to give its powers to the States.
“This referendum failed but here we have the High Court using powers the states should not have such as the denial of juries.”
The senate should be dealing with the validity of the Australia Act 1986 and this would result in Western Australia getting its fair share of GST revenue and preventing the sale of Australian freehold land to foreign governments.
“The people continue to say no to foreign buyers but the Liberals and Labor keep selling off our land,” he said.
“There is a huge cloud over the judicial system and my matter should be used as an example in the senate to clean it up.”
Comment from a reader, Howard, which is worthy of publication:
To hell with them alright, they are unfaithful usurpers and abusers of power who themselves will not acknowledge or respect law unless it is their own invention but they claim the claims of true law yet not only ignore their vows to the queen who evidently sets the example by ignoring her vows to God (legislatively recognised as the Lord Jesus Christ) and together they walk hand in hand with the Vatican to enforce legislated law that has been invented in parliament by a code that recognises the roman pontiff as God and thus, these usurpers embrace and endorse the very entity that once was universally recognised as the anti Christ eg true enemy of the legitimate head of the true and legitimate commonwealth. Whilst brutally enforcing their law they claim the authority from which their law comes doesn’t really matter. We have been manipulated into a western roman government system but in fact our legitimate government should be decidedly Christian , thus we are meant to have rights and to be ruled by moral principle but instead commercial contracts are being brutally and deceptively forced on us and that is what happened to our right of self determination. Once we are manipulated into the situation where an accused is considered guilty unless they prove otherwise as is typical of many state penalty based systems like traffic fines, then we have lost self determination. It means you can wake in the morning having stayed at home and ‘determined’ to not get involved in anything, yet, another can accuse you and you are required to defend or pay up. In such a situation (for example) you have no say in your involvement and no determination in your life, the state takes over.
by Robert J Lee in Canberra
Embattled Western Australia independent Senator Rodney Culleton has accused the Attorney General of “total incompetence” for referring him to the High Court to determine if he had been disqualified from entering the senate after the July 2 election.
A petition to the Federal Court from Perth businessman Dick Lester to have Senator Culleton declared bankrupt over alleged debts could only be determined by the senate.
He said the Attorney General was “out of his depth” in referring the matter to the High Court.
“Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia is quite plain when it says ‘until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member,…. and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.’” Senator Culleton explained.
“Quite clearly the judge was wrong in making a Sequestration Order to seize or freeze my assets especially after my lawyer told Justice Barker that sufficient funds had been deposited into his trust account to cover any alleged debt.
“The antics of Justice Michael Barker whose Court was described as a ‘circus’ by the Western Australia Newspaper and the efforts to frustrate the will of the people of Western Australia who have duly elected a Senator are matters that must now be faced by Attorney General George Brandis and the offending judge in the Senate.
“A referral to the High Court can only occur under the Electoral Act. There is no law which can refer a question like this to a court. This is a job for the Senate.
“The senate must consider Section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act which brings in the Bill of Rights 1688 that guarantees jury trial and appeals to Parliament.”
Senator Culleton says he has the numbers to call the judge and Attorney General before the Bar of the senate to show cause why they should not be sacked.
Primary producers, small business and truck operators who had been gutted by the banks and lost their properties and lifetime’s work through similar court proceedings would benefit enormously from this manoeuvre, he said.
Rod Culleton, One Nation senator for Western Australia puts the Attorney General and the High Court on notice: the HCA been acting unlawfully since 1979
HCA agrees to amend its Rules: the banks could owe the Commonwealth $30 billion in fines
David with his slingshot , aka WA One Nation senator Rod Culleton, launched his first question in the Senate at Goliath’s Attorney General George Brandis that shattered the halls of power.
Culleton’s legal team had discovered Constitutional flaws in the High Court Rules and the response from the Attorney General confirms the HCA Rules Committee will make amendments to bring the rules into line with the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act 1900.
This decision begs the question, what effect will this have on every matter that has been before the HCA over the past 37 years?
The Question asked in the senate that rattled the High Court:
“Chapter III of the Constitution creates a Federal Supreme Court to be called the High Court. Could the Attorney General please explain to the Senate how the High Court of Australia Act 1979, complies with the first paragraph of Chapter III Constitution and why when the Federal Supreme Court in the United States overturned sixty seven Statutes between 1952 and 1998 when the book, The Judicial Process (which I have) was last printed, the High Court in Australia hardly overturned any at all, because they have been allowed to make Rules of Court preventing ordinary Australians going to them for Judicial Review of alleged breaches of the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth.”
George Brandis, reflecting on his arrogance with ignorance, smirking while congratulating Culleton on his question, attempting to distract from his own, obvious limited legal ability, then answered:
“I will refer the question to the High Court rules committee”.
While the new age of crossbench politicians continue to threaten the establishment, this farmer, now a senator, needed to be taught a lesson. Brandis was well aware Rod Culleton had admitted guilt to the theft of truck keys worth $7.50 during an altercation with a tow truck driver thug who attacked him while trying to repossess his truck before he was elected to the senate.
Brandis referred the application to the High Court on direction from ALP and LNP senators requesting a ruling if Culleton was an eligible candidate at the July 2nd 2016 election.
The problem facing the establishment’s attempt to get rid of bank-bashing Culleton is a lower court’s decision on appeal to annul Culleton’s conviction for larceny.
Rod Culleton’s question to the Attorney General was answered by the High Court:
Brandis congratulated Culleton for pointing out to the senate the existing rules did not conform to the Constitution. His hand written congratulatory note appears below
From Peter Gargan, legal affairs advisor to Senator Rodney Culleton, One Nation Senator for Western Australia:
Since 1952, the High Court has been refusing to file process unless it first approves of it, so we have no way of judicially reviewing the Commissioners appointed by the Parliament to execute and maintain the Laws of the Commonwealth. There are four Commissioners who should be Judicially reviewed and sacked. They are the Commissioner of theAustralian Federal Police on $600,000 per year, who has allowed State Police to terrorise the populations in breach of S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 in force since 2001, and has allowed the Judiciary of both the States and Commonwealth to sit as slave masters without juries, in their civil jurisdiction in breach of S 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995.
S 12DJ of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 bans harassment and coercion in respect of loans from Banks, and the ASIC Commissioner has the power to collect $1,300,000 per offence from all the Banks when they use harassment and coercion to collect loans on which they have been manufacturing defaults. I estimate there is around thirty billion dollars owing to the Commonwealth, if that Commissioner was doing his job properly.
S 44ZZRA — of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 empowers the Commissioner for Consumer Protection to smash the cartel with the High Court at its head. People who use legal services are consumers, and because this cartel extends from the tiniest solicitor through Judges and Magistrates to the High Court the refusal to accept process to judicially review this lazy person, has allowed thousands of productive people to be destroyed by the cartel whose biggest clients are drug dealers, Banks and Insurance Companies who will not willingly pay, even if a premium has been paid for years.
The fourth Commissioner who should be immediately Judicially Reviewed is the Commissioner for Human Rights. She has the duty to enforce the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. In Article 14 there is a Statutory Command drawn straight out of the New Testament that all persons shall be equal before the law. That section is an element of the Offence against S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995, so there can be no doubt it is a law. If that law was enforced every criminal would be entitled to be tried with a jury and also sentenced by a jury. Civil Litigants would no longer be second class citizens subject to arbitrary and ridiculous orders from Judges and Magistrates depriving them of their driving licences, their properties, and in some cases their children, on application from people who can afford the services of the Cartel.
Further if the High Court had not been in contempt of the Parliament for 64 years, S 90 of the Constitution would see car registration abolished, as car registration is an internal tax on goods, as are licence fees to drive cars, and the exclusive responsibility of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Likewise if they had not been in contempt, the Fines Registry in every State, the subject of Political Protests from people who have no means to pay such fines, would have to be immediately abolished as they Offend S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) in that they are acting on the pockets of Australians without the sanction of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. That is about nine billion dollars that should no longer be owing. The Commonwealth would have to put a little more excise on fuel, to build the roads we need and Ferries needed to give Tasmanians equality of transport.
I attach for your perusal the brilliant Speech given by Alfred Deakin in 1902 which tells us what we should have as a High Court. It was to be head of an Independent Australian Judiciary separate from any State Parliaments influence. That it has been in contempt since 1952, has allowed all sorts of skulduggery to take place in Queensland , Western Australia, New south Wales and Victoria, where Rules of Court are held to overrule any prior inconsistent Act depriving the people of Australia of the Rule of Law, and substituting instead The Rule of Lawyers.
click the book.
Dark clouds are gathering over the duopoly dictatorship with One Nation unearthing the High Court of Australia dismissing the rule book and running their own race.
This video of the senate show attorney general Brandis running for cover to the question from Senator Culleton;
“It has come to my attention that there is a discrepancy between Section 33 of the High Court Act 1979 which says all process shall (which means must) be issued in the name of the Queen and the High Court Rules 2004. Why has the High Court felt free to defy the Parliament for 12 years?”
Abbott is asking innocent law-abiding phone users to allow the mother of all police states to keep phone and net data
Nick Ross ABC Technology and Games Updated 20 Feb 2015 (First posted 19 Feb 2015)
Google shows you exactly where you were and when. Soon the government will know this too.
- Related Story: Why are people so worried about data retention and the National Security Inquiry? Nick Ross 28 Sep 2012
If politicians talking about metadata storage bore you to tears, perhaps you’d be interested in seeing how the tedious talk translates into reality? Thanks to Google, we can see exactly what’s in store for all Australians because it’s been doing this – often without people knowing – for years already.
For many people in Australia, clicking the following link will make them gasp.
For the increasingly few of us who haven’t used a Google account on a smartphone (or who currently haven’t signed in), what you’d be looking at is your Location History plotted on a map. Unless you’ve actively taken steps to stop it, Google has been automatically recording of your location every 45 seconds and time stamping each coordinate.
It’s amazingly easy to search where you were on which day: there’s a calendar in the top left, there are individual days below it, clicking on the times (to the second) below them instantly zooms you into your exact location on the map. Beneath the map is a timeline for the month which lets you quickly zoom into specific areas and clicking on the dots on the map shows you exactly what time you were there. Awesome, right?
Here it is up close. This is part of my (now very public) trip down to Bowral. My position has been recorded every 45 seconds. You can literally go back in time and see if I was speeding!
But while you can opt out of this Google tracking and delete your history, the government is wanting to store all of this information (and a whole lot more) for at least two years in the name of preventing crime, terrorism, child abuse etc. You don’t even need to have a smartphone, any mobile will do. What’s more, any law-enforcement official can access it without a warrant. The potential applications are mind boggling.
Simple apps could be developed that worked out who was speeding, when and where – whether it’s a motorway or a School Zone – and there’d be no escape. It would be like a national-level, Average Speed Camera. It could possibly even help to reduce traffic by removing persistent offenders from the roads.
But that’s not all. If you’ve heard businesses talk about Big Data in recent years, you’d be aware that analytics software is all the rage nowadays. With so much data gathered from the Australian populace, all kinds of correlations and interconnections could be made. The potential for catching criminals and spying on people is off the scale. [Update: Thanks to Twitter user @fijma for providing the link to this fascinating explainer of metadata analytics and how it could have been used to discover Paul Revere.]
Just think of the fun you could have with all that information and some low-level programming skills which, say, automatically went through records and found search terms for people’s embarrassing medical problems (which would also be stored as metadata) with nearby trips to doctors’ offices, clinics or hospitals.
You could find out where people of note spend their time, whether they’re celebrities, politicians, criminals, journalists, whistleblowers, ex-girlfriends or husbands. You could see what shock-jocks get up to when they’re not on the radio? Which celebrities are meeting up with other celebrities and at which times of day? Or night. You’d be able to set up alerts if someone went somewhere unusual or to a location they shouldn’t be near.
Turning your phone off only highlights gaps in the timeline and draws attention to areas in which you’ve been. Imagine, for instance, analytics being able to identify all phones that get turned off for an hour in the exact same location as brothels?
With no warrant needed, this is all easily available to bored police officers and officials. Presumably related professionals such as private investigators could make enquiries too.
It could even help clean up politics. If a high-powered politician wanted to see who another rival was speaking to or meeting with, it would be simple to find out. Police officers themselves would have to be on exemplary terms with all of their colleagues, overseers and underlings. The same goes for their spouses.
If this sounds hard to swallow, it’s worth noting that as we wrote this article a police whistleblower contacted the ABC’s Download This Show and said that the lack of oversight is already causing this to happen.
Nobody will be able to hide from anything: people they’ve met, places they’ve been or how long they were there and who they called. Going back years. Criminals couldn’t leave phones at home, turn them off or post them somewhere else: alibis would have to be established by sending phones on a believable, trackable journey.
Hopefully the information will be securely stored and not get hacked. One can only imagine what would happen with scurrilous dirt and location information getting into the hands of cyber criminals, extortionists, bored hackers looking for laughs, suspicious employers, journalists, paedophiles, terrorists and the like. But grand-scale hacks only happen a few dozen times per year.
Going off grid might sound like an option but is it really possible to do that in this day and age? The average Australian already has five connected devices and smartphone penetration is already at 75 per cent. While not everyone has a connected watch, it will be normal soon: the explosion of the Internet of Things will soon see all sorts of appliances and things like your car connected online.
Many people would freak out at the thought of having all movements recorded. Those who aren’t familiar with tech tend not to question policies that sound tedious and claim to prevent crime, terrorism and child molesting. But there are fleas which come with this hi-tech guard dog and the above merely describes just one small area of what’s going to be collected.
[Update: Extra links and info from social media discussion]
This article is being discussed on reddit, here.
The iPhone has something similar anyway. Just go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services > System Services > Frequent Locations (You can also disable it – and it is even creepier because it can tell when you were actually there or just passing through and it knows EXACTLY when you arrive and leave.) From doggie015
Crikey – Data retention will hurt YOU, not criminals. Here’s how via kqqw
TED Talk – Malte Spitz – Your phone company is watching via sciencetaco