"Financial" and the Just Us system
Financial is probably a trademarked word / name of a corporate entity.
I have to make it clear that I'm not referring to that.
Put simply: This is for entertainment only, not financial or legal advice.



Have you wondered:
• Why you're always running out of money (that you worked for) after barely covering basic living expenses?
• How the government blows billions and trillions of dollars to build a bridge or building, and it takes ages to build, and it isn't done properly? It's kind of like there's a black hole budget involved - the money is going elsewhere.
• The government imposes insane fines for breaking laws that don't make any sense, yet kids get off on rampage sprees?

Alot of stuff doesn't add up.
If you still haven't figured out what I'm talking about, you're where they want you. They insist on entertaining and vaccinating people in order to reduce their IQ and critical thinking skills. I rely on summaries and pattern recognition.

Now for the rest of you who have at least half a brain:
Remember this is for entertainment only, not financial or legal advice.
I'm sharing what I've learned from, recompiled with reasoning and logic. It may not be complete and / or entirely accurate but the cracks in the justice system have become increasingly apparent.

The government has their own definitions of words. It's all contract law. Public and private. They change definitions of words to suit them and no normal person (that's another word where they can get you with multiple definitions) would know otherwise.
When you turn the semantics on its side, you have half a chance.
If they see that you're living it up above what's considered a basic lifestyle, watch out.

Cost of living crisis?
Cost of government crisis.
Why do they have your name in all capital letters?
Is there some other entity or interpretation they don't want you knowing about?
Is it a way out for the government if they aren't getting their way against you?
If you've heard this theory before, I'm saying it only has a limited scope of how far it works, not as far as what others hype it up to be.


Some court cases in Australia have unjust outcomes and the cracks in the justice (Just Us) system are becoming increasingly prevalent.
Tickle vs Giggle is a classic example. I'm sure the problem is worldwide but this is a new low.

There's stuff that the government isn't disclosing.
A contract without full disclosure is invalid.
If they fail to address your questions, you can deem it to be true (usually by writing an affidavit document).
You can then recontract on your terms.

Taxes:
You work and earn money. Your employer gives the tax department their share before you get your portion of earnings. You have to sort it out with the tax department at the end of the financial year.
They say you can only so much in costs associated with working.
If you're a cash cow for the government, you have every right to claim every cost. Tools, travel, food, and whatever else is necessary.
Given the risk that the government can take your stuff or drop a large fine on you for whatever reason they want (heck, they can even strike you multiple times for the same thing if they wanted to), you should also be "allocating whatever is leftover as an insurance" for such, to an extent that your taxable income is below the taxable threshold. One method could include donating to a "private trust".
You have to spend money to make money, and being poor is an expensive lifestyle.
Of if you work for yourself, consider what a dollar is worth. The industry benchmarks are certainly out of touch with basic living. Could it be as simple as scaling your numbers back to being within the benchmarks where your income is below the taxable threshold? Given the risk of government fines, you're probably not going to ever be profitable at all.
Most people aren't aware of their rights. Taxable income is an indication of profit. People may see a cost of living crisis in thinking they're doing the "right thing", but the government sees that most people are doing great and wastes the money accordingly.
If you can't afford basic things, you need a better accountant (tax agent), or as they say, "if you want something, do it yourself".
They call them tax agents because they're agents for the tax department.

Traffic fines:
They say if you don't speed (or insert other here), you won't have any problems.
Not necessarily.
They can get you on a glitch and they don't have to prove it in court.
You signed up for a driver licence thinking it would be assurance to others that you're competent to drive.
They didn't tell you that you'd be signing a blank cheque.
They have guns. They can take your car and belongings if you don't register with them. That's a contract under duress and without full disclosure. You can turn the tables and use that contract to work your tax return to your benefit.
The government can fine you for whatever they want, whenever they want. Fined for a non-traffic issue? They can disqualify you from driving if you're unable to pay the fine, and it could be in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's a commercial contract.
The government will tax you against what profit they think you're going to make.
You can counterclaim against what losses you think you're going to incur (categorised as self insurance or potential losses).
The number plate recognition cameras work process in infrared and only use colour as a visual overlay / indication. If you have infrared filters over your licence plates, it reduces the visibility in the infrared spectrum. Your plates remain visible in the visible light spectrum. You're legal.

Public and Private:
Some "health" products online are sold with the disclaimer that they are not for human use. That's just a public disclaimer so they can cover themselves. If you've researched it, you know you'll be able to safely use the stuff. That's just one example.
Another example is how the government has excessive budgets for things - where is the rest of the money going? Or why does Wayfair have a mixture of reasonably priced items and some other items of the same are obscenely expensive?
It's all wording and semantics.
Trusts are usually public. When they say "offshore bank account", do they really mean in the private?
Food for thought - get creative.

Your assets:
Your car, your house: Are they really yours?
You soon find out who really owns your car the moment you allow your registration to expire.
You soon find out who really owns your house the moment you stop paying council rates.
The government lists your name in all capital letters. Banks do the same. Is that you or someone else they're referring to?
If Joe Blow opens up a restaurant called McDonalds, they'll probably be right for a while, until the real McDonalds comes along and breaches them for infringement of trademark. The same is true with your name. It seems the government has created an entity using your name - opening a loophole they can abuse if they wanted to.

For personal debts (not mortgages or secured loans): If a bank / debt collector drags you before the court for questioning them on whether your signature created the money, bring the all caps person into question. They won't answer it but they'll still black list you for 5 years or so. You then can write an affidavit document, file it, and you then have legal grounds to omit whatever assets you want from them when they require you to list them in an enforcement hearing. You can drip feed them as little as low as $2 (tax deductible) per month and they can only collect on it for so long. As for your house, put it in a trust. Once you have your affidavit, you have the right to fabricate a proof of rental residence document because they've refused to tell the truth on where the debt obligation came from and you've pulled them up on it - all are equal before the law. Your information is true and correct because that's how you've recontracted with them and by their silence they have agreed to it.
The courts:
Sometimes the courts will throw a hearing out if they think you're wasting their time.
You can proceed as you'd normally expect, under duress.
They want you to enter into a contract with them.
Acting under duress means you can pull them up on it and amend it later on.
A contract without full disclosure is invalid.