An explosive investigation examines newly surfaced Epstein files, alleging decades-long institutional failure, judicial protection, and government inaction. Drawing on official documents and testimony, the investigation questions whether legal institutions tasked with protecting children instead enabled abuse, suppressed evidence, and shielded powerful figures from accountability.

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?

On the Code Black podcast, Madison King dives into Australia’s long-running foreign aid commitments, questioning why tens of millions of dollars have been sent overseas — including to Afghanistan — while transparency, accountability, and domestic needs remain hotly debated. Featuring discussion around Foreign Minister Penny Wong and the Australian Government’s aid priorities, the episode challenges listeners to rethink where public money goes, who it serves, and who decides.

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?

As of now, I’m putting my full support behind Pauline Hanson.

Yesterday’s vote was a strategic play by both the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party — and if you’ve been following my last four posts, you already know that. Australians have been duped.

What people need to understand is this: Liberal and Labor are no longer opposing forces — they’re closing ranks. And right now, they’re closing in on Pauline Hanson because she’s popular, gaining momentum, and resonating with voters.

I believe Liberal and Labor will preference each other at the next election, because at the rate Pauline Hanson is going, one of those two parties is at risk of being pushed out. That’s no longer speculation — it’s evident, and the public support is growing.

And here’s the part people need to act on.

You don’t need to post hate.
You don’t need to argue.

You block. You unfollow. You delete.

You remove their voices the same way they’ve removed ours. That’s power. Quiet, collective, lawful power.

And if I run for politics again, I won’t be joining the old machinery.
I’ll be running my own party — unless something changes in the next 12 months. #australia #fypシ #viral

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?

Protecting 3rd Party who instructed Australian Electorial Commission to interfer with my platform during the Federal Election Last Year.  
Documents are located in last post CBMK 23 Jan 2026 No 54
From the AEC FOI decision:
Page 1 — The AEC confirms my FOI request relates to documents about the “removal or restriction of my social media content by Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook and Instagram).”
Pages 3–6 — The AEC refuses to release full details of how decisions were made or how communications with platforms occurred, citing internal deliberations, operational harm, and third-party business secrecy.
Pages 1–2 — The AEC expressly states it “did not contact TikTok in relation to my account.”
They disclose TikTok.
They refuse to fully disclose Meta.
What has happened to me raises serious questions about transparency, fairness, and democratic integrity in Australia.
A government authority withholding information from a federal election candidate, while actions are taken that restrict that candidate’s ability to reach the public, strikes at the core of our democracy. When political communication is curtailed, hidden, or selectively enforced, the public’s right to freely choose their representatives is undermined.
Under the Australian Constitution, sections 7 and 24 give rise to an implied freedom of political communication. That freedom exists so the people can hear competing political views and make informed choices at elections. Any action that burdens that freedom — particularly during or leading into an election — must be lawful, proportionate, and transparent.
I was penalised for social media posts well before I had even applied to run as a candidate, at a time when I was not subject to electoral authorisation requirements. Those penalties later followed me into my candidacy. That raises serious concerns about jurisdiction, retrospectivity, and fairness.
During my campaign, my content was restricted in a way that disproportionately affected Western Australia, despite my audience being national. This explains why, throughout the election period, the majority of my engagement came from the east coast. Yet immediately after the election — between 3 May and 1 June — I gained approximately 50,000 followers, demonstrating that the suppression of my reach was not organic, but lifted once the election had passed.
Despite this, restrictions and compliance notices remain attached to my Facebook and Instagram accounts. My reach has remained capped at approximately 86,000 followers since November, with people continuing to be removed from my page. I have been penalised for music content despite agreements being in place, and despite repeated correspondence with Meta.
The seriousness of this cannot be overstated. These actions may have materially interfered with my ability to campaign and with the public’s ability to hear from me. They did not just affect my candidacy — they affected the democratic process itself.
I have been forced to escalate this issue beyond Australia, including contacting United States senators, due to the lack of accountability and transparency shown by both Meta and Australian regulatory bodies, including the eSafety Commissioner.
If someone like me — who has fought to break cycles of disadvantage, who grew up in poverty, who has worked relentlessly to create a voice and platform — can be undermined in this way, then what message is being sent to Australians who dare to challenge the status quo?
What message does this send to children in Australia who grow up believing that hard work, integrity, and courage matter?

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?

Plain-English Summary of Every Schedule

This appendix is a navigation map, not the deep dive.
Each Schedule below tells people what to pay attention to and why.

🔴 SCHEDULE 1 — Criminal Law Amendments (Speech & Expression)
What it does

Increases penalties for using postal or carriage services (internet, phone, messaging, social media) to “menace, harass or cause offence”.

Expands racial vilification offences.

Lowers the bar from intent to impact or risk.

Why it matters

“Offence” is subjective.

Online speech becomes criminal without a clear intent to harm.

Protests, political commentary, memes, reposts, and private messages can all be captured.

What Australians lose

Clear free political communication protections.

The requirement that criminal intent be proven.

🔴 SCHEDULE 2 — Intelligence, Privacy & Data Sharing (ASIO / ACC / ACIC)
What it does

Exempts ASIO and ACC from spent-conviction protections.

Allows use of pardoned, quashed, or spent convictions.

Overrides State and Territory privacy laws.

Allows intelligence use without court oversight.

Why it matters

Your past never dies.

Information can be shared across agencies indefinitely.

No meaningful appeal process.

What Australians lose

Rehabilitation protections.

Privacy finality.

Judicial oversight.

🔴 SCHEDULE 3 — Customs & Prohibited Material
What it does

Expands what is considered “prohibited material”.

Allows seizure of goods based on future risk or suspected use, not actual illegality.

Applies to imports and exports.

Why it matters

Material can be seized before a crime exists.

Academic, journalistic, or research material can be caught.

“Purpose” is assessed by authorities, not courts.

What Australians lose

Presumption of lawful ownership.

Protection against arbitrary seizure.

🔴 SCHEDULE 4 — Firearms (THIS IS THE BIG ONE)

This Schedule is huge and deliberately fragmented.

PART 1 — Firearms Background Checks (Buyback-Style Powers)
What it does

Allows firearms decisions based on intelligence assessments, not convictions.

Intelligence assessments are not reviewable in normal courts.

Uses ACIC / AFP / police intelligence, not judicial findings.

The loophole

Decisions shift from Parliaments & Premiers to:

Police Commissioners

Federal Ministers

National frameworks

This bypasses the John Howard model, where all States had to agree.

Why it matters

This is how a de facto buyback can occur without State votes.

PART 2 — Firearms Background Checks (Expanded Agencies)

ASIO, ACC, ACIC gain expanded authority.

“Risk” replaces “crime”.

Rights lost: due process.

Fallout from overseas conflicts.

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?

Let’s kill the lie once and for all.

This bill did not appear overnight.

It existed before 2025, and it passed with support from Labor, Liberal, Greens, and Nationals.

That means every party already had the bill.

They had it before the first vote, during the 2025 passage, and after.

What just happened was not a new law — it was a wording tweak built on legislation they had already read, debated, and voted for.
So the claim that senators were “given the bill on the day” is absolute rubbish.

They had time.

📌 FACT CHECK FIRST - They had the bill for YEARS before the 20th January 2026

Every Senator had a copy of this bill at least a year ago.
This legislation was circulated, briefed, and well-known before the vote.

Being absent does not mean being unaware.
It means letting it pass without stopping it.

🔵 Liberal Party — Voting Record on the Hate Speech Bill
✅ VOTED YES
Wendy Askew (TAS)
Andrew Bragg (NSW)
Michaelia Cash (WA)
Claire Chandler (TAS)
Sarah Henderson (VIC)
Linda Reynolds (WA)
Paul Scarr (QLD)
Dave Sharma (NSW)
🚫 ABSENT (Let the bill pass anyway)
Andrew McLachlan (SA)
Leah Blyth (SA)
Slade Brockman (WA)
Richard Colbeck (TAS)
Jonathon Duniam (TAS)
David Fawcett (SA)
Hollie Hughes (NSW)
Jane Hume (VIC)
Maria Kovacic (NSW)
Kerrynne Liddle (SA)
Matt O’Sullivan (WA)
James Paterson (VIC)
Anne Ruston (SA)
Dean Smith (WA)

❗ WHAT THIS ACTUALLY MEANS
The Liberal Party had the bill.
The Liberal Party knew the bill.
Some voted YES.

The rest stayed ABSENT — which helped it pass.
👉 Absence is not neutrality. It’s consent.
This voting pattern shows the Liberals were never meaningfully opposed.

They either backed it openly — or stepped aside quietly.
ONE LINE FOR YOUR AUDIENCE

“They all had the bill. Some voted yes. The rest didn’t bother turning up — and that tells you everything.”

Andrew Hastie, the Liberals, Nationals, Labor, and Greens all had this bill THREE times.

• 2024 — first draft

• February 2025 — voted on it

• 20 January 2026 — final passage

So the story that they “only got the bill on the day” is absolute nonsense.

This legislation was already passed last year, with the consent of every major party.

Nothing about this was rushed.
Nothing about this was accidental.

If they’re pretending they didn’t know — that should tell you everything.

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?

Protecting 3rd Party who instructed Australian Electorial Commission to interfer with my platform during the Federal Election Last Year.  

Documents are located in last post CBMK 23 Jan 2026 No 54

From the AEC FOI decision:

Page 1 — The AEC confirms my FOI request relates to documents about the “removal or restriction of my social media content by Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook and Instagram).”

Pages 3–6 — The AEC refuses to release full details of how decisions were made or how communications with platforms occurred, citing internal deliberations, operational harm, and third-party business secrecy.

Pages 1–2 — The AEC expressly states it “did not contact TikTok in relation to my account.”

They disclose TikTok.

They refuse to fully disclose Meta.

What has happened to me raises serious questions about transparency, fairness, and democratic integrity in Australia.

A government authority withholding information from a federal election candidate, while actions are taken that restrict that candidate’s ability to reach the public, strikes at the core of our democracy. When political communication is curtailed, hidden, or selectively enforced, the public’s right to freely choose their representatives is undermined.

Under the Australian Constitution, sections 7 and 24 give rise to an implied freedom of political communication. That freedom exists so the people can hear competing political views and make informed choices at elections. Any action that burdens that freedom — particularly during or leading into an election — must be lawful, proportionate, and transparent.

I was penalised for social media posts well before I had even applied to run as a candidate, at a time when I was not subject to electoral authorisation requirements. Those penalties later followed me into my candidacy. That raises serious concerns about jurisdiction, retrospectivity, and fairness.

During my campaign, my content was restricted in a way that disproportionately affected Western Australia, despite my audience being national. This explains why, throughout the election period, the majority of my engagement came from the east coast. Yet immediately after the election — between 3 May and 1 June — I gained approximately 50,000 followers, demonstrating that the suppression of my reach was not organic, but lifted once the election had passed.

Despite this, restrictions and compliance notices remain attached to my Facebook and Instagram accounts. My reach has remained capped at approximately 86,000 followers since November, with people continuing to be removed from my page. I have been penalised for music content despite agreements being in place, and despite repeated correspondence with Meta.

The seriousness of this cannot be overstated. These actions may have materially interfered with my ability to campaign and with the public’s ability to hear from me. They did not just affect my candidacy — they affected the democratic process itself.

I have been forced to escalate this issue beyond Australia, including contacting United States senators, due to the lack of accountability and transparency shown by both Meta and Australian regulatory bodies, including the eSafety Commissioner.

If someone like me — who has fought to break cycles of disadvantage, who grew up in poverty, who has worked relentlessly to create a voice and platform — can be undermined in this way, then what message is being sent to Australians who dare to challenge the status quo?

What message does this send to children in Australia who grow up believing that hard work, integrity, and courage matte

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?

Let’s kill the lie once and for all.

This bill did not appear overnight.

It existed before 2025, and it passed with support from Labor, Liberal, Greens, and Nationals.

That means every party already had the bill.

They had it before the first vote, during the 2025 passage, and after.

What just happened was not a new law — it was a wording tweak built on legislation they had already read, debated, and voted for.
So the claim that senators were “given the bill on the day” is absolute rubbish.

They had time.

📌 FACT CHECK FIRST - They had the bill for YEARS before the 20th January 2026

Every Senator had a copy of this bill at least a year ago.
This legislation was circulated, briefed, and well-known before the vote.

Being absent does not mean being unaware.
It means letting it pass without stopping it.

🔵 Liberal Party — Voting Record on the Hate Speech Bill
✅ VOTED YES
Wendy Askew (TAS)
Andrew Bragg (NSW)
Michaelia Cash (WA)
Claire Chandler (TAS)
Sarah Henderson (VIC)
Linda Reynolds (WA)
Paul Scarr (QLD)
Dave Sharma (NSW)
🚫 ABSENT (Let the bill pass anyway)
Andrew McLachlan (SA)
Leah Blyth (SA)
Slade Brockman (WA)
Richard Colbeck (TAS)
Jonathon Duniam (TAS)
David Fawcett (SA)
Hollie Hughes (NSW)
Jane Hume (VIC)
Maria Kovacic (NSW)
Kerrynne Liddle (SA)
Matt O’Sullivan (WA)
James Paterson (VIC)
Anne Ruston (SA)
Dean Smith (WA)

❗ WHAT THIS ACTUALLY MEANS
The Liberal Party had the bill.
The Liberal Party knew the bill.
Some voted YES.

The rest stayed ABSENT — which helped it pass.
👉 Absence is not neutrality. It’s consent.
This voting pattern shows the Liberals were never meaningfully opposed.

They either backed it openly — or stepped aside quietly.
ONE LINE FOR YOUR AUDIENCE

“They all had the bill. Some voted yes. The rest didn’t bother turning up — and that tells you everything.”

Andrew Hastie, the Liberals, Nationals, Labor, and Greens all had this bill THREE times.

• 2024 — first draft

• February 2025 — voted on it

• 20 January 2026 — final passage

So the story that they “only got the bill on the day” is absolute nonsense.

This legislation was already passed last year, with the consent of every major party.

Nothing about this was rushed.
Nothing about this was accidental.

If they’re pretending they didn’t know — that should tell you everything.

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?

I don’t believe Jacinta Price’s excuse.

You don’t get “locked out” of Parliament during a major vote.
There are phones, staff, security, texts, alerts — the entire system exists to make sure MPs are present.

So either this was poor time management — and if you can’t manage a critical vote, you have no business putting your hand up to run the country —

or you didn’t properly read the 140-page bill.
And if you didn’t read it, that’s negligence.
If you read it and still didn’t know how to vote, that’s incompetence.

Either way, Australians are entitled to ask:
what exactly do you bring that the rest of us don’t — except a taxpayer-funded seat? 


Let’s cut the bullshit.

You didn’t vote NO.
You didn’t vote YES.
You didn’t vote at all.

Waiting in an “alcove” while a major bill goes through is not opposition — it’s avoidance.

If this legislation was as dangerous as you now claim, you would have been in the chamber, on the record, voting against it. Full stop.

Instead, you missed the vote, let the bill pass, and then released a carefully worded statement pretending moral outrage after the fact.

That’s not leadership.
That’s political insurance.

You can’t claim you “couldn’t support” legislation you didn’t actually oppose when it mattered. Statements don’t stop laws — votes do.

Australians aren’t stupid.
If you believed this bill threatened free speech, you would have stood up when it counted, not issued a press release once the damage was done.

Silence, excuses, and hindsight are not courage.
They’re how politicians dodge accountability.

And people are done buying it.

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?

I said it then and I’ll say it now: what we are seeing from people like Andrew Hastie is not leadership — it’s obedience.

There are soldiers, and then there are soldiers.

Some are trained to question.

Some are trained to follow orders.

And in politics, that distinction matters.

When an MP votes yes to a 140-page, bundled bill that expands executive power, weakens safeguards, and centralises control — without forcing it back to the table, without demanding it be split, without standing up publicly against the dangerous parts — Australians are entitled to draw conclusions.

Not about what’s in his head —

but about what he chose to do.

If someone’s defence of that vote is a single talking point — “removing terrorists” — while ignoring everything else buried in the legislation, then one of two things is true:

Either they didn’t properly interrogate the bill,

or they decided obedience was easier than resistance.

And neither is acceptable from someone elected to represent Australians.

Military service is a job.

An honourable job — but still a job.

It does not automatically confer wisdom, independence, or political courage.

Every profession has people who are excellent at following instructions.

That does not mean they are equipped to challenge power when it matters.

Australians should pay very close attention to who voted yes.

Because votes are not symbolic.

They are choices.

And when MPs choose party alignment, optics, or personal positioning over scrutiny, accountability, and public interest — that tells you exactly who they are as legislators.

These politicians are not accidents.

They are products of the system we keep voting for.

Democracy doesn’t fail by accident — it reflects its voters.

If this angers you, don’t just lash out.

Ask why.

Because yesterday’s vote didn’t come from nowhere.

It is the result of years of political complacency, lowered standards, and blind loyalty at the ballot box.

We reap what we sow.

#fypシ゚viralシ #australia

Support the show

Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?