No Lawful warrant from Victoria’s sheriff – Brendan Facey?

After reading the posts from the Corporate Australia (corpau.blogspot.com) blog on Victoria’s sheriff, Brendan Facey and his (alleged) office of employment ‘Sheriff’s Office’ and now the ‘Sheriff’s Office Victoria’ (which are two different business entities, under two different jurisdictions - See Corporate Australia blog article: There’s a new sheriff in old Melbourne town) the readers should be aware that according  [to their many other invalid] Acts, the Sheriff Act 2009, where Victoria’s sheriff allegedly get his powers of incarceration, detainment and seizure of goods is invalid.

It is also important to point out that there is no lawful appointment for the current so called ‘sheriff’ Brendan Facey (see above meme).

Having said the above, there can be no lawfully generated warrant for road offences as a result from a place of business/trading/commerce called the ‘Infringements Court’. 

If you have had dealings with the sheriff, Brendan Facey or any other person from the ‘Sheriff’s Office’, or anyone claiming to be a ‘deputy’ – 

ASK FOR THE WARRANT!

The short answer is that you will not be provided with one.

The longer answer is:-

• If you write a letter to the ‘Sheriff’ Brendan Facey at the address of the ‘Sheriff’s Office Victoria’ to supply you with the warrant/s supporting their claims, wait for a response from him, as the person Brendan Facey, of the title ‘Sheriff of Victoria’, on the letter head ‘Sheriff’s Office’.

• If you obtain a reply from another company, e.g. CCV from no person only a title ‘CORRESPONDENCE OFFICER’, you [in law] did NOT receive a reply from the ‘sheriff’ Brendan Facey, from his place of business the 'Sheriff's Office'.

If you actually do get provided with a warrant, it will NOT be a LAWFUL one.

Drivers Test Positive for Drugs They’ve Never Used

inShare1

Imagine this: You are stopped by police for a random roadside drug test. You lick the strip and are told to wait a few minutes for the results. Moments later, the officer returns and says you have tested positive for drugs.

The only problem is you’ve never taken illegal drugs in your life!

It might sound implausible – but as one Sydney man recently discovered, it can and does occur.

The Plight of an Innocent Man

Steve Hunt was driving home from work when pulled over for a roadside drug test.

As someone who does not take drugs, Steve happily submitted to the test.

But the law abiding citizen got a rude shock when the officer told him there was ‘a problem.’

The officer informed Steve that he had tested positive for methylamphetamine, then placed him under arrest and took him to a nearby drug van. Despite a secondary test returning a negative result, police decided to send Steve’s sample to NSW Health for further testing, where a positive result was returned two weeks later.

Adamant that there had been a mistake, Steve asked his lawyers to have the sample retested. Two further tests were conducted at the same NSW Health lab, each returning a negative result!

Despite this, police refused to drop the case and sent it to court. At court, the police prosecutor offered ‘no evidence’ – knowing that Steve would certainly win the case.

Accordingly, the case was dismissed in court.

It was fortunate that Steve decided to fight the case – as he faced a maximum penalty of $1,100 and six months off the road, as well as a criminal conviction for drug driving if he had simply pleaded guilty as many people do.

But his ordeal still cost him $5,000 in legal fees – money which he was forced to draw out of his mortgage to prove his innocence. Perhaps his lawyers should have applied for his legal costs to be paid by police, but for some unknown reason it does not appear that an application for costs was made.

Other Cases

Since Mr Hunt’s case made the headlines, a number of other drivers have come forward saying that they had also tested positive for drugs which they had never taken.

Some had similar experiences to Mr Hunt – where the initial test came back positive, and subsequent tests produced negative results.

In fact, the very first person in the world to return a positive reading for a drug test was nearly convicted of drug driving on the basis of a false reading.

39-year-old John De Jong returned a positive result for methylamphetamine when he submitted to a lick test in Yarraville, near Melbourne, way back in 2004.

Mr De Jong denied ever using the substance and was taken to a drug van for a subsequent test, which indicated a positive result for cannabis.

According to Mr De Jong, he had last used cannabis a month before – meaning that it should not have been detected in a roadside lick test, which can generally only detect cannabis that has been consumed 4-6 hours earlier.

Shocked by the reading, Mr De Jong consulted an independent pathologist, who released a report showing that there could not have been cannabis in his system at the time of driving. As a result, police did not proceed with the charges.

As it was the first time roadside lick tests had been used anywhere in the world, police had arranged for the media to be present at the scene. Mr De Jong therefore found his picture splashed across the news to his embarrassment, and the media presence backfired for police.

Mr De Jong later sued police for defamation, and the matter was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. Police were also forced to issue a ‘statement of regret’ to Mr De Jong for the error.

Mr De Jong’s case may have been the first – but it’s certainly not the last case of a driver being charged with drug driving on the basis of a false positive.

In fact, a 2006 study found that ‘no device was found to be reliable enough for roadside screening of drivers,’ and that ‘lick’ test devices ‘fail[ed] to meet the 95 per cent accuracy level originally demanded.’

Subsequent investigations have revealed that up to one-third of all drivers who initially test positive during roadside lick tests return negative readings when re-tested in drug vans.

In 2010, Victoria Police admitted that 62 out of 1618 people who tested positive for drug driving had been incorrectly charged. And in NSW, 72 out of 174 drivers tested in a Northern Rivers operation returned ‘false positives.’

Despite these serious issues, NSW Police have vowed to expand their drug testing operations, with plans to conduct 100,000 lick tests each year by 2017.

sydneydruglawyers.com.au 22 Nov 2015

Another dodgy 'Australian Government' policy using dodgy technology.

In Australia, you're branded a 'criminal', first and foremost, then you have to PROVE your innocence.

Nothing to do with caring for the people, but rather enslaving the masses.

Journalist Sharri Markson detained on Israeli visit

Sharri Markson, a senior writer at The Australian, was travelling with other Australian journalists on a week-long study tour in northern Israel.

A prominent Australian journalist was detained by Israeli security officials in tense scenes last week for breaching protocol during a visit to a hospital treating victims of the Syrian civil war.

Sharri Markson, a senior writer at The Australian, was detained for questioning by security officials at the Ziv Medical Centre in northern Israel on Thursday.

Markson was travelling with other Australian journalists on a week-long study tour organised by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council.

Sources said Markson became "aggravated" during the "tense" incident in which security officials demanded she hand over her passport, mobile phone and notes.

"It was very intense and dramatic," a source said. "There was a major commotion and suddenly there was security everywhere."

Over 500 Syrians – including wounded fighters battling the Assad regime – have been treated at the Ziv Medical Centre in Safed, near the Syrian border.

In a briefing before the tour began, hospital staff told the journalists that the patients could be at risk upon their return to Syria if it became known they had sought treatment in Israel. The hospital uses elaborate methods to secretly transfer the patients in and out of Syria.

The eight journalists were instructed not to record the names of the patients or to take photos that could identify them.

Fairfax Media understands that during the visit, Markson broke away from the other journalists to speak to the patients without supervision and exchanged contact details with them.

This led to her being detained by security forces. Fairfax Media understands the incident was resolved following intervention by NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive Vic Alhadeff​.

Mr Alhadeff, who has returned to Australia, said: "Our paramount concern was for the safety and security of the Syrian patients.

"In that regard, we are very mindful of not disclosing their identity.

"There was an unfortunate misunderstanding but the situation was quickly resolved."

Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council  executive director Colin Rubenstein​, who was not on the trip, confirmed a "kerfuffle" had occurred at the hospital.

He said the council  representative on the trip told him Markson "took down the email address of a Syrian patient, security officials got wind of it and asked her about it on the way out".

"Most times it's very clear to all the participants what the guidelines are. It's never been an issue before.

"The condition of visiting the hospital is to respect and maintain the confidentiality of the patients' identities.

"If anyone's identity was disclosed it would put them at great risk – it's a brutal part of the world."

Other reporters on the trip included Daily Telegraph deputy editor Ben English, Fairfax Media federal politics editor Bevan Shields and Channel Seven reporter Alex Hart.

Markson, who was until recently The Australian's media editor, declined to comment.

She later tweeted: "The Syrian fighters took my details to keep in touch with a journalist when they return to Syria, where they're at war with Assad and Daesh.

"The Syrian fighters gave me theirs too. Israeli security were a bit heavy-handed, demanding I delete the details from my phone and notebook."

This is not the first time Markson, the daughter of celebrity agent Max Markson, has been involved in a controversial hospital visit. In 2005 she reportedly secured an interview with a victim of the London bombings by entering the hospital ward looking upset and carrying a bunch of flowers. The incident was later covered by the ABC's Media Watch program.

Markson also reportedly rifled through the bins of rival publication Cosmo when she was editing Cleo magazine.

smh.com.au 23 Nov 2015

So,  Israel allows reporters to see people war torn victims, under controlled and scripted conditions, but when someone (a truth seeker?) goes further, then apparently it's a 'security' breach.

Bollocks?

Does Israel does not want people to know the truth?

Should take ALL the refugees from Syria?

 

Does it not make 'financial' sense to send them 'next door' and not ship thousands of kilometers to Australia?

Is Israel NOT a 'Human Rights' supporter?

Wage fraud: Pizza Hut franchisees using 'sham' contracts to underpay drivers

Evidence shows Pizza Hut's franchisees are paying delivery drivers as little as $12 an hour without super or WorkCover. Photo: Neil Newitt

Australia's second-biggest pizza chain, Pizza Hut, is under fire as evidence emerges that its franchisees are using "sham" contracts to pay delivery drivers as little as $12 an hour without super or WorkCover.

It comes as the franchise giant is fighting its franchisees in the Federal Court after they launched a class action against head office alleging unconscionable conduct under the franchising code.

These are not legal rates. They've [drivers] got to be paid the award rate.
Gerard Dwyer, Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association

Pizza Hut has been locked in a deep discounting battle with rival chain Domino's.

Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Bornstein, who reviewed a copy of the contract said, in his view, the contract was a "sham".

Over the past five years, Pizza Hut has faced fierce competition from rival chains, particularly from the fast-growing Domino's chain and premium pizza chains. The increased competition has led to Pizza Hut closing some of its restaurant stores to focus on home delivery and introducing steep discounts to win customers.


An estimated 90 per cent of franchisees claim losses and business collapses as a direct consequence of orders that they slash the cost of pizzas up to 50 per cent to take market share from rivals.

A contract obtained by Fairfax Media shows a driver can earn $6 a delivery, with no more than two deliveries per round trip. Under the terms of the contract drivers provide the car, pay for fuel, vehicle maintenance and insurance.

A delivery driver, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing his job, said the franchisee had offered him an $8 an hour arrangement plus $4 per delivery as a compromise to the $6 per delivery contract, which includes the logo of Pizza Hut on the corner.

"That's the best pay methods we can do so far. The business need to make some money to keep running. Please understand," emails show.

Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Bornstein, who reviewed a copy of the contract for Fairfax Media, said in his view the contract was a "sham".

"Is this driver an independent business person in the business of delivering pizzas? In my view, absolutely not," Mr Bornstein said.

"He is employed to deliver the company's product as and when directed. He is not genuinely running a pizza delivery business. In other words, in my view, the contract is a sham."

Other Pizza Hut franchisees are also believed to be using similar contracts.

Driver sources suggested the model means drivers can only earn as little as $12 per hour.

The revelation comes after a joint investigation by Four Corners and Fairfax Media revealed systemic worker exploitation at 7-Eleven. Workers at a range of fast food chains, nail salons, restaurants and retail stores have also been caught out underpaying and mistreating workers, many of whom are international students.

One worker in a northern suburb of Melbourne said the franchisee was paying cash. "There is no paperwork and neither there is proof. But the biggest proof is employees, who are working there, who are exploited and have no other option apart from working and supporting them selves."

Another said one franchisee was paying $10 an hour plus $1 or $2 for each delivery.

A spokeswoman for Pizza Hut said the company was not aware of the specific contract and said it was out of step with the chain's practices.

"This contract, if authentic, is inconsistent with Pizza Hut's enterprise agreement which is in place for Pizza Hut franchisees," the spokeswoman said.

"Pizza Hut with its franchisees have negotiated a national enterprise agreement with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) under which includes rates of pay for drivers and team members."
It is understood Pizza Hut has in the past pushed to have delivery drivers put on contracts.

SDA national secretary Gerard Dwyer said he was outraged to hear Pizza Hut franchisees were using independent contracts to pay delivery drivers as little as $6 per delivery.

"These are not legal rates. They've [drivers] have got to be paid the award rate," Mr Dwyer said.

"We have an agreement in place that does not allow for contractors. We're in the midst of negotiating a new agreement with Pizza Hut where we are looking for an increase in rates."

Mr Dwyer said under the current EBA delivery drivers at Pizza Hut are to be paid $20.35 per hour if employed as a full-time worker or $25.44 per hour if employed as a casual worker. Drivers also receive $2.13 per delivery on top of the hourly rate to cover vehicle costs. 

smh.com.au 23 Nov 2015

We do not support or even recommend Pizza Hut products for consumption.

Their product is garbage compared to others and their work ethic is appalling.

Lets see how the Australia's 'legal joke (nee system) handles this matter.

Just another multi-national company promoting slave labour.