16 January 2016

Criminal prosecutions against South Australian police are at a record high

Criminal prosecutions against police are at a record high and the number of complaints and breaches of code of conduct has risen 30 per cent over the past year.
CRIMINAL prosecutions against police are at a record high and the number of complaints and breaches of code of conduct has risen 30 per cent over the past year.

SA Police annual reports show the number of sworn officers or public servants within the department facing criminal prosecutions has risen from seven in 2001-02 to 31 in 2014-15.

The 2014-15 annual report also shows complaints against police, breaches of the code of conduct and criminal offences prosecuted against employees rose from 69 in 2013-14 to 90 in 2014-15.

Criminal cases range from theft offences to more serious cases, including suspended SA Police officer Hayley May Greenwood who was charged after an Independent Commissioner Against Corruption investigation with abuse of public office, drug trafficking and aggravated theft.

Eight SA Police officers from the Sturt Local Service Area were arrested in October 2014 and charged with theft offences, also following an ICAC investigation.

Acting Assistant Commissioner Human Resource Service John Bruhn said that higher expectations of officers and a growing workforce could be contributing factors to the spike in criminal prosecutions and breaches of the code.
“There are variances in statistics over many years — you mention from 2002 where complaints against police appeared low compared to higher now,” he said.

“This may range from increased levels of reporting, fluctuations in the workforce, broader expectations and other vagaries.
State of prosecution against SA police
“Policing is one of the most highly accountable professions — even off duty officers must maintain demanding standards of integrity and conduct.

“Any breaches have always and will continue to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted as required.”
The rise in numbers of prosecutions and complaints against police follows the introduction of the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption in 2013, which The Advertiser revealed spent $45,420 on six telecommunications intercept warrants during probes for bribery and corruption offences in the first financial year of operation.

Police Minister Tony Piccolo said South Australia has one of the best police forces in the country.
“In the last financial year, there was a drop in the total amount of complaints received and SAPOL enjoys a ranking higher than the national average for general satisfaction from the public,” he said.

“Disciplinary matters are an issue for the commissioner of the day ... if any member of the community acts in an inappropriate way, they will face appropriate consequences and this does not exclude police officers.”

13 January 2016

What a warrant form looks like

Please also see new and updated information in the blog post of the title:

The unlawful signature of Victoria's Sheriff Brendan Facey in the link:


Many people have caught on to the illegal actions of the Victorian Sheriff – Brendan Facey, his alleged ‘deputies’, and the cover up by the authorities.

Many people have written to the ‘sheriff’ Brendan Facey from the ‘Sheriff’s Office of Victoria’ (current postal address: PO BOX 14486, Melbourne Victoria 8001) in order to obtain the alleged warrants that the sheriff alleges exist. 

To date none have been provided by the ‘Sheriff’s Office of Victoria’.

People have also written FOI (Freedom Of Information) requests to obtain the alleged warrants, but again none have been provided, thus far.

Some people have obtained responses that the ‘warrants’ do not exist.

According to ‘law’ the warrant is supposed to be generated in accordance to a current regulation called the INFRINGEMENTS (REPORTING AND PRESCRIBED DETAILS AND FORMS) REGULATIONS 2006.

The form for the warrant (to the ‘natural person’) is contained within Form 1 of the section called SCHEDULE.

The illustration below is that form with additional comments added, as to the validity of the warrant, in red.

In summary:

  1. The (alleged) sheriff sends you a template letter, with a computer scanned image of a signature to the ‘natural person’.
  2. The definition of a ‘natural person’ is defined in the Corporations Act 2001 64B (2).
  3. A warrant generated from a matter within the ‘Infringements Court’ is invalid.
  4. In order for the warrant to be valid it must contain all of the following:

  •  The name of the judge
  • The Judge’s signature
  • County Court seal/stamp.

Please note:

  • There is no lawful appointment for Victoria’s current ‘sheriff’ Brendan Facey.
  •  The Act that allows the sheriff to perform duties, Sheriff Act 2009, is not enacted lawfully.
Burning questions:

  • As a judge would you put your name and signature to a ‘warrant’, knowing that you are liable?
  •  Can the Department of Justice and Regulation really provide a copy of a lawful warrant?
  •  Can the Sheriff’s Office of Victoria really produce a lawful warrant?

Make no mistake about it, the Sheriff’s Office of Victoria and the entire chain of command are committing criminal activity against the people.

This is not a matter about your (alleged) offence but rather the gross miscarriage of justice regarding the whole process by the people involved.

They are aware of it, and have been notified, but still we see the fraud continuing.

Please note: The actual validity of the Acts or Regulations used is put aside.

Here’s why you should never carry your mobile phone in your pocket (or your bra)

Time to think again about where you carry your mobile phone.
The Sun
MOST people these days are practically glued to their smartphone — and would find it very difficult to give it up.
But there’s one reason why you should place some distance between yourself and your phone.

Dr Devra Davis, an American scientist who has been studying the effects of mobile phone radiation for many years, has warned your mobile phone could be doing you more harm than good.

In a talk at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, she said: “The pattern of putting cellphones in the bra, and now there’s a new device where you can actually have the phone strapped to your head, made me concerned about what we know about exposure to phones.”

Dr Davis said mobile phone-like radiation was being used positively in the medical field to treat liver cancer, detect cancer and enhance the absorption of drugs in the brain.

But the reason it is able to do this was because the radiation broke down the blood brain barrier, which protects the brain from foreign substances that may injure it.

The radiation can also damage DNA, affect male fertility and change the brain’s metabolism.

And that’s not all — researchers have also found mobile phone use could contribute to the development of depression, diabetes and heart irregularities.

Dr Davis also spoke of a specific case where a young woman developed breast tumours exactly the same shape as the mobile phone she’d been tucking into her bra.

And it’s not just your bra that you shouldn’t be putting your phone into — even storing it in your pocket could be dangerous.

Dr Davis also said the small print in your phone manual explicitly advised against it.

A study also showed doing so could weaken the pelvic area and reduce bone density.

So, maybe it’s time to break things off with your smartphone — or at least start keeping it in your bag.
This story originally appeared on The Sun.

news.com.au 12 Jan 2016

11 January 2016

No response from the 'Sheriff' of Victoria - Brendan Facey

MANY Victorians have been effected by the fraudulent actions of a legal 'person' by the name of Brendan Facey as the 'Sheriff of Victoria'.

There are a fair few points that need addressing (which are addressed in other posts) with regards to a letter from the 'Sheriff's Office' where the details have changed from approximately mid 2015. The illustration below is the old style letter:

Please note that this letter is a computer generated template, where there is no 'wet ink' signature.

Please note that:

  • The 'sheriff' of Victoria is supposed to be an officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria EXCLUSIVELY,

  • According to law, ALL 'sheriff' appointments MUST be gazetted,

  • The appointments for other 'sheriffs' are gazetted.

  • There is no gazetted appointment for 'Brendan Facey' as the Sheriff of Victoria.

We are aware that many people have written to the 'Sheriff's Office of Victoria' in order to obtain the alleged 'warrants' for the offences that have been (allegedly) committed.

From our understanding no one has yet:

  • received a copy of a lawful 'warrant',

  • received a response from the 'person' Brendan Facey as the Sheriff of Victoria signed in wet ink by his hand as his 'normal' signature, as depicted in the original template letter.

We are therefore putting it out there has ANYONE obtained a response from Mr. Facey as the 'Sheriff of Victoria' signed by hand in wet ink?

If so please put this information in the comments section of this post.

Please note that:

  • A response from 'Brendan Facey' as the Director of Infringement Management & Enforcement Services is NOT a response from Brendan Facey as the 'Sheriff of Victoria' and is not considered as a response from the 'sheriff'.

  • There is no lawful appointment for the person 'Brendan Facey' as the Sheriff of Victoria, therefore any other person that claims to be a deputy is there unlawfully.

  • The powers that allegedly allow the sheriff to incarcerate, take possession or clamp motor vehicles come from the Sheriff Act 2009, an Act that has not been enacted lawfully.

10 January 2016

How to plea in court

Most people who end up in court for their ‘offences’ may not know of their rights or even what options are available to them, even (especially?) when they hire a lawyer.

There is a deliberate conspiracy by the judicial system in order to promote activity that is financially beneficial to the courts, i.e. a quick ‘in and out’ so that as little time as possible is spent on the ‘accused’ in order to maximise profits.

The more you spend time in a court the less financially profitable your matter becomes.

The age old misnomer of a ‘good’ lawyer is realistically out the door, especially if the situation calls for your plea to be ‘guilty’ with a ‘slap on the wrists’ fine upon your exit.

What a ‘good’ lawyer should be doing is examining the Act that you’re being reprimanded under, and then challenging the actual validity of that Act (a 'no plea'), an action that lawyers deliberately do not make their clients aware of that exists.

Australian ‘law’ for what it’s worth is a legal ‘sham’ something any constitutional lawyer should be able to reaffirm.

Apart from this ‘constitutional crisis’ lawyers do not talk about the actual validity of law with their ‘clients’ as this action would expose the invalidity of law in Australia and expose the true criminals in office to litigation.

So what’s one to do in court?

Any action taken against your ‘person’ in the form of ‘administrative’ law such as (but not limited to); a speeding / red light camera fine; parking fine; any ‘city council’ fine ‘should be answered with a plea of ‘no plea’.

As shown in example:

How they deceive you.

You may be at the court counter or even inside the actual court room where you could be asked what plea you are making.

If you’re at the counter the registrar (or whoever) after asking you the question, and listening to your response (of ‘no plea’) may put your plea as ‘not guilty’ or ask you in a reaffirming manner “so that’s not ‘not guilty’” or “you have to make a plea of guilty or not guilty”. 

The moment that happens you should inform them that they are perverting the course of justice and point them to the relevant sections of the Crimes Act.

If you’re inside the courtroom where your ‘person’ is in front of a magistrate, judicial registrar or the ‘person behind the bench’ you might be asked the same question.

Once again when/if you state your plea as a ‘no plea’ that person could say “you mean not guilty” or “I’ll take that as a not guilty”.

The moment that person out the front states this, you remind them that they made a plea on your behalf, where the matter must be halted, and that person is told that they must remove themselves from the courtroom, where they will be subject to a judicial review.

Judicial review forms are available from the County Court or from the link:

Whilst you're at it get ALL the facts from them with a Form29A - Notice for Discovery (Vic - civil matters) contained in the link:

Note: The above information should be used for educational purposes only. 

Consulting someone who 'practises' law rather than someone who actually uses it could be detrimental to your desired outcome.