08 October 2016

Queensland police officer faces court on child sex charges

A Queensland policeman has been remanded in custody after facing court on a string of "historical" child sex allegations.

The 46-year-old constable, from the southern region, appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on Friday charged with one count of rape and 11 counts of indecent treatment of a child.

After prosecutors unsuccessfully moved for the court to be closed, it was heard the allegations levelled against the man dated back four to six years.

His lawyer David Jones, in applying for bail, characterised the crown case as involving "some grooming" of two complainants when he was in a relationship, which has since ended, with their mother.

He also said the prosecution relied strongly on evidence drawn from a "largely untested" technology in their case against the policeman but didn't specify exactly what it was.

"There are serious allegations made against him," magistrate Elizabeth Hall noted.

Police prosecutor Josh Kelly objected to bail on the basis that he may interfere with witnesses and given the seriousness of the charges.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been suspended from the police service while the allegations against him are dealt with.

The bail hearing will return to court on October 12.

brisbanetimes.com.au  7 Oct 2016

Another corrupt copper.

Let's see how 'justice' is served for the victims...

06 October 2016

The unlawful signature of Victoria's Sheriff Brendan Facey?

Many a person has been adversely effected by an entity called the 'Sheriff of Victoria' under the legal name of Brendan Facey.

One must not rely on the Rupert Murdoch media empire to inform the masses that this is done so unlawfully, under fraudulent action, deception, coercion and extortion with threats of violence and incarceration.

This is also endorsed/supported/perpetuated by a business called CCV (Civic Compliance Victoria), ABN 68 122 448 122, and Victoria Police ABN 63 446 481 493.

Their (CCV's) standard response to your legal obligation (ask questions, as people in court do) is "Just pay up".

Many people's first correspondence from the (alleged) ' Sheriff of Victoria may come in the form of a notice, as a result of not paying a fine from the unlawful and illegal 'Infringements Court'.

Many people have mistaken this document as an actual 'outstanding' warrant to the amount claimed in the paperwork.

The Sheriff's Office of Victoria has sent out paperwork to people claiming outstanding warrants containing a logo of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

This suggests that the Sheriff's Office comes under the banner of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

What people MUST know is that the Sheriff of Victoria is supposed to be an officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and MUST be appointed as such in accordance with the law.

The position must be gazetted, and the appointment of the person must be in the lawful government gazette.

There is no gazetted appointment for the person Brendan Facey as the Sheriff of Victoria, as required by law.

The Sheriff's Office of Victoria has also sent out paperwork to people claiming outstanding warrants containing the logo of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria.

So when did the jurisdiction change and where/when was this gazetted?

When asked of the Sheriff's Office to produce the alleged outstanding warrant the response obtained was that none exist.

That's right non ever existed.

So let's make this clear one more time.

There are no lawful warrants emanating from a place of business called the Sheriff's Office ABN 32 790 228 959.

So what's a 'warrant' supposed to look like?

Well according to their own laws, and not any 'conspiracy theories', forms directions etc must be documented and filled out according the rules specified.

This is what a 'warrant' is supposed to look like sans red comments: 
See form in attached link - 

So where's the fraud in the letter from Brendan Facey as the Sheriff of Victoria.

So in this first letter from a person called Brendan Facey  as the Sheriff of Victoria from the Sheriff's Office Victoria the claim comes to the unsuspecting customer.

In this document you may notice a "Yours sincerely",  signature, a name and a title of Office.

Seems pretty legitimate right?

Take another look.

The signature is a digitised (electronic) signature that is stored on a computer and pasted into the document.

There is no 'lawful' wet ink signature from that person.

The document is a fraud.

If anyone has obtained a 'wet ink' signature from the person Brendan Facey as the Sheriff of Victoria, please post this in the comments section.

Please do not post Brendan Facey's signature and position as Director of Infringement  Management and Enforcement Services, as this is not what we require and has already been covered in the Corporate Australia blog post of the title:

Exposing Corporate Criminals - Victoria's sheriff - Brendan Facey in the link:

See the following document of the with regards to the lawfulness of an electronic signature, citing case law of the title 

Court rules that uploaded electronic signature did not download a loan guarantee

The convenience of executing legal documentation with electronic signatures must be carefully weighed against issues of enforceability and security. In this update, we explain the decision in Williams Group Australia Pty Ltd v Crocker [2015] NSWSC 1907, in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that a company director was not bound by a guarantee that (apparently) bore his electronic signature.

Key messages

The key messages from this case are:
  • An executor – being the person who physically or electronically applies a signature – is not implicitly authorised to use another person’s electronic signature if it was applied without that person’s knowledge or consent. This is similar to the situation where an executor forges another person’s handwritten signature.
  • In this case, a director was not liable in circumstances where his failure to change a default password enabled another person to access and supposedly apply his electronic signature. However, it is possible that a person could demonstrate an intention to authorise another to apply their electronic signature if they took active steps to permit access to the means of applying that electronic signature (by, for example, circulating their password).
  • Accordingly, where a contract is to be executed by an individual using an electronic signature, the accepting party can mitigate risk by considering whether additional steps should be taken to verify that the individual consented to their signature being applied. For example, in addition to having the execution witnessed, the individual could be required to confirm their execution by email.
  • Courts will be unwilling to find that an unauthorised execution was ratified unless there is clear evidence that the person purportedly bound saw the document, appreciated its salient features, and then failed to take any remedial action. In this case, the court was sympathetic to the view that a person should not have to read each and every email and attachment in their inbox.

Williams Group Australia Pty Ltd (Lender) sold building materials to IDH Modular Pty Ltd (Borrower) under the terms of a trading credit agreement that incorporated a director’s guarantee and indemnity. The document was seemingly executed by the Borrower’s three directors, including Mr Crocker (Guarantor), and witnessed by one of the Borrower’s employees.

In the months before execution, one of the Borrower’s directors (Brooks) set up a HelloFax electronic signature account that enabled the directors to remotely upload and apply their signatures to documents. Each time a director’s signature was applied, that director would receive a confirmation email attaching the executed document. The Guarantor, who worked interstate, received his login details for the account directly from Brooks and never changed his password. He soon uploaded his signature to the account.

When the Lender attempted to enforce the guarantee in the amount of nearly $890,000, the Guarantor claimed he had not executed nor authorised the guarantee’s execution on his behalf, nor had he any knowledge that he had been signed up to such a substantial liability. At trial, the parties accepted that the Guarantor had not executed the document himself – rather, an unidentified third person using his account had uploaded and applied their own signature purporting to be the Guarantor’s.
The Lender, whom at the time had no knowledge of these circumstances, argued that the guarantee should be enforced on two bases:
  • By failing to change his default password, the Guarantor had impliedly authorised Brooks or any other person who received the login details from Brooks to execute the document on the Guarantor’s behalf (actual authorisation). Alternatively, even if there was not actual authorisation, the Guarantor had represented such authority to the Lender (ostensible authorisation).
  • Even if the Guarantor did not actually authorise or represent authorisation, a number of circumstances (principally being sent a confirmation email) indicated that he had ratified the execution.
McCallum J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales J ruled in the Guarantor’s favour. We summarise the judgment’s key points below.

McCallum J acknowledged that an implied agency relationship could arise if the Guarantor placed another person in the situation where, by ‘the ordinary uses of mankind’, it could be understood that the person signing represented and acted for the Guarantor. However, the Guarantor’s mere omission to change his password did not demonstrate an intention to authorise anyone else to operate the account on his behalf. Such use would be a misuse – not an ‘ordinary use’ capable of amounting to implied authorisation. This conclusion was further bolstered by the fact that the Guarantor was never actually advised by the Lender, Borrower or other directors that he was required to provide a guarantee under the borrowing arrangement (even when the Borrower had previously provided a similar guarantee to the Lender).

The Court also rejected analogies to the situation in Pacific Carriers Limited v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35, in which the High Court found that a bank was bound by letters of indemnity that its officer had executed without the bank’s authority. In that case:

The representation of authority came from a combination of features of [the bank officer’s] presentation to the outside world, all attributable to the fact that Pacific was dealing with a bank, with all its institutional trappings.

Not only was the Lender here dealing with an individual lacking the ‘institutional trappings’ of a large company, the Guarantor had made no representations that another person was authorised or ‘held out’ as being able to bind him to the guarantee because, in the Lender’s mind, the Guarantor himself had signed it.

Instead, the critical factor was whether the Guarantor had notice that he had been personally committed to the guarantee. The Lender’s principal submission was that the Guarantor received a confirmation email attaching the document after it was executed. However, Justice McCallum considered that this was a ‘slender basis’ to prove ratification because:
  • While it was accepted that the confirmation email was sent to the Guarantor’s email address, the Lender failed to prove that the Guarantor had received and read the email, opened the attached document, and made himself aware of its salient features.
  • It was not clear on its face that the attached document contained a guarantee because it was labelled ‘credit application’.
The Lender was ordered to pay the Guarantor’s costs.
Source : HallandWilcox

You can download the full 36 page document contained in the link:


Austraila's corrupt Bureau of Statistics changing the economy with falsified data

How can ANYONE trust the business called the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics)???

They threatened the masses with unlawful fines of $180 per day for each and every day the census form has not been handed in from the deadline of 23 September 2016

The business called the ABS then extended their own deadline until 30 September 2016, also putting the business at risk of financial hardship as a result of missing out on the $180 per day 'fine' from the uneducated masses. A very bad business strategy.

The ABS sold your data for a 'profit' for $41,000,000 last year.

They even asked you to falsely put a sex on your 'person', which at law is asexual.

See definition of natural person in the Corporations Act 2001, Section 64b (2)

The SAME definition as written in a letter from the (alleged) Sheriff of Victoria, Brendan Facey, but that's another separate dozen posts.

Natural person
             (2)  A natural person is connected with a corporation if, and only if, the corporation:
                     (a)  is a trustee of a trust under which the person is capable of benefiting; or
                     (b)  is engaged by the person under a contract for services; or
                     (c)  acts as agent for the person in any transaction or dealing; or
                     (d)  is an attorney of the person under a power of attorney; or
                     (e)  has appointed the person as the corporation's attorney under a power of attorney; or
                      (f)  is given financial, business or legal advice by the person in the performance of the functions attaching to the person's professional capacity. 

Only you as a man/woman have the sexual gender of male/female.

They've been falsifying unemployment data for years. 

Why they are not even a lawfully established government department (as per the lawful 'government' called  'Commonwealth of Australia - in line with a document called the Australian Constitution) as described in the Census and Statistics Act of 1905.

Don't worry about any other Act's, they're not in place (enacted) lawfully.

Will the people of Australia see any criminal actions against the people in charge of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, namely

  • Michael McCormack - Minister of small business or
  • David Kalisch - Australian Statistician

We say probably NOT!

Let's put aside whether or not the minister Michael McCormack is in office under a lawfully enacted instrument.

Note: Australia's criminal elite administrators of this penal colony are untouchable by the law.

If you have been harmed by this fraudulent action you may need to seek advice to take action against the people mentioned above.

See article from the 6 October 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

First home buyer error that may have changed history 

THE Australian Bureau of Statistics is having a no good, very bad year.
The latest admission is that it has been publishing incorrect first home buyer statistics.

It comes after a huge controversy over the bungled census, and a furore over rubbery unemployment statistics. This latest disaster could be the most serious one yet.

On Monday, the bureau announced it was revising its first home buyer statistics. Not too many people seemed to notice. After all, this was the second time recently they’ve revised them.

The first time was in 2015. The stats kept showing the number of first home buyers was falling to very low levels, so when the ABS announced that banks had not been giving them all the data, it made sense.

The ABS revised the data so the share of first home buyers rose (from 14.6 to 17.3 per cent in November 2014, for example). That was plausible enough and nobody objected. They kept on putting out data that lined up with those new, higher numbers.

Until this week. They now admit those new numbers were totally wrong, and the real numbers were, in fact, closer to the original numbers than the changed ones.

This small and seemingly technical change could have been very important.


In the six months leading up to the election, the ABS reported first home buyers had 14.4 per cent of the market on average. It now admits the true numbers were at 13.2 per cent.

Housing affordability was a big issue in the election. Labor’s flagship policies were to remove negative gearing and cut capital gains tax concessions. Both of these were controversial, but they would have probably caused house prices to be lower.

During the election campaign, it appeared first home buyers were getting more of the houses on the market than they really were.

The record low share of first home buyers, in the history of data collection, is 12.8 per cent back in 2004.
In March 2016, the numbers were 12.9 per cent — just 0.1 per cent off the record. But, we didn’t know that at the time.

Instead, the data was showing the share of first home buyers at 14.3 per cent in March. In that same month, Malcolm Turnbull set his party on course for a double dissolution election, which he eventually won by the narrowest of margins.

If the data on first home buyers had been more eye-catching, would Labor’s election platform have seemed more urgent, more important? Could the dodgy data have affected the election outcome?

We will never know.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics admits its housing data have been wrong. Picture: Brendon Thorne/Getty ImagesSource:Getty Images

I am by no means suggesting the ABS is trying to affect election outcomes. Collecting data is hard, especially when your agency has been stretched desperately by years of Budget cuts.

It is harder still when you rely on an intermediary to collect data for you, as the ABS do with the housing finance data. It is collected by the bank regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, and passed on. Mistakes will always happen and the ABS deserves kudos for finding and correcting them.

But first home buyers locked out of the market might wonder if finding that mistake even a few months earlier would have saved them from many more years stuck in rental properties.

Statistics matter to people’s lives — governments of all political stripes should make sure they provide the resources necessary for the ABS to do its job properly.

Are you a Ms, Mr Mrs or a Mx - The corporate media's BS distraction?

Many a person may have had communications with Australia's Rupert Murdoch's media empire with regards to certain aspects of law where there is an eerie silence.

Not to worry though, one could not accuse the corporate media of a conspiracy, as they may show up to court matters and portray people as nutters, tin foil hatters or even conspiracy theorists with regards to certain 'theories' or interpretations about law.

The corporate media has gone to the trouble of publishing an article about how an insurance company has accepted a new title assignment an Mx.

This is literally useless information, as people need to know what their title designations are meant at law.

What's worse is that it's not rocket science to find.

The assignment of Mr, Ms, Mrs or Miss can be found on page 516 of an Australian Government published book called the Style Manual (Sixth Edition), under the paragraph titled Armed Services.

The text reads as follows:

In formal correspondence, officers in the armed services are addressed by their rank, given name or initials, family name and any postnominals; thus, Rear Adminal Felix Liou, AO. In formal correspondence, officers of the rank army lieutenant, navy sub lieutenant and air force flying officer and below are given conventional titles of (Mr, Ms, Mrs or Miss) Officers of the rank of colonel and above can be addressed by their rank alone without their name. Non-commissioned officers and other ranks are addressed by their rank and family name, not by their given name - thus Private Fotheringham.

While some people may argue that there is an interpretation attached to that paragraph, the real question could be put to the High Court of Australia (regarding the nature of law installed on the people of this land arising from a hostile takeover of land from the original inhabitants), whose function is to interpret the law in accordance to a document called the 'Australian Constitution'.

Should you choose to read the corporate media's totally pointless article you can find it in the following link:


04 October 2016

Kim Kardashian Paris robbery her own fault?

One thing the herd populace is told by police during every holiday season is to NOT post their holiday destination and time frame on social media in order not to alert the criminal element of society as to when the household would be ripe for the picking of valuables.

We also posted an article on why not to post one's picture of one's boarding pass, see link:


So, does this one simple rule also apply to people with more dollars than brain cells?

  • Could Kim Kardashian have brought this upon herself?
  •  Was it an 'inside' job?

  • Was her security detail flawed due to her being a 'tight arse' (Australian colloquial term for stingy)?

  • Would she be entitled to an insurance payout as a result of her own fault?
  • Was it a 'publicity stunt' - with those retards attention whores anything is possible?

Irrespective of how much you flaunt your riches in front of the heard populace non one really 'deserves' to be robbed at gunpoint.

See (text version) of article from news.com.au from 4 October 2016 of the headline:

Kim Kardashian reunites with Kanye West in New York as ex-bodyguard says Paris robbery was inside job

AS Kim Kardashian reunited with Kanye West in New York after being robbed at gunpoint in Paris, her former security guard said the jewellery heist was “a crime waiting to happen”.
The 35-year-old and her rapper husband were surrounded by dozens of security guards and police officers as they darted inside their Manhattan apartment on Monday afternoon.

The reality TV star fled France just hours after she was tied up and held at gunpoint by thieves dressed as cops who stole around $14 million in jewellery from her room at the exclusive Hotel de Pourtalès about 3am Monday local time.

The five attackers — wearing ski masks and clothes with police markings — also reportedly made off with two of her smartphones.

Kardashian’s bodyguard, Pascal Duvier, has come under fire for not being with Kardashian during her nightmarish ordeal. He was reportedly with her two sisters as they partied at a nightclub.

Kardashian was in the country for Paris Fashion Week, alongside mother Kris Jenner and sisters Kourtney Kardashian and Kendall Jenner.

GUARD DOWN: ‘Where was Pascal Duvier?’


Steve Stanulis, who provided security for Kimye during New York Fashion Week in February for 10 days, and worked with them again around the Met Gala in May, claims the heist was an inside job.

“This was a crime waiting to happen. Kim is lucky to be alive,” he told The New York Post.

“I would say it’s either an inside job or publicity stunt. That hotel is so secure, somebody must have tipped them off that she was alone inside, or shown them a way in.”

Stanulis, who was sacked by West for allegedly getting too close to his wife, said his former bosses don’t take their security as seriously as they should.

“When I worked with them, Kanye would ask me to walk 10 feet behind him, which makes it so hard for anyone working their security to do anything if someone lunges at them. There was numerous times he’d try to ditch his security. He’d jump in a car and tell me to take a taxi,” he said.

JEWELLERY HEISTS: Kim K joins elite list of victims

SOCIAL MEDIA: Celebs react to Kim K robbery

He continued: “They need to pay for an armed security guard. She almost got killed at gunpoint, because she didn’t want to pay for an extra armed and well-trained person. It takes one minute of dialogue to figure out if someone really is a cop, they should not have got in the building.

“Sadly, the only person to blame for this incident, is Kim Kardashian. She has tens of millions of dollars of jewellery, but she can’t pay for an armed guard to protect her? The fact that five days ago that someone broke through her security chain and tried to grab her, then this happened, shows her security is not strong enough, and this should be a wake-up call.”

He said Kardashian brought the robbery on herself: “Kim’s social media and her Snapchat is her undoing. When she is posting, ‘Here I am, and this is the $5 million ring I am wearing, here’s where I am going’, you are basically inviting someone to rob you.”


Kardashian’s publicist said the star was “badly shaken but physically unharmed” after robbers tied her up in the bathroom of her Paris residence and put a gun to her head.

A Paris police source told Reuters that five attackers, wearing ski masks and clothes with police markings, struck early on Monday morning.

Two of the men entered the apartment after threatening the night guard with a hand gun. Kardashian, who has two young children with West, was not beaten but the robbers put a handgun against her temple before tying her up, the source said. iTELE television said she had been tied up with packing tape.

When the thieves left with “all her jewellery”, Kardashian “broke out of her bindings and got out,” the source told E! News.

E! News, whose US network broadcasts the Keeping Up With the Kardashians, quoted a source close to Kardashian as saying she feared for her life.

“She begged for them to let her live and (said) she has babies at home ... She thought they were for sure going to kill her,” the unidentified source told E! News. 

The robbers stole a box containing jewels worth between $7.3 million to $8.7 million and a ring worth about $5.7 million, the Paris police source said.

French police are now questioning a photographer who posed as a police officer to spy on Kardashian in a restaurant earlier in the week, The Sun reports. The snapper’s identity has not been released.


The New York Post reports the apartment where the heist went down is owned by Kardashian’s husband, Kanye West. Kardashian reportedly spent a lot of time there before her 2014 wedding to the rapper.

According to another insider, that’s why the robbery could be “was so well planned out.”
“They knew exactly what room, etc,” they said.

The complex, known as ‘No address France’ is a favourite of other celebrities.

Footballer Zlatan Ibrahimovic also stayed in a $30,345 suite with his family when he first moved to Paris St. Germain, according to Le Huffington Post.

Leonardo DiCaprio, Madonna and Prince are among some of the other famous names to stay at the complex, which has secret exits for the A-list clientele.


Hours after the shocking attack, Kardashian boarded a private jet back to the US with her assistant and bodyguard. The social media entrepreneur was pictured walking to the plane with her head covered with a black scarf.

“She’s very pleased to be heading back to the United States,” a source close to the case said. “She has given a full statement for the police.”

Kendall Jenner left Paris separately on Monday, E! News reported.