How to dismiss an unlawful sheriff - Brendan Facey?

There is a bit of action brewing in the colony of Victoria, Australia regarding a particular (natural?) person that goes by the name of Brendan Facey (see illustration below), which according to some paperwork is (allegedly?) the Sheriff of Victoria.

You won't read about it on news.com.au or even a Fairfax Media publication.

The camera crews of Today Tonight or A Current Affair will not be chasing this fraudster, that's for sure!

It’s not a matter of ‘conspiracy theories’ or even ‘facebook law degree’ information, it’s just  plain and simple following the ‘legal’ procedure, irrespective of how lawful it is.

As of this time it is in the public domain that there is no lawful appointment for the so called sheriff of Victoria, Brendan Facey. 

Consequently if his appointment is not lawful then neither is the appointment of his ‘deputies’.

Now, this does not stop the ’government’ from acting further upon his actions.

Some people may comprehend the term ‘statute barred’, where the sheriff will try to obtain funds where the ‘warrants’ have expired. 

Well guess what?

That is actually a crime called:

•   Obtaining property by deception

or/and

• Obtaining financial advantage by deception.

Get the name of the ‘sheriff’ or ‘deputy’ in order to charge them.

Now at this point in time one should know that the sheriff is an officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria, exclusively.

He is not, he's also a director of IMES (Infringement Management Enforcement Services).

Moving on,

The sheriff’s appointment MUST be gazetted, where in the case of Brendan Facey it is not.

Now this is where it gets really basic.

In the Victoria Government Gazette, No.2, Wednesday January 2, 1901 on page 2 of the pdf:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21_coIgIYu2Sno2c2Nmam45YU0

VIII. The Governor may constitute and appoint, in Our name and on Our behalf, all such Judges Commissioners, Justices of the Peace and other necessary offices and Ministers of the State as may be lawfully constituted or appointed by Us.

And it gets a little bit better for the lay person.

X. The Governor may, so far as We Ourselves lawfully may, upon sufficient cause to him appearing, remove from his office, or suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office or place under the State, under or by virtue of any Commission or Warrant granted, or which may be granted, by Us, in Our name, or under Our authority.

Now, there is a mistake that many people make when reading law texts of yesteryear. 

For example the word ‘freeman’ in 1215 (Magna Carta) does not mean the same as freeman in 2015.

In this case the word ‘may’ in 1901 means ‘will’ in respect to carrying out that action.

So what’s a ‘pleb’ to do?

Write a letter to the current governor, via the appropriate method outlined, to remove Facey from office.

Everyone who has been effected must take action. 

Edit:

Some people may not have access to Google Drive, so this is the reference from the State Library of Victoria's archive.

http://gazette.slv.vic.gov.au/view.cgi?year=1901&class=general&page_num=1&state=V&classNum=G1

The unlawful GST is set to rise

In Australia there is thing called 'tax', which whether you like it or not some people pay more whereas companies and multinationals pay next to nothing.

This 'thing' called tax has been implemented via some other 'thing's called Bills which later become law, via some 'thing' called an 'Act', e.g. Taxation Administration Act 1953.

Lawfully there can only ever be 1 (one) tax.

So, here in Australia the government implemented a tax called the GST, the Goods and Services Tax.

This means a 'Goods' Tax and a 'Services' Tax.

So, any internet 'facebook lawyer' care to point to the 'Goods' Tax Act AND the 'Services' Tax Act?

How about the 'Goods' Tax Bill AND the 'Services' Tax Bill?

Or what about the 'hansards' to the 'Bills'?

Anyone?

While this tax may be 'legal' it is most definitely is NOT 'lawful'. There is a distinct difference between the two words.

You can bet your 'Constitutional Lawyer's' degree and not your moronic 'facebook law degree' that the government has implemented this tax unlawfully.

So what's a Prime Minister to do?

Why support a rise in the unlawful GST of course!!! !!! !!!

STILL not convinced Australia is run by a criminal corporate elite above the law?

The proviso here the that we put aside the actual validity of any Act mentioned.

Cop punches woman in face for lesbian kiss

How can you ever trust the police with being protectors of the public?

In the United States, how you trust the police with your 'civil rights'?

The real answer: You can't?

So what happens when you kiss (your lesbian partner) in public?

You get punched in the face and arrested in Hawaii.

Note to self:  Do not go there, they might even start attacking hetero couples.

From the news.com.au article on 30 Oct 2015 of the headline:

Lesbian kiss by Courtney Wilson and Taylor Guerrero in Hawaii sees them arrested and jailed

Kiss crime ... Courtney Wilson, left, and Taylor Guerrero pose for a photo in Honolulu. Picture: AP

Joe Tacopino and Network WritersNew York Post

A LESBIAN couple on holiday in Hawaii claim they were arrested by a cop who didn’t appreciate their public display of affection.

The New York Post reports that Courtney Wilson and Taylor Guerrero were holding hands and at one point “hugged and kissed” each other while strolling through the aisles of Foodland on Oahu’s North Shore, a lawsuit said.

Officer Bobby Harrison, who was shopping at the store in uniform, witnessed the canoodling and warned them to “take it somewhere else,” the suit states.

The eagle-eyed officer then spotted the two hugging a second time and allegedly cornered them at the check-out line and grabbed Wilson by the wrist.

“He was bumping his belly against Courtney,” Guerrero said. “He said, ‘you girls don’t know how to act. You don’t know the difference between a motel and a grocery store.’”

In love ... Courtney Wilson, left, and Taylor Guerrero were wrongfully arrested, they claim, for kissing in public. Picture: APSource:AP

A scuffle ensued and Wilson said she was “punched in the face” by the cop.

Both women were charged with felony assault on an officer and spent three days in jail. The duo were forced to stay in Honolulu as a condition of their release and at one point lived in a homeless shelter.

The charges against them were later dismissed.

The Honolulu Police Department said that they launched an internal investigation into whether the women were wrongfully arrested.

Officer Harrison, a 26-year- veteran, remains on full active duty.

Robert Krishnan Ashok Kumar another corrupt magistrate?

It looks like the 'courts' are full of crims...

The ones behind the bar and not the 'customers'? Right?

What many a lay / uneducated person may not comprehend is that the Australian 'kangaroo' courts are NOT courts of law but rather a forum for business/trade/commerce.

What most definitely the corporate media does not report on is the miscarriage of 'justice' that occurs in the courts EVERY SINGLE DAY.

From deception and fraud carried out by the judicature to the unlawful 'star chambers' where people are imprisoned by a single person, a practice that has been outlawed since 1641.

So who's the 'magistrate' this time that has unlawfully carried out a task.

It's non other than a 'Deputy Chief Magistrate' a Mr. Robert Krishnan Ashok Kumar.

What did he do?

At a hearing in which he presided, it was witnessed that the defendant at the next hearing was to appear for a 'contest'.

Instead Mr. Kumar booked the person in for a 'hearing', which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

So, he 'erred' in law, where one could instigate a 'Judicial Review'.

Not that Kumar is going to give a stuff, as he's retiring in 3 weeks.

He and his family are going to leech of hard working taxpayers earned 'dollars' for his appalling work, an 'entitlement' earned from the Judges' Pension Act.

Apparently the 'Age of Entitlement' is over according to the corporate media.

Well not in the case of Australia's elite criminal gang.

This is the kind of behaviour that the corporate media does not report on, and probably never will.

Australia is run by a highly organised criminal syndicate.

Gino and Mark Stucco eat your hearts out!

Fugitive father and son an embarrassment to police

What's making headlines from news outlets around the country is the fugitive father and son pair Gino and Mark Stocco.

What some people may say it that the pair are responsible for 'common law' crimes, like theft, destruction of property and not the other type of 'crimes' people commit like traveling 2km/h over the 'speed limit', or an outstanding (unlawful) sheriff's warrant for a 'fine' from the illegal Infringements Court.

What no corporate media outlet is actually saying is that the fugitive pair are an embarrassment to the country's police 'force'.

In order to exonerate the police, the media has labelled the pair as 'cunning'.

So the police are unable to deal with 'cunning' criminals??? !!! ???

But the police have training don't they?

• They have all the sophisticated tools like infrared, and heat seeking cameras in the helicopters. 

• They are apparently trained in criminology. Aren't they??? !!! ???

• They are apparently trained in psychology. Aren't they??? !!! ???

Well from the current results, apparently NOT!!!

It seems that the police can deal with people 'speeding', following a robotic procedure in issuing 'fines'.

WOW look everyone Australia is FULL OF CRIMINALS!!! !!! !!!

The police can deal with the moronic procedure of looking up your address in a database and paying you a visit in order for you to own up to a 'crime' of 'speeding'.

Over the past few days apparently Victoria Police have been unable to attend to other crimes, as they have been chasing the fugitive father and son, BUT they are in full swing collecting revenue from 'speeding' motorists.

In reality the police 'force' is a joke at the expense of the general public's safety (IF what you read in the 'papers is true about the 'criminal' pair) and realistically a failure of governance.

But then those two really need to have their side of the story told in an unedited format by the corporate media... As if that's ever going to happen...

Queen of Australia – Corporate media lies?

• Is the corporate media part of the agenda to deliberately misinform the plebs about certain matters?

• Why does the corporate media not name police that have committed criminal offences whereas when a member of the public commits the same offence they are named?

• Why does the corporate media not attend certain court matters that matter when they are informed, but choose to divert the funds to reporting on trailer park trash Kardashian stories?

You don’t need a government propaganda machine from some ‘dodgy’ eastern block country do you?

One would not want to ask too many more questions as one could be labelled a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘tin foil’ hatter maybe even worthy of a ‘terrorist’ investigation with the new BS metadata retention laws.

There are more questions than you can poke a USB stick at that need to be answered but alas we digress...

So, the plebs may want to know, that we have a ‘Queen of Australia’?

Who or what is a ‘Queen of Australia’?

Well, according to the Fairfax media empire in an article from the 3^rd of June 2013, Elizabeth II celebrated 60 years as the ‘Queen of Australia’.

So simple maths will tell you that Elizabeth II became Queen of Australia in 1953.

“That’s great!” the uneducated pleb or even educated lawyer might say.

Ummm, WRONG! It’s plain and simple false information or deliberate misinformation.

According to law, even which it’s then debatable, the current British monarch is (Her Most Excellent Majesty) Queen Elizabeth the Second, which IS different from Queen Elizabeth II.

On this day 19^th of October 1973 (42 years ago), when the British monarch was visiting the colony called Australia (see illustration), an act was passed called the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973.

See: http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth14ii_doc_1973.pdf

Note (in the illustration below) the alleged signature of the Queen is on TOP of the document, i.e. not signed according to law, therefore making the Act INVALID.

Source:

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/documents/cth14ii_72_p1_1973.jpg

It is from this Act that the title of the Queen of Australia is derived.

The Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 is not valid for the same reasons, and certainly not under the corporate seal of the 'kangaroo and emu'.... Well it might be valid of you go to a 'kangaroo court'.

The Royal Style and Titles Act has been passed unlawfully, and also this is done in breach of the ‘Australian Constitution’.

Any person from the judicature states to you that they work for the ‘Queen of Australia’ are up for the charge of treason.

Just minor details omitted by Fairfax.

You can read the entire (false information / propaganda?) article from The Age at:

http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/are-you-a-subject-of-the-queen-20120602-1zog7.html