Thanks Sam… Seems you are onto something also
Mate, we’ve got some REALLY REALLY good stuff, as it’s a collective effort, through the hard work of a fair few individuals…. We can say quite easily that the sheriff act 2009 is NOT VALID… The appointment of Facey has not been gazetted…. there’s heaps more…
There is a couple of angles to approach this from….
Did some research on SARC with their stuff relating to the Charter
So…. the SA2009 must go through the committee to see if it’s in line with HR (Human Rights)…
or more specific the Bill
haha Yes right .. I have written a paper on the Charter
and the SARC says it is an Invalid Act ? No
at best it can bee declared inconsistent
haven’t made this public yet…. – look intot he gov gaz on it’s proclamation….
what do you expect I will find there?
Just to let you know a few people are aiming for the jugular when it come to the ‘sheriff’…
I have observed that, I dismissed it along with the freeman nonsense, but you see this as different? It has legal basis? What is the cause of action ?
Yeah.. the ‘freeman’ stuff is that people DESERVE everything they get when using that garbage in court, and in my personal opinion they deserve a good old fashioned floggin’ wink emoticon
As you’d know there are PLENTY of remedies in the ‘Acts’ the ‘we’ can use…
I have documentation that is in the process of being presented to court, so can’t disclose the letters UNTIL they’re in the ‘public domain’ i.e. on file in this place of business/trading/commerce called the ‘court’… Hoping Facey’s BS title days will be put on hold….
The warrants that we’re talking about being from the ‘Infringements Court’ are also NOT valid, and there is no lawful setup of the ‘Infringements Court’ as stated by a letter from the Legislative Assembly, BUT that does NOT stop the ‘crims’ from oppressing the masses.
Yes agree on what you have said so far in principle
That is why I say challenge every fine
Yep! It’s MANDATORY to challenge every fine.
Mandatory ? LMAO or what I get an INfringement notice if I dont challenge
There’s sooooo much to write about re: Infringements, and the best part about it is that when people evolve, so does their paperwork… The sheriff used to write to the ‘natural’ person, maybe as a result of the assclowns doing the ‘freeman’ stuff … have a look at the Corporations Act 2001 Sect 64B smile emoticon
did not engage the sheriff and/or is not to my benefit…
let me get my head around that one
why dont you post this to the group? we can get others to benefit from this discussion? or you want to keep it confidential ?
nope this is NOT conf, as it’s an Act in the pub dom… more than happy to put it out there…
Cool put a post up in the paralegal forum it’s an interesting discussion
others could benefit and learn from this ..can I copy and past this discussion to get it started there?
As mentioned ‘the devil is in the details’…. If you have some correspondence from the ‘sheriff’ in early 2015, you MUST notice that the supreme court of vic seal is in the emblem…. whereas now it’s the Magistrates’ Court seal inside the emblem – suggesting a different jurisdiction.
You must log in to post a comment.