Wednesday, March 26, 2014


Having coffee with a private friend today, and whilst talking, the topic of the Sheriff's Rort, and in particular, their chief revenue raising officer, Brendan Facey, came up.

Revenue Raising Terrorists trading as "sheriff's" posing proudly @ the scene of their crime.
Recently, Mikiverse Law shared a notice/article that was entitled "OPPT NOTICE TO BRENDAN FACEY, VICTORIAN SHERIFF", and, today, my friend & i started talking about a particular claim that we found inside the notice; 

"The Road Safety Act 1986 – This Act has never been proclaimed, therefore it is INVALID."

This particular claim is based on S.2 of the Road Safety Act, 1986 (Vic)

The author of the notice, quoted this as proof that the Road Safety Act 1986 was never proclaimed, and therefore has no 'legal effect'.

If true, this is a powerful instrument, but, is it true?

i went & performed some research & found this;

Turns out the Act has been proclaimed.

Therefore, the claim contained in the notice was wrong.

This is a problem that we encounter time after time, and it is harming members of our community that seeks to be free of government tyranny.

It is one thing to formulate an opinion, or to have a belief, it is another thing to make basic factual errors.

If someone tells you something incorrect about a fact that you know, how likely are you to believe him/her when s/he tells you about a fact that you have no idea about?

The moral of the story is, don't presume, research.


  1. (As claimed / being researched at the moment) IF the Governor General's appointment is invalid, and subsequently the Governor of Victoria as well, then the act in question is not valid?

    1. The whole game is corrupt & rigged, but, my view is that it really depends on what capacity you are going into court to play as, or, which instruments you intend on wielding today. i know that Brian Shaw is going into the Federal Court with documentation that he feels will illustrate that the G-G's appointment was invalid, and actually witnessed by a computer, rather than a live witness.

      That wouldn't impact on the Governor's at a state level as far as i can see. Unless you are looking at the validity of the corporate/common law seals, Queen Of Australia/England and the like. Mostly, that is exceedingly difficult to prove of course, even before you factor corruptness into the equation.

  2. Correct, and that is the greatest probem 'we' have, that even if the documentation says so, the corrupt judges will shut down the matter before the court or withhold the matter in 'the interest of the public' or various other methods they employ, including threats to family, employment, etc.
    We are aware of the document you mention, being witnessed by a computer, as it is in the wording of it being in possession... Great work. We live in intersing times.