The Great Seal Hoax


You may of seen this hoax doing the rounds on Facebook (and also some blogs)

Valid Precedent at Law:

Davenport Magistrates Court. Case complaint number: 51841/15: Listing: Michael-Grant Nibbs V. Western Prosecutions Services 2015.

A request for production of supporting documents to validate laws claimed and relied on by the prosecution was ordered by Magistrate McKee at Devonport Magistrates Court in Tasmania, on Friday the 13th day of October in the year 2015.

Precedent and relevant point at Law: (Audio file time approximately 01:10:00).

“I understand Michael’s argument and it is fairly simple that any laws that have been passed since 1901 in Australia and the state of Tasmania are invalid because they didn’t put the correct seal on and the laws prosecution is relying upon do not exist and if prosecutions were to proceed any further they would have to address the seal argument”. – Magistrate McKee – November 13, 2015.

Despite the request to do so by the judiciary in a local court and on record the prosecution replied directly to Michael;

“Dear Mr Nibbs, On the last occasion your matter was in court, his honor Magistrate McKee directed prosecution to circulate further material as to what charge and associated particulars Prosecution seek to amend. I write to advise both you and the Court that when this matter is again before the Court on the 26th November, 2015, Prosecution will tender no evidence, meaning that the charge against you will (Subject to the Courts discretion) be dismissed.” – Oliver K Hinss Western Prosecution Services. Prosecution Correspondence. Dated 19th day of November 2015

Ok, let me just break down some basic points on face-value regarding the facts asserted here…

(1) There is no “precedent” set by a Magistrates Court. Precedents are set by the higher courts, the Supreme Courts of the States, and High Court of Australia, and they are on public record on Austlii.

(2) The case “Michael-Grant Nibbs V. Western Prosecutions Services” would, (as the name implies) be a civil case, in which Michael-Grant Nibbs was the plaintiff, and Western Prosecutions Services was the respondent, and not a criminal matter as asserted by this post.

(3) “Western Prosecutions Services” is not any type of government prosecution agency, for Tasmania DPP, in fact, it doesn’t even exist. You can search all government and private data bases, and there are zero results.

(4) There is no Davenport, it’s Devonport. (The Devonport Magistrates Court is at 8 Griffith Street Devonport Tasmania 7310, their office number is 03 647 84353 if you want to check their listings for Friday November 13, 2015.)

(5) “Devonport Magistrates Court in Tasmania, on Friday the 13th day of October in the year 2015.” is obviously wrong, because the 13th of October is a Tuesday. Could the writer be talking about November 13, 2015, as in the following paragraph, which was a Friday, or some other fictional hearing..?? This mistake robs some more credibility from the whole assertion.

(6) It is clear by the summary of Magistrate Andrew McKee, (who does actually exist) that he understood the basis of Michael-Grant Nibbs argument, but that is all. Even if this was not fiction, he did not imply anything else.

(7) “Despite the request to do so by the judiciary in a local court and on record the prosecution replied directly to Michael.” is an obvious fabrication, because it is a civil matter and not a criminal matter, so there is no prosecution.

(8) Regarding the letter, we already know that there is no “Western Prosecutions Services” but the “Oliver K Hinss” that the correspondence is allegedly written by, has nothing to do with Department of Public Prosecutions either, or even any involvement in criminal matters. Oliver Hinss 1 is a Family Law Solicitor at Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania, he commenced in a fixed-term level 1 Family Lawyer position in 2011, and still works there today.

(9) With all these obvious falsifications, we are then expected to believe the contents of an alleged letter withdrawing charges, from a prosecution that doesn’t exist, regarding a civil case in which charges don’t exist, written by a Legal Aid family law solicitor.

This leaves many unanswered questions, (if hypothetically, this letter is actually “fair dinkum”) WHAT were the alleged charges in this case, as this is obviously a different case to the one mentioned above, and what were the REAL reasons for the withdrawal…??

Was this a deliberate work of fiction due to the Supreme Court appeal regarding property rates 2 hearing on the 12th of August 2015 …not going so well for our Michael-Grant Nibbs..?? 3 He was obviously pissed off at his failure in the Supreme Court case, because he muttered about the court “not having jurisdiction anyway” after  the judgment. This must of cost him dearly, because it was ongoing 4 since 13th of October the previous year… 5

I had received confirmation, from conversations with him, that the post was initially written by Glenn Bowley who swears it is true, and berated me for doubting it. Neither he or Micheal Nibbs 6 has however, produced any evidence of the alleged event since this was published.

In conclusion, I encourage everyone to question everything with a critical mind, look not only at what is being said, but why it is being said, for what motive. Give me the cold hard inconvenient truth over a moralistic comfortable reassuring lie any day. If nothing else, I hope my critical analysis of this post opens peoples eyes to look at all things skeptically, and not just take things on face value because you want to believe it is true.

For those interested in reading about cases that actually exist instead, I have included Nibbs v Devonport City Council [2015] TASSC 34 here, and another article explaining the validity of the Great Seal of Australia here.