2026-05-31Sunday JP panic thread: paperwork does not prove a plot is falling apart
What is happening here
The thread tries to turn a weekend request for witnessing or signing into evidence that someone else’s political plan is collapsing. The problem is that the factual material does not get that far. It names possible authorised witnesses, then leaps from paperwork logistics to motive.
The narrow administrative point is partly grounded: Victoria’s statutory declaration guidance says many people can witness a statutory declaration, including a Justice of the Peace, police officer, court registrar, medical practitioner and dentist. The broader claim, that this proves a plan is falling apart or that the paperwork is for party registration, is asserted rather than shown.
Post-by-post reality check
POST 1: A Sunday-hours insinuation
After hours on Sunday? Seems their plan is falling apart…
t.me/monicasmitof…
Fact check: The post gives no document, deadline, appointment record, or official source showing what was being signed or why Sunday mattered.
Critique: It is a mood claim. It may imply urgency, but urgency is not proof of collapse.
Verdict: Unsupported.
POST 2: A real witness list, then a leap
A Justice of the Peace (JP) such as a police officer, doctor, dentist, pharmacist or a Court Registrar, Magistrate or Judge.
Magistrates and Judges only sit on Sunday in relation to urgent criminal matters.
She needs it signed to register her bullshit political parties.
Fact check: Victoria’s statutory declaration page supports the general point that JPs, police officers, court registrars, medical practitioners, dentists and many other authorised people can witness statutory declarations. It does not support the personalised claim about why this particular person needed a signature.
Critique: The thread starts with a real administrative category and then attaches a conclusion about motive without evidence.
Verdict: Partly true, overclaimed.
Claim ledger
| Claim | Reality check |
|---|---|
| Their plan is falling apart because signing was needed after hours on Sunday. | Unsupported No public evidence in the thread establishes the document, deadline, signer, or reason for Sunday urgency. |
| Police officers, doctors, dentists, pharmacists, court registrars, magistrates and judges can be authorised witnesses for Victorian statutory declarations. | Broadly supported Victoria’s Department of Justice lists many authorised witnesses, including JPs, police officers, court registrars, medical practitioners, dentists and pharmacists. Source: Victorian Department of Justice – statutory declarations |
| The signature was needed to register political parties. | Not established The VEC has party-registration material and deadlines, but this thread does not connect the person, document or signature to a specific party-registration filing. Source: Victorian Electoral Commission – registered political parties |
Overall summary
This is a classic paperwork-to-plot jump. The authorised-witness point is real enough, but the post does not show the document or the purpose. Without that, the claim that a political plan is falling apart is just commentary dressed as inside knowledge. Rant rating: 6/10.
2026-05-31Footscray firearms post: real police story, shaky corruption insinuation
2026-05-31 / Bluesky reality check
A real firearms report gets welded to a corruption riff
What is happening here
The first post is basically a headline-share of a real Victoria Police matter: a Footscray warrant, alleged 3D-printed firearm parts, ammunition, pyrotechnics, and a 37-year-old woman charged. The second post then pivots to Raymond Hoser, police corruption and an ABC report about NSW police brutality. Those are not the same claim.
The ABC report is serious and specific: it describes body-worn-camera footage and court findings about NSW officers’ assault of Jodi Knott. It does not prove the broader implied Victorian corruption narrative in this thread.
Post-by-post reality check
POST 1: The Footscray firearms story is real
Woman charged & 3D printed firearms seized
#ausnews #vicnews #firearms #arrest #warrant #footscray
Fact check: Victoria Police says detectives charged a 37-year-old woman after a Napier Street, Footscray warrant, and seized ammunition, 3D-printed firearm parts, a 3D printer, an imitation firearm and pyrotechnics.
Critique: The headline itself is supported. It becomes shaky only when paired with a much broader corruption insinuation.
Verdict: Supported headline.
POST 2: NSW police brutality is not proof of the whole riff
And remember how, a few days ago, we discussed Raymond Hoser’s books, and how police say “corruption doesn’t happen any more” … well, well, what have we here?
www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05…
Fact check: The ABC article describes a grave NSW Police assault case involving Jodi Knott and body-camera footage. That supports a claim that serious police misconduct can happen. It does not verify the thread’s implied Raymond Hoser/corruption-book framing or any claim about Victoria Police saying corruption no longer exists.
Critique: A serious article is being used as a rhetorical bridge to a much wider grievance.
Verdict: Real source, overextended conclusion.
Claim ledger
| Claim | Reality check |
|---|---|
| A woman was charged after 3D-printed firearm parts were seized in Footscray. | Supported Victoria Police reports a 37-year-old woman was charged after a Footscray warrant where ammunition, 3D-printed firearm parts, a 3D printer, an imitation firearm and pyrotechnics were seized. Source: Victoria Police |
| The ABC article shows serious police misconduct occurred. | Supported ABC/Four Corners reports body-camera footage and judicial description of NSW officers’ treatment of Jodi Knott as gratuitous cruelty. Source: ABC News |
| The ABC story proves the thread’s broader Raymond Hoser / police-corruption framing. | Unsupported The thread does not provide the prior statement, the Hoser material, or a logical bridge between the NSW case and the broader allegation. |
Overall summary
The firearms headline checks out. The corruption flourish does not. A documented NSW Police brutality case is serious evidence of misconduct in that case, not a blank cheque for every attached grievance. Rant rating: 7/10 because the thread welds a supported crime item to a much larger insinuation without doing the work to prove it.
2026-05-30 updateUpdate: media-ownership concern becomes a newsroom-wide PR smear
What changed since the first review
This is a continuation of the existing media-ownership entry, not a fresh scandal. The earlier posts turned a real Southern Cross Media story into a broad theory about bought journalism. The later addition pushes it further: every journalist at The West Australian, Triple M and Channel 7 is recast as Gina Rinehart’s PR staff, with a fascism and Goebbels comparison bolted on top.
The underlying news still deserves scrutiny. Guardian reporting says Rinehart bankrolled Bruce McWilliam’s almost 10% Southern Cross Media stake, connected to Seven, Triple M and West Australian Newspapers, while also noting the structure does not make it a direct Rinehart stake unless the deed is breached. That supports questions about influence. It does not prove total editorial control, newsroom obedience, or personal PR work by every journalist at the named outlets.
Rant rating remains 6/10. The thread has 7 checkable claims or accusations; the update makes the weakest part louder rather than stronger.
Post-by-post reality check
POST 1: A real media story turned into a universal rule
Buy media, then get them to ‘report’ (really, it’s PR, not journalism) to shape public opinion and politics that favour you and your businesses the most so you can make even more coin … but nah, that’s an American thing.
Stop it, Australia. Ban it.
Fact check: There is a live, checkable issue: Rinehart-linked financing behind a Southern Cross Media stake. But the post states the wider mechanism as fact: buy media, convert reporting into PR, bend politics, make more money.
Critique: That may be a political suspicion, but it is not established by the thread. A financing story can justify concern about influence without proving that reporting is now PR or that politics has already been shaped for business gain.
Verdict: Partly anchored, mostly unproven.
POST 2: The purity exemption
Yep. My own (personal) rules are that I’ll only do PR reporting for charitable and community groups, ya know the Red Cross, Salvos, St Vinnies, CWA, Lions, Rotary, a community footy club etc.
And I don’t take payments for such.
Fact check: This is a claim about his own editorial practice and payment rules. The post supplies no independent audit or sample set.
Critique: It is self-character evidence. Even if true, it does not prove the media-ownership claim; it just asks the reader to accept that his PR-labelled work is ethically different from everyone else’s.
Verdict: Unverified self-description.
POST 3: Journalist-only ownership as magic fix
Could be easily fixed with one piece of legislation. Only qualified journalists can own media outlets.
Long, long, ago, when books and newspapers first began, newspapers quickly became the organ of the powerful Catholic (and other) Churches.
Fact check: ACMA’s media-control rules regulate control and diversity. They do not require media owners to be qualified journalists. ACMA’s professional-news requirements deal with standards and editorial independence, not a blanket owner-licensing rule.
Critique: The proposal is presented as simple because all the hard parts are left out: who counts as qualified, who decides, what happens to small publishers, and how the rule survives basic press-freedom questions.
Verdict: Slogan, not workable evidence.
POST 4: The neat church-newspaper myth
Eventually, citizens revolted and newspapers were taken off Churches and turned into public organs for all, rather than just whatever the Church wanted the public to think.
We’ve just replaced churches with a different kind of rich pricks.
Fact check: The history does not reduce to citizens taking newspapers away from churches and turning them into public organs for all. Britannica’s account of early newspapers points to commercial newsletters, early printed newsbooks, censorship and developing press freedom, not the tidy transfer described here.
Critique: This is history being flattened into a morality play. The metaphor is doing the work because the historical claim cannot carry it.
Verdict: False as stated.
POST 5: The update turns concern into a newsroom smear
Looks like fascism.
So, now we know that every journalist at The West Australian, Triple M & Channel 7 is just Gina Rinehart’s talking heads and personal PR spinners.They are doing Joseph Goebells very proud.
Fact check: Current reporting supports scrutiny of the Rinehart/McWilliam/Southern Cross arrangement. It does not show that every journalist at The West Australian, Triple M and Channel 7 is a Rinehart talking head or personal PR spinner.
Critique: This is the continuation’s main escalation. It moves from possible ownership influence to collective guilt, then reaches for fascism and Goebbels to make the smear feel morally settled without evidence.
Verdict: Unhinged and unsupported.
Claim ledger
| Claim | Reality check |
|---|---|
| Post 1 says people can buy media and turn reporting into PR that shapes politics for their businesses | Partly anchored, mostly overreach Rinehart reportedly bankrolled Bruce McWilliam’s almost 10% Southern Cross Media stake, tied to a group that owns Seven, Triple M and West Australian Newspapers. That supports an influence question, not proof that bought media has turned reporting into PR. Source: Guardian, Rinehart/Southern Cross Media report |
| Post 2 says his own PR reporting is only for charitable/community groups and is unpaid | Unverified self-claim The post provides no independent evidence that the stated rule is consistently followed. |
| Post 3 says only qualified journalists should be allowed to own media outlets | False as current law; vague as policy ACMA regulates media control and diversity. Its professional-news framework is about standards and editorial independence, not a journalist-only ownership rule. Source: ACMA media control rules, ACMA professional news outlet requirements |
| Post 3 says early newspapers quickly became organs of powerful churches | Too neat to rely on Early newspaper history is broader than that, including commercial newsletters, official control, censorship and later press-freedom developments. Source: Britannica, first newspapers |
| Post 4 says citizens revolted and newspapers were taken off churches | False as stated The source history does not show a clean citizen revolt that transferred newspapers from churches into public ownership or public organs for all. Source: Britannica, first newspapers |
| Post 5 says every journalist at The West Australian, Triple M and Channel 7 is Gina Rinehart’s PR spinner | Unsupported mass smear The reported financing arrangement is not evidence that every journalist at three outlets is personally serving Rinehart’s PR interests. Source: Guardian, Rinehart/Southern Cross Media report |
| Post 5 compares the outlets’ conduct to fascism and Joseph Goebbels | Inflammatory, not evidenced The thread gives no evidence that would justify a fascism or Goebbels comparison. It is escalation after the evidence has already run out. |
Overall summary
The update does not change the core finding. A real media-ownership and influence story is being used as launch fuel for claims far larger than the evidence. There is a legitimate question about whether Rinehart-linked financing around Southern Cross Media could affect editorial direction. There is not evidence here that three named outlets have become her personal PR operation.
The continuation makes the entry more severe because it adds a collective smear and Nazi comparison, not because it adds proof. The church-newspaper history remains wrong, the journalist-only ownership fix remains undercooked, and the final post turns a scrutiny issue into a blanket accusation against working journalists. Rant rating: 6/10.
2026-05-29See @al-redy5.bsky.social they don’t like independent journalists who can’t be silenced or bought off with a call to old
What is happening here
This one is less about media ownership and more about self-defence. He frames legal pressure as a silencing campaign, then tries to turn attribution, copyright and Father Bob into proof that he is the honest party and the mainstream media are hypocrites.
Additional court context: The stronger angle here is responsibility-shifting. Local Paper/Issuu reporting from October and November 2021 says Ashley Geelan was jailed for 12 months after guilty pleas involving stalking, breaches of court orders and bail, with Intervention Orders in the background. That does not make every later legal letter fair or unfair by itself, but it changes the reading of the persecution frame: courts are not opened simply because someone is an independent journalist. On the available reporting, the court action followed pleaded offences and order breaches.
The problem is the evidence gap. Some narrow points can be checked, such as the VicNews copyright notice, an NFNL sample page and La Trobe’s plagiarism guidance. The bigger claims, especially legal threats and stolen Father Bob work, still need receipts.
Rant rating: 7/10. The thread makes 8 checkable claims or accusations.
Post-by-post reality check
POST 1: Persecution framing
See @al-redy5.bsky.social they don’t like independent journalists who can’t be silenced or bought off with a call to old Rupert and his mates.
The MSM is over. Powerful folk ain’t like the fact they’ve lost control. @michaelwestbiz.bsky.social is a great journalist.
Fact check: The post claims powerful people are trying to silence independent journalists but supplies no evidence in the post. It also ignores the obvious court-context problem: public reporting says his 2021 jail sentence followed guilty pleas to stalking, court-order breaches and bail breaches, not a special court opened to persecute a journalist.
Critique: This is classic siege language: he casts himself as the unsilenceable hero and everyone else as controlled. It may feel dramatic, but it does not prove the allegation.
Verdict: Unsupported emotional framing.
POST 2: A checkable claim with no receipt
@al-redy5.bsky.social the legal letters arrived today. So here’s some facts … www.victoriannews.com.au/classifieds/…
Fact check: Legal letters either exist or they do not. The post links a VicNews copyright notice, not the alleged letter itself.
Critique: This is the kind of claim that should be easy to substantiate: sender, date, demand, legal basis. Until then, it is a teaser dressed up as evidence.
Verdict: Unverified.
POST 3: The attribution defence
1) Bigwig MSM lawyers sending me the legal threats etc.
2) Whenever I have (and I do) use, quote, discuss other journalist’s work, use their images or videos, I, as journalistic integrity requires, acknowledge the source and provide links to those sources, so you, the public, can check it further.
Fact check: A sampled NFNL preview does name an author and labels Northern Football Netball League as source. The copyright notice also quotes the fair-dealing acknowledgement requirement.
Critique: That helps him on the narrow sample. It does not prove the bigger claim that every reused source is always properly credited. He states a standard, then grades his own homework.
Verdict: Needs spot-checking.
POST 4: Credit grievance without the paper trail
3) As you’d know, when it was the other way around, after all my work to ‘get up’ and win Father Bob’s matter, all the Melbourne MSM used my work. Did any of them acknowledge it was my work, name me, VicNews, and link to my original work? No, not one of them did.
Now they’re having a whinge.
Fact check: The claim requires side-by-side evidence: his original Father Bob work, later mainstream reports, dates, wording, and missing attribution. The post provides none of that.
Critique: As written, it is a grievance, not a demonstrated theft. The emotional certainty is much stronger than the evidence shown, which is exactly why it should not be treated as proved.
Verdict: Unsupported unless receipts appear.
POST 5: The attribution defence
At least I acknowledge all sources.Eg, those weekend footy match previews for this weekend for the NFNL, the author of the articles is not me, and the author and source are named. It is not my work; I just re-published it.
Seems I upset the apple cart. Again.
Fact check: A sampled NFNL preview does name an author and labels Northern Football Netball League as source. The copyright notice also quotes the fair-dealing acknowledgement requirement.
Critique: That helps him on the narrow sample. It does not prove the bigger claim that every reused source is always properly credited. He states a standard, then grades his own homework.
Verdict: Needs spot-checking.
POST 6: Classroom rule turned into media law
Just like at La Trobe Uni, if I used another journalist’s work, or phtos from another media outlet and they weren’t acknowledged properly? Instant fail. If acknowledged, that’s fine as the source is named.
Seems the MSM want special rules just for themselves.
Fact check: Universities do penalise unattributed reuse, but that does not settle the legal or ethical facts of this dispute.
Critique: He swaps one arena for another: a student assessment rule becomes proof that media lawyers and publishers are hypocrites. That leap is doing too much work.
Verdict: Partly plausible, poorly applied.
POST 7: Movie dialogue, not evidence
“Quick, quick, we’ve been exposed, silence them.”
Goodnight.
Fact check: The quoted panic line is not sourced to anyone.
Critique: It is theatre. It may capture how he wants readers to imagine his opponents, but imagined dialogue is not a fact.
Verdict: Unhinged flourish.
Claim ledger
| Claim | Reality check |
|---|---|
| Post 1 says independent journalists cannot be silenced or bought off by Rupert and his mates | Persecution framing, not proof The post asserts a powerful-media effort to control him but does not show who acted, what they did, or how the alleged control works. Public reporting of his 2021 jailing points instead to guilty pleas and order/bail breaches, which is a very different context from political persecution. Source: Local People / Issuu, Oct. 9, 2021, The Local Paper / Issuu, Nov. 10, 2021 |
| Post 2 says legal letters arrived today | Unverified Legal letters are checkable documents. The thread says they arrived but does not show the letter, sender, date, demand, or legal basis. Source: VicNews copyright notice |
| Post 2 uses a VicNews copyright notice as the factual defence | True but incomplete Section 42 is a real fair-dealing exception for reporting news, and sufficient acknowledgement matters. It does not automatically bless any reuse; fairness and context still matter. Source: Copyright Act 1968 s42, VicNews copyright notice |
| Post 3 says he always acknowledges other journalists’ work, images and videos with links | Too broad to accept on trust A copyright notice and some source labels do not prove every reused work is properly acknowledged. The claim needs article-by-article checking. Source: VicNews copyright notice |
| Post 4 says Melbourne mainstream media used his Father Bob work without naming or linking VicNews | Unsupported on the evidence shown Search results show VicNews Father Bob material and other Father Bob coverage, but this thread gives no side-by-side dates, passages, or missing-attribution examples proving Melbourne outlets used his work. Source: VicNews copyright notice |
| Post 5 says NFNL previews name the author and source | Partly true in the sample checked A current VicNews NFNL Division 1 preview names an author and labels Northern Football Netball League as source. That supports the narrow sample, not a blanket claim that every republication is clean. Source: VicNews NFNL Division 1 sample |
| Post 6 says La Trobe would instantly fail unattributed reuse | Broadly true, badly applied La Trobe’s guide treats using others’ words, ideas or images without acknowledgement as plagiarism or poor scholarship. But a student-assessment rule is not the same as proving this media dispute. Source: La Trobe plagiarism guide |
| Post 7 invents the quote: ‘we’ve been exposed, silence them’ | Invented dialogue No one is quoted saying this. It is a stage direction for the reader, designed to make his opponents sound panicked. |
Overall summary
Overall, this is a grievance thread trying to dress itself as a dossier. The copyright-law point is real, and a sampled NFNL page does show source labelling, but those narrow checks do not carry the whole argument. The missing context is the ugliest part: when a person with a reported jail sentence after guilty pleas for stalking and order/bail breaches presents legal consequences as a silencing campaign, that is not just media criticism; it is an attempt to move responsibility away from his own conduct.
The unsupported parts are doing the loudest work: legal letters are mentioned but not shown, Father Bob credit claims are asserted without side-by-side proof, and the imagined ‘silence them’ quote is theatre. The table gives him credit where the narrow evidence supports him, but the bigger persecution story still does not clear the bar. Rant rating: 7/10. The claim ledger above pulls out 8 checkable claims; 4 post verdicts land in the false, unhinged, unsupported, or poorly defined range.