David Miranda/ Ed Snowden / Corrupt Obama
It appears that it is not only the Australian Federal Police  that are clueless and try and protect corruption in Government Departments.  Here is an example of the UK Police  also doing the same to intimidate David Miranda and Ed Snowden.
It is time the UK Police stopped pulling their cocks and spreading propaganda!!!!!
The UK Police should charge David Miranda if they think they have so much evidence and then David can defend himself  because even if the police continue to intimidate him any reasonable person would be aware that these are not the only set of documents on USB in the world.
Clearly this could all backfire on the UK Police because it is too easy to spread shit but not so easy to produce strong  evidence  in a court of Law  that will be scrutinised and could expose corruption that Obama is trying to suppress.
It looks like   Obama and The Uk Prime Minister are again pulling each others cocks  judging from the following.....................
 Govt says it needs to share data with “foreign third parties” but refuses to say whom. (I think we can assume they’re talking about the CIA)
*****************************************
***************************************
Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was carrying a stunning amount of government documents when he was
detained by British authorities for nine hours earlier this month.
And a U.K. national security adviser said Friday that some of those 58,000 documents were extremely sensitive to national security.
The Daily Telegraph’s David Barrett tweeted out some of the details from the statement made Friday by Oliver Robbins, deputy national security adviser for intelligence, before U.K. judges.
Robbins was making the case that national security teams and police needed to investigate the material, which they seized earlier this month. The court extended an order Friday that will allow officials to continue to inspect the material seized for national security purposes.
Some of the key points of the statement, which intelligence analyst Joshua Foust called “extraordinary”:

• Robbins said that the case material included 58,000 documents that were “highly classified UK intelligence documents.”
• Among the documents was a piece of paper with the decryption password.
• Police decrypted one file on Miranda’s hard drive with the password.
• The material contains “personal information that would allow British intelligence staff to be identified,” including overseas.
• Because of the size and scope of the material gathered, the British government believes that Edward Snowden “indiscriminately appropriated material in bulk.”
• In what could be a particularly troubling development, the UK government has “had” to assume that Snowden’s data is in the hands of foreign governments to which he has traveled: Hong Kong and Russia. (Greenwald told Business Insider last week that it was “highly unlikely” that had happened, however.)
• Robbins argued that it is “impossible” for Greenwald or any other journalist to determine which information could damage national security.

“The material seized is highly likely to describe techniques which have been crucial in life-saving counter-terrorist operations, and other intelligence activities vital to UK national security,” Robbins said.
“The compromise of these methods would do serious damage to UK national security and ultimately risk lives.”
The government told The Guardian newspaper that it had “no confidence in their ability to keep the material safe,” and that the government “appeared to accept our assessment that their continued possession of the information was untenable.”
Miranda, 28, was detained for nine hours at London’s Heathrow Airport earlier this month under a U.K. anti-terror law, while travelling home to Brazil. He had spent a week in Berlin visiting journalist Laura Poitras, who has been working with Greenwald to publish stories based on leaked information from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Miranda is taking legal action against the government. He has argued arguing that his detention was a misuse of Schedule 7 of the U.K. anti-terror law and breached his human rights.
Miranda’s trip, which was paid for by The Guardian, had the purpose of him being a courier between Greenwald and Poitras. Using encrypted thumb drives, he delivered documents to Poitras, and he came back with documents meant for Greenwald.
In a statement after Friday’s court hearing, Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger said that Robbins had made a “number of unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims” in his statement:
“This five week period in which nothing has happened tells a different story from the alarmist claims made by the government in their witness statement,” Rusbridger said.
“The Guardian took every decision on what to publish very slowly and very carefully and when we met with government officials in July they acknowledged that we had displayed a responsible attitude. The government’s behaviour does not match their rhetoric in trying to justify and exploit this dismaying blurring of terrorism and journalism.”
Greenwald blasted Miranda’s detention at the time, comparing it to mafia-style methods:

This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It’s bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It’s worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.

ress


Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was carrying a stunning amount of government documents when he was
detained by British authorities for nine hours earlier this month.
And a U.K. national security adviser said Friday that some of those 58,000 documents were extremely sensitive to national security.
The Daily Telegraph’s David Barrett tweeted out some of the details from the statement made Friday by Oliver Robbins, deputy national security adviser for intelligence, before U.K. judges.
Robbins was making the case that national security teams and police needed to investigate the material, which they seized earlier this month. The court extended an order Friday that will allow officials to continue to inspect the material seized for national security purposes.
Some of the key points of the statement, which intelligence analyst Joshua Foust called “extraordinary”:

• Robbins said that the case material included 58,000 documents that were “highly classified UK intelligence documents.”
• Among the documents was a piece of paper with the decryption password.
• Police decrypted one file on Miranda’s hard drive with the password.
• The material contains “personal information that would allow British intelligence staff to be identified,” including overseas.
• Because of the size and scope of the material gathered, the British government believes that Edward Snowden “indiscriminately appropriated material in bulk.”
• In what could be a particularly troubling development, the UK government has “had” to assume that Snowden’s data is in the hands of foreign governments to which he has traveled: Hong Kong and Russia. (Greenwald told Business Insider last week that it was “highly unlikely” that had happened, however.)
• Robbins argued that it is “impossible” for Greenwald or any other journalist to determine which information could damage national security.

“The material seized is highly likely to describe techniques which have been crucial in life-saving counter-terrorist operations, and other intelligence activities vital to UK national security,” Robbins said.
“The compromise of these methods would do serious damage to UK national security and ultimately risk lives.”
The government told The Guardian newspaper that it had “no confidence in their ability to keep the material safe,” and that the government “appeared to accept our assessment that their continued possession of the information was untenable.”
Miranda, 28, was detained for nine hours at London’s Heathrow Airport earlier this month under a U.K. anti-terror law, while travelling home to Brazil. He had spent a week in Berlin visiting journalist Laura Poitras, who has been working with Greenwald to publish stories based on leaked information from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Miranda is taking legal action against the government. He has argued arguing that his detention was a misuse of Schedule 7 of the U.K. anti-terror law and breached his human rights.
Miranda’s trip, which was paid for by The Guardian, had the purpose of him being a courier between Greenwald and Poitras. Using encrypted thumb drives, he delivered documents to Poitras, and he came back with documents meant for Greenwald.
In a statement after Friday’s court hearing, Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger said that Robbins had made a “number of unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims” in his statement:
“This five week period in which nothing has happened tells a different story from the alarmist claims made by the government in their witness statement,” Rusbridger said.
“The Guardian took every decision on what to publish very slowly and very carefully and when we met with government officials in July they acknowledged that we had displayed a responsible attitude. The government’s behaviour does not match their rhetoric in trying to justify and exploit this dismaying blurring of terrorism and journalism.”
Greenwald blasted Miranda’s detention at the time, comparing it to mafia-style methods:

This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It’s bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It’s worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.

.The Law Society of New South Wales v Samaan [2013] NSWSC 1144

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation

The Law Society of New South Wales v Samaan [2013] NSWSC 1144

Hearing Dates

16 August 2013

Decision Date

16/08/2013

Before

Adamson J

Decision

(1) An order pursuant to s 630(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 appointing John Ernest Mitchell receiver for the law practice known as Samaan & Associates Lawyers (the Law Practice) situated at Suite 3, Level 6, 402-410 Chapel Road Bankstown NSW 2200.

(2) An order that the receiver, within one month of appointment and from time to time afterwards, furnish to the plaintiff as it requires, reports of the receivership and that no further or other reports need be furnished by the receiver.

(3) Subject to the plaintiff giving an undertaking as to damages, an order that all transactions involving the receipt or disposal of trust moneys of clients of the Law Practice be effected and transacted through the law practice bank accounts of which John Ernest Mitchell has been appointed receiver.

(4) An order that the defendant and his servants or agents are restrained from:

(a) removing, or causing or permitting to be removed from the State of New South Wales; and

(b) selling, charging, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with or disposing of; and

(c) causing or permitting to be sold, charged, mortgaged or otherwise dealt with or disposed of,

any of his assets within the State of New South Wales provided that this order shall not prevent the defendant from paying his ordinary living expenses up to the sum of $1000.00 per week.

(5) An order that the defendant within 14 days of being served with a copy of this order, deliver or cause to be delivered to the plaintiff an affidavit sworn or affirmed by him setting out:

(a) The name and address of every bank, building society or other financial institution at which there is an account in any name that the defendant is entitled to operate in any capacity, (the Account), together with all the particulars of the Account known to the defendant, including the name, number and balance of the Account at the date of service of a copy of this order upon him;

(b) The name and address of any person or entity indebted to the Law Practice and/or the defendant at the date of service of a copy of this order upon it and/or him and the amount of the debt owed by that person or entity;

(c) An itemised inventory of all business assets owned by the Law Practice and/or the defendant;

(d) An itemised inventory of any other property, whether real or personal, owned by the Law Practice and/or the defendant or in respect of which the Law Practice and/or the defendant has an interest; and

(e) In respect of any of the property referred to above, whether it has been given as security for any debt, and if so, the nature of the security and the debt secured.

(6) An order that the defendant pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to the legal costs and expenses that may be incurred by the receiver in relation to the receivership.

(7) An order that the defendant pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to any fees paid by it to the receiver by way of remuneration.

(8) An order that the defendant pay the costs of this summons.

Catchwords

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS- application to appoint receiver to legal practice

Legislation Cited

- Legal Profession Act 2004, s 630(2)

Category

Interlocutory applications

Parties

The Law Society of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Rabie Samaan (Defendant)

Representation

Solicitors:
The Law Society of New South Wales (Plaintiff)

Counsel: CM Groenewegen (solicitor)(Plaintiff)
No appearance for the Defendant

File Number(s)

2013/247309

Publication Restriction

Nil

Judgment

Introduction

1By summons filed on 14 August 2013 the Law Society of New South Wales seeks orders against Rabie Samaan including an order pursuant to s 630(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (the Act) to appoint John Ernest Mitchell as a receiver for the law practice known as Samaan & Associates Lawyers situated in Bankstown.

2Ms Groenewegen, who appears on behalf of the plaintiff, has filed in support of the summons two affidavits; an affidavit of Ann Marie Ford of 13 August 2013, which was filed with the summons on 14 August 2013, and an affidavit of Cora Groenewegen of 16 August 2013 which was filed in Court today.

Defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's application for a receiver

3In the latter affidavit the deponent deposed to the attempts that she has made to notify the defendant of these proceedings. I note that the defendant was notified by email on Wednesday 7 August 2013 and the deponent telephoned the defendant on 14 August 2013. Later in that day she emailed the defendant attaching a PDF copy of the sealed summons. Later on that same day she sent a letter to the defendant by express post informing him of the proceedings and the intention of the plaintiff to appear before the duty judge on Friday 16 August 2013 to have a receiver appointed to the practice.

4On Thursday 15 August 2013 the defendant telephoned Ms Groenewegen and said he had received the emails and the PDF of the summons and that he understood the affidavit was too big to send. Ms Groenewegen explained that she had sent it by express post the previous day and that it should arrive that day, being 15 August 2013. She asked the defendant to contact her once he received the affidavit to indicate to her what he proposed to do tomorrow, namely Friday 16 August 2013. Notwithstanding this discussion Ms Groenewegen received no response either by telephone or email from the defendant. This morning at 8.15am she telephoned him and left a message and sent an email to him at 8.55am asking him whether or not he would be attending court today for the hearing of the matter. No response was received to that email or to that phone call.

5I asked the court officer to call the defendant's name outside court before the matter was heard at 10.30am in this Court today and there was no response.

6In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the defendant has been notified of the hearing today and has chosen not to appear. I note, however, that in any event I could make the order even had the summons not been served.

The application for the appointment of a receiver and associated orders

7I turn now to the affidavit of Ann Marie Ford of 13 August 2013, in which she deposed to the background to the application and the grounds on which the application is made. It came to the attention of the Council of the Law Society (the Council) that there were irregularities in the practice conducted by the defendant in that he had misappropriated moneys which were paid to him on trust and also that he had failed to renew his practising certificate and has therefore ceased to be an Australian legal practitioner. At its meeting on 5 August 2013, the Council resolved that a manager be appointed to the defendant's practice and that an application be made to this Court for the appointment of a receiver.

8The material in support of the submission that the defendant has misappropriated trust funds is very strong, in that there is an admission, signed by the defendant on 30 July 2013 confirming that he has misappropriated a sum of $25,196 which was paid to him in cash by a client, Ms Gordana Sirijovska, to pay various accounts relating to the transcript costs, barrister fees and expert fees. Rather than applying the funds for the purposes for which it was paid, the defendant admitted that he misappropriated them for his own purposes.

9In these circumstances, and in light of the admission made by the defendant, I consider it to be appropriate to make an order appointing Mr Mitchell to be a receiver for the law practice pursuant to s 630(2) of the Act.

10The minute of order which has been provided to me by Ms Groenewegen contains other orders, including that the receiver within one month of appointment furnishes the plaintiff reports of the receivership, and also an order that all transactions involving the receipt or disposal of trust moneys of clients of the defendant's law practice be effected and transacted through the law practice's bank account of which Mr Mitchell has been appointed as receiver.

11The plaintiff also seeks an order restraining the defendant from dealing with his assets or removing them from New South Wales subject to his entitlement to pay his ordinary living expenses up to the sum of $1000 per week.

12In all of the circumstances of this case, and on the basis that the plaintiff has given an undertaking as to damages, I am persuaded that it is appropriate to grant this restraining order.

13There are other orders in the minute of order which are also consequential and require the defendant to inform the plaintiff of various matters, including the name and address of every bank, building society or other financial institution at which there is an account in any name that the defendant is entitled to operate. The purpose of these orders is to facilitate the tracing of the misappropriated trust funds into the defendant's property.

14I am satisfied in all the circumstances that, having regard to the evidence referred to above and the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages, it is appropriate to make each of the orders set out in the short minute of order handed up by the Law Society.

Orders

15I make the following orders:

(1)An order pursuant to s 630(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 appointing John Ernest Mitchell receiver for the law practice known as Samaan & Associates Lawyers (the Law Practice) situated at Suite 3, Level 6, 402-410 Chapel Road Bankstown NSW 2200.

(2)An order that the receiver, within one month of appointment and from time to time afterwards, furnish to the plaintiff as it requires, reports of the receivership and that no further or other reports need be furnished by the receiver.

(3)Subject to the plaintiff giving an undertaking as to damages, an order that all transactions involving the receipt or disposal of trust moneys of clients of the Law Practice be effected and transacted through the law practice bank accounts of which John Ernest Mitchell has been appointed receiver.

(4)An order that the defendant and his servants or agents are restrained from:

(a)removing, or causing or permitting to be removed from the State of New South Wales; and

(b)selling, charging, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with or disposing of; and

(c)causing or permitting to be sold, charged, mortgaged or otherwise dealt with or disposed of,

any of his assets within the State of New South Wales provided that this order shall not prevent the defendant from paying his ordinary living expenses up to the sum of $1000.00 per week.

(5)An order that the defendant within 14 days of being served with a copy of this order, deliver or cause to be delivered to the plaintiff an affidavit sworn or affirmed by him setting out:

(a)The name and address of every bank, building society or other financial institution at which there is an account in any name that the defendant is entitled to operate in any capacity, (the Account), together with all the particulars of the Account known to the defendant, including the name, number and balance of the Account at the date of service of a copy of this order upon him;

(b)The name and address of any person or entity indebted to the Law Practice and/or the defendant at the date of service of a copy of this order upon it and/or him and the amount of the debt owed by that person or entity;

(c)An itemised inventory of all business assets owned by the Law Practice and/or the defendant;

(d)An itemised inventory of any other property, whether real or personal, owned by the Law Practice and/or the defendant or in respect of which the Law Practice and/or the defendant has an interest; and

(e)In respect of any of the property referred to above, whether it has been given as security for any debt, and if so, the nature of the security and the debt secured.

(6)An order that the defendant pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to the legal costs and expenses that may be incurred by the receiver in relation to the receivership.

(7)An order that the defendant pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to any fees paid by it to the receiver by way of remuneration.

(8)An order that the defendant pay the costs of this summons.

**********

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.

• Site feedback
• Search
• Sitemap

Last updated 20 August 2013

Veronique Ingram Corrupt Inspector General at AFSA

Veronique Ingram has held various Government roles over a period of years.
Presently she is Inspector General in Bankruptcy. Previously this skank was General Manager Finance Systems Division where she provided advice to the treasurer.
At Present Veronique Ingram and senior Management at AFSA are protecting fraud in the Bankruptcy system.
Although this practice has been referred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, senior Management at the Ombudsman has made a decision to protect this practice.
This skank was then referred to the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Steven Sedgewick who also fucked the complaint over and made decision to protect her.

Clearly the practice of protecting serious fraud in the Bankruptcy System cannot be taken lightly.
As Veronique Ingram has also worked in other Financial areas how much fraud did the Skanky Bitch protect in the treasury Department?

It gets even more amusing when 7 Australian Federal Police appeared at my door early one morning with a search warrant.
This had been instigated by the Corrupt Enforcement Manager Adam Toma to attempt to intimidate me to take down my bloggs.
5 days latter the AFP came to my work and threatened to handcuff me and throw me in the police cells if I did not stop exposing corruption at AFSA.

Then a month latter I was issued with a warrant to appear in Court. After this appearance in Court I was asked by the AFP what did I really want????
Obviously the AFP are so clueless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chief Executive and Inspector-General

Veronique Ingram was appointed as the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy and Chief Executive in February 2009. Prior to that Ms Ingram was General Manager, Finance System Division, in the Commonwealth’s Treasury Department where she had responsibility for providing advice to the Treasurer about regulatory policy issues relating to banking, insurance and superannuation and the Australian financial system.

For three years from January 2005 Ms Ingram was the Australian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris.

Ms Ingram also held the position of Chief Adviser, International in the Treasury with responsibility for advising the government on international economic developments and policy issues as well as Australia’s participation in the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, OECD, Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and G20 meeting of finance ministers.

 Lateline/ Aged Care / Commonwealth Ombudsman

Complaints on aged care sent to the Commonwealth Ombudsman are fucked over . 80% of complaints of these complaints are disregarded the remainder are never handled correctly. Section 15 of the Act requires that systemic problems be brought to the attention of the Minister though this is never done.

The fat ugly  Alison Larkins,  who was acting as Commonwealth Ombudsman was referred to the Australian Public Service Commission for failing to uphold her responsibility under the Ombudsmans Act.

Steven Sedgwick the Australian Public Service Commission   fucked over the complaint under S41. This clearly shows that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is protecting  corrupt and corrupt conduct in Government Agencies and the Australian Public Service Commission is protecting the failure of the Commonwealth Ombudsman  to  carry out its required duty under Ombudsmans Act.

I also wish to mention that Lateline reported that anyone who tried to expose this tragedy into Australia's most vulnerable in a "wikileaks" was risking a TWO YEARS Imprisonment.

It would be similar to the situation I find myself in where , by exposing a corrupt Senior Management at ITSA or now AFSA Adam Toma the corrupt Enforcement Manager  is attempting to have me also jailed.

Adam Toma can  now come kiss my Arse   because his obvious intimidation will clearly not work on me and now he finds himself in a situation where he must appear in court and defend  the systemic corrupt conduct at  AFSA.

Clearly also anyone else at AFSA  who wants to complain about me exposing them  will also have to give evidence in court on  why the protection of FRAUD  is acceptable in this Government Agency

 

Aged Care Accreditation In the Spotlight

Flash version 9 or above required to view video: Get flash.

Print Email

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 23/08/2013

Reporter: Margot O'Neill

Tonight a former senior victorian public servant whose mother died recently in a nursing home speaks out against a system he says is failing Australia's most vulnerable elderly. And lawyers believe families might be able to sue the Commonwealth for not safeguarding adequate standards of care in nursing homes and some families are pushing for a class action.

Transcript

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Tonight a former senior Victorian public servant whose mother died recently in a nursing home speaks out against a system he says is failing Australia's most vulnerable elderly.

Lawyers believe families might be able to sue the Commonwealth for not safeguarding adequate standards of care in nursing homes.

Some families are pushing for a class action.

Margot O'Neil reports, and a warning this report contains disturbing images.

MARGOT O'NEILL, REPORTER: At this nursing home in northern Australia a tick-infested dog wanders through a dilapidated building and yet Star of The Sea nursing home on Thursday Island was fully accredited by the Federal Government last year. That decision has since been modified and new management has been given until next month to repair its buildings.

Local Federal MP Warren Entsch is outraged the facility can't get more federal money.

WARREN ENTSCH, FEDERAL MP: Somehow or other they were quite happy to tick it off last year and say righto we're going to give you three years of accreditation at a time when there was still these problems.

MARGOT O'NEILL: The Federal Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency safeguards care in nursing home through a checklist of 44 standards.

They include providing "appropriately skilled and qualified staff" and "appropriate clinical care."

Australia has a near perfect score of 95 per cent of homes gaining full 44 out of 44 accreditation for three years. Adrian Nye's mother was in a Victorian nursing home that was given full accreditation at the same time she developed such serious leg infections, she spent four months in hospital.

ADRIAN NYE, FORMER CHAIRMAN, VIC MANAGED INSURANCE AUTHORITY: In my mother's case its quite bizarre because while my mother was in a bed at that facility the accreditation authority was in their doing its annual or triennial accreditation review. And no blemish was identified in the course of the review.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Adrian Nye, a former senior Victorian public servant, complained about the poor wound management for his mother. The accreditation team was sent back in and the home had to revamp its procedures.

A former chairman of the Victorian insurance scheme including medical indemnity, he believes the two-day accreditation visits was inadequate. He's calculated the accreditors would have needed more than twice as long to do a thorough job.

ADRIAN NYE: Now it's just incredible, either they did things so superficially that nothing could be identified, which is probably my suggestion, or they failed to do some of the things they said they've done.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Critics say accreditation is too much about paper work and box ticking of processes rather than actual clinical outcomes.

There are numerous examples of homes that have been fully accredited only to be involved in media scandals shortly after. Like the home that had no staff at all rostered on overnight, or the fully accredited home that had a mouse infestation.

Staff in contact with Lateline say homes spend weeks preparing for accreditation and allege that some homes deceive accreditors.

An aged care consultant told us "some nursing homes bring in "a quality co-coordinator whose sole job was to present files full of evidence of quality care and fulfilment of standards. Where evidence could not be found it was simply manufactured."

A carer told us "most employers train staff to respond to accreditation agency visits. I have been interviewed several times and often your supervisor is present. I have been in difficult situations where if I told the truth I would be sacked."

The accreditation agency also does unannounced annual spot checks but the results are not public.

For many families and staff the only recourse when things do go wrong is the aged care complaints scheme run by the Department of Health.

ADRIAN NYE: The majority of my life has either been working in the bureaucracy, drafting schemes of this complaint sort or acting as a consultant critiquing their success.

MARGOT O'NEILL: His verdict on the complaints scheme?

ADRIAN NYE: Oh it's a very sick puppy. It's actually a complaints scheme without any investigatory curiosity or power, it's very much a social work model where wanting to hold hands and reconcile and conciliate. But for something as grave as an allegation of gross negligence leading to a wound that puts your mother in an acute hospital for four months with severe pain effects and a risk to life, something more than Kumbaya is required.

MARGOT O'NEILL: The nursing home promised to do better so the matter is now considered closed. But Adrian Nye is left wondering how did the wound start, was it because of poor care, the complaints scheme says it couldn't decide.

ADRIAN NYE: The response to that was, oh we're getting different stories, they say its sunburn, your plastic surgeon says it pressure it's all a bit difficult, the record's are a bit funny, we can't conclude anything definitive. Well, I reckon the cops would have a different view to the same set of facts.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Getting at all the relevant information is a problem for families. The Aged Care Act describes any information relating to the affairs of nursing home providers as "protected information". So a version of aged care WikiLeaks could land you in jail for two years.

ADRIAN NYE: The accreditation agency that ought to use transparency as the, to use the cliche, the sunshine that can keep all this stuff clean and spick and span, it's exempt from FOI. It hides behind the corporate veil of being a company, what's that about?

MARGOT O'NEILL: Industry also believes the accreditation and complaints schemes need reform.

PATRICK REID, LEADING AGED SERVICES AUSTRALIA: I think certainly that more transparency is required. I think the results need to be shared and without that, without more information it is very hard to improve the service.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Lawyers from Slater and Gordon say the Commonwealth could find itself the subject of legal action over nursing home standards, maybe even a class action.

ANDREW BAKER, SLATER AND GORDON: If it can be shown that the Commonwealth owes a duty of care towards the residents of those facilities in terms of its accreditations and it can be shown that they're accreditations that shouldn't have been given or renewed, then there is a potential for people to have a claim against the Commonwealth.

MARGOT O'NEILL: The possible class action is being led by marketing consultant Patrea Salter who's battled for years with a nursing home over her father's care.

PETREA SALTER, DAUGHTER: He's an 84-year-old Australian who has done so much for Australia and he's being made out to be a liar. All his suffering, all his screams for help, all his cries for help, all my cries for help from everyone in the Government, from the scheme are just ignored. It's just a dreadful, dreadful situation. In Australia we should not treat our elderly like this.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Margot O'Neill, Lateline.

Abuse of Process

Abuse of process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This law-related article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations, which can be found through legal research. (June 2009)

Part of the common law series
Tort law
Intentional torts
Assault Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress Transferred intent
Property torts
Trespass land chattels Conversion Detinue Replevin Trover
Defenses
Assumption of risk Comparative negligence Contributory negligence Consent Necessity Statute of limitations Self-defense Defense of others Defense of property Shopkeeper's privilege
Negligence
Duty of / standard of care Proximate cause Res ipsa loquitur Calculus of negligence Rescue doctrine Duty to rescue Negligent infliction of emotional distress Employment-related Entrustment Malpractice legal medical
Liability torts
Product liability Quasi-tort Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation Invasion of privacy False light Breach of confidence Abuse of process Malicious prosecution Alienation of affections Seduction
Economic torts
Fraud Tortious interference Conspiracy Restraint of trade
Liability and remedies
Last clear chance Eggshell skull Vicarious liability Volenti non fit injuria Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Neutral reportage Damages Injunction Torts and conflict of laws Joint and several liability Comparative responsibility Market share liability
Duty to visitors
Trespassers Licensees Invitees Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts Criminal law Evidence Property Wills, trusts, and estates
Law portal
v t e

Abuse of process is a cause of action in tort arising from one party making a malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action.
It is a common law intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.
The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.^[1] Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution.^[2] "Process," as used in this context, includes not only the "service of process," i.e. an official summons or other notice issued from a court, but means any method used to acquire jurisdiction over a person or specific property that is issued under the official seal of a court.^[3] Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

•  Australian Honors system/Robert Cornall  AO/ Skanky Helen Daniels

  What is the citeria for Australian Honors system?

  Considering that corruption  and corrupt conduct is rampant in Government departments  it is also interesting that the Commonwealth Ombudsman  Colin Neave is an AM and Robert Cornall is an AO so the criteria in these awards  would overlook that both of these public servants have protected corruption and corrupt conduct.

  Part of the criteria must be how many Government Minister's arses they have licked and kissed!!!

   

   Well, we in Australian have all kinds of fuckers who  have letters after their names  because they believe they are distinguished people.

  Clearly the Fucker Robert Cornall who was secretary in the Attorney Generals Department is one of them...... and just how does the Governor General   hand out these awards and what is the critria?

  The Australian  Public Service Commissioner , the corrupt Steven Sedgwick   who is protecting corruption in Government agencies ask  the fucker Cornall to do an investigation into a complaint from a whistleblower.........  again this clearly is a conflict of interest because the fucker Cornall had worked as a public servant and therefore had  a motive to cover-up this whistleblower complaint .

  It also should be noted that the Attorney General department where  Cornall  was secretary also is protecting corruption at ITSA or  now AFSA.  Helen Daniels,the skanky bitch who is assistant secretary of the Law branch  has been given extensive evidence of this  and instead of exposing  it has chosen to protect it.

  Open and Shut‏

Open and Shut (timminsp@ozemail.com.au)

Schedule cleanup

17/08/2013

Newsletters

To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com

Open and Shut

FOI coverage of Governor General's Office off to High Court

Posted: 16 Aug 2013 12:40 AM PDT

I hear that the High Court granted leave to appeal today in the Kline case concerning Freedom of Information coverage of documents about the operation of the Australian Honours system. More when the transcript appears.

 A long line of decisions in the case to date have all gone the Governor General's way, the most recent a unanimous decision of the Federal Court that gave broad interpretation to the exemption from the act for documents held by the Office of the Governor General that relate to matters of an administrative nature.

The recently released Hawke Report rejected submissions that the FOI act should be amended to broaden the scope as it applies to the Office of the Governor General, but gave no reasons (p 64), recommended that the parliamentary departments should be subject to the act to the same extent, and while citing the Federal Court decision by name gave no attention to the Court's interpretation of the relevant words "relates to matters of an administrative nature" (p 62) and its narrowing effect.

Investigating corruption/ Commonwealth Ombudsman
Under section 15  the Commonwealth Ombudsman is required to refer any matter of systemic corrupt conduct or corruption  to the relevant Minister. However this is almost never done and allows   all  corruption and corrupt conduct to flourish.
Clearly if the correct numbers were exposed  in Federal Government Agencies the CDDA scheme would be overwhelmed with  compensation claims.
 It clearly  it makes no difference  whether it was Alan Asher, the Ombudsman who ripped his skirt off and resigned or the fat bitch Alison Larkin who acted as Ombudsman or the replacement  or the faggot Colin Neave who was Banking industry Ombudsman and only investigated 18% of complaints and fucked over systemic corrupt conduct in the Banking Industry.


Investigating corruption
Presented to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s 30th Anniversary Seminar,
Improving administration: the next 30 years
Robert Needham
Chairperson and CEO, Crime and Misconduct Commission
I have been asked to speak to you today about current trends in investigating corruption in the public sector, particularly where there may be a fine line in determining whether the wrongdoing is corruption or maladministration.
I don’t propose to look at methodologies of investigation, as investigating corruption is something that would rarely be carried out by an ombudsman’s office. Rather I will look at how in Queensland we currently handle the interface between the Ombudsman’s office and my organisation, the CMC. I am referring to those cases where there is a combination of maladministration and corruption. Or where, at the outset of the investigation, it’s unclear whether the complaint involves mere maladministration or extends to corruption.
I will concentrate on what I know best – the situation in Queensland, where we have a public sector ethics and misconduct prevention body as well as an ombudsman. I will also look at situations, which go beyond the classic forms of “corruption”, where someone exploits their position of power for personal gain. In particular, I will look at instances of maladministration, which go so far beyond what is reasonably expected that they descend into what we in Queensland classify as “official misconduct”.
And the general message I will seek to convey is not that there is any particular new way to investigate. Rather there is a real need for all integrity agencies –Ombudsman’s offices, Auditor-General and agencies like the CMC – to cooperate together to most effectively improve and maintain standards of integrity in the public sector.
Typical “fine line” case
I would like to start with a typical example of a complaint made to an ombudsman.
It may concern a decision made by an agency. This is a decision which advantages one party and disadvantages another. The complaint discloses that the actions of the official may go beyond mere bad decision making and may have been made for an improper purpose – perhaps a payment or some other benefit from the party which was gained through the official’s decision.
What does the ombudsman do in this case?
Most Ombudsman Acts, on my quick checking, appear to give power to investigate administrative acts that are unlawful or made for an improper motive1. So prima facie, there is power to investigate corruption.
1 Eg. Ombudsman Act 1976(Cwth) s.15; Ombudsman Act 2001(Qld) s.49(2); Ombudsman Act 1974 (NSW) s.26.
1
Does the ombudsman’s office have the expertise and the powers to investigate
corruption? Generally I would suggest no. Often they have some limited powers to
obtain documents. They can also require the answering of questions by certain
persons. But typically ombudsman’s offices have none of the powers needed for a
full-scale corruption investigation, such as coercive hearings, search warrant powers
or surveillance powers and the resources to implement them.
In Queensland, the Ombudsman Act requires the ombudsman to liaise with a
complaints agency, which term includes the CMC, to ensure there isn’t a duplication
of resources. So, if the complaint raises issues of corruption, the Ombudsman will
refer the matter to the CMC.
In a case where a mere allegation of corruption is made, but there is no material to
support it, normally the Ombudsman would look into the matter initially and only if
some material suggesting corruption is found refer the matter to the CMC.
I will give you an example of a matter involving allegations of both maladministration
and corruption where the CMC and the Ombudsman co-operated in the investigation.
In late 2005, the CMC received various complaints against the Mayor of the Douglas
Shire Council. Subsequently, as is often the case when complaints receive some
publicity, we received a further, separate complaint against the Mayor. The allegation
was that he had supported in Council a particular contractor’s bid for a Council tender
in relation to the vehicular ferry service over the Daintree River, in exchange for that
contractor having undertaken earthworks on the Mayor’s partner’s property at no or
at a reduced charge. This complaint alleged corrupt behaviour on the part of the
Mayor and was clearly within the jurisdiction of the CMC.
The Ombudsman’s office saw the newspaper coverage of this latter complaint and of
related allegations of maladministration by various officials of the Council, including
the Mayor, in dealing with the tendering process. Following discussions between the
Deputy Ombudsman and the CEO of the Council, the Ombudsman decided to
commence an own initiative investigation.
The Ombudsman’s office contacted the CMC and the two offices agreed to jointly
investigate the allegations. The officers from the two organisations worked together
on an investigation including jointly conducting some interviews of relevance to both
offices.
At the conclusion of the investigation, separate reports were issued by the
Ombudsman and the CMC; each report referencing the other.
For the record, I should indicate that the allegations against the Mayor were found
unsubstantiated, though the Ombudsman did make some procedural
recommendations.
This was a good example of the two agencies working together, to avoid duplication
and to make best use of the expertise and powers of the respective offices.
2
That particular investigation did not call for the exercise of any particular extra investigative powers of the CMC, but many corruption allegations can. This must cause particular problems for those jurisdictions where, unlike Queensland, NSW and Western Australia, there is no public sector anti-corruption agency. I am aware that in some jurisdictions the police fraud squads, because of demand on their services, will not investigate fraud allegations involving less than about $.5m. Yet corruption of public officials involving just a few thousand dollars can have a very detrimental effect on public confidence in the public sector.
Incompetence or corruption
There are some cases brought to the CMC’s attention by the Ombudsman and, more frequently, by the Auditor-General, where it can be very difficult to prove whether problems are caused by maladministration, even incompetence, or by corruption of one form or another.
A good example of this type of case is financial management of very small councils, in particular Indigenous and Torres Strait Island Councils.
I’m not speaking out of place when I say that some councils are found on audit to have money unaccounted for, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Auditor-General reports tabled in the Queensland parliament attest to this.
The Audit is unable to ascertain whether the money is missing because of corrupt activities or through maladministration, principally because proper records are not kept.
Anyone who has ever prosecuted a fraud case knows that the most difficult case to prove is the one where there is no paper trail. Without the paper trail, normally it is impossible to prove what has occurred. Further, with the remoteness of these councils, any form of investigation is very difficult.
Theoretically some form of disciplinary action could be taken against the council staff in charge of the financial records for not ensuring that proper records are kept. However it would have to be taken by the council, which is probably the main cause of the problems in the first case. In Queensland, the only action, which can be taken against the councillors, being elected officials, is a criminal charge.
I reached the conclusion some time ago that some other form of action needs to be taken in these cases, aimed at preventing rather than prosecuting. For the Torres Strait Island councils, the legislation allowed the Director-General of the Department of Local Government to appoint a financial controller to a council, with broad powers. I urged the Director-General to take this action in relation to the worst councils and was pleased to see this was done. Subsequently, the government went further and amended the act to allow for a financial controller to be appointed to a mainstream council, and this has since happened in one council.
The use of this power is less drastic than dismissing the council but it will still be effective in ensuring that proper systems are put in place and acted on. In my view, it is a far better alternative to investigation.
3
To investigate cases where the outcome is bound to be inconclusive can only serve to embolden any individuals who are being corrupt and to reinforce in them the confidence that they can get away with their illegal activities. In such cases we must look to other ways to curb possible corrupt activities.
Breach of trust
A further area of potential overlap in jurisdiction between the Ombudsman and the anti-corruption agency involves those cases of maladministration which are so severe as to amount to a form of corruption, namely a breach of the trust placed in the public official as the holder of a public office. In Queensland, such conduct, if severe enough as to warrant dismissal, is characterised in the Crime and Misconduct Act as “official misconduct”. This may be investigated by the CMC and prosecuted as an offence before the Misconduct Tribunal2.
In the CMC, we have for our own purposes set out what we would consider is the type of conduct, which would constitute such a breach of trust. We characterise it as conduct of the office holder connected with exercising the skill of a professional or engaging in the performance of the specified duties or activities of the office, which is either:
• a course of conduct involving repeated and/or wilful behaviour that undermines the trust placed in the person by virtue of their position; or
• a single incident of behaviour indicating a callous or reckless disregard for, or indifference to, the skills required for the proper discharge of the duties or activities of the office.
A good example of this arose out of the Bundaberg Hospital Inquiry. The Commissioner found that the Director of Medical Services and the District Manager of the hospital could be prosecuted for official misconduct regarding various matters. In particular, he pointed to their failure to take appropriate action to investigate about 20 complaints of clinical malpractice received against Dr Patel over a period of about 18 months. Such inaction could clearly amount to a breach of the trust placed in those officers.
Issues of malpractice such as those in the Bundaberg Hospital Inquiry are a clear case of the complexities that can arise where there are claims of professional malpractice, administrative malpractice and, in the most severe cases, possible criminal conduct, all arising out of the same general set of circumstances.
Unless there exists clear cooperation, and understanding of how that cooperation will occur, between the agencies with responsibilities for dealing with the various aspects of such cases, allegations will not be fully and adequately dealt with. This could lead to the possibility of another scandal like the Bundaberg Hospital case.
2 Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Q) s14; for NSW see Independent Commission against Corruption Act 1988(NSW) s.7; for WA see Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA) s.4.
4
Now in Queensland we have a new health complaints body, with the resources to assess complaints of clinical malpractice. A very clear memorandum of understanding has been entered into between that body and the Ombudsman, the CMC, the Coroner, the Queensland Police Service, the Medical Board, which registers doctors and the Nurses Board which registers nurses. The memorandum specifies very clearly the role of each agency in dealing with any complaints about doctors in the public sector.
Finally may I stress that this notion of breach of trust in the office can exist in virtually all public sector functions, but it is going to be of most relevance in those functions that can affect the safety or the human rights or the hip pocket of the citizen. Simple examples are officers such as Child Safety officers, whose decisions can affect the safety, and even the life, of children, or to take another topical example, Immigration officials, whose decisions can affect the liberty of individuals.
In conclusion, I have given a snapshot of how the Queensland Ombudsman’s office works with other relevant agencies. Without the cooperation between the Ombudsman and these agencies, including the CMC, I truly believe we cannot adequately service the public. In the case of the CMC and the Ombudsman, it’s only through working together that both agencies can best utilise resources and powers. This cooperative approach ensures that the fine line between corruption and maladministration is dealt with appropriately and that public resources are not wasted.
Finally, this cooperation assists each of the integrity agencies to have a better overall picture of the integrity landscape of the public sector, and to then make changes and recommendations that benefit the public.

Fraud/ Referring Allegations/ Australian Financial Security Authority/ Adam Toma
According to Matthew Osborne it is not a requirement to refer fraud  to Enforcement 
 Section 19(i) clearly states that it is a duty of the trustee to refer  to Veronique Ingram or  Enforcement  any evidence of offences against the bankruptcy Act.
As it  can be seen the Commonwealth Ombudsman clearly protect fraud at ITSA and the Australian Financial Security  Authority.
.Osborne  advises all that is necessary to satisfy the Bankruptcy Act is that the matter is raised with Enforcement. This allows Enforcement ( Adam Toma) to protect Fraud. It is also a practice used by Julie  Padget NSW BFI Manager
This practice also gives false statistics published in the Annual report.

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 19

Duties etc. of trustee

             (1)  The duties of the trustee of the estate of a bankrupt include the following:

                     (a)  notifying the bankrupt's creditors of the bankruptcy;

                     (b)  determining whether the estate includes property that can be realised to pay a dividend to creditors;

                     (c)  reporting to creditors within 3 months of the date of the bankruptcy on the likelihood of creditors receiving a dividend before the end of the bankruptcy;

                     (d)  giving information about the administration of the estate to a creditor who reasonably requests it;

                     (e)  determining whether the bankrupt has made a transfer of property that is void against the trustee;

                      (f)  taking appropriate steps to recover property for the benefit of the estate;

                     (g)  taking whatever action is practicable to try to ensure that the bankrupt discharges all of the bankrupt's duties under this Act;

                     (h)  considering whether the bankrupt has committed an offence against this Act;

                      (i)  referring to the Inspector-General or to relevant law enforcement authorities any evidence of an offence by the bankrupt against this Act;

                      (j)  administering the estate as efficiently as possible by avoiding unnecessary expense;

                     (k)  exercising powers and performing functions in a commercially sound way.

             (2)  Where a person who became a bankrupt on a creditor's petition is unable to prepare a proper statement of affairs, the trustee may employ, at the expense of the estate, a qualified person to assist in the preparation of the statement.

2.1 Referral of allegations

Up one level

Jump to:

Next Previous  

The allegation of an offence is the initial step in the investigation process.
Allegations of offences can arise from a variety of sources, such as:

1. AFSA staff, including the Official Trustee and the Official Receiver;
2. Registered Trustees;
3. members of the public including creditors and anonymous informers;
4. other Commonwealth or State/Territory agencies - including police services;
5. internal or external audit/inspection processes;
6. Government or Ministerial referrals;
7. referrals from overseas governments or agencies; and
8. other sources.

Referrals from within AFSA should be on the form entitled “Alleged Offence Referral to Enforcement” and include as much relevant information as possible, including all evidence obtained by the staff member.  .
Where referrals originate from outside AFSA, the referrer should be encouraged to provide the information on the form entitled “Alleged Offence Referral to AFSA Enforcement” available on the AFSA Regulation & Enforcement Internet site.
Trustees and other referring sources should be encouraged to report any evidence of bankruptcy-related fraud to their closest Enforcement office.  Trustees and other referring sources may become discouraged from making referrals because of the perceived “minor” sentences handed down from some criminal prosecutions.  It is important to assure them that referrals serve multiple purposes - including tracking trends in fraudulent activity and documenting the need for additional investigative resources.  Enforcement should emphasise to referrers at any given opportunity that the content and thoroughness of the referral will assist Enforcement in their assessment process and assist in determining whether a matter should be investigated.
The Inspector-General Practice Statement 14 provides guidance to practitioners on when to refer matters to AFSA Enforcement and to clarify what information may be required to support an offence referral.
Where an allegation is made to a Trustee by an anonymous informant, the Official Trustee or the Registered Trustee responsible for the administration of the estate should endeavour to verify the allegation through the collection of substantiating information prior to referring the matter to Enforcement.
If an allegation is made directly to Enforcement by an anonymous informant, Enforcement personnel should obtain as much information as possible.  Enquiries can then be made to verify / dismiss the allegation through the collection of further information.
If any party has any general enquiries with respect to Enforcement, the Bankruptcy Act 1966 offence provisions, or simply questions about whether or not to refer a matter to Enforcement for investigation, they can send an email to fraud.enquiries@afsa.gov.au and Enforcement will provide them with a response at the first available opportunity.
Where a referring source seeks verbal advice from Enforcement as to whether an offence may have been committed prior to a formal referral being submitted, Enforcement should, as soon as possible, indicate on the basis of the information at hand, whether there is sufficient information to disclose an alleged offence.
If Enforcement believes that an alleged offence has not been committed, or that the case is not suitable for investigation Enforcement should provide reasons to the referrer and indicate, if appropriate, what further action is required to finalise the matter.
Where Enforcement considers the case is suitable for investigation, Enforcement should advise the referrer to refer the matter on the form titled “Alleged Offence Referral to AFSA Enforcement”.

Next Previous