Effective Law
Reform Model
. Effective Law Reform is the full computerizing and Internet
exposure of all Legal Matters so that the truth emerges and we have true
justice. John
Robertson
CASE
HISTORY Scroll down to find Re: ROBERT JAMES Saturday, January 11, 2003 – Today we went Full Circle.From the Internet came a voice from the past – from 24 years ago!. ……. From:gmcmurray805@aol.com Date: Saturday, January 11, 2003 03:45:15 Subject: Website comment
For more, go to Gail’s website: http://www.sheepskinsrus.com/contentpages/aboutus.htm January 16, 2003 Open email to Prime Minister Howard with copies to Federal and South Australian
Members of Parliament. Dear Prime Minister, In 1979, when you were Treasurer, you
sabotaged the export campaign of the time by restricting the money available to
pay the promised export grants; perhaps Austrade provided wrong information
to mislead you? In about 1983 I was in Canberra and called
on Mr. Burgess who told me that the total applications for export grants was
much higher than budgeted for and that the Grants Board Officers pruned
claims to come within the budget. ·
An
extract from my website: ‘Saturday, January 11, 2003 – Today we went Full
Circle.From the Internet came a voice from the past – from 24 years ago! Armed with this up-to-date report I am starting with Prime Minister of
Australia, John Howard, for he started the problem in 1979, when he was
Treasurer. The disaster for several exporters started
when the Advertiser newspaper reported, April 14, 1978, 'Exporters to get $66m.boost'. I accepted the offer of the Deputy Prime
Minister (Hon Doug Anthony)'to make full use of the
facilities and incentives being offered, and gear themselves for a period of
renewed export development' and 'government and industry in partnership'. I
applied a full time export effort from that day until 30 June 1979. The Prime Minister of the
time, Malcolm Fraser, was reported in the Advertiser on 21 June 1978, 'My Government will, through predictable
policies give Australian industry the effective support and
encouragement it needs'. Three of us mortgaged our homes to
raise bank loans to conduct our export promotion, and when you proved
Fraser’s policy was NOT predictable, we lost our homes. I started Civil Claims for Damages against
the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments. Appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
followed. In 1989 I presented a
tax case to Deputy President Layton of the AAT for my client Robert
Semmens. Robert Lawson presented
the case for the Commissioner of Taxation. The publication of Layton’s Decision on the Internet
has caused me to propose Effective Law Reform, which is that ALL Court
Documents should be put on the Internet for public scrutiny. Layton should be sacked to demonstrate to
all, that Judicial spinning can now be exposed and is no longer tolerated. Layton is a very intelligent person and
must be aware of the general extortion practised on taxpayers by the
Commissioner of Taxation through his officers. Layton must also have
known that Administrative Appeals Tribunal President, Davies J, had the
general reputation of being a failed Federal Judge. Davies J. denied the
Semmens Group their export grants because he followed Export Grants Officer
Batley's spin that Semmens and I 'were not at arm's length'. Layton did not attempt to endorse
Davies' unsupportable Decision,
she endorsed Lawson's Tax Office spin instead. In no way whatsoever did
I have any interest in, or control of, Semmens' businesses and neither did he
have any control or interest whatsoever in any business of mine In 1989, Lawson (for Tax) obtained documents
from Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and unwittingly put into evidence a
memo dated May 1 1979, written by exporter Konstas at the end of April
1979.- which is before May and June 1979! This April/May 1st 1979 memo had not been
disclosed to the Courts by Lane, of CAC, thus enabling him to fabricate
his prosecution case. Layton's spin was taken from Lawson who got it from Lane; it is, 'It was also in or about May to early June 1979 that the economic problems of Mr. Robertson and the applicant emerged.' In May and June 1979 I (Robertson) had no
economic problems and neither did the applicant (Semmens). Cash was
flowing freely. 'The failure to obtain such funding was critical and it was this crisis' is Layton garbage that came from Lawson who got it from Simon Lane of Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) who made up this crisis story! The background to the Lane fabricated crisis
story is that In 1984 I was in the process of claiming extensive damages from
the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments arising from the extortion
and conspiracy practiced by the Commissioner of Taxation against my clients
of the 1969 to 1979 era. Lane constructed a defense to any and all of
my claims by setting out to have me committed of a criminal offence. To get his fabricated prosecution
before an incompetent Magistrates Court Lane had to create a small
offence; a large offence would
be a Commonwealth matter to be heard in a superior Federal Court. If
there was an offence, which there was not, it would have been a serious
offence heard by a Federal Court where proper human rights would have applied
and a fair hearing could be expected. So Lane made up his little story that
all was well to begin with in April and then a crisis in late May or early
June followed. Lane
said that to overcome this 'crisis' Semmens breached a minor section of The
South Australian Companies Act, by carrying on the business of a company to
attempt to defraud the Export Development Grants Board, and that I helped him. Lane got his fabrication before a South
Australian Magistrate, Peter St
L. Kelly. Contrary to intelligent Layton, Kelly, in
sentencing me showed his dementia by saying I both gave evidence and
did not give evidence. South Australia has an uncivilised appeal
system where there is no right for a re-hearing before a judge; so
Semmens and I both served two months in jail. Lane thus succeeded in creating the defense against my
claims for damages in the Civil Courts. Prosecuting the unfortunate
Semmens was Lane's ploy to get to me and create a defense for the Governments
and their agents. Then for the Layton AAT
Tax Hearing, Lawson got hold of Lane's documents and this included the
Konstas April/May 1st
memo. Lane should have disclosed
the Konstas April/May 1st
memo to Brian Martin QC who represented me at the Magistrate Kelly
trial. Lane deceived everyone
until Lawson produced the April/May 1st memo at the Layton AAT tax hearing some years later Lane deliberately deceived
the Courts to gain success with his malicious prosecution. Layton, following Lawson's
Lane-corrupted case for the Commissioner, and not the truthful evidence,
wrote her spin. Why do taxpayers give
sworn evidence when the Commissioner’s legal representatives only have to
tell a corrupted story to win?
The answer is that the Commissioner always gets away with it. The good thing to come from the burdens you
imposed on my exporting clients and me when you were Treasurer is our added
experience that caused me to create ‘Google Code 1:The Key to World Peace’. http://www.robertsonj32.freeserve.co.uk/googlekeytoworldpeace.htm#GoogleCode1 Tax, Law and Trade are topics that you and
I have specialized in; you as a public sector politician and me as a private
enterprise export consultant. I
believe you are well able to assess my Freedom Proposals and I would
appreciate your comments for publication in my website. You may recall that in the
early 1990’s Frank Ford, Liberal Member for Frankston, was in a business
group with similar tax ideas to mine. Your decision in 1979 to restrict promised
expenditure on export market development grants proved to be wrong, as the
promotional effort my clients and I made in 1979, benefited Brazil, Argentina
and China (see January 11, 2003 email from the US). My decision in 1978, to establish a marketing beach-head
for Australian sheepskin car seat covers etc. was right, as can be seen from
Gail McMurray’s 2003 email. My
fault was that I trusted the Fraser Government and the Judiciary. The US 2003 email rounds off my excellent
record of pioneering revolutionary good ideas. The late CR (Bert) Kelly is recorded in House of
Representatives Debates, 30 November 1965, pp 3347-48, saying I was the type of
person needed in Australia. I
have been pushing the Money Solution since 1990 and no sensible objection has
yet been raised. I put it that the Public Sector has
proven that it is untrustworthy and stuck in its 19th and 20th
Century incompetent tax, trading and law ways. I suggest Australia becomes the World
Leader for this 21st Century, by you introducing: ·
The Australian
Taxation Office cut by 75%, with the scrapping of all existing tax, and
instead, using the efficient and fair 1% Freedom money turnover tax. ·
The Customs Office
cut by 50%, with Australia being a free trading nation with a flat rate of
tax @ 5% to 20%, as needed for revenue, on all money going overseas. ·
Effective Law Reform
immediately to catch out bad judges and bad lawyers just as DNA has caught
out murderers etc who otherwise would have escaped justice ·
Austrade increased by
50%. Why don’t you start by having some tax,
trade and law experts debate by email with me, then report to you? This email and the background information
is found on my websites http://freedomsolution.info/index.htm
and http://www.robertsonj32.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Money Yours truly, John Robertson . ================================================================ . [Index]
[Search] [Context Re: ROBERT JAMES
Comment: Two years ago, as I was working on my
website, I saw the name Professor R A Layton and also Deputy
President R A Layton and wrote the passage: . Here in England, on 27/3/99, while looking at various papers, I noticed for the first time two documents connected to the same name, although written seventeen years apart...The two documents are in absolute conflict. The full text is at http://www.altnews.com.au/freedom/p1s4d.htm#Home . Now, from May 2001, via the
internet, we all have the Deputy President R (Robyn) A Layton Decision
(judgement) but not the transcripts. However, I was there and I have my
memory and one exhibit. From this I have created this first Working
Model for Effective Law Reform. I believe that the Law can become good
(by exposing the Spin). Not only that, businesses in Australia
can follow this Layton Decision and not pay income tax. . For full Effective Law Reform
we need the judgement, reasons and transcripts on the Internet.. . There is also an earlier Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) Decision on the same matter, but relating to Export Grants (not Income Tax). The Exports Grants case is not on the Internet. I saw the hard copy paper file in 1985 and in that I read a memo from AAT Member Pascoe to President Justice Davies recommending that he not show his bias against Semmens and his group. . Judge Davies came up with the
ridiculous Decision that Robert Semmens and I 'were not at arms
length'. Layton did not confirm that Davies' biassed Decision and
spun her own story to agree with Davies' Decision, but getting there in
another way. Now, by following Layton's Decision, all Australian
businesses may cease paying income tax. . Then there are two related cases in the Adelaide Magistrates Court, one prosecuting Semmens for attempted company fraud and the other case prosecuting me for aiding and abetting Semmens; we were both jailed for two months. These Magistrates cases were sandwiched between the Davies AAT Hearing and the Layton AAT Hearing. . The
Magistrates Court prosecutions were malicious with
Prosecutor Simon Lane fabricating his cases and his witness, Barbara
Thorpe fabricating evidence and committing perjury. I do not expect
to find these Magistrate cases on the Internet but I have found- . -which is the foundation for Case
History Davies Spin . I suggest you read on, as Deputy President R A Layton has done an excellent job of laying out the case below, the trouble is in the spin that she developed, bit by bit. The benefit is, that in Layton deciding that the Semmens group were not carrying on business, all Australians may do as the Semmens group did, and also not be carrying on business and not be required to lodge income tax returns! . Layton's wrong is that she had the ability to correct the stupid decisions of Judge Davies and the South Australian Magistrates, Chivel and Peter Kelly. Instead she followed the malicious spin put to her by Government employees through lawyer, Robert Lawson - and now we have a stupid precedent for businesses to follow to their advantage! . Davies' bias led to the
jailings of Semmens and me. The bias came from Ken Batley and Chairman
Daley of the Export Development Grants Board who in turn got their bias from
Board Member, Mr. W.J. Austen. Austen did not like seeing his name in
my 97 Page Yellow Book which is Exhibit A1 in this Layton Hearing. My book
showed a Report of Panel 38 on Export Consultants. Included in that Report
is the list of Members of Panel 38 showing Mr. W.J. Austen and
Professor R.(Roger) A. Layton. . Austen gained his bias
against me by reading the 1976 J8 Jack Greenslade Taxation Board of Review
Case where R Matheson QC breached the Commonwealth Crimes Act when he
deceived a witness (me) to affect my testimony. . I claimed damages against
Matheson QC in the Supreme Court of South Australia who was by then a Supreme
Court Judge. Justice Matheson was defended by John Von Doussa QC who is
now, in 2001, part of the Law Reform Commission whose website linked me to
this vital Layton AAT Decision. The wheel turns on the Internet.. . Cronyism protected the several criminals within the South Australian and Commonwealth Governments. They jailed Semmens and me to destroy our otherwise blameless reputations and so create a legal defense to my civil claims for damages, against the Governments and Government employees. . Layton had all the time she
needed to do her job. By comparison, Matheson, who started the whole
trouble, was falsely briefed by socialist Taxation Officers, Hann, Parker and
others. As a result of the false briefing Matheson was losing in his
joust with me, the main witness for Greenslade. In his predicament,
Matheson pulled his barrister's stunt of pretending to read from a memo in
his hand. With that deception Matheson turned the case and caused the
extortion of money from about 130 people and the destruction of several good
exporting businesses. Paragraghs 1 to 3 are the necessary dry bits. Para 4 warms up. . ********************************** ADELAIDE #DATE 24:2:1989
|
