|
SouthAusGovDefendsClaimByCovering-upMaliciousProsecution
http://www.robertsonj32.freeserve.co.uk/SouthAusGovDefendsClaimByCovering-upMaliciousProsecution.htm
click
for Case History of South
Australian Government Corruption
Call for the South
Australian Parliament to review:
·
SA Government’s
Breach of Human Rights
·
SA Appeals
Procedure
·
Crown Prosecution
Procedure
·
Cronyism in the
Supreme Court
·
Internet Solution
The South Australian Government
is still defending my civil claims for damages by continuing to cover-up
their malicious prosecution of me.
Before the trouble
In 1974, my family
corporation, JR Export Pty Ltd. was a successful export consultant
specializing in South Australian opal and wine; we had about 100 clients
exporting to the US and to the UK.
Early in 1974 I recommended
to some clients that they use low quality Queensland Boulder Opal as tokens
in a game of the Monopoly type.One client, Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, showed me a
newspaper article on an opal game made up by a Lutheran theology student,
Wayne Zanker.Sir Ivone suggested that he should meet with Zanker with the
purpose of using his game instead of making up our own game.
Attempted Blackmail
Negotiations proceeded and I
budgeted to spend $30,000 to export market an opal game and asked Zanker to
make some adjustments to his game.Zanker refused to adjust and said I must
proceed without changes by a certain date or else someone would deliver a
letter to the Tax Office, ‘That won’t do your business any good.’
I
replied, ‘Oh Wayne, that sounds like a threat to me.’
I
was not concerned with Zanker’s words as Les Miles, a senior assessment
officer of the Adelaide Taxation Office, had cleared my clients’ taxation
claims for export market development. We ceased negotiating with Zanker. Sir
Ivone and others went ahead and produced a game called Coober Pedy that I
devised during Easter, 1974.
The
Tax Office Conspiracy to Destroy my Business
Shortly
after Easter, under instructions from Acting Deputy Commissioner William
Parker, Assistant George Hann and Manager Crase, Investigators Bowman,
Hennessy and others ‘attacked’ my clients, with one purpose being the
destroying of my export consulting business.The tax men gloatingly told me
they were following-up on a poison pen letter, but refused to name the writer
(now presumed to be Zanker)
My
clients and I could not locate Les Miles; Hennessy said, ‘Who’s he?’
By 1984 JR Export Pty Ltd was
destroyed, along with my 27-year marriage.I was working with Ian Ward QC of
Sydney in the formulating of several major claims for damages against Parker
and the others.
Matheson QC’s breach of
the Crimes Act
I had already tried to claim,
under the Crimes Act, against Parker’s legal counsel, R Matheson QC, for his
deception of me while I was a witness for a client, Robert Greenslade, in a
Taxation Board of Review Hearing.Matheson was by then a Supreme Court
Judge.Matheson did not clear his name; he escaped his trial by successfully
pleading ‘barrister’s immunity’.Another part of his argument to have my claim
struck off was on the basis, ‘I committed a crime so you cannot take civil
action for damages against me.’
After Matheson’s escape I
commenced civil claims against the Australian and South Australian
Governments and some of their employees and agents.In defending himself,
lawyer, John Treloar, who had assisted Matheson, produced a photocopy of
Matheson’s hand-written note that he ‘read’ from to breach the Crimes Act (by
deceiving me while I was a witness, to affect my testimony).
Armed now with Matheson’s
note from that Tax Hearing of about seven years earlier, I delivered
documents to the South Australian Premier, John Bannon, and to Attorney
General Chris Sumner, with the purpose of negotiating an out of court
settlement.
The Malicious Prosecution
to Create a Defense
Bannon and Sumner did not
have their officers see me.Instead, with Attorney-General Sumner’s special
approval to start proceedings out of time, Simon Lane, Prosecutor for
Corporate Affairs Commission, fabricated a minor corporate offence against
one of my clients, Robert Semmens, and against me for aiding and abetting
Semmens.
Ian Ward QC immediately
advised me to drop everything else, as a criminal conviction is a perfect
defense to all of my claims for damages.
Fabrication to get before
an inferior court
Lane opened up a case file
that had been closed by investigating officer Barbara Thorpe.By selectively
using some records, and not disclosing others, Lane fabricated a minor breach
of South Australian Corporate Law to launch a prosecution against Semmens and
me before an inferior Magistrates Court.
If any crime had really been
committed by Semmens and me – which had not happened - it would have been a
Federal matter to be heard in a superior Federal Court.
Breach of Human Rights
As it was a Federal Matter
relating to exporting, the Taxation Office and the Export Development Grants
Board were prohibited by Federal Law from releasing to a State Court, the
documents that I needed for my defense.
Prosecutor Lane obtained the
documents he wanted and disclosed only those that suited his fabricated
prosecution.Despite my
subpoenas drafted by Ward QC, I was prevented from obtaining the documents I
needed for my defense.This was a flagrant breach of my Human Rights – but
Australia has no Human Rights Law!
Investigator’s perjury
Magistrate Peter Kelly was so
incompetent that he allowed this unfair trial to proceed and allowed Prosecution
witness, Barbara Thorpe, to lie point blank to him during her evidence.Thorpe
had interviewed me and then later rewrote some of her hand written record
before having it typed.My memory, of some omitted questions and answers on
the first page, was good.During strong cross-examination by Brian Martin QC,
Kelly interjected, asking Thorpe if she had edited her record and she falsely
replied, ‘No’.
The trial concluded with that
last-minute perjury and I was found guilty.In sentencing me Kelly said I
gave evidence and shortly afterwards said I did not give
evidence.Kelly was an incompetent buffoon slavishly following Prosecutor
Lane’s fabricated case and not taking any notice of the truthful evidence
that I put to him.
Perjury Reported to the
Police
I walked from Kelly’s Court
to the Office of the Attorney-General and gained approval to further examine
Thorpe’s hand written report and found that besides rewriting the first page
Thorpe had also rewritten some following pages; this could be seen by examining
the differing sets of staple holes on the pages.
I immediately reported
Thorpe’s perjury to Detective Polacek of the South Australian Police.By 1989,
forensic testing showed pages had imprints from pages above that had been
rewritten to change questions and answers.The Police passed the Thorpe
perjury file on to The Crown Prosecutor, Paul Rofe.
The Cover-up
Rofe refused to prosecute.That
Rofe non-action sent me, the victim, to jail, instead of the fabricator and
perjurer, Government Corporate Investigator, Barbara Thorpe.More importantly,
Rofe kept in place the Governments’ Defense against my Civil Claims for
Damages.
Meanwhile my appeal went
before Justice Michael White of the Supreme Court who was known to me and who
I had named in some court documents.I objected to White J. hearing my
appeal.White J. insisted on hearing my appeal.White J. quipped to me,
’Government officers are not on trial, you are’.White J. refused to accept
evidence not available to me at the Kelly Magistrate trial. White J. cut
Kelly’s sentencing of me from 6 months jail to 3 months and gave me
the right to appeal to the Full Supreme Court.
My Appeal went to the Full
Supreme Court where Chief Justice King, the former Attorney General before
Sumner, rescinded my right to appeal, so taking the final step
to send me to jail with the criminal conviction needed by the Governments to
block all of my civil claims for damages.
King CJ, White J and others
are absolutely guilty of cronyism as they acted to protect their fellow judge,
Matheson J., who started it all at the Taxation Board of Review Hearing when
he pretended to read exactly from his piece of paper to wrongly win for
Parker and destroy several export businesses and my family’s export
consulting business.
Conspiracy confirmed
After the culture shock of
serving 2 months in jail in 1990, and wanting my conviction quashed, I called
on Rofe to ask why he would not prosecute Thorpe.Rofe replied that it would
not have made any difference to the outcome.Those words confirm that there
was a conspiracy to have me convicted of a crime, no matter what, to defend
my claims for damages and also in retaliation for me claiming damages against
a Supreme Court Judge.
South Australian Parliament
Peter Lewis, now Speaker,
wrote to Attorney-General Trevor Griffin asking how my conviction could be
quashed.Griifin wrote that I could use lawyers to Petition the South
Australian Governor for my conviction to be quashed.
In November 2002, I still
cannot sensibly engage lawyers to Petition as I do not have sufficient money
for the legal costs.I think Trevor Griffin ducked the issue, perhaps because
his father, Ken, and brother Rodney, both worked for JR Export Pty Ltd back
in the good exporting years.Present Attorney-General, Hon. Michael Atkinson,
is unknown to me so perhaps this issue can be resolved at last, without fear
or favor.
This is a matter of public
importance.All people have the right to have faith in the Supreme Court as
disputes can arise from out of the blue at any time.
When cronyism in The Supreme
Court is allowed to destroy businesses and people’s lives you have an
uncivilized society. South Australia is presently such a society.
Attorneys-General
It was easy enough for former
Attorney–General Sumner to participate with Lane in the fabricated
prosecution and easy enough for former Attorney-General King to rescind my
appeal.
Shadow Attorney-General
Robert Lawson inadvertently helped me at a Semmens Administrative Appeals
Tribunal, by producing the document not disclosed by Lane that proved Lane’s
fabrication to get his case before a low level court.
Why is it not easy for
present Attorney-General Atkinson to organize the quashing of my conviction
and negotiate an out of court settlement for my claims?He only needs to
have one of his competent officers look into this matter and email me for any
clarifications.
I am a willing settler, that is what I was wanting to do as soon as I
obtained the photocopy of Matheson’s hand written note and sought
appointments with Sumner’s and/or Bannon’s Officers.I need the money as I
want to get back into business before I get too old, and install in South
Australia some Wind Farms and a Very High Temperature Incinerator.
Call for Review by the
South Australian Parliament:
·
SA Government’s Breach
of Human Rights
This trial, appeal and
jailing was a flagrant breach of my Human Rights – but Australia has no Human
Rights Law!
Using Google to look for Professor Geoffrey D’Q Walker CIR
queensland university
I came across
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/constitution/issues.html
where I saw
The
Rights of Citizens and the Limits of Administrative Discretion: The
Contribution of Sir Anthony Mason to Administrative Law (120K)
And in there is
RIGHT
TO A FAIR HEARING
Before the CONCLUSION we can read
International dimension
of rights
Finally, the limits of discretion are defined
by reference to the rights, and interests, of citizens in Minister for
Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh150 where the High Court held by a majority that
ratification of an international convention generates a legitimate
expectation that administrative decision-makers will act in conformity with
the convention. Rights of citizens, and indeed interests of citizens, as
conveyed by the idea of the legitimate expectation are not to be trifled with
by government:
Ratification by Australia of an international convention
is not to be dismissed as a merely platitudinous or ineffectual act,
particularly when the instrument evidences internationally accepted standards
to be applied by courts and administrative authorities in dealing with basic
human rights affecting the family and children.151
The judgment of Mason CJ and Deane J in Teoh
has been greeted with greater enthusiasm by the English Court of Appeal than
it has by the Australian government.152 Lord Woolf MR has described the reasoning as
"wholly convincing".153 While the reception of Teoh in the United
Kingdom has nonetheless been mixed,154 in Australia the decision is gradually proving to
be a catalyst for fresh thinking about how other grounds of review may be
developed in a manner sympathetic to the rights of citizens as reflected in
international human rights norms.155
-----------------------------------------
So we can see that Australia has no Human
Rights Law but gradually fresh thinking may cause Australia to become normal,
as compared with international human rights.
The people I complain of did what they did
because they knew they could.
Can we have some fresh thinking please?
As Human Rights are a Federal Matter I
will email all Federal MP’s after I complete my emailing of all SA MP’s.
Meanwhile, while the Federal People
gradually apply their fresh thinking there is nothing to stop South
Australian People speedily applying fresh thinking and bringing SA legal
proceedings within international human rights norms and correcting the wrongs
that Semmens and I suffered.
The
High Court of Australia shows that Common Law should provide citizens with
normal international human rights but my Case History proves that it is not
happening.
SA Appeals Procedure
Mr. Justice Zelling was
reported in the 'Adelaide Advertiser' 16 January 1979, as saying that the
South Australian Appeal from a Magistrate Law is so unjust, in not permitting
a re-hearing before a judge, that the South Australian community was
uncivilized.I would not have been jailed if there had been a re-hearing as per
other Australian States. Twenty-three years later, this uncivilized State
still holds on to its inhuman appeal from a magistrate law.
Not White nor King nor anyone else could have railroaded Semmens and me
into jail if my appeal had been a rehearing before a judge - as it
would have been in Victoria.
There would have been no jailing, no cronyism and no
nonfeasance.The SA Statutory Law on Appeals needs fixing to be in
line with Victoria.To have the Appeal law, as it was for me, is a
Parliamentary disgrace.
·
Crown Prosecution
Procedure
The Police produced the
evidence.Rofe did not deny the strength of the forensic evidence; he just
said it would have made no difference to the outcome.Thorpe’s flawed evidence
was believed and Kelly took so little notice of my truthful evidence that he said
I gave evidence and also said I did not give evidence.
Why is my conviction not
Quashed when Thorpe, the main prosecution witness, fabricated
accounting evidence and then said in sworn evidence before Kelly that she did
not edit her report of her questioning of me?
It appears that the relevant
law, that allowed Rofe to not prosecute Thorpe, is faulty and needs
correction.Or is Rofe guilty of nonfeasance?
In SA, you
have one law for private citizens and another law for government officers.
·
Cronyism in the
Supreme Court
In the early 1980’s I had
complete faith in the integrity of the South Australian Supreme Court and as
the ANZ Bank was threatening to foreclose on the mortgage over our family
home, I reluctantly but confidently commenced civil action for damages
against a Supreme Court Judge, as Matheson was by that time.
It appears that some members
of the Supreme Court could not justly do their job, as they were more intent
on looking after their fellow judge.
The South Australian
Parliament has the power to examine judges who bring the Court into
disrepute.Matheson QC used a clever ploy when he was a barrister to win a
low-level tax case.His action was wrong, but could have, and should have,
been corrected in the usual way.
The actions of White J. and
King CJ. (and some others) were despicable and have brought the South
Australian Supreme Court into public disrepute - or are you proud of the
actions of the judges involved?
The South Australian
Parliament has a duty, under
the existing law that sacked Boothby J more than a century ago, to examine
the cronyism that I am reporting here.
·
Internet Solution
If Parliament introduced new
statutory law to have ALL court documents put onto the Internet, public
scrutiny would make it easier to ferret out the crooked lawyers, magistrates
and judges.The added risk of exposure would act as a deterrent to those legal
people with low standards.That would be effective law reform.
How did this happen?
Government People play
‘follow the leader’. After Senior Tax Assessor, Les Miles, had checked and
OK’d the Export Market Development claims of my clients, all assessors followed
suit and passed all such claims for three years.
Acting Deputy Commissioner
Parker became known in Canberra for ‘shooting from the hip’ and was removed
from his position. But while he was in control he authorized the attack on
the exporters. Frank Crean was the Federal Treasurer and had instructed the
Tax Office to, ‘Collect an extra $100 million from business.’Parker
knew Canberra would not stop him.
Government People followed
the new leader – Parker/Crean.
Parker’s men disallowed everything that
had been previously cleared when Miles was the leader.
Government People are still
following the lead of ‘Shoot from the hip’ Parker, 28 years after he joined
forces with a malicious letter writer who is probably Zanker, the attempted
blackmailer.Parker certainly is an extortionist (taking money from exporters
under the guise of legal right) as he won the first Tax Hearing as a result
of Matheson’s crime.Then all involved Government People have followed that
criminal lead.What a shambles! (- tangled web you weave when you set out to
deceive)
Quashing my conviction and
compensation
I do not care about the old
and dead men I complain of, nor do I care about Thorpe; all I want is for the
convictions of Semmens and myself to be quashed and for us to be paid
compensation. If my Case History causes effective law reform there is some
gain to balance the pain.
Money! Money! Money!Pay me
some money!
To organize massive investments in clean
energy, first of all I need my former good name restored, and then I need the
compensation for start-up money.
It’s cold here in the UK.I want to return
to Sunny SA to install at Port Augusta some Wind Turbines and a Very High
Temperature Incinerator!
Please reply to JohnRobertson@freedomsolution.info for inclusion in my website sub- section; http://www.robertsonj32.freeserve.co.uk/SouthAusGovDefendsClaimByCovering-upMaliciousProsecution.htm
Sincerely,
John Robertson
|