On May 2nd 2014, just 4 hours after being sworn-in as a Juror in the Adelaide Court jury pool, Juror #157 was ‘bumped-off’ by Sheriff Stokes in what may have been yet another deliberate attempt to conceal QUOTAGATE, the worst case of politically driven systemic fraud and mass murder in Australia’s history.
The logic used by the Sheriff of South Australia, Mark Stokes, through his deputy Matthew, for ‘bumping-off’ Juror #157 from the jury pool was that the WordPress publication posted by this juror at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-ka (i.e. the last posting in Ronald’s space,) had allegedly violated the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act because it contained the statement “A juror’s verdict: The Hanger Royal Commission is more biased than the Morris Commission was and needs to be shut down”.
[NOTE: the short link URL for this posting is:- http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-km ]
- According to Sheriff Stokes, allegedly revealing that the author was a Juror in the Adelaide Courts jury pool was unlawful and was consequently he had legal grounds for expelling Juror #157 from the jury pool.
- Interesting, a quick check on the Internet revealed that it is not unusual for people to reveal that they are jurors and therefore the crucial question is, what was Sheriff Stokes’ real motive in ‘bumping-off’ Juror #157?
KANGAROO COURT JUSTICE.
If Juror #157 had violated the law, then Sheriff Stokes’ legal responsibility was to uphold the Law according to both the Australian Constitution and Due Process of Law (see my comments below), i.e. he should have referred this allegedly unlawful activity to the cops for investigation but he didn’t do this.
- In theory, jurors who are accused of violating the law are subject to precisely the same Due Process of Law as anyone else.
- However, in practice ,Sheriff Stokes used the Kangaroo Court method of dispensing justice, i.e. You’re guilty because I say you are.
- Sheriff Stokes literally took the law into his own hands by ignoring Procedural Fairness, etc and “convicted” Juror 157 of this alleged crime.
- The arbitrary sentence then imposed was expulsion from the Adelaide Courts jury pool.
- Had Juror 157 been reported to the police, the inalienable legal right of the Presumption of Innocence that Juror #157 was entitled too would probably have allowed Juror #157 to continue to fulfill his duties in the jury pool until such time as the matter was put before a judge for a determination, i.e. in about 6 months time!
The primary purpose of the Justice System is to protect the innocent.
- IN THEORY, The primary purpose of the Justice System is to protect the innocent because anyone can accuse you of a crime and the function of the Justice System is to ensure that innocent people are not wrongly penalized.
- In this instance, the basic legal principles of Transparency, Procedural Fairness, Due Process of Law and The Presumption of Innocence were conspicuously absence in the sacking of Juror 157 and in their place was what appears to be a blatant attempt to obstruct and pervert the course of justice by replacing these principles with arbitrary decision making.
- For insight into these principles mean, check out what a former South Australian lawyer turned federal politician has to say about their importance in our supposedly democratic society.
Senator Penny Wong and “Due Process of Law”.
Sheriff Stokes’ action in getting rid of Juror 157 makes a total farce out of Senator Penny Wong’s very passionately spoken comments on the ABC’s AM program about the importance of ensuring Procedural Fairness and Due Process of Law which is, constitutionally, the responsibility of the courts, not Kangaroo Court sheriffs. Senator Penny Wong’s interview provides a valid basis for evaluating Sheriff Stokes’ decision not to have Juror #157 investigated for allegedly violating the South Australian Criminal Caw Consolidation Act.
The source of the interview below is an ABC Radio AM segment which was broadcast at about 7.10am (EST) on 11-05-12: (The ABC’s online file is bst_20120511-0710.mp3)
“… there are allegations made against members of parliament, made against individuals in our community … and the appropriate way to deal with those is to allow the courts to deal with them. Now, I’ve spoken about this for a long time, including on the ABC. When I’m asked about a number of things which are in the public arena, for example in the Fair Work Australia Report, I’ve said, if those allegations are correct, they are manifestly inappropriate. Manifestly! But politicians are not judge and jury when it comes to these matters, and there’s a very good reason for that. Because we have a system that is about the separation of powers and is about proper process when it comes to these and Anthony (Albanese) was making that point.” (Note: My underlining of the text.)
(ABC Presenter: “Are the gloves now off?”)
“Well, we have said, very clearly, we believe that the Parliament should respect the processes of our courts; the processes which exist for very sound reasons. Regrettably, that’s not the way the Opposition, on this issue, are approaching it.”
- So why did Sheriff Stokes become …“judge and jury” and expel me from the jury pool in a process that was neither transparent nor respected the processes that Senator Wong spoke about when she was defending Craig Thomson?
- Could it be that like the Hanger Royal Commission, the last thing that Sheriff Stokes wanted was to have me discussing my relevant “life experiences” about QUOTAGATE?
- These days, QUOTAGATE is about the Howard Government’s secret classification of the “confidential”, unreported Performance Indicator Targets (PIT) fatalities that preceded the 4 ‘Roofgate’ deaths?
- The QUOTAGATE fatalities include the deaths that Centrelink’s Assistant Secretary, Neil Skill, admitted had never been “collected” and therefore had never been reported in either annual reports or quarterly public accountability reports to the Federal Parliament.
- The QUOTAGATE fatalities are currently secretly classified as both “not relevant” and “confidential” by the Federal Parliament.
- That comes as no surprise, for they, like the deaths of Matthew Fuller, Marcus Wilson, Reuben Barnes and Mitchell Sweeney, all unlawful killings caused by federal politicians who put financial considerations ahead of public safety.
- With a 1 in 4 chance that other jurors had previously been, or currently are, welfare recipients, the idea of my discussing the refusal of the Federal Police (and SAPOL) to investigate these (allegedly) unlawful deaths with other jury pool members may well have been far beyond what Sheriff Stokes was politically prepared to tolerate in his jury pool?
TAKE NOTE The official refusals by the Federal Police to investigate Quotagate, and other frauds, on the spurious grounds that they were/are public knowledge and therefore did not need to be investigated, throws the door wide open to anyone accused of major fraud, misrepresentation, public endangerment, manslaughter or even murder, e.g. those convicted of the “Bodies in the Barrels” murders, possibly being able to seek to have their charges/convictions annulled on the legal grounds of Manifest Ostensible Bias!
Manifest Ostensible Bias. Leck vs Morris; Keating vs Morris. 1st September 2005.
For a jurors in a murder trial, the deaths that the Federal Police refused to investigate, citing such spurious excuses as “gravity/sensitivity”, and “current “case load” , et cetera may constitute legal grounds for citing Manifest Ostensible Bias and thus may be compulsory grounds for acquitting the defendant(s) because of a legal precedent in the Queensland Supreme Court: Justice Moynihan, Leck vs Morris; Keating vs Morris. (The findings were handed down on 1st September 2005.)
This a decision has as yet untapped ramifications, especially once accused persons facing serious criminal charges get their hands on copies of the (currently classified as confidential) AFP refusals to investigate numerous alleged criminal activities within the Federal Parliament such as Travelgate, Perksgate and Quotagate.
- The really good news for these peoples is that all but one of my email communications to/from the Hanger Royal Commission are, at the present time, still unclassified.
The Hanger Royal Commission may also be deliberately obstructing justice.
- It is my ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ opinion, the primary role currently being played by the Hanger Royal Commission is the concealment of the Quotagate fatalities and other DSS and Centrelink triggered fatalities.
- The Hanger Commission is flatly refusing to consider these fatalities, many of which may be major crimes, and therefore I believe that this Commission of Inquiry needs to be the focal point of an intensive investigation to determine why .
- Surely, if the deaths of 4 ceiling insulation installers was enough to finally have the ceiling insulation installation program (Roofgate) re-coded from “Green” to “Yellow”, then a valid question to ask is just how many deaths of unemployed people, publicly vilified by the Howard Government as “Rorters” and “Dole Bludgers”, were necessary before the practice formally known as “Breaching” should have been ‘Red Carded”?
- This statement comes for a 1998 federal mental health report: “Suicide is a leading cause of death in Australia, resulting in a total of 2,393 deaths (1,931 males, 462 females) in 1996. Since 1990, suicides have exceeded road injury deaths and have been the leading cause of death due to injury in Australia.”
- About a third of these deaths involved unemployed welfare recipients and yet there has been no investigation as to why the nations most vulnerable people, i.e. he unemployed, make up the largest identifiable group of people who are committing suicide.
- How may of the unemployed people died as a direct consequence of the Howard government’s illegal QUOTAGATE policies?
- That is a question that both John Howard and Tony Abbott now both need to answer.
- Unfortunately that is also a question that the Hanger Royal Commission, which was set up by Tony Abbott, flatly refuses to consider.
- Why is this so?
ABOVE THE LAW?
Accused persons may also find useful the fact that Liberal-National Coalition controlled Senate committees have secretly classified these fatalities as “confidential” and have also issued, under Parliamentary Privilege powers, ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ suppression orders. To steal a phrase from the high Court’s findings in ACCC vs TPG (HCA 54 ), the “dominant message” in the actions of these Liberal-National Coalition dominated Senate committees is that Liberal-National Coalition politicians appear to believe themselves to be above and beyond the Law because they make the Law, and therefore the Quotagate fatalities can be placed ‘off-limits’ to both the public and the nation’s Criminal Justice system.
So much for Senator Wong’s statement that “the Parliament should respect the processes of our courts.”
The problem with Justice Moynihan’s ‘Manifest Ostensible Bias Decision is that is a legal precedent that has far ranging implications when it comes to Procedural fairness, as the (3) recent court cases involving Dr Patel clearly reveals.
Dr Jayant Patel.
Despite the fact that (allegedly) 87 people are dead and (allegedly) another 106 people required major corrective surgery as a result of Dr Patel, based upon the evidence presented, in the March 2013 re-trial, the jury had no option but to bring in an unpopular but legally valid “Not Guilty” verdict:
- Justice Moynihan’s Ostensible Bias decision has also shut down the Morris Commission of Inquiry and turned 50 days of testimony to that inquiry hearings into ‘poisoned fruit’ that (literally) had to be shredded.
- It would be 5 years before Dr Patel was finally brought to trial and Justice Moynihan’s decision appears to have made possible useful legal grounds that may have aided Dr Patel in having his original March 2010 convictions overturned in by the High Court in October 2012.
- At his subsequent retrial on 1 count of Manslaughter in 2013, the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions may have been ‘straight-jacked’ (constrained) by both Justice Moynihan’s 2005 decision and the subsequent High Court appeal decision.
Although Dr Patel could be charged with having lied his way into the job of Director of Surgery at the Bundaberg Base Hospital, if that is a crime, it should be noted that recently the ALP ran a national advertisng campaign claiming that Tony Abbott had lied his way into the Prime Minister’s job with “non-core promises.” Consequently Dr Patel could argue that he had no case to answer on the grounds of Manifest Ostensible Bias! How’s that for irony?
Poniatowska and Procedural Fairness – Incredible but TRUE!.
I believe that all readers of this posting, especially people who may have been summoned to jury duty, need to understand that Procedural Fairness principles may supersede or totally over-ride any evidence presented during a trial. There is probably no better case history precedent to support this belief that everyone, especially Jurors, need to know about and consider is the High Court’s Poniatowska Decision (HCA 43 ).
- Totally unbelievable but also totally true; 15,000 impoverished welfare recipients prosecuted and convicted for a crime that did not exist!
- In the cases where a jury presided, not once did the prosecutor, the judge, or where present, the defence counsel, inform the jury of this basic fact.
- Can you image the following scenario?
- At the end of each of the trial before a jury, the presiding judge sums up the facts of case for the jury and then, just the jury rises to go to the jury room to determine the merits of the case, the judge says, “Oh, by the way, there is no actual law that the defendant has broken but you need not worry about that. If you find the defendant guilty, I’ll put him/her in the slammer for the next 3 years.”
- In reality, no judge ever said that to any jury.
- Instead, some 15,000 times,magistrates at Arraignment Hearing referred people to trial where judges and/or juries actually convicted impoverished welfare recipients and put some of them in the slammer for being so as stupid as to get caught for violating a law that did not exist!
- ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE, TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE but TRUE!
Unfortunately, thanks to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott and the other 224 members of the Australian Federal Parliament, an even greater injustice was occurred they tried to ‘fix’ this monstrous legal blunder.
“STATUTORY FICTION”: The Keating Decision (HCA 20, May 8th 2013).
Totally topping the Poniatowska Decision for Gross Injustice was the High Court’s Keating Decision (HCA 20 ). In a deliberate attempt to undermine the Poniatowska Decision, the 226 members of the Federal Parliament violated the constitutional, legal and fundamental human rights of 15,000 welfare recipients with retrospective legislation that was intended to validate all of the above mentioned unlawful criminal convictions.
- Quite rightly, the High Court dismissed this gross violation of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citing it as “statutory fiction.”
- Unfortunately for Australia’s impoverished welfare recipients, the High Court pulled its punch with the statutory fiction comment and did not cite the Federal Parliament for “Crimes against Humanity.”
- Had the High Court done so, it is quite possible that today Australia’s Prime Minister might well have been Clive Palmer and not the current human rights violating incumbent, Tony Abbott.
- The Essence of Truth is Proof; when it comes to the above mentioned court decisions, there is a lot of proof in plain sight – just GOOGLE these court decisions.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL – PARAGRAPHS 75 (c)
The official secrecy and the bureaucratic stonewalling that conceals unreported lethal impact of the Breaching penalties legislation that was in place for decades is necessary, at least for federal politicians. A quick read of Paragraph 75 (c) of the Australian Constitution will reveal that Breach of Contract is a matter for the courts, not the string of governments (and syncopate bureaucrats) that for decades have financially benefited from this legislation with literally billions of dollars in so-called “Savings.”
- You should test everything that I post, especially references to the Australian Constitution.
- Please, check out paragraph 51 (xxiii) (a) of the constitution and you will also find out that Civil Conscription, i.e. Work for the Dole, is prohibited.
RARES AND THE 2013 AGS LAW ADMINISTRATORS CONFERENCE.
Check out the statements below which were contained in a paper presented by a Federal Court judge, i.e. Justice Steven Rares, at the June 2013 AGS Law Administrators Conference.
STATEMENT #1 “The principal means by which liberty can be eroded today in Australia is by a law enacted by the Parliament or by its delegated legislative power or by a State or Territory law. The Constitution confers specific legislative powers on the Parliament, generally divided into subject matters. Many of those powers are found in section 51.”
STATEMENT #2 “…Our legal system currently allows every court in this country, from a local court magistrate to the High Court, when exercising federal jurisdiction, to declare a law made by any parliament or under delegated legislation or any executive conduct to be constitutionally invalid.”
Re: “Many of those powers are found in section 51.”
Too right they are:- check out paragraph 51 (xxiii) (a) of the constitution.
- The Dole is a constitutional right;
- but Work for the Dole is unconstitutional.
- So why is Work for the Dole a major plank in the Abbott Government’s current FY 2014-15 federal budget?
- Readers might like to ask their federal MPs and senators why this is so.
SYSTEMIC JURY TAMPERING ISSUES:
[Readers please note: This section looks at the systemic ways in which juries can be rendered so ineffective as to constitute systemic jury pool tampering. It is lengthy, informative, but possibly quite boring in some parts – you have been warned!]
CURRENT COMPETENCY – JURORS and the National Training Agenda .
Current Competency is the core principle of the national training agenda. Whether the issue is a TAFE level 1 Certificate in Computer Studies or a research PhD, the key point of the assessment process is Current Competency. In a trial, Jurors have to make many complex judgements, and if one or more members of the jury have concerns about the validity of legislation, then it their responsibility to query the issue with the judge. If the judge agrees with the juror(s) viewpoint, as Justice Rares has pointed out, the judge can rule that a (federal) law is legally invalid. (The High Court has the final say in the matter.)
- However, if the jury briefing process that I undertook on May 2nd 2014 in the Adelaide Courts jury pool room is a typical example of how these sessions are conducted, they represent a ‘1-Finger-Salute’ to the concept of Current Competency.
- At the moment, to qualify as a juror you just need to be on the electoral role, alive, and living within 150kms of the courts. No other qualifications appear to be required.
- In the light of Poniatowska and the Keating decisions, jury pool members need a far higher degree of competency that the system currently allows them to have.
- By withholding from potential jurors details of the full scope of their responsibility, e.g. the responsibility to confirm the validity of both the charges against the accused and the legal merit of that legislation, the jury pool induction process is seriously flawed.
- I believe that a good analogy is to liken this process to teaching young people to drive cars in an off-road facility and then letting them drive on the road without telling mentioning any road rules, e.g. Keep Left.
- To withhold such core principles from jurors is to pervert the system, i.e. it is systemic jury pool tampering. In the 21st century, potential Jurors needs far more information than the system is providing and this failure to make full disclosure of all appropriate information, perhaps using modern technology, e.g. DVD tutorials, is now causing systemic problems.
“The Tyrannosaurus in the jury pool room.”
In a commentary posted on the Internet in 2010, Assistant Professor Lorana Bartels, (School of Law and Justice Canberra) stated that 21st century problems caused by the Social Media are “an elephant in the room” for the nation’s Justice system.
As both a technology studies teacher with over 30 years of years of computing experience, (which includes a post-graduate research thesis on the role of micro-computer technology in farm business management), and as an ex-Juror with a massive 4 hours of intensive observational experience in the Adelaide Courts jury pool room, I fully agree with Professor Bartels comments. (Did I just damn Professor Bartels with faint praise?)
In the light of my May 2nd 2014 “Life Experience” (which is the primary criteria for my assumed ‘competency’ as a Juror), I would go one step beyond Professor Bartels “elephants in the room” comment by making the definitive statement that systemic jury pool tampering is a far more dangerous issue than many of problems posed by the social media for I believe that jury pool tampering is “a Tyrannosaurus Rex in the jury pool room.”
Was I booted out of the jury pool because I had allegedly broken the law, or was I booted out because of the “boat-rocking” documents and comments that I had published on my web site in the last 2 years? If the real reason was the highly sensitive content of those web pages, then the sheriff was deliberately abusing his authority by excluding my ‘life experience’ from both the jury pool and the jury room, i.e. he would have been jury pool tampering.
The core function of a Sworn Juror (note the proper noun usage) is precisely the same as that as a person who has been sworn in as a Member of the Judiciary, i.e. a Judge, for both are charged with the same responsibility. Each must impartially assess the fairness of the legal process and then impartially evaluate the evidence presented in a case in order to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, if an accused person is guilty of the alleged violations of criminal law(s).
(A) The Oath that both jurors and judges take, places upon them a common obligation to uphold the Law and to be impartial and honest when evaluating the evidence presented in court. Consequently, although the position of Juror is a temporary on-call position, to all intents and purposes, Sworn Jurors are temporarily “Officers of the Court” until officially relieved of their post.
Therefore the expulsion of a Sworn Juror from their official duties is a very serious matter that should not be subject to the capricious or arbitrary, possibly unlawful, discretion of the Sheriff and/or members of his staff.
“A medium affects the society in which it plays a role.” So do the actions of those holding a position of power. Consequently in the Court System, the process of removing a person from jury duty be TOTALLY TRANSPARENT and in accordance with Due Process of Law.
To do less is to leave all officials involved vulnerable to allegations of corruption. (Has anybody heard of Marshall McLuhan’s saying, “The medium is the message?”)
SUSPICION: “Speculation with foundation.”
One legal definition of Suspicion is “Speculation with foundation”. When there is any Speculation with foundation that a judge or a juror has broken the law, then scrupulous attention must be paid to the principle of “Procedural Fairness.” Any violation of Procedural Fairness processes would provide the accused person with an opportunity to have the charges dismissed or to have a conviction overturned.
TRANSPARENCY: “Due Process of Law.”
The High Court’s Patel Decision in October 2012. (QLD DPP vs Patel) which overturned Dr Patel’s 2010 convictions emphasizes the requirement for both Transparency and strict adherence to “Due Process of Law” which, from my layman’s viewpoint, should work something like this:
There is a “Suspicion” (based upon reasonable foundation, i.e. evidence,) that the law has been broken by a legal entity, i.e. a particular person, a group of people, or by a corporate body.
- There is an official investigation in which evidence is gathered, recorded, reviewed and stored in accordance with “The Rules of Evidence.
- The investigation is conducted by a licenced/authorized investigator, e.g. a police officer, or a duly constituted Commission of Inquiry such as a Royal Commission or an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC.)
- The Alleged Offender, i.e. “The Suspect”, (again note the use of proper nouns) is served with a warrant of arrest, i.e. arrested by a police officer, and charged with allegedly violating specific sections of statute laws.
- The proper nouns Alleged Offender and The Suspect are not just fancy word semantics but are legally correct terms because under Australia’s system of Justice, a person is Presumed to be innocent of any of the charges until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a Court of Law.
- Once charged, the suspect is Arraigned before a magistrate who determines if there is sufficient evidence for the charges to be put before a judge or a jury.
- If the magistrate determines that the evidence should be put to a higher court, i.e. the District Court or the Supreme Court, then the Alleged Offender, i.e. the Suspect, is held over for trial where the charges are put before a judge or a jury in a public hearing.
- At the start of the trial the Alleged Offender has the right to hear charges against him/her and to rebut them by challenging the evidence and any witness statements that are made under Oath.
- Until a Verdict is rendered at the end of the trial by the presiding jury, or by the presiding jury, the Alleged Offender is at all times Presumed to be innocent of the charges.
- IF, I repeat, IF a verdict of “Guilty” is rendered by the presiding judge, or by the presiding jury as may be the case, then the Alleged Offender is now a Convicted Offender.
- At this point in the process, a new set of processes come into play, i.e. Sentencing Hearings, the purpose of which is to determine an appropriate penalty that is consistent with the requirements of Statute Law, and Fairness to both the convicted person and any persons directly harmed by the convicted persons actions.
- After the Sentencing Hearings, have concluded the presiding judge at the trail then imposes sentence, i.e. the judge issues an appropriate penalty.
It is important to note that the convicted person may appeal both the conviction and/or the penalty imposed. Even if an accused person if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a judge or by a jury, appeals to the Appellate Court or to a higher court, e.g. the Australian High Court, may see the convictions over-turned as per the previously mentioned case of Dr Patel.
That case highlights the importance of Procedural Fairness for 87 of Dr Patel’s patients are dead and another 106 allegedly required corrective surgery to repair the injuries allegedly caused by Dr Patel’s surgical activities. The “dominant message” of the Patel case is that no matter how guilty a person may be, or how serious the crime, if Procedural Fairness is screwed up anywhere in the prosecution process, the accused effectively gets a “Get out Jail” card. (More on this point later.)
As stated above (repeatedly), on May 2nd 2014, Sheriff Stokes tossed Procedural Fairness and Due Process of Law out the window so to speak by skipping steps 3 to 12 above when accusing Juror #157 of violating the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
By offering to not take the matter further, Sheriff Stokes was tacitly involving Juror #157 in a criminal conspiracy to violate the law.
Thank you, Sheriff Stokes, but no thank you!
- Having read some of my postings covering the period 1st July 2012 to 1st May 2014, Sheriff Stokes would have be well aware of my suspicion that Tony Abbott may have been a key player in the unreported Performance Indicator Targets triggered fatalities that may have occurred in South Australia at the turn of the century.
- Any such fatalities would be Felony Murders under Section 16 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act. (Crown vs Finch, SA Supreme Court 2006)
- For me to ignore my own alleged violation of this legislation whilst continuing to point the finger at Tony Abbott for not revealing the Breaching Quota fatalities would be grossly hypocritical on my part!
In point of fact, if I were to be charged with violating the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act, I would attempt to defend myself on numerous grounds including Exigent Circumstances, i.e. the proposed unconstitutional Work for the Dole legislation. In addition I would also argue my defence on the grounds of Manifest Ostensible Bias, i.e. why prosecute me and ignore the possibility that Tony Abbott may have triggered a number of fatalities that may be covered by the Felony Murder provisions in Section 16 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act?
More on “The Elephants in the (jury pool) room.”
There are a number of other very serious Elephants in the (jury pool) room issues that are also swept under the carpet in South Australia when it comes to the mission-critical issue of swearing in a pool of 200 or so jurors every month whose services may be required in the 10 courtrooms of the South Australian Supreme Court and the Adelaide District Court.
- The 4- hour Juror in-servicing and swearing-in session that I attended on May 2nd 2014 was so outdated as to possibly constitute systemic jury tampering.
- In 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed, lynch mobs effectively received official sanction in the form of “juries of peers.”
- Using traditions handed down from that time, Standard Operating Procedure is to only provide a token minimum of information about the issues that confront jurors.
- For example, the idea that if jurors ‘get it wrong’ the accused can always appeal displays an appalling lack of basic knowledge of the huge expenses involved to those wrongly convicted, e.g. $10,000 a day for a QC/SC and $6,000 a day for a “2nd Seat”.
- In March 2013, the SA Supreme Court awarded Dr John Knight $3.6 million in compensation for wrongful dismissal and then awarded a further $640,000 in legal costs.
- Jurors need to know ALL of the real-world consequences of their decisions; in business this called ‘informed decision making’, and in the 21st century, jurors need the same baseline information for the same reason, i.e. to make a fully informed VALID decisions.
IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS
In the aftermath of the Poniatowska, Patel and Keating decisions by the High Court, the deliberate withholding of such basic information from the jury poor is far from adequate, especial since, Matthew informed me, and Jurors are forbidden to “investigate” such basic facts once they are impaneled. However, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” when accused of crime, so is it “investigation” or “self-education” for juries to acquaint themselves with the law?
- There is no simple answer to that question for lawyers have one view-point and educators have another.
- So what is fair and reasonable?
- Who knows? Certainly not any of the people who were in the jury pool room with me on May 2nd, that’s for sure for no-one questioned this statement.
By concealing relevant systemic information from jurors and not pointing out the need, the responsibility and the obligation to the defendant(s) to query both the procedural fairness of the case and the legality of the legislation that applies in the case at hand, the briefing process effectively amounts to systemic tampering with the jury pool. Ignorance is not bliss; it is a breach of duty of care to the defendant(s) that makes a mockery out of the principles of Procedural fairness and Due Process of Law.
Elephant #1 – the ignored problem of Jurors and the Social Media.
As my own example of 2ND May 2014, clearly demonstrates, doing nothing about the social media problem until after the jury pool is Sworn-in is very much a case of too little, too late! Why was I sworn-in at midday and then booted out of the jury poll at 4.30 PM. (Is that a record?)
Seating in the 2nd row from the front, I had made my presence known in the jury pool room with a series of statements that took Matthew and others by surprise.
- “I am here today because the Hanger Royal Commission will not subpoena me.”
- “As a result of my ‘Life Experiences’ I know about a number of High Court decisions.”
- “Poniatowska. 15,000 impoverished welfare recipients prosecuted for a non-existent crime. Wow!”
- “PATEL. 87 dead and 106 injured but Dr Patel is free today because of Procedural Fairness issues.”
- “Keating. On May 8th last year, the High Court dismissed as “statutory fiction” unconstitutional, human rights violating, retrospective legislation that was intended to undermine the Poniatowska decision by validating the 15,000 convictions of people who had not broken the law because the alleged law did not exist at the time of the alleged offence!
I then filled the silence in the room that followed these statements with the comment that “I am the author of submission 287 to the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry. This submission is secretly classified as confidential and I also have to suppression orders that relate to the fatalities that the Federal Parliament does not wish reveal.”
At this point Matthew found his voice and stated that he would like to see me after the jury pool swearing-in process was completed.
- My response to this request was to point out to Matthew that I had some documents that I wished to show to him but, they were so sensitive that he may not wish to look at them.
- Matthew counter-responded with the comment, “In that case, I won’t.”
Unfortunately for Matthew, he forgot that statement when we spoke privately at the end of the meeting, he looked closely at the 4 documents that I had handed to him. As a consequence, I have 4 documents with his fingerprints (and DNA) that prove that he is aware of the unreported breaching triggered fatalities and the refusal of the Federal Police and the National Audit Office to do anything about these deaths.
After reading the documents Matthew then expressed the viewpoint that he needed to be sure that, knowing about these issues, that I could fulfil my obligations as a Juror. I assured him that I could. However, at the forefront of my mind was the thought that he had had clear ‘warning’ of my knowledge of these sensitive issues and had failed to clarify them BEFORE I was sworn-in as a Juror. Expelling from the jury pool was a clear case of wasting taxpayer’s money, i.e. shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted!
- Swearing in jurors and then turfing them out of the jury pool once it becomes evident that their dissident “life experiences” or alternative lifestyles may result in valid but unacceptable views being expressed in jury room, or even in a court room, is clearly a very flawed and tainted process that urgently requires much needed transparency.
- Turfing out Sworn Jurors with anti-establishment life experiences , e.g. ‘boat-rocking’, ‘whistle-blowing’, or dissident political viewpoints, may be Standard Operating Procedure; if so it is socio-economic or political jury pool tampering and that is just not on.
I am of the opinion that, without total transparency and strict compliance with Procedural fairness obligations, the removal of a Juror from the jury pool is simply systemic jury pool tampering.
Assistant Professor Lorana Bartels perceptive “elephant in the room” comments about the interactive role of the Social Media in the 21st century and its impact upon jurors and some trials, has highlighted the need for the Sheriff’s Office to be pro-active with the well-known problems of jurors and their interaction with the ubiquitous nature of Social Media:
THE SOCIAL MEDIA IS UBIQUITOUS:
Australia’s population of 22 million people own some 24 million mobile phones, almost all of which can be used to directly access Twitter, FaceBook, et cetera, in real time.
- With 12 million Facebook accounts in Australia, 2 million Twitter accounts, 4 million LinkedIn accounts plus an unknown number of blogging web pages, the Summons to Jury Duty notice is the point of contact where Social Media is an easily foreseen problem/issue and consequently it is an issue that must be confronted, not ignored, at that point of contact.
- To just continue to treat the problem as “The elephant in the room”, as Professor Bartels puts it, is simply just not good enough for it is a serious failure of Due Diligence that involves NONFEASANCE, i.e. a failure to take action when action is required.
The 2nd” elephant in the room” is the problem of ‘Functionally Illiteracy’
Check out the hyperlink to an Australian Bureau of Statistics Literacy Survey published in 2006; A staggering 50% of jurors may be functionally illiterate!
First published in 2006 and then again in 2008, this survey was updated with a ‘spot check’ in Tasmania in 2013. The initial surveys revealed that a staggering 47% of Australians aged between 15 and 70 are functionally illiterate. A 2013 survey in Tasmania upped the ante to an even 50% and highlighted the fact that this was costing Tasmania billions of dollars each year in lost productivity.
(A) The obvious question to consider is what is what else besides productivity, time, and money, could get “lost” in the courtroom?
(B) Could the answer to that question be “JUSTICE”?
One of the most common ways in which functionally illiterate people try to conceal this problem is to avoid situations where this educational deficiency may be revealed. When a Summons to Jury Duty is received, a common avoidance response is a “no show”, i.e. the person does not present themselves for jury duty, fearing that their literacy problems will be exposed.
- For juries, a ‘No- show’ at induction may be a potentially beneficial case of ‘Natural Selection’ at work if it is filtering out people who cannot ‘read between the lines’ because, according to the Bureau of Statistics, in many instances functionally illiterate people cannot even comprehend the instructions for the safe use of prescription medication and yet, magically, they are expected to understanding hours, days, or even weeks of complex legal argument. A teacher for 43 years, I believe that this is totally unrealistic.
- Therefore, instead of fines being $1,250 being issued, potential jurors should be interviewed on a confidential one-on-one basis and asked if they have literacy problems and if they say “Yes”, then they should automatically qualify for an exemption from jury service.
- This needs to be determined before the Swearing-In of jurors. By deliberately ignoring this issue, the Sheriff’s Office is effectively ‘stacking the jury’ with people who may have difficulty in coping with the legal complexities of a criminal case.
The 3rd “elephant in the jury pool room” is the issue of mentally ill Jurors.
[This report wins the prize for the longest title]
National Health Priority Areas Report: Mental Health 1998
A REPORT FOCUSING ON DEPRESSION
Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care Australian Institute of Health and Welfare AIHW Cat. No. PHE 11 © Commonwealth of Australia 1999 ISBN 0 642 39406 7
Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (1999) National Health Priority Areas Report: Mental health 1998 . AIHW Cat. No. PHE 13. HEALTH and AIHW, Canberra.
According to this report, 1 person in 5 may have a mental health problem and it may be a lifelong problem, i.e. medication treats, but does not cure their problem(s).
For any Australian Sheriff’s Office swearing in a jury pool there are a number of “elephant in the room” mental health issues that are currently ignored but which urgently need to be addressed:
(A) The risk of mental health stress triggered Suicide page 23 of the report states: “Suicide is a leading cause of death in Australia, …
“Since 1990, suicides have exceeded road injury deaths and have been the leading cause of death due to injury in Australia (DHFS& AIHW 1998a)…”
“Several known factors can, under certain circumstances, contribute to a person attempting suicide. Mental disorder, and specifically depression, consistently emerges as the largest single risk factor for suicide and suicidal behaviour (Patton et al 1997). It is estimated that about 88 per cent of people who died from suicide suffered from a diagnosable mental disorder at the time of their death (Henriksson et al 1993). “People with a history of mental disorder are 10 times more at risk of dying from suicide compared to the general population (Gunnel & Frankel 1994).”
(B) People with mental health problems may be not mentally competent to stand trial for a crime and yet paradoxically, they may be compelled to undertake jury duty! How do you explain that legal contradiction?
1.11 Mental health and disability – page 28 of the report.
“The burden of mental disorders is more evident in associated disability than in mortality. The effects of this psychiatric disability are multidimensional. Not only is a person’s full functioning compromised but their participation in day-to-day life may also be affected.”
Note the last sentence which I have underlined. There are clearly identifiable “Duty of Care” issues implicit in the above statements when swearing-in juries.
(A) The obligation to ensure that the responsibilities of jury duty do not overburden a person with (hidden) mental health problems. Compromising a person’s health, welfare, or safety by arbitrarily imposing $1,250 a day fines for a “No show” is a sub-set issue that leaps into the grey area of Culpable Negligence, especially if a person is stressed or traumatized that they (attempt to) commit suicide.
(B) The obligation to ensure that the accused person who opts for a trial by jury is presented with a jury selection process in which ALL of the jury pool candidates are legally “fully functioning competent persons” from a `mental health perspective.
With a statistical 20% probability of mental health issues or problems, many of the 193 people at the Adelaide Courts Juror Pool Swearing-in session on 2nd May, 2014 have one or more dysfunctional mental health problems! The 193 people who attended juror swearing-in session thus statistically represents a potential 38 people who may be serving on juries who, legally, are not mentally capable of making fair and accurate judgements.
In the 21st century, knowing what we now know about the societal problems that are deeply embedded in our society, compulsory jury duty is potentially a massive legal disaster in many ways because a ‘normal’ jury of ‘ordinary, reasonable people’ may be composed of 47 – 50% functionally illiterate people, 2 in every 5 of whom are also mentally incapable of making sound judgements. [Think Poniatowska!]
A potential scenario is a jury composed of:
- 50% functionally illiterate jurors,
- AND another 20% of jurors with a mental health dysfunction problem!
- And that is not the end of the problems faced by defendants fronting up to dysfunctional juries.
A news media report on May 15th 2014 reported that an estimated 20% of South Australian adults may have a chronic pain problem. This is an additional factor that needs to be considered in the jury selection process.
THE STATISTICAL WORST CASE SCENARIO IS.
- 50% of Jurors are functionally illiterate;
- 20% of Jurors are with impaired mental functional capacity;
- 20% of Jurors are with a distracting or serious chronic pain problem.
This means that statistically it is possible that up to 90% of a jury may be functionally challenged people whose competency to serve on a jury may be in some doubt.
So, what do you call a process whereby “the System” appoints juries composed of people who may not be competent to meet the stringent requirements of jury duty? Surely that is jury stacking which is a form of jury tampering?
The “T-Rex” of BIGOTRY.
The recent statement in the Senate by Senator George Brandis, the Federal Attorney-General, that “People have a right to be racial bigots… even if it harms people”, is a potentially catastrophic T-Rex problem when it occurs in the jury pool.
(A) Whilst the political ideology of so-called ‘Bigots Rights’ may seem perfectly reasonable and logical to Senator Brandis, the NAZI Holocaust and other more recent acts of racial genocide underscore the very obvious fact that Bigotry is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
(B) Since 10th December 1948, Australia has been a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (The UDHR)
(C) Article 3 of the UDHR guarantees Freedom, Security of Person, and the Right to Life and bigoted racial statements that engender racial hatred are 100% contrary to this most basic, fundamental human right.
(D) Bigotry in the jury room is a time bomb that could totally undermine the concept of Justice contained in Article 10 of the UDHR which states that:
- Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his rights andobligations and of any criminal charge against him. [Bigotry and Impartial are contradictory terms.]
If Jurors run with Senator Brandis’ logic about the “right” to be bigoted and are UNCHECKED in the privacy of the jury room in the exercise of their ‘right’ to be bigoted in any way, e.g. racial, sexual, religious, socio-economic et cetera, then it will be impossible to provide “in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, i.e. jurors impartiality will be seriously compromised and surely, complements of the Federal Attorney-General, that is another form of systemic jury tampering?
With the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, fully supporting Senator Brandis’ comments in the House of Representatives, and the very real possibility that Section 18 of the Racial Discrimination Act will be amended to legally allow racially bigoted comments, active measures need to in place to ensure that bigotry in jury pools is totally eliminated before it results in grave injustices once again re-occurring.
- “The Stolen Generations” and “The White Australia Policy” are two well-known examples of bigotry driven national political agendas that have been proven to be exceedingly harmful to targeted minorities, e.g. the Royal Commission currently looking at the sexual abuse of children in institutionalized care is graphically highlighting the harm caused by racial bigotry in our society.
- Until recent times, indigenous people in Queensland and Western Australia were up to 10 times more likely to be imprisoned for a minor crime than white people who may have violated the same laws.
- Bigotry in the jury pool will turn back the clock to the 19th century. Do we really want that to happen? If not, then jury pool in-servicing procedures must formally address this problem rather than ignore it and simply let the “life experiences” of Jurors ‘resolve’ this problem within the confines of the jury room.
In the 21st century, the practices and procedures for assembling a jury that have stood the test of time since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 are no longer viable.
The fundamental legal concept of the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ whose life experiences enable them to make fair, honest, impartial and accurate judgements is a myth. The reality is that statistically, many ‘ordinary, reasonable people’ are either not capable or are not competent enough to meet these crucial but mythically ‘idealized’ standards. Even if they are, there is a 50% probability of bias or bigotry of some form.
The implications are quite obvious; without empirical Job & Person Specification standards that establish baseline levels of “Competence”, jury selection is a joke! Intensive one-on-one vetting by skilled counsellors prior to the Swearing-in jurors, is now essential in order to ensure that jury members are reasonably capable of achieving the high standards of competence and integrity required for jury duty. To reject such measures and deliberately allow the status quo to continue is to “stack the jury” in ways that may be detrimental to either the defendant(s), or to the victim(s) of a crime; both of whom are entitled to see that justice is done, and done impartially.
End note: Justice Rares on “clear wording…”
When Matthew called me about 4 hours after I was sworn-in to inform me that I had expelled from the jury pool, he claimed that I had violated the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act. Was that statement actually true?
(1) What is the precise, ‘clear wording’ of the Act as per Justice Rares’ comment at last year’s AGS Law Administrators Conference? Since Matthew did not provide this information, how do I know if he was telling the truth?
(2) Does the precise wording apply to people who are not yet jurors, or does it only apply to people who have been sworn-in as Jurors? If it only applies to the latter, then the Sheriff has almost certainly exceeded his lawful authority by excluding me from the jury pool by misleading me as to the legality of the grounds for doing so.
If the law applies to people who have been Summons to Jury Duty and not just too Sworn Jurors, I have still been denied my constitutional rights, legal rights, civic rights and basic human rights, by a deplorable lack of systemic transparency. Such a gross and arbitrary denial of these rights is flagrantly systemic jury tampering.
Transparency, procedural fairness and due process of law may be an administrative and legal pain the butt to implement, but these steps are the only way to ensure that the legal system can be seen to be both fair and impartial.
THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH IS PROOF.
Lawyers across the nation who represent clients accused of major crimes that may violate laws dealing with Fraud, Endangering the Public, Manslaughter and/or Murder should study the following sample documents very carefully for they may throw open the door to a “Manifest Ostensible Bias” defence for their clients. When it comes to larceny and unlawful deaths on a grand scale, thanks to a plethora of law enforcement authorities, federal politicians have so far gotten away with massive fraud and wholesale murder.
The devil is in the detail, but these documents and the appended web links make a good start.
QUOTAGATE: Between 1st July 2000 and 30 June 2002, the Howard Government “saved” $1.62 BILLION but never reported any of the lives ‘lost’,
Cheryl Kernot’s mass media-suppressed Media Release provided detailed insight into how the Howard Government bilked over 600,000 impoverished welfare recipients, violating Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). It was never investigated because of the [political] “gravity/sensitivity” of the issue. The 85% ‘Performance Indicator Targets’, i.e. breaching quotas were achieved by using the slightest excuse to deprive welfare recipients of the dole. If a bus was 10 minutes late and a job seeker was late for a Centrelink interview, that was deemed by the Howard Government to be a valid excuse to suspend welfare payments for a period of 3 months! Quotagate was dangerous, ideology driven fraud; in South Australian any deaths are Felony Murders!
ABC Radio news – AM Program, Monday 11th March 2002, 8.25 AM. Reporter: Rebecca Carmody.
Linda Motteram: An independent review into breaches and penaties in Australia’s social security system has recommended a major overhaul after finding it to be unfair and counter-productive. Chaired by Emeritus Professor of Law at the Australian National University, Professor Dennis Pearce, the review also involved the Australian Industry Group.
Rebecca Carmody: Professor Pearce says some of the failings he identifies are the direct result of Centrelink staff being exposed to excessive pressure or incentives to impose penalties. He says staff have told him of being called before management to explain why they had been soft on breaching.
Dennis Pearce: If they’re not carrying through a fairly tough line on penalties, then they are called to account.
Amanda Vanstone: The people who wrote the review were advised by Centrelink officers that the assertion was simply incorrect and nonetheless had gone ahead and continued to print that. I think you need to ask them why they’ve done that.
MY COMMENT: If Senator Vanstone had admitted to having applied the PIT breaching quotas reported by Centrelink staff, she might have been charged for systemic fraud and mass murder.
Trish Draper allegedly left her defacto spouse at home and allegedly took a young male acquaintance overseas at taxpayer’s expense. Upon returning, John Howard allegedly ‘spat the dummy’ when he found out about this. However, whilst prosecuting welfare recipients at the rate of “10 people a day” for allegedly violated Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act , he did not report Ms Draper’s fake travel claim to the AFP. Why not?
The Double Standards of the Australian Federal Police:
In June 2004, the federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, was asked to investigate both Travelgate and Quotagate. A specific question put to Commissioner Keelty was the issue of whether or not breaching quota triggered fatalities were Felony Murders? The answer to that question is that under Section 18 of the New South Wales Crimes Act (1900) and the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) any fatalities triggered by the Howard Government’s Performance Indicator Target fraud are probably Felony Murders.
What is currently known about the unreported, un-investigated and now secretly classified post-breaching fatalities? In part, the answer is to be found in the previously mentioned National Health Priority Areas Report- Mental health 1998, Suicide (See page 23 of that report)
“Suicide is a leading cause of death in Australia, resulting in a total of 2,393 deaths (1,931 males, 462 females) in 1996. Since 1990, suicides have exceeded road injury deaths and have been the leading cause of death due to injury in Australia (DHFS& AIHW 1998a)… Several known factors can, under certain circumstances, contribute to a person attempting suicide. Mental disorder, and specifically depression, consistently emerges as the largest single risk factor for suicide and suicidal behaviour.” (Patton et al 1997).
Connecting the dots.
About 30% of these deaths involved unemployed people; i.e. about 700-800 per year! “Connect the dots” and what you get is a Federal Parliament that puts financial issues ahead of public safety, even when hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk.
So how does anyone explain the fact that since breaching penalties were first introduced decades ago, not one single post-breaching fatality have ever been reported in DSS and Centrelink reports to the Federal Parliament? The answer may possibly found in this remarkable letter from Centrelink.
“Centrelink does not collect…unable to assist with this information.”
Check out the 2nd paragraph in the above letter and also note that a return address is not included in the letterhead. This letter explains the basic reason WHY these fatalities have never been reported to the parliament. (This statement may also provide chilling insight into why the Hanger Royal Commission flatly refuses to look at these fatalities , which in some states may be Felony Murders, a crime that has no statute of limitations.)
HOW MANY FATALITIES IS CENTRELINK HIDING?
The simple answer is that until Centrelink releases the data, no-one knows. However, just as a ‘Black Hole” is unseen but can be detected by what happens around it, the post breaching fatalities can also be detected in a similar manner.
Check out the following suicide statistics that are contained in Australian Bureau of Statistics and National Institute of Health reports such as the example below:
INJURY RESEARCH AND STATISTICS SERIES. Number 49 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Canberra.
Table 2.1: Number of suicide deaths in Australia according to ABS causes of death data by sex and year of death registration, 1997–2006. (Source: ABS 2008b:Table 4.1.)
YEAR MALE FEMALE TOTAL.
- 1997 2,145 577 2,722
- 1998 2,150 533 2,683
- 1999 2,002 490 2,492
- 2000 1,864 503 2,367
- 2001 1,936 521 2,457
- 2002 1,817 503 2,320
- 2003 1,737 477 2,214
- 2004 1,661 437 2,098
- 2005 1,658 444 2,102
- 2006 1,398 401 1,799
- TOTAL DEATHS = 20,914
- Australia’s unemployed make up approximately 3 – 4% of the population but account for approximately 30% of all suicides.
- In very simple terms, unemployed people in Australia are 7 or 8 times more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population.
- That means that in the 10 year period above, i.e. “The Howard Years”, some 7,000 unemployed people committed suicide and yet John Howard DELIBERATELY breached emotionally fragile, impoverished people at the rate of up to 3 people per minute. (346,078 people were penalized for an alleged “Breach of Contract” in FY 2000-1.)
- HE KNEW what he was doing and he knew the potentially lethal risks and yet his 2002 ‘solution’ to the problem of POST BREACHING FATALITIES (apart from concealing them) was to try and double the unconstitutional, human rights violating Breaching Penalty is an incredible 26 weeks!
Why was this so?
As of 1st June 2014 the status-quot on these fatalities is:
- The Hanger Royal Commission does not want to know about them;
- Centrelink still does not reveal them;
- Federal Parliament has officially classified the post breaching fatalities as “confidential” and “not relevant”.
- Australian law enforcement “Alphabet Warriors” refuse to investigate.
Every decent, honest person in Australia should be asking, Why is this so?
- As of 30th May 2014, Centrelink has produced 16 annual reports and 67 quarterly public accountability reports that contain thousands of data tables that highlight how efficient Centrelink has been at prosecuting welfare recipients.
- However, the most mission critical of all of Centrelink’s data, the post-breaching death toll is still not deemed by Centrelink’s senior management to be of sufficient importance to merit being reported!
- Who really believe that this data is not worth “collecting”?
The Hanger Royal Commission is currently trying to determine why the Rudd Government failed to take action until 4 ceiling insulation installers were dead.
- Significantly, despite the possibility of a massive death toll caused by unconstitutional breaching legislation, the general council to the Hanger Royal Commission, Jessica Robinson, refuses to either acknowledge the validity of information about these deaths, all of which preceded the 4 Roofgate deaths.
- The Hanger Royal Commission will not subpoena anyone, e.g. me, who may provide insight into the cavalier attitude of politicians, the AFP and the Australian Public Service towards the easily foreseeable potentially lethal consequences of the unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties legislation.
- Is this because these deaths were secretly classified as confidential by the Howard Government in 2005?\ or is because the political party that set the Hanger Royal Commission is also that the political party that illegally enforced the Performance Indicator Targets, i.e. Breaching Quotas, that in just 2 years saw over 600,000 impoverished welfare recipients defrauded of some $1.6 BILLION ($1,600,000,000.)?
The Australian Federal Police should have investigated “QUOTAGATE” but as the extract from an AFP letter dated 4th July 2004 clearly states, the AFP refused to do so.
- We all need to know the answer to that question, especially now that John Howard’s QUOTAGATE ‘hatchet man’, Tony Abbott, is now running the country after having, according to a recent ALP advertising campaign, lied his way into the Prime Minister’s job.
- If the suspicions of both the ALP and myself are valid, Australia’s Prime Minister is a liar, a thief, and a mass murderer.
- Suspicion in itself means little; the validity of the above statement requires the Due Process of law that Juror #157 did not receive.
- Ultimately, it is for a jury of 12 people to come to a unanimous decision as to whether or not Tony Abbott is a mass murderer.
- Until now, the hard bit,has been getting Tony Abbott in to court. Thanks to Sheriff Stokes bumping-off of Juror #157 on the alleged grounds of violating the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act, that ‘Mission Impossible” task may now be possible.
The death toll caused by QUOTAGATE was officially classified as “confidential” by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee in November 2005. It is possible that the AFP’s refusal to investigate was the result of a ‘dirty deal’ between the Howard Government and the AFP, i.e. no investigation of Travelgate and Quotagate in exchange for the draconian police powers contained in the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation. If that is the case, then the legislation is the proceeds of a crime and is not legally valid.
- Perhaps, the lawyers who represent Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, Saney Edoe Aweys and Nayef el Sayed, may like to give that some thought? I’m sure that Mr Fattal, Mr AWeys and Mr Sayed will.
- That’s the other big problem with QUOTAGATE; it has the potential not just to destroy the Liberal Party politically, legally and financially, it also has the potential to empty our nation’s jails of people who perhaps many people should never be let loose back into our society.
Sheriff’s Stokes’ research into the social media activities of Juror #157 began with the the URL link below. It appears to have taken about 3 hours to work through the subsequent postings to the May 1st 2014 Ronald’s space posting, i.e. the previous posting to this publication.
To understand the scope of QUOTAGATE, you need to do the same. My suggestion is to ignore what I have written and just concentrate on the documents that support my views for I believe that the essence of Truth is Proof, and those documents are proof that QUOTAGATE is very real.
http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3v (1-7-12 Senate classified documents.)