Addendum to Verdict (28/2/18) of Magistrate I. White
Friday, 2 March 2018
...(yay-Ed)...what are you 'yaying' at?...(errr, ummm, dunno', it just seemed something to get excited about?-Ed)...fair enough, it is certainly an extraordinary development following an extraordinary 'Trial'...(indeed, a 'Trial' so extraordinary that even The Border Watch describes it as "bizarre" in that article just below-Ed)...great segue Ed, so yep dear availees, please to be reading what The Border Watch has to say about last Wednesday's proceedings (28/02/18), and we'll see you's on the other side...(see y'all then-Ed)...
Bastards:...I'm only 51...(get over it old man-Ed)...yeah yeah, just kiddin'...(ah, you're jokingly referring to the very 'terse' relationship between yourself and TBW, and how that problematic history emphasises the critical inclusions in this article-Ed)...absolutely Ed, particularly when I'm usually to be found bangin'-on about 'critical omissions' and/or 'critical errors', etc...(and didn't this journo dude recently win an award for something?-Ed)...yeahhh, can't remember exactly what, and I'm deeply cynical about 'awards', but he does have good 'cred' about the town, whatevs, apart from the slanderous mis-ageing, it's a fair albeit brief representation of what happened...
I refer availees to the critical description The Border Watch uses...(and critical in several senses, namely, 1) it effectively 'criticises' the conduct of the 'Trial' itself, and 2) it is a fundamentally important and accurate descriptor of 3 years of "bizarre" legal proceedings, a descriptor that 3) TBW itself has chosen, that ain't quoting me-Ed)...well summarised Ed, critical in many ways...what does it say about proceedings when TBW is reporting,
"...more than three years of court proceedings, including a bizarre trial last November..."
..."a bizarre trial last November" being of course the bizarre November 2017 part of the 'Trial', not the bizarre first 2 days of 'Trial' from November 2016...(you mean when you proved "Malicious Prosecution", as 'Ordered' by Magistrate Teresa Anderson, thusly forcing Her Honour to "recuse' herself, and the 'Trial' collapsed in disarray?-Ed)...yep, all that stuff...
Brief Correction:...I never 'complained' to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, indeed I specifically acted to avoid the ICAC and ICAC Comm Bruce Lander because I considered the entire ICAC set-up to be rankly corrupt and openly Fascist in it's intent, design, and application...(and haven't you been proven right in truly spectacular fashion-Ed)...I 'complained' about the rank corruption of Mt Gambier City Council to local Member Don Pegler and to the Ombudsman's Office, and they were obliged by ICAC legislation to report it to ICAC...this is the Spiderweb nature of ICAC, where literally anything and/or everything gets caught in this web, rolled to the centre to My Bestie And Also In His Spare Time ICAC Comm Bruce, and what happens then is mired in secrecy and the Institutionalised Corruption that defines South Australia...
Please note that when I challenged Magistrate White in Court about the change of legislation, he didn't directly respond at all, ignoring the questions before finally stating that he was using "the original definition of 'to publish'", then referring/deferring to his 'judgement', before we moved-on to the farcical exchange where-in he asked me if coming back on 9th March 2018 was 'convenient', etc, as covered in recent post...please also note that when I laughingly asked, 'does that mean I'm facing $540,000s of fines', Magistrate White didn't contest and/or respond to that either...and then on Friday 2nd March 2018 I received this...
And Magistrate White has very helpfully numbered the paragraphs, so here goes...
Paragraph 1) I don't know anything about this supposed 're-issue of the grammatically-corrected verdict'...
Para 2) Magistrate White actually blames me for not explaining his law to him properly...this is not just a) a farcically ludicrous reversal of responsibilities, it's the Magistrate's job to understand the legislation and where necessary explain it to all involved, defendant and prosecutions, and most especially in cases like mine where the defendant is forced to self-represent, but b) it's also an outright lie...(well I guess you'll have to post your submission to prove that otherwise slanderous criticism of Magistrate White-Ed)...no probs mate, next post...
Para 3) Magistrate White acknowledges that I am correct, but carefully avoids identifying the ICAC Miscellaneous Amendments Act by mentioning only the date, 27/11/14...
Para 4) then acknowledges that what I'm 'Charged' with "precedes that date."...
5) then produces his own "relevant definition" by crassly mis-using the definition from 'Defamation Law' where-in a definition of 'To Publish' includes simply 'talking to another person'...
By deliberately and unethically mis-using the Defamation Law definition, Magistrate White has ratified and/or defined that it is now 'illegal' in South Australia to talk to another person, about literally anything, because what is being talked about might 'tend to suggest' something that "might" possibly become the subject of 'a complaint, report, investigation, etc, to ICAC', at some time in the future.
This verdict potentially criminalises any conversation in SA, prosecutable at the whim of the State government and/or ICAC, and certainly empowers the State government and/or ICAC to persecute those they don't like, eg, me.
Please note that Magistrate White very carefully and deliberately does not identify the specific Act that he is pseudo-referring to, Defamation Law, because that quote he provides is also false and he doesn't want to self-out this deceit, the latest in a litany of lies and deceits that define his conduct of my "bizarre trial"...
Para 6) there is no 'consistency', he's making it up as he goes along...
7) there are no "accepted facts", and nothing has been presented to the Court by SAPol Prosecutions that proves anything other than their (SAPol's) rank corruption and incompetence..
8) it is so far "beyond reasonable doubt" that it rates stating it twice in a row...(just to be sure, to be sure-Ed)...followed by the outrageous lie, "evidence of admissions to those acts", apparently referring to some of the posts that SAPol haven't actually proven I posted...
9) I had to provide dictionary definitions to the Court about the vastly vague wording of the ICAC Act 2012, Section 56, eg, what the shreck does "tending to suggest" mean? etc, and that included a SA Law Book definition of 'To Publish', so why is a Magistrate quoting a dictionary, where's the actual legal definition?...all he's done is confirm that a) he's making it up as he goes along, and b) it's now illegal to just talk to another person...
10) just in case there was any doubt about the this being "beyond reasonable doubt"...
11) is self-explanatory really.
So there you go, apparently it's my fault that Magistrate White doesn't know what he's doing because he apparently doesn't understand the legislation he's ruling on...(well I reckon that 'Addendum' is purely in response to the article from TBW, that he's basically been publicly embarrassed into trying to address this change of legislation, a 'change' he wouldn't even acknowledge in Court 28th February 2018 -Ed)...whatevs mate, it is what it is and that article is just reflecting the unpleasant reality of what happened, and although I am a tad miffed that TBW hasn't mentioned the farcical Court proceedings of 28/02/18 that forced a further adjournment, whatevs, please just see recent post...
Tomorrow: My Submission
I am Nick Fletcher and this 'ere is my blog...and it's apparently cost me $540,000..cheers and laters...
Nic we should speak. My husband has primary evidence on Piper Alderman, and a number of SA judicial members that demonstrates a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and coverups that you have been complaining about. There appears to be systemic corruption in the Courts in SA and they will destroy anyone who attempts to expose it. Please contact me.
ReplyDelete