A Shout-Out To Limestone Coast Protection Alliance And/Or Lock The Gate Alliance:...and any associated or similarly-minded groups or individuals, regarding the proposed 'Farm Protection' legislation, both Federal and State versions...(and by shout-out we mean dire warning-Ed)...indeed we do Ed, 'cos I recently heard a LCPA or LTGA (sorry) member on the ABC South East Radio discussing the proposed SA legislation, and stating that this legislation doesn't apply to them because they 'act respectfully and don't go trespassing onto properties', etc...(but the Federal legislation goes well beyond any actual physical acts, very concerningly specifically referring to "sedition" and "incitement", as we extensively covered in the previous post-Ed)...indeed it does and indeed we did...'sedition' is just a weazel-word to wedge in the door that very quickly can become 'treason' if the enforcers so desire, or at the very least 'Contempt of Court'...(ahhh, Contempt of Court, our old friend, along with that other ol' pal 'Defamation-Ed)...indeed...(so many threats, so little actual actioning-Ed)...well quite...(they're such a great way to threaten, intimidate and harass people-Ed)...as indeed they've been frequently used against me personally and/or TMGI...(why does no-one ever threaten me? I'm feeling rather left out thankyou very much-ED)...yeahhh, I'm fairly sure it's because you're a confected literary device utilised to create discussion, set-up jokes, etc, and not actually an actual person...(well that would explain it, sure-Ed)...anyhoos...
Combined with 'incitement', 'sedition' can be very easily defined as words and/or actions to encourage someone to act against the authority of the State, and equally easily applied to someone who, for example, writes a blog that exposes, say, the corruption of 'Authorities', a blog that someone else reads and then acts upon, eg, protests, etc...and given the legislation, there doesn't need to be an 'effect', just the cause...that is, just reporting something or discussing something or exposing something, etc, effectively and specifically any sort of 'journalism' can be prosecuted even if no-one reacts or responds to it, that 'report' itself becomes illegal...(mate, in that context I'm surprised we haven't been done for sedition and/or incitement, particularly how we've ripped into and duly exposed the rancid Pro-Paedophile Corruption of South Australia's Legislature, Executive and Judiciary-Ed)...well we've been threatened with 'Defamation' and/or 'Contempt of Court' often enough, and my wholly corrupt ICAC 'Trial' is unambiguously Official Institutional Retribution for exposing that Pro-Paedophile Corruption...(yeah, fair point-Ed)...and careful what you wish for mate, next thing ya' know we'll have the jolly ol' Australian Federal Police 'round here kickin' the door down because we've exposed the rancid corruption of various Federal politicians...(and the rank corruption of the Federal Child Abuse Royal Commission, don't forget the rank Pro-Lutheran Corruption of the FCARC-Ed)...never forgotten mate, never...but we digress...
I have not read the proposed SA State legislation but I heard SA Liberal Nick McBride in that ABC interview make numerous comments aligned with the Federal Liberal's argument/alleged rationale, and after identifying 'farm invaders/trespassers', etc, he specifically referred to "other protestors", and that catch-all phrase is designed to do exactly that...(catch all?-Ed)...precisely...and that puts people like the LCPA and LTGA, etc, right in the firing line...all it takes is for you's lot to print/circulate/discuss any info that might call into question the propriety of governmental actions and/or policies, etc, and/or for someone to do something supposedly inspired by your info, and/or for police to say 'move on' from a protest site outside of a 'farm property', etc, and you are subject to these neo-Fascist controls...(got to say mate, given that you've been booed and jeered and scowled at, etc, just for attending meetings and/or protests by these groups and expressing a dissenting opinion, eg, about Wind Turbines, it's mighty generous of you to jump to their defence in this way-Ed)...generous got nuthin' to do with it mate, this to me looks exactly like another raft of Fascist control following on from the rank Fascism of things like the SA ICAC Act 2012, AFP raids on journos, etc, etc, it's part of a broader removal of Civil Rights by corrupt politicians...(well when you explain it like that-Ed)...again, how I explain it is basically irrelevant given that what I say is correct...
And why am I so fired-up about this 'Farm Protection' legislation stuff?...(because you're a very angry man lashing-out at Authority as a way of dealing with your traumas?-Ed)...oh well, okay, sure...(albeit that the vast majority of those traumas have been foisted on you by the Institutionalised Pro-Paedophile Corruption that dominates and defines South Australia's alleged 'Authorities'-Ed)...well that's the absolute point isn't it? and I repeat, to me this 'Farm Protection' stuff is just more Fascism, like I said, following-on from all of the rank Fascist corruption I have personally been subjected to via the ICAC Act 2012...and it doesn't just end with the rankly corrupt ICAC, because just today I was forced to withdraw an official complaint about a specific SAPol matter because I received the Office of Public Integrity 'Fact Sheet', that included 'Confidentiality Clauses' that are exactly the same as the ICAC Act 2012, Section 56...(noooo??!!-Ed)...yep, identical...(what, all that ludicrous nonsense about discussing anything "tending to suggest" that someone "may be" subject of an investigation or report, etc, etc?-Ed)...yep, exactly identical...if a private citizen lodges an official complaint about SAPol with the OPI, then that person is subject to the rank Fascism of the ICAC Act 2012 Section 56, and at the mercy of the rankly corrupt ICAC Comm Bruce Lander...(look out, Language Warning-Ed)...sorry?...(FAAARRRKKK meeee! End Language Warning-Ed)...fair enough...
And I remind dear availees that my bestie Bruce, that's him there below, he conspired with Labor's Attorney General li'l Johnny Rau to change the ICAC Act in November 2014 to include a definition of 'To Publish', specifically addressing the enquiries from my Legal Eagles (June 2014) and to allow for me to be retrospectively prosecuted, starting February 2015...(and changed it again in 2016 to address/include the specific issue also raised by your Leagles about 'is our client even allowed to speak to a lawyer?'-Ed)...indeed Ed, the original ICAC Act 2012 made it unlawful to speak to a lawyer, and that blatant Fascism was in place for at least 4 years, including whilst I was being prosecuted...we've covered this stuff at great length in previous posts, and I refer dear availees to those posts, but here's a brief reminder of the undefinable lunacy of Section 56 of the SA ICAC Act...
56—Publication of information and evidence
| A person must not, except as authorised by the Commissioner or a court hearing proceedings for an offence against this Act, publish, or cause to be published— | ||
| (a) | information tending to suggest that a particular person is, has been, may be, or may have been, the subject of a complaint, report, assessment, investigation or referral under this Act; or | |
| (b) | information that might enable a person who has made a complaint or report under this Act to be identified or located; or | |
| (c) | the fact that a person has made or may be about to make a complaint or report under this Act; or | |
| (d) | information that might enable a person who has given or may be about to give information or other evidence under this Act to be identified or located; or | |
| (e) | the fact that a person has given or may be about to give information or other evidence under this Act; or | |
| (f) | any other information or evidence publication of which is prohibited by the Commissioner. | |
| Maximum penalty: | ||
| (a) | in the case of a body corporate—$150 000; | |
| (b) | in the case of a natural person—$30 000. | |
...and that's the exact wording of the OPI/SAPol 'Confidentiality Clauses'...(wow, that is some seriously Fascist bullshizzle right there-Ed)...ain't it though...mind-numbingly Fascist control mechanisms to quash and deny public discourse and hide the Institutionalised Corruption in SA...and I remind dear availees that Bruce is now ICAC Commissioner, Judicial Conduct Commissioner, and Police Conduct Commissioner, meaning that if you lodge any sort of official complaint about Public Servants, Politicians, the Judiciary, or Police, etc, etc, then y'all are at subject to the tender machinations of Bruce and his ICAC Act 2012...
And then I just happened to happen uponst this li'l gem...("uponst"?-Ed)...and not in the Adelaide/SA media, but coming outta' Melbourne/Victoria via the ABC website , below, and via another website, The Mandarin, dated 10th September 2019, below that...if this has been reported in SA I ain't seen it and I ain't found it after searching the Interweb, so if it's there somewhere but I've somehow missed it, I can only apologise...this here is what I did find...***
Renewal SA worker becomes first public servant charged with breaching ICAC secrecy rules
Updated 9 Sep 2019, 2:09pm
Photo:
ICAC investigations must stay secret unless Mr Lander gives
permission for publication. (ABC News: Nick Harmsen)
A former administrative employee at Renewal SA has become the first public servant charged with breaching secrecy provisions covering investigations by South Australia's Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC).
Key points:
- A 24-year-old woman from Paradise is accused of disclosing information about an ICAC probe
- She is the first public servant to be charged with breaching ICAC secrecy laws
- Separately, a 40-year-old prison employee has been accused of
corruption
She has been charged under Section 54 of the ICAC Act, which prohibits such disclosures, unless the person is authorised in writing by the commissioner, or by a person approved by him.
It will be alleged that disclosures were made on four separate occasions in September 2018.
The commissioner's office has confirmed that the woman was the first public officer charged with breaching the ICAC Act's confidentiality provisions and the first person ever to be charged with breaching the Section 54 provisions.
Renewal SA is a government agency responsible for urban development, and the woman is expected to appear in court in October.
***...and this from The Mandarin...***
SA public servant charged with breaching ICAC confidentiality law
A former employee of Renewal SA
has been charged with illegally disclosing information about an
investigation by the state’s Independent Commissioner Against Corruption
(ICAC), Bruce Lander.
In September 2018, the woman — who worked in administration — allegedly received and shared information connected with an investigation by the ICAC on four separate occasions.
The disclosure was a violation of Section 54 of the ICAC Act. The 24-year-old is the first person to ever be charged under the confidentiality provision.
In September last year, SA Attorney-General Vicki Chapman appeared to breach the same rules by indirectly confirming the head of Renewal SA, John Hanlon, was under investigation by the ICAC.
READ MORE: Senior public service executive left stranded after long holiday
After being questioned about why Hanlon and another executive were suddenly on paid leave, Chapman issued a public statement saying she had asked Lander if she could say any more about the matter. She quickly withdrew her statement, and Lander stayed silent over whether the secrecy provision had been breached.
“The ICAC Act is designed in such a way that a person [who is] the subject of a corruption investigation ought not suffer reputational harm until such time the person is charged,” Lander said in a statement at the time.
“The very purpose of an investigation is to collect evidence. The fact of an investigation is not proof that corruption has occurred. Corruption investigations must be conducted in private. I think that is appropriate.”
The woman has been summonsed to appear in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 22 October 2019.
Meanwhile, Lander has also revealed that an employee of the company contracted to operate the Mount Gambier Prison has been charged with accepting a bribe or corruption of a public office.
The 40-year-old man allegedly accepted a “benefit” from someone after bringing contraband into the prison sometime between 31 June and 10 July 2018.
He will also appear in court next month.
***...and I'd best correct myself in that I might have previously said that this stuff with Vicki Chapman was directly related to the "Malicious Prosecution" of my "bizarre trial", etc, etc, under the truly bizarre and undefinable ICAC Act 2012 Section 56 (a) and/or (b), etc, etc...(well I think it was also reported in those terms in other places, namely Section 56, etc-Ed)...would you mind checking for me pal?...(ummm, well here's the official statement from SAPol (police), as taken from the ABC website, dated 28th February 2019-Ed)...
SA Police confirmed the matter has now been referred to DPP Adam Kimber.
"Commissioner [Grant] Stevens has sought and been provided with authority from
the deputy [ICAC] to make public comment concerning the allegation that the
Deputy Premier breached section 56 of the Independent Commissioner Against
Corruption Act, 2012,"
police said in a statement.
...well cheers mate, but that doesn't exactly clear up the confusion does it?...(sure, if anything it just serves to highlight the vastly ludicrous and undefinable nature of the ICAC Act 2012 and associated Amendments, and the ensuing confusion for all concerned, including the media, the Attorney-General, SAPol, etc, etc-Ed)...indeed, it's as farcical as it is Fascist...
Tomorrow: That St Martins Lutheran School Child Abuse Cover-up Review
In the context that there continues to be many recent views of previous posts about the St Martins Cover-up...(yeah I saw that, seems that the title of the last post has re-re-stirred what was already re-stirring following the George Pell Appeal-Ed)...indeed, and apparently the St Martins Cover-up has re-surfaced as a topic of conversation in some areas of the community...(do you mean within Mt Gambier City Council?-Ed)...well, as I understand it, you and/or I and/or our li'l tome here, good ol' TMGI, we're apparently quite a regular topic of conversation within MGCC, and it certainly could be that that extends to the St Martins Cover-up I s'pose, ya' know...(let's pretend for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that I don't know-Ed)...well, I do hear bits and pieces from here and there about this and that, and that might possibly have included MGCC and the St Martins Cover-up...(and would that be because so many involved with MGCC are insidiously and directly complicit in the St Martins Cover-up?-Ed)...well that'd be my guess, sure, guilty consciences don't take much pricking...(and you're just the perfect prick for the job-Ed)...I like to think so...
I am Prick, I mean Nick Fletcher and this 'ere is my blog...cheers and laters...
In September 2018, the woman — who worked in administration — allegedly received and shared information connected with an investigation by the ICAC on four separate occasions.
The disclosure was a violation of Section 54 of the ICAC Act. The 24-year-old is the first person to ever be charged under the confidentiality provision.
In September last year, SA Attorney-General Vicki Chapman appeared to breach the same rules by indirectly confirming the head of Renewal SA, John Hanlon, was under investigation by the ICAC.
READ MORE: Senior public service executive left stranded after long holiday
After being questioned about why Hanlon and another executive were suddenly on paid leave, Chapman issued a public statement saying she had asked Lander if she could say any more about the matter. She quickly withdrew her statement, and Lander stayed silent over whether the secrecy provision had been breached.
“The ICAC Act is designed in such a way that a person [who is] the subject of a corruption investigation ought not suffer reputational harm until such time the person is charged,” Lander said in a statement at the time.
“The very purpose of an investigation is to collect evidence. The fact of an investigation is not proof that corruption has occurred. Corruption investigations must be conducted in private. I think that is appropriate.”
The woman has been summonsed to appear in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 22 October 2019.
Meanwhile, Lander has also revealed that an employee of the company contracted to operate the Mount Gambier Prison has been charged with accepting a bribe or corruption of a public office.
The 40-year-old man allegedly accepted a “benefit” from someone after bringing contraband into the prison sometime between 31 June and 10 July 2018.
He will also appear in court next month.
***...and I'd best correct myself in that I might have previously said that this stuff with Vicki Chapman was directly related to the "Malicious Prosecution" of my "bizarre trial", etc, etc, under the truly bizarre and undefinable ICAC Act 2012 Section 56 (a) and/or (b), etc, etc...(well I think it was also reported in those terms in other places, namely Section 56, etc-Ed)...would you mind checking for me pal?...(ummm, well here's the official statement from SAPol (police), as taken from the ABC website, dated 28th February 2019-Ed)...
SA Police confirmed the matter has now been referred to DPP Adam Kimber.
"Commissioner [Grant] Stevens has sought and been provided with authority from
the deputy [ICAC] to make public comment concerning the allegation that the
Deputy Premier breached section 56 of the Independent Commissioner Against
Corruption Act, 2012,"
police said in a statement.
...well cheers mate, but that doesn't exactly clear up the confusion does it?...(sure, if anything it just serves to highlight the vastly ludicrous and undefinable nature of the ICAC Act 2012 and associated Amendments, and the ensuing confusion for all concerned, including the media, the Attorney-General, SAPol, etc, etc-Ed)...indeed, it's as farcical as it is Fascist...
Tomorrow: That St Martins Lutheran School Child Abuse Cover-up Review
In the context that there continues to be many recent views of previous posts about the St Martins Cover-up...(yeah I saw that, seems that the title of the last post has re-re-stirred what was already re-stirring following the George Pell Appeal-Ed)...indeed, and apparently the St Martins Cover-up has re-surfaced as a topic of conversation in some areas of the community...(do you mean within Mt Gambier City Council?-Ed)...well, as I understand it, you and/or I and/or our li'l tome here, good ol' TMGI, we're apparently quite a regular topic of conversation within MGCC, and it certainly could be that that extends to the St Martins Cover-up I s'pose, ya' know...(let's pretend for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that I don't know-Ed)...well, I do hear bits and pieces from here and there about this and that, and that might possibly have included MGCC and the St Martins Cover-up...(and would that be because so many involved with MGCC are insidiously and directly complicit in the St Martins Cover-up?-Ed)...well that'd be my guess, sure, guilty consciences don't take much pricking...(and you're just the perfect prick for the job-Ed)...I like to think so...
I am Prick, I mean Nick Fletcher and this 'ere is my blog...cheers and laters...
No comments:
Post a Comment