Post Three About My ICAC Inquiry Testimony

 Howdy dear availees, I know it's been another 3 weeks since the last post, but in that time I've been to Adelaide and back, again, had 2 thankfully minor computer breakdowns, and a series of odd shizzles punctuating my otherwise mundane existence...ironically, after the hectic chaos of 2013-2020 with my rankly corrupt ICAC/SAPol (police) trial and being constantly threatened with gaol by corrupt Magistrate Ian White, and the 5O at my house repeatedly, and CorrectionsSA also trying to gaol me, etc, etc, mundane is actually a rather pleasant place to be...(well isn't it an old Chinese saying dripping with sarcasm, "may you live in interesting times"?-Ed)...yeah, something like that I believe, with the sarcasm stemming from the idea that it's actually a 'curse' rather than a blessing...

Anyway, starting with a quick aside, the rankly corrupt Mt Gambier City Council officially launched their $80m+ albino pachyderm lovechild with a roaring whimper rather than their hoped-for bang...(wahhh?-Ed)...the Farcical Aquatic Recreation Centre in Margaret St was 'opened' to the pre-booked public and Members-only preview sessions day on Friday 16th December 2022...(only more than a year late and more than 100% over-budget-Ed)...indeed...and we'll get thoroughly stuck into the deceits/lies/rorts of the corrupt MGCC in our next post, but I couldn't go past this li'l gem...I usually admire genuine optimism, really I do, but I found it depressingly hilarious that MGCC had 'event overflow carparking' organised, complete with bunting and SES volunteers at the gate (off Wehl St Sth), set-up in the paddock adjacent the Old Gaol complex (off Margaret St)...given that there were no other 'events' on in that area, and that I didn't see a single car use that 'overflow', it is safe to assume that parking was for the 'grand FARC opening'...(well there weren't even any cars parked out in Margaret St, and the several times we went past there were spaces in the FARC carpark-Ed)...indeed, even this morning there were dozens of empty spaces available at approx noon on a 30C day...   

(And so when you say "depressingly hilarious" you're referring to the initial hilarity of the massive over-compensation of the entirely unused 'overflow parking'-Ed)..correct...(which is underpinned by the depressing reality that this brand new $80m+ FARC is going to be so under-utilised that even on it's biggest day, opening day, they can't even fill the undersized designated carpark-Ed)...precisely...and maybe some people were unawares or whatevs, but it does not auger well for the future use of the complex...(and today they were still doing major earthworks/retaining walls along Margaret St-Ed)...yep, and the flooring isn't finished and the seating isn't getting here 'til mid next year approx, etc, etc...and I've been unable to find a single word of explanation anywhere about the 'contract/agreement' between MGCC and the FARC operators 'Belgravia'...I'll continue to try and discover/define that but at this stage I couldn't say whether Belgavia is paying to run the FARC and pocketting the earnings or whether MGCC/Ratepayers are paying Belgravia to run it and all proceeds come back to Council/Ratepayers, and/or some bastardised mish-mash of the two...   

But that's not why we're here today, so let's just jump in where we left off the last post...I was part-ways through my testimony and we were just discussing my 'Conviction' and associated $540,000 fine as commuted to Community Service, etc, and Russell Wortley was cracking-wise about how much Community Service that equated to...enjoy...***

3445 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: So you have 100 years of community service?
Mr FLETCHER: I have 260 hours. We will get to that, thank you, because last year
Corrections tried to have me gaoled for not doing it. Having excused me from doing it for health
reasons, they then turned around 18 months later and tried to have me gaoled—another aspect of
the harm and adverse outcome of my ICAC involvement.
I will make this as a general statement now: with all the stuff I have seen go on, all
the stuff I have been involved with, I am the one who ended up facing charges and with a criminal
conviction. I don't necessarily like the term 'whistleblower'. I don't refer to myself that much in that
way, but as a general term that's what I am and that's what I have done. With my experience of it,
it's a textbook prosecution of a whistleblower. That is my experience of ICAC across the board from
the way it was instigated to the way it was handled through the courts, etc.
3446 The CHAIRPERSON: But you would accept that there was that clause in the ICAC
Act and even though it was quite ambiguous and you couldn't get a definition that is what you were
found guilty of?
Mr FLETCHER: As a fact, yes. There is a section 56 that says that you can't say
anything to anybody at any time, tending to suggest that it's because it might or could or may, etc.,
have ended up in ICAC. Two of the counts I have been convicted on are talking to The Border Watch,
the local paper in Mount Gambier, and the ABC. No stories were published—just the fact that I went
and spoke to them about the ICAC investigation, that I had been found guilty. The ABC and The
Border Watch were prosecution witnesses against me at my trial. On another one of the counts—I
think possibly two—I was found guilty of exposing myself as a complainant. It's extraordinary.
I will jump ahead slightly because in January 2017, you may remember that Mayor
Andrew Lee, the new mayor who ******** ***** ********, was in all sorts of strife for doing business
on an overseas trip with council. Council put that he had handed out his business cards, hooked up
with some Chinese businessman and bought into a winery, etc. It wound up with the Ombudsman,
who cleared him and said, 'He has walked a very fine line, but he hasn't actually breached anything.'
I'm in court being charged for discussing an ICAC investigation after it is concluded
and found everything is okay. The city council put this on their website in 2014, very carefully pointing
out that they have permission to discuss it, etc. In January 2017, they had a council meeting, which
they advertised and it's in their minutes, etc., where they were going to discus whether or not to refer
him to ICAC. That is a textbook breach of section 56 that I'm in court for literally the very same day.
When I raised that in court, the magistrate just said, 'Oh, whatever.' He looked at the ceiling, sat back
in his chair. 'Moving on.'
3447 The CHAIRPERSON: Did you bring it to the attention of the integrity agency?
Mr FLETCHER: Not the integrity agency.
3448 The CHAIRPERSON: Or the police?
Mr FLETCHER: No, I stayed right away from everything because every time you go
near this you fall foul of section 56. I will make the point here that the concern for every

(***I've had to edit this 'cos of Final Intervention Orders related to my ICAC trial)

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 481
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
South Australian, particularly private citizens, is now that the ICAC commissioner is also the
Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the police complaints commissioner, and they have that
identical, verbatim piece of legislation in all of those jurisdictions.
They are all overseen by the same commissioner now, so if you make a complaint
about police or a magistrate or a councillor, or whoever else, it is all subject. There is literally nothing
you can complain about in the realms of what we private citizens refer to as 'the authorities'. You
complain or say anything about anybody and bang, you are subject to section 56 and you don't know
what's going to happen with it. It's just gone.
Going back to Don Pegler, having got written permission from the ICAC
commissioner to tell me what he is doing with my original complaint to him and the confusion, he has
spoken to the OPI, the ICAC and the Attorney-General. It's not defined properly. That's the discussion
they're having. Two months later, I am getting charged for it. I appreciate what you are saying. It is
there. It is a piece of legislation, but I don't—
3449 The CHAIRPERSON: It is there, and it's there also for a reason, Mr Fletcher.
Mr FLETCHER: And I appreciate what the reason is, too, but that is a nonsense.
That piece of legislation is just—I think the term is 'word salad'. It's an absolute nonsense. It doesn't
make sense. I defy anybody. I did this throughout my court hearing. It was never defined in court
what those terms actually mean, 'tending to suggest'. It's in the letter from SECLS, from the
community legal service. What does this actually mean?
English being, as it is, quite a convoluted language, when you say things like 'has
been,' 'may be,' or 'may have been,' when you say 'may be' that is both past and future tense, so the
wording of that piece of legislation says, 'You can't say anything now, because it "might be" and it
"may be" in ICAC in the future.' That may not be the intent of the wording, but that's what the wording
says.
That's the stuff I was very specifically challenging all the way through, and that's what
I have been convicted under. Again, my frustration is I am not a lawyer and I don't understand the
technicalities of the law, but I am reasonably good with the English language. I know enough about
the English language to read that and go, 'That is a nonsense,' as I have just explained.
'May be' could be anywhere in the future. It could be 10 years down the track. You
make a complaint to somebody, that somebody at your work is being a bit dodgy or something like
that. It turns out it was a government contract or something, and it winds up in ICAC. You have no
idea and no hope.
It comes back to the other side of it, the three commissioners, the same person
wearing the three hats. That piece of legislation governs all of those critical areas: judicial conduct,
police complaints and ICAC. Again, I will defer to what you have just done, because I know you have
just made major changes to ICAC. I haven't had a chance to go through that myself, so I don't know
what has happened, but I gather that is still a current piece of legislation.
3450 The CHAIRPERSON: That is, but there have also been provisions in there that there
are others that can now be informed.
Mr FLETCHER: Yes. There were changes in 2014 and again in 2016. I know in
2016 they changed the part specifically to identify that you are allowed to speak to a lawyer, but that's
years after what has already happened to me, and I am already in court. Again, I believe that what I
have done was particularly with the amazing help that the community legal service provided me. I
would have been absolutely shot without them, absolutely stuffed. The fact that they were prepared
to go into bat for me and that a lawyer was prepared to ask those questions on my behalf, I believe
led to these changes.
I can prove, which I am about to, the ICAC legislation was changed by the
miscellaneous amendment act in November 2014 specifically to put in a definition of 'to publish'.
When I was finally convicted in 2018 and I said to the magistrate 'Hang on, but have you taken into
account the fact that I have been retrospectively prosecuted, because they changed the legislation?'
he said, 'Yes, you are right, Mr Fletcher. You have been prosecuted under the wrong definition, etc.,
but we're going to use that definition from over there, so it's okay and you are still guilty.' This is the

Page 482 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
sort of stuff, and I have had to stand there in court and just wear that over and over again. The
magistrate's conduct was appalling, the third magistrate I had. I had three magistrates across more
than three years of trial, and the last magistrate, his aggression and anger, etc., towards me, he
made no secret to hide it. It was really tough going, trying to get the most basic things done.
If I may, what I will do is I have here—I don't know the date, but it refers to the
27 November 2014 Independent Commissioner against Corruption (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act,
where they have put in a definition of 'to publish' and I also have a copy from Hansard, where I
believe John Rau discusses how the ICAC commissioner approached him and asked for it to be
changed. I have those two, two different letters.

3451 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that they be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: The issue there is, again within that time line and that chronology
of not being charged, I need written permission. The community legal service has written to the
commissioner asking him to explain these things, and that's all by August. In October, the
commissioner goes to John Rau, the then Attorney-General, and says 'I need these changes made.'
They are made and then my trial starts in February 2015.
They have changed the legislation, however you want to define that. I don't know the
legal terms, other than to say I have been retrospectively prosecuted. It's not my opinion: that's the
chronology. The chronology, as I have provided the documents, proves this is what happened. I don't
know how to say it politely, sorry. It's just extraordinary.
3452 The CHAIRPERSON: Mind-boggling.
Mr FLETCHER: Mind-boggling, thank you; that will do.
3453 The CHAIRPERSON: The definition was changed midway.
Mr FLETCHER: It boggled my mind and continues to do so. At times, I struggle to
believe myself that this is actually happening, and I have gone back going, 'Well, hang on. Go through
the documents. Go through the documents and line them up,' as I have for you to present today
shows—as a matter of fact, that I hadn't been charged, they changed the legislation, then I was taken
to court. I don't know how that's appropriate in any way, shape or form, but it's relevant because it's
all from ICAC.
3454 The CHAIRPERSON: You were representing yourself, though, weren't you—
Mr FLETCHER: I was refused legal aid—
3455 The CHAIRPERSON: —so you had to represent yourself?
Mr FLETCHER: Yes.
3456 The CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't have the legal assistance that perhaps could
have challenged what happened.
Mr FLETCHER: At the first instance, the community legal service were fantastic and
they did all this stuff for me, but they got to the point, as I was saying, when they got that email from
the police saying, 'We will let you know.' At that point, they have written to me very politely and said,
'We've done what we can. This is way out of our league. Good luck with it,' etc. Several times over
the journey, I have gone back to them for advice and they have seen me at the drop of a hat and
done what they can but, as they have themselves identified, where do you go for advice on this?
3457 The CHAIRPERSON: So you have raised this during the proceedings?
Mr FLETCHER: Yes.
3458 The CHAIRPERSON: And the magistrate at the time, what, just sort of overruled
your objection?
Mr FLETCHER: Well, he ignored it initially, then it was reported in The Border Watch
and then he sent an addendum. He added an addendum. I was convicted in February 2018, finally,
after three years. We had three verdict hearings through February, March, April, and he handed

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 483
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

down his original verdict. I have a copy here, which I will table if you want me to, and I have the
addenda, the two addenda that he added on in March.
3459 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
3460 The CHAIRPERSON: Have you got a judgement there as well?
Mr FLETCHER: Yes, this is the judgement of Magistrate Ian White,
28 February 2018, and attached to it are two addenda, Friday 2 March and another one which also
is dated the 2nd but which I received on the 5 March, which I have written on there in pen
3461 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: I pointed that out to him as part of my final submission in writing to
the court saying, 'What mitigating circumstances? 'You're guilty.' 'What's the mitigating
circumstances?' etc. That's January 2018. We have gone into court and he said, 'I find you guilty.
Here's my judgement.' I asked him, 'Have you taken into account what I wrote to you about last
month?' which I had only just discovered at the end of 2017 myself. I didn't even know this had
happened until I just happened to run into it looking through the ICAC site. He said, 'It's in there.' His
words were, 'It's in there, in my judgement,' and then he dismissed, 'We'll come back next week and
we'll do the actual sentencing.'
We came back a few weeks later and it wasn't in there. The Border Watch paper had
published an article identifying that I had raised this as an issue. He then sent me the two addenda,
2 and 5 March, and it says, 'Mr Fletcher was correct in identifying that he had been prosecuted under
the wrong definition, but it doesn't matter; you're still guilty.' Sorry, I jumped way ahead there but
that's just part of the joy that I've been through—three years of trial—doing what I can.
3462 The CHAIRPERSON: I think we get an idea of where you are going and what you
have done. After you were found guilty, did you consider an appeal against it?
Mr FLETCHER: I am still trying.
3463 The CHAIRPERSON: Are you still trying to get an appeal?
Mr FLETCHER: I am still trying.
3464 The CHAIRPERSON: Just explain that. What are you trying to do?
Mr FLETCHER: I can't get my transcripts from the Courts Administration Authority.
It has taken me years to negotiate that they will release to me a USB with all my transcripts on there,
but I am not allowed to do anything with it. I have to sign a contract with them saying I won't do
anything with it, which I refuse to do because I have already been provided some transcripts. There
has been all sorts of argy-bargy, to put it politely, around saying that my original trial in 2016, in front
of Magistrate Teresa Anderson, was not my original trial, so therefore I am not entitled to those
transcripts—which leads me onto the next thing that I wanted to point out.
I proved abuse of process to Magistrate Anderson. As a very quick chronology, my
court case started in front of Magistrate Rice in Mount Gambier in February 2015. I wasn't charged
or summonsed. I found out via the paper the next day. It moved onto several pre-trial hearings, etc.
As part of that, the community legal service—doing a wonderful effort to represent me—agreed with
police prosecutions and Magistrate Rice that there were constitutional issues regarding this
legislation that compromised the perceived freedom of political communication. So it's a convention
but not an actual law.
My trial was moved to Adelaide because it was going to be involving constitutional
lawyers, etc., etc. That was mid-2015. I don't know what happened from there because I had no
representation. I had a couple of people show up for me pro bono. I had one guy show up I had never
spoken to claiming to represent me and say there are no constitutional issues and it got bounced
back to Mount Gambier starting again in February 2016 in front of Magistrate Anderson.

Page 484 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

She was excellent. She was absolutely excellent. We clashed initially because I kept
contradicting her, but she realised very quickly it wasn't me that was causing the issue. She was
being misadvised by police prosecutions and so on, so I was correcting her for the misinformation
they had been providing her. It was through that process, the half a dozen hearings we had from
there through to trial in November 2016, I kept saying, 'This is a political persecution.' Her Honour
said, 'The correct term is abuse of process; is that what you are saying?' I said yes.
She allowed me to issue subpoenas to the police, the ABC and to the ICAC for all
documentation. We had that hearing in August 2016. They all came back and said, 'It's all too difficult.'
ICAC didn't come up with a single document. The ABC didn't come up with single document. The
police provided some broad running sheets and things like that, but I was not allowed to publish
anything on the blog, which is fair enough.
From that point on, I kept pushing that it was a political persecution. Going into trial,
in two of the many pre-trial hearings leading up into November 2016 Her Honour actually used the
term 'malicious prosecution', which is a leap from 'abuse of process', which is bad enough. Malicious
prosecution is right out there. That's really throwing it back onto police prosecutions, ICAC, etc.
3465 The CHAIRPERSON: But we need to know what the context of the use of that word
was, Mr Fletcher. Was she saying that that's what you were alleging?
Mr FLETCHER: 'Your allegation constitutes malicious prosecution.'
3466 The CHAIRPERSON: So it's your allegation?
Mr FLETCHER: 'And so, Mr Fletcher, what you will do is you will put together a
submission for the first day of trial. That's what we will do first thing. That's what we will look at.' So
2 or 3 November 2016 the trial started. I have provided this, a hundred documents, and, having said
this, this could be huge. She said, 'It takes as long as it takes.' So I put that in.
Police prosecutions tried to change the charges. It led to an adjournment by
lunchtime, and Her Honour said, 'I'm going to go ahead and read this stuff this afternoon and come
back first thing tomorrow morning.' First thing the next morning, being 3 November 2016, Her Honour
recused herself as the resident magistrate in Mount Gambier citing abuse of process, 'In light of the
material that has been filed in relation to the abuse of process'. That is on the Courts Administration
Authority documentation; that's on the official record. What I can't prove—
3467 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Why would she excuse herself? She's identified there is
an abuse of process. Why would she excuse herself?
Mr FLETCHER: Because she felt that I had proved that to her.
3468 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You might have proved it, but why would she discontinue
her presence?
Mr FLETCHER: The only explanation at the time was as the resident magistrate,
because the stuff I had provided her involved so many local government authorities and police and—
3469 The CHAIRPERSON: There could have been other reasons for her recusing herself.
Mr FLETCHER: If I may, that's the quote:
In light of the material that has been filed in relation to the abuse of process/stay of proceedings
application, Her Honour rules that it is not appropriate for the resident magistrate in Mount Gambier to hear this matter.
Her Honour recuses herself and disqualifies herself from hearing the trial. Set for trial before a new magistrate. Listed
November 10.
That was moved to Magistrate White.
3470 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: In Mount Gambier?
Mr FLETCHER: Yes. I would like to table that if I may, because that's—
3471 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
3472 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will move that it be received and published.
Carried.

***And that's probably a good place to pause 'cos there's a tonne of stuff goin' on here and I should explain as succinctly as I can for those not quite familiar with the minutiae of my bizarre trial...from the top...

It is irrefutably obvious that my prosecution was a persecution and driven by corrupt elements in 'Authority' hell-bent on retribution and attempting to bully/threaten/harass me into silence...(and that Mt Gambier media were more than happy to be complicit players in that retribution on behalf of their masters/mates-Ed)...as clearly evidenced, exactly that...arguably the most obvious example of that is the bizarrely contradictory conduct/actions of MGCC in openly discussing/debating that they were considering reporting then Mayor Andrew Lee to ICAC...this is exactly what I was raided/tried/convicted of, yet MGCC doing it repeatedly goes entirely unquestioned by ICAC/Authorities...

As repeatedly stated, the real concern now goes way beyond just ICAC , 'cos verbatim 'Secrecy Legislation' applies to all 3 jurisdictions, as operated by the single Commissioner...(and what private citizen is gunna' understand any of that?-Ed)...for shrecks' sake, freakin' lawyers couldn't understand it 'cos it's fundamentally a verbose undefinable nonsense...(and then there's the all encompassing nature or the term "may be", being both 'potentially currently is an investigation/inquiry' through to 'might be one in the future'-Ed)...yep, as I tried to explain...and I hope y'all can decipher/follow where I'm quoting others' statements, eg, those of Magistrate Anderson, etc, or recalling specific conversations/exchanges...so there's a lot of stuff there about the language of the ICAC Act 2012 Sec56 and the massive powers of the ICAC/Judicial/Police Conduct Commissioner... 

Arguably the most critical issue I raised...I provided the Inquiry irrefutable documented proof that the ICAC Comm Bruce Lander conspired with the then Labor Attorney John Rau to change the ICAC Act in a manner as to facilitate me being prosecuted, and that therefore I was prosecuted retrospectively...this a huge bastardisation of the supposed Legal Process/Convention that people cannot be prosecuted in this way...(I see you then discussed with the Inquiry the bizarrely corrupt way that Mag Ian White tried to lie his way out of ignoring that reality-Ed)...indeed he did...(but was then publicly shamed/outed by The Border Watch who published your concerns as expressed directly to them in the Courtroom-Ed)...yep, and a timely place to remind dear availees that journos attending my trial told me that their bosses instructed them to not speak with me...(how bizarre, and yet you managed to hilariously circumvent these directives by politely just talking 'at' those journos and telling them stuff anyways-Ed)...absolutely, and always politely, it wasn't their idea to snub/ignore/silence me...and so it was I explained this 'Law Change' to the poor journos stuck in the Courtroom with me prior to Mag White's entrance...   

After immediately Appealing in April 2018, and having that attempt rejected 'cos it wasn't on the correct forms, etc...(although you did it exactly as directed/advised by the Legal Services Commission and the Courts Administration Authority-Ed)...indeed, so whilst I haven't given-up on the idea of an Appeal, but having said that, 1) I cannot imagine a circumstance where the rankly corrupt 'System' that did this to me in the first instance will ever admit/concede they were wrong, and 2) with the CAA refusing to provide me my own transcripts...(which I believe they are obliged to do under their own guidelines/rules-Ed)...indeed, but with the CAA refusing me that access, I'm royally screwed and cannot see where and/or how I'll ever get an actual Appeal process underway...

Also, the stuff about the Abuse of Process/Malicious Prosecution is fairly self-explanatory so, as critically important as it clearly is, I won't go over that again...(I note you've managed to table the exact wording from the Court Record, good work-Ed)...well there's nothing quite like the Court's own version of events to confirm what is otherwise a deeply concerning allegation that tramples into Contempt of Court territory...(but as you've made it very clear to the Inquiry, it wasn't Mag Anderson you were accusing, it was always the ICAC Comm Lander and SAPol, etc-Ed)...yes, I think I've made that very clear, and believe that's why Her Honour allowed me to present my evidence as part of the original trial hearing... 

So that's that with more to come to boot, but another day...

Tomorrow: More ICAC Outrageousness Or Maybe A Wee Bitta' FARC

So you know the drill...I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...

Post Two About My ICAC Inquiry Testimony

Howdy dear availees and welcome to TMGI for today *Wednesday 19th October 2022* (*this is when I actually started this post, then ground to a halt for several weeks, posted something else, and now we're back here Wednesday 30th November 2022*)...well that's what it reckons there in the bottom corner of the screen, but apart from that, I ain't got no idea...(could be the 9th Tuesday for the 4th Month of April for 202020 for all I can tell-Ed)...indeed, it's a bit like that...been totes knackered, not just due to the physical toll of multiple trips to Adelaide (450kms N/NW from Mt Gambier) and sleeping on someones floor, etc, but also the perpetually bludgeoning trauma of the St Martins Lutheran School Child Abuse Cover-up...(as covered yet again in the most recent post-Ed)...indeed, and doin' this 'ere blog, all leading directly to my rancidly corrupt 'ICAC Trial'...

And that's as far as I got on 19th Oct 22, and then we did that post about MLC Frank Pangallo using Parliamentary Privilege to call South Australia's ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) "corrupt"...(oh yeah, and you emailed him that letter  a coupla' weeks ago asking why there wasn't one word of your evidence-laden testimony to his ICAC 'Harm and Damage' Inquiry included in said Inquiry's Final Report?-Ed)...indeed, and asking that he re-use his PP to publicly expose the extraordinary corruption and collusion evident in the Parliament/ICAC/SAPol (police)/Courts persecution of moi...("re-use his PP" bahahaha, sounds a bit like...penis-Ed)...okay thankyou...anyhoos, yes I did write that letter and do that post, and at the time of writing this (30 Nov 22) I've still had no response...so today we're gunna' skip past the promised post about Mt Gambier City Council's Perpetual Cavalcade of Corruption, and get-up some more of my testimony, with explainers attached...so going directly on from where we left-off in Post One, here's some more of my testimony...

So I was just talking about when SAPol Anti-Corruption Branch have raided my house 7th/8th May 2014 and I've gone to the Community Legal Service for advise, etc, then we back-track a bit, and, well, y'all 'll figure it out...***

I went through this with the lawyer at the time, and she was politely half laughing at
me until she read the legislation and then, as I say, felt that she needed to write to the ICAC
commissioner, Mr Lander at the time, to ask him to explain and provide definitions. I will come to
that.
Part of what I got into trouble for was the ICAC investigation of the council concluded
mid-January 2014, so the 15th or 16th I think it was. I got a letter to that effect from Mr Lander: we
have looked into this, nothing to see, closing the file. I then, having not done anything on the blog
about it for that three months, went on the blog and said, 'I've just received the notification saying
that ICAC has investigated the council, and everything is fine.'
That put me in a very tenuous position, because I had been making all sorts of
reports, allegations, accusations—again, the language that you choose to use; I say reports. I would
go to a council meeting. I would go home and go on my blog, 'You won't believe what I just witnessed
at Mount Gambier city council meeting.' So I have made all of these claims, which have now
supposedly been investigated by ICAC, and they have been exonerated of effectively everything.
I say 'allegedly investigated by ICAC' because, as I proved in court, that ICAC
investigation of an entire city council and multiple complaints, multiple tenders, members, etc.,
involved talking to me at a cafe for half an hour—nothing written down, nothing recorded, within clear
earshot of at least half a dozen other people. I can picture it in my mind still, people sitting in the
other booths around us and so on—nothing written down, no recordings, nothing.
They then came back to Adelaide, and a few weeks later spoke to the then CEO of
the council, Mark McShane, in a hallway, I think it was, at the exhibition centre or Convention Centre
and the same thing—a half-hour chat in a hallway, nothing recorded, nothing written down.
3420 The CHAIRPERSON: How were you sure that they hadn't spoken to anybody else
in that—
Mr FLETCHER: I proved that in court. In cross-examining—because I was forced to
self-represent in court because I had no legal aid; you don't get legal aid when up against ICAC—
the ICAC witnesses, their evidence was that that was the extent. If I may, I will table this document,
which is their investigation in Mount Gambier.
3421 The CHAIRPERSON: Can you just explain what that document is?
Mr FLETCHER: That is their handwritten notes saying that they have come to
Mount Gambier. They spoke with me at a cafe. I provided them no new evidence and then they went.
3422 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will move that be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: That's the entirety of the investigation in Mount Gambier. In here I
have umpteen folders I won't bother to get out and plonk on the table, but they are the documents
that go with the courts, the police investigation, the extraordinary extent of what was done to—I am
going to use the term 'persecute', if you'll excuse me. That's how I feel this has been handled: it's a
persecution.

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 477
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
That's the entirety of their investigation in Mount Gambier. There were no public
hearings, nothing, as I proved in court in cross-examining these ICAC officers, who, by the time we
were in court, were back in Major Crimes as police officers. So they were police seconded to ICAC
and then back to police.
3423 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I just want to step back at this point, because I know you
have a lot more to tell us. The South East Community Legal Service wrote to Commissioner Lander
to get that clarification on section 56.
Mr FLETCHER: Yes.
3424 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The further part of your original submission, beyond trying
to clarify what 'tending to suggest' and 'publish' meant, was the quote, 'Are we allowed to speak to
our client, because section 56 seems to forbid Mr Fletcher even speaking to a lawyer?' Have you got
a copy of that correspondence?
Mr FLETCHER: I was just about to table them. Thank you for leading me into that.
3425 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Excellent. Thank you, I was very interested to see that
correspondence, so that answers my question.
Mr FLETCHER: If I may, I have the original letter that Community Legal Services
wrote to Mr Lander, 2 July 2014, and I have highlighted the use of the unclear expression 'tending to
suggest', etc. That's the original letter, 2 July 2014. Shall I do these as a series to hand over?
3426 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can somebody move that they be received?
3427 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move they be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: That's the original letter, which then is followed by, 16 July 2014,
the original response from Mr Lander saying he's not a lawyer it's not for him to advise. It's for my
lawyer to advise me, having written to him.
3428 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can you read out what that says?
Mr FLETCHER: It's quite short.
 

Re: Nick Fletcher, alleged breach of s56 of ICAC Act.
Thank you for your letter of 2 July 2014 in relation to Mr Fletcher.
You will appreciate that it is a matter of the South Australia Police as to whether or not Mr Fletcher
is prosecuted for a breach of s56 of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012.
I am not a prosecutorial authority and for that reason I cannot instigate any prosecution myself.
Indeed, if I identify and investigate corruption I must refer the matter to the Director of Public
Prosecutions for prosecution.
I am also unable to give legal evidence and therefore cannot answer the questions that you have
raised in your letter.
I think they are matters that Mr Fletcher must consider upon advice given to him by you.

 
I make two quick points on that. The original letter asks am I even allowed to speak to Mr Fletcher,
because I raised that off the back of the definition of the legislation. The lawyer did politely—couldn't
stifle a laugh—then read it and looked at me and said, 'Oh, okay, I think I had better write to him to
find out exactly what's going on here, because that seems to be what it says because it's just a
catchall: nobody can talk to anybody.'
The second part from that letter where he says, 'I must refer the matter to the Director
of Public Prosecutions for prosecution,' he didn't do that. He referred me directly to the anticorruption
branch of SAPOL, and somewhere in that process, in mid-February 2014, they instigated
Operation Baritone. That's about me. I have my own—
3429 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: At this point, I am going to move that we receive and
publish the letter from former Commissioner Lander.

Page 478 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: That's the letter from Commissioner Lander, 14 July. Having
received that, the Community Legal Services felt that they needed to write again to ask, 'Well, we
need to have this defined.' Particularly, they were concerned there was no definition of what 'to
publish' meant. As they point out, if you're going by what's used in defamation that means merely to
make known to another person. I was not being accused of defamation or even corruption, for that
matter. I was being accused of having published on my blog information about an ICAC investigation,
in its broadest terms.
3430 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Or information that you had heard at a council meeting; is
that the case, or am I misconstruing that?
Mr FLETCHER: No, what I have been prosecuted for and convicted of is blogging
about the ICAC investigation, the fact that there was an investigation.
3431 The CHAIRPERSON: You received the letter. That was on your blog after you
received the letter that said—
Mr FLETCHER: Yes, that they had closed their file.
3432 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: This blog that you put on there, telling everyone that
ICAC have closed their files on this, did it say that there was nothing to be seen or that you were
suspicious about the result? Was there anything else to it?
Mr FLETCHER: I can't remember specifically but, knowing my own style, to call it
loosely, I would have been extremely sceptical, if not outright critical, of the fact and said, 'I can't
believe'—at that stage, I thought I knew that the only investigation in Mount Gambier had been talking
to me in the café. There had certainly been no public hearings or anything like that, and I was
probably not terribly happy that I had gone through all of that to be told, 'Yep, close the file.'
3433 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Did you think that they may have spoken personally with
the CEO of the council or the finance officer, anything like that?
Mr FLETCHER: I didn't know. All I knew at that stage, as I say, was that they had
spoken to me in a cafe and there had been no hearings whatsoever in Mount Gambier. Certainly no
councillors had been interviewed or anything like that.
3434 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Did you understand that probably during the
investigation they wouldn't have a hearing? They investigate these things very confidentially.
Mr FLETCHER: That's what I am saying. He is writing to me, Bruce Lander is writing
to me, saying, 'We have investigated this,' and I am going, 'What investigation?' As far as I am aware,
as has proved to be the case, 'You spoke to me in a cafe for half an hour. What investigation is that?'
3435 The CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn't have been aware, because they wouldn't have
told you, if they had spoken to others.
Mr FLETCHER: No.
3436 The CHAIRPERSON: Because they would have kept it secret.
Mr FLETCHER: As I say, that was my belief at the time and then I proved that in
court—
3437 The CHAIRPERSON: In court; that's all they had.
Mr FLETCHER: —further down the track. Yes—cross-examining the two ICAC
people who interviewed me. I am sorry I don't have copies of the blog or anything with me, so I
can't—
3438 The CHAIRPERSON: That's okay. But anyway, suddenly you are involved in
Operation Baritone.
Mr FLETCHER: I am Operation Baritone, yes; me and my blog.
3439 The CHAIRPERSON: You are the centre of it.

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 479
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
Mr FLETCHER: Yes. Well, I am it. There is nobody else. I am not the centre, I am
just it. Just to get back to it, the community legal service then wrote back to the ICAC commissioner
again asking about the definition of 'to publish' and so on. He has then provided on 28 July a written
authorisation—so I could table both of those as well please.
3440 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will move that they be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: I or a lawyer on my behalf is allowed to 'publish or cause to be
published information to a member of my family'—so I have written authorisation to be able to speak
to my own family—'a friend or a medical practitioner who is providing care to Mr Fletcher.'
This is a critical thing, as far as I am concerned, because I have not yet been charged
with anything. I haven't been charged. I have had the police raid my house in May, which led me
going to a community legal service. I have been told, 'You have done this,' and when I asked them
to explain they said, 'We don't know what that means. We are just here to gather information.'
Technically, I wasn't ever charged before winding up in court, but at this point in time as of 28 July I
need written permission to talk to my family, friend or a doctor. I haven't been charged with anything
yet. I would like to table those two please.
3441 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will move that they be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: That's his response which is official authorisation. Further to that, I
would also like to table an email from Mr Andrew Paech, who was head of police prosecutions branch
at the time, and that's dated 12 August 2014. He is writing to the community legal service who were
still acting on my behalf at that stage: 'I can confirm receipt of your letter. I can confirm I am
adjudicating the file. I will advise when and if charges are to be laid or a determination that charges
will not be laid,' confirming what I am saying about the fact that I needed written permission to speak
to my own family or a doctor or whatever and I haven't even been charged with anything yet. So that
chronology is critical to it is what I am saying.
3442 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will move that that be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: I have skipped one document I have here, so I will just go to this
because it's in the—
3443 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if you can.
Mr FLETCHER: I had my house raided by Anti-Corruption Branch on 7 and 8 May
in 2014. So from the end of the ICAC inquiry and me starting blogging about it, I heard nothing from
January through to May. They had, however, started Operation Baritone some time in mid-February
and, even under cross-examination in court, the police witnesses couldn't tell me when that started
or who instigated it. It just appeared on somebody's desk, literally.
So I have had the police at my house. Two weeks after that, council at their next
meeting has put on the record a motion without notice, and if I may quickly read this: 'The City of
Mount Gambier is aware of complaints relating to council that have been repeatedly published online.
Council confirms that a number of allegations and complaints have been made in relation to the
conduct of the City of Mount Gambier in relation to the demolition of the old Mount Gambier Hospital
and the tender and subsequent development of the main corner project. Those complaints were
found not to have been substantiated after an Independent Commission Against Corruption
investigation. Council has sought and gained authorisation from the Independent Commission
Against Corruption to make this statement through a council report.'
Again, that's after the event, so I have blogged obviously that I have had the cops at
my house, raiding me, taking my laptop, still not charged or anything, but this is what has happened.
They have put that in their minutes, etc. and put it on their website.
When Mr Troy Bell had his initial hearing in Mount Gambier for the charges he is
facing under ICAC, I went down there with multiple copies of this and handed it out to all the TV news

Page 480 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
crews and reporters who were there at the time and said to them, 'Are you not surprised that there
has been an ICAC investigation of an entire council and none of you have ever heard about it?' They
all nodded their heads and said, 'Oh, crikey! What is going on?' Nothing happened. It wasn't reported,
which is the next point I would like to make.
As recently as two weeks ago, I went right through the ICAC website ever since its
instigation, etc. There is no mention anywhere of the Mount Gambier city council ever being
investigated. There is not one word about me and what has happened to me and the precedent
prosecution of section 56 and the fact that I was fined $540,000, etc. There was not one word
anywhere on the entire ICAC website.
3444 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: So you were fined $540,000?
Mr FLETCHER: I was found guilty on 18 counts and fined the maximum of $30,000
per count. I was fined $540,000, which was then commuted entirely to community service because I
don't have any money; that was the magistrate's explanation.
3445 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: So you have 100 years of community service?
Mr FLETCHER: I have 260 hours. We will get to that, thank you, because last year
Corrections tried to have me gaoled for not doing it. Having excused me from doing it for health
reasons, they then turned around 18 months later and tried to have me gaoled—another aspect of
the harm and adverse outcome of my ICAC involvement.
I will make this as a general statement now: with all the stuff I have seen go on, all
the stuff I have been involved with, I am the one who ended up facing charges and with a criminal
conviction. I don't necessarily like the term 'whistleblower'. I don't refer to myself that much in that
way, but as a general term that's what I am and that's what I have done. With my experience of it,
it's a textbook prosecution of a whistleblower. That is my experience of ICAC across the board from
the way it was instigated to the way it was handled through the courts, etc. 

***That's a fair chunk so I might pause there...it's all fairly self-explanatory but I'll make a coupla' quick points...first part is really critical and I made it umpteen times through-out my trial, namely, how could I be prosecuted for breaching 'Secrecy Provisions' relating to an alleged investigation that was conducted in a cafe in clear earshot of at least 6 other people...(and following on from that, and as you identify here that you later proved in Court, that and one other 'chat' was the entirety of ICAC's investigations into MGCC-Ed)...exactly...and as proven with ICAC's own 'document'...then we move onto the exchange of correspondence between my lawyer and (then) ICAC Comm Bruce 'Brews Slander' Lander...(proving the two points about 1) how vague and unworkable the ICAC Act Sec56 was/still is, and that 2) you were trying to sort it out properly with legal advice, etc-Ed)...indeed, so confused is the wording of the SA ICAC  Act 2012 Sec56 that a lawyer needed to ask if they were even allowed to speak to their as yet 'Not Charged' client...

And that's the second huge point being evidenced here, quite literally actually, is I showed the ICAC Inquiry that Sec56 is so convoluted yet all-powerful that even though SAPol was stating that I had not yet been 'Charged' with anything, I still needed official written ICAC "Authorisation" to be allowed to speak to 1) my lawyer, 2) my family and friends, 3) any medical practitioner...(and in the context where "tending to suggest...someone is subject of a report, complaint, investigation (etc)" is the legal parameters of breaching Sec56, saying anything even vaguely about being the subject of some sort of as yet undefined ICAC-related investigation, that in itself could likely be yet another breach?-Ed)...exactly, absolutely spot on, and exactly why my lawyer felt they needed written clarification, that turned-out to be a written "Authorisation"...oh, and then of course, 'Operation Baritone', but that's self-explained above...  

In closing, a quick nod to the not-at-all rabidly corrupt champs at CorrectionsSA for your half-witted, half-arsed attempt to have me gaoled for not doing the Community Service that you had originally excused me from doing...(and not least of all, for admitting that 'Excusing' in their Affidavit statement about wanting you gaoled-Ed)...mate, if it weren't so mind-numbingly incompetent and blatantly corrupt, it'd be 'Keystone Cops' level hilarious...all scathing sarcasm and well-deserved ridicule aside, I sincerely hope that CorrectionsSA handles actual criminals who've committed actual crimes a little better than their bizarre go at me...

Tomorrow: That MGCC Corruption Stuff

And of course that's gunna' include the $80+m FARC (Farcical Aquatic Recreation Centre) and several other issues...(what about the sudden rush of renovation activity at the Old Rail Station building?-Ed)...yep, we'll cover that...(and the rank bastardry of shutting-down the iconic Aquifer Tours and Cafe?-Ed)...well as I understand it the Tours are happening again, a bit, just the Turners are not allowed to use the ticket office/cafe building to do so...(yeah but still-Ed)...no no you're right, and still no cafe...it's a ludicrous act of petty thuggery by MGCC to try and force the Turners out of business and it only serves to further embarrass Mt Gambier as a supposedly Tourism-focused and friendly destination...(hey, do you remember "Jazz Capital of the Southern Hemisphere"?-Ed)...yes well that's another issue but it was ludicrous to say it at all and now it's dead and gone...(and with a wheezy whimper not a bang-Ed)...indeed, but James 'Jimmy Trumpets' Morrison bailing-out of Mt Gambier to avoid scrutiny/accountability for the pro-Rapist culture he cultivated and supported, that's all worthy of it's own posts, and we will go there again, soon...

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...