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...