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...
