Howdy dear availees...I know we promised the 7-page Index of supportive documents in this post, but I thought first we might look instead at the correspondence I sent the ICAC Commissioner Ann Vanstone...(we've again included Commissioner Vanstone's Citizens Right of Reply, as read onto Hansard on 7th March 2024, for ease of comparison-Ed)...indeed, and there's a bunch of other stuff either side of the CRoR being read into Hansard, the Index, etc, so there's gunna' be multiple further posts on this extraordinary issue...lots to get through, so let's g-g-g-go...(General Language Warning ahead-Ed)...***
Citizen's
Right of Reply
CITIZEN'S
RIGHT OF REPLY
The
PRESIDENT (17:14): I
have to advise that I have received a letter from the Hon. Ann
Vanstone KC, Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against
Corruption, requesting a right of reply in accordance with standing
order 455A. In her letter dated 28 February 2024, the commissioner
considers that she has been adversely affected in her office of
Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption by
statements made in the Legislative Council by the Hon. F. Pangallo
on Thursday 8 February 2024.
Following
the procedures set out in the standing order, I have given
consideration to this matter and believe that it complies with the
requirements of the standing order. Therefore, I grant the request
and direct that the commissioner's reply be incorporated in Hansard.
Dear
President
Proceedings
of the Legislative Council on Thursday, 8 February 2024
I
write pursuant to Standing Order 455A of the Standing Orders of the
Legislative Council, in relation to statements made in the
Legislative Council by Mr Frank Pangallo MLC on Thursday 8 February
2024.
Pursuant
to Standing Order 455A, I submit that I have been adversely affected
in my office of Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against
Corruption, and I request that this response be incorporated
into Hansard.
Mr
Pangallo made an allegation (1) to the effect that an article
appearing in The
Advertiser on
8 February 2024 regarding the investigation and prosecution of
Mr John Hanlon and Ms Georgina Vasilevski was published at the
behest of the Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions or
staff of the Attorney-General's Department, and that it was done in
an effort to damage Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski and, ultimately, to
influence the outcome of legal proceedings.
This
is a serious allegation to level against statutory office holders and
senior public officers utilising the shield of parliamentary
privilege. To my knowledge, it is not an allegation that Mr Pangallo
has repeated outside of Parliament.
Moreover,
the allegation is untrue, certainly insofar as it concerns me or my
staff. The article in The
Advertiser was
published wholly independently of anything done by any person
associated with the Commission.
Mr
Pangallo went on to make wholly unfounded claims about, in effect,
the inequitable treatment of two persons before the courts for the
commission of offences against the Independent
Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 (SA)
(the ICAC Act).
Mr
Pangallo contrasted the penalty imposed on Ms Stephanie Hardy for one
count of breaching s 54(3) of the ICAC Act—namely, a $1000
fine—with the penalty imposed on Mr Nick Fletcher for what Mr
Pangallo suggested was similar conduct in 2013. Mr Pangallo claimed
that Mr Fletcher was 'shown no mercy' by the Commission, fined
$500,000 and that, in fact, Mr Fletcher was only charged and
found guilty due to changes made to the ICAC Act which resulted in
'capturing Mr Fletcher's offending retrospectively'.
Much
of what Mr Pangallo said about the matter involving Mr Fletcher is
patently false. First, Mr Pangallo has overlooked the fact that
Mr Fletcher was not a public officer and was not investigated by the
Commission, and nor did it play any role in his prosecution.
Accordingly, the Commission was in no position to show mercy or
otherwise to Mr Fletcher.
Secondly,
Mr Fletcher was convicted of 22 counts of breaching the provisions of
the ICAC Act which prohibit publication rather
than simply dissemination of
information. This is a more serious offence than that to which Ms
Hardy pleaded guilty.
Thirdly,
the penalty Mr Fletcher received was in the nature of a community
service order and the imposition of prosecution costs, court fees and
the victims of crime levy, all of which amounted to less than
$3,500—a far cry from the $500,000 fine that Mr Pangallo would have
the public and Parliament believe was imposed.
Finally,
the amendments made to the definition of 'publish' in the ICAC Act by
the Independent
Commissioner Against Corruption (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2014 to
which Mr Pangallo referred had the effect of narrowing rather
than broadening the
concept of publication. The then Attorney-General, the Hon. John Rau
described the effect of the amendments as follows in his
second-reading speech (2):
First,
the Bill amends the definition of 'publish' because upon a broad
interpretation of that definition, information could not be
communicated person to person. The intention, which is to prevent
information becoming public, will be clarified by the new definition
of 'publish', consistent with the definition of 'publish' in
the Evidence
Act 1929 where
the emphasis is on communication to the public.
Mr
Fletcher published information relating to an investigation on a
public blog. His conduct amounted to unauthorised publication of
information both
before and after the
amendment to the definition of 'publish'.
In
my submission, Mr Pangallo's statements regarding the cases involving
Ms Hardy and Mr Fletcher amount to a breach of Standing Order 193,
being injurious reflections on the Parliament of South Australia and
on the courts of law in this State. They have the capacity to damage
the public perception of the operation of the legal system and of the
Parliament and ought to be corrected.
Yours
sincerely,
Hon.
Ann Vanstone KC
COMMISSIONER
(1)
South Australia, Parliamentary
Debates, Legislative
Council, 8 February 2024, 4739 (Frank Pangallo MLC).
(2)
South Australia, Parliamentary
Debates, House
of Assembly, 29 October 2014, 2489 (John Rau MP).
At
17:15 the council adjourned until Tuesday 19 March 2024 at 14:15.
***So the day after that CRoR being read into the Hansard, MLC Frank Pangallo contacted me, and again 5 days later, to ask then urge that I provide any documents I had that supported his claims and/or refuted Comm Vanstone's CRoR...and I did spend a full week retrieving/collating/reducing/copying. providing Frank mate...(maaate-Ed)...with the documents he requested...Frank mate told me that he needed those documents urgently because, quote, "I have to get back to the Commissioner next week"...(referring to the Parliamentary Sitting Week of 19th/20th/21st March-Ed)...well I assumed so, but that appears to be not the case as Frank mate has not yet corrected the Hansard and/or even raised the issue again in Parliament...(what about 'getting back to The Commissioner, or the fact that he has repeatedly stated that he was going to get your Trial Transcripts?-Ed)...no idea but I severely doubt it, haven't heard from mate Frank in over 3 months now...
MLC Frank Pangallo is just another low, deceitful, self-serving Pro-Paedophile Corrupt South Australian politician...(so nothing special there then?-Ed)...no, indeed, Frank's got what Frank needs to look after Frank and frankly that's all Frank mate needs 'cos that's all Frank's interested in...(our maaate Frank Pangallo, just another Pro-Paedophile Corrupt parasite on the public purse-Ed)...when he first contacted me I went yaaaay-close to telling him to just "Fuck off Frank you bloated sack a' Pro-Paedophile Corrupt Fuckery" 'cos me and Frank have history, don't we Frank, mate, a very long and twisted history, don't we Frank, mate, and that'll get it's own post as part of this series...suffice to say that Frank Pangallo's repeatedly complicit role in the St Martins Lutheran School Child Abuse Cover-up marks him as Pro-Paedophile Corrupt...but we digress...
Having let Frank mate not do what he was never gunna' do, I eventually wrote to Commissioner Vanstone (8th May 2024) to alert her to the many gross non-truths/falsehoods in her CRoR...and it goes a li'l like this...***
Dear Commissioner,
I refer to your Citizen's Right of
Reply as read-out on your behalf in the Legislative Council on 7th
March 2024, and as duly recorded on the Hansard.
I refer also to the original statements
made in the Legislative Council by MLC Frank Pangallo (Hansard
February 8th 2024), about my prosecution under the ICAC
Act 2012 Sec56 (a) & (b), to which you were replying.
In your Right of Reply you identify me
by name eleven times, whilst dismissing as “wholly unfounded” and
“patently false” everything that Mr Pangallo stated regarding my
ICAC Prosecution and Conviction.
You refute four main claims/issues,
namely:
that I was ever investigated by
ICAC (under Comm Bruce Lander);
that the ICAC Act 2012 was changed
in November 2014 specifically so that I could be prosecuted;
and therefore I was
retrospectively prosecuted, starting February 2015, and;
that I was originally fined
$540,000 (being the max $30,000 per 'Count' for 18 'Counts').
I do not know where you obtained your
information, but I have extensive documentation proving that Mr
Pangallo is correct in his claims.
Some of this documentation is already
on the public record, eg, during my prosecution/trial it was
repeatedly and extensively covered that after having me investigated
(by either the Office of Public Integrity or the Ombudsman), it was
ICAC Comm Bruce Lander who then also referred me directly to SAPol
Anti-Corruption Branch.
That is why the total absence from the
ICAC website of my name and the related very important precedent
prosecution of ICAC Act 2012 Sec56 is such a concern.
A private citizen, not involved in any
issue of Public Maladministration and/or Corruption, was;
investigated by ICAC for
'blogging' about ICAC;
at Comm Lander's specific, direct
request then further investigated by SAPol ACB;
then prosecuted by SAPol under
ICAC Act 2012 Sec56 (a & b) (and/or ICAC MMA 2014);
then 'Convicted' and fined
$540,000, commuted to 260hrs of Community Service;
and there is nothing on the ICAC
website.
Another example, the documented
timeline proving that 1) the ICAC Act 2012 was specifically added-to
via the ICAC Miscellaneous Ammendments Act November 2014, 2) in a
manner to facilitate my prosecution, and therefore 3) I was
prosecuted retrospectively.
Many of those documents were tabled as
part of my evidence/testimony to the Parliamentary Inquiry into ICAC
Harms and Adverse Outcomes.
This is where Mr Pangallo heard these
statements/allegations, they are my statements of fact as made in
person to the Inquiry, so when you accuse Mr Pangallo of making
“wholly unfounded” and “patently false” claims you are
accusing me.
It is important to note that the “new”
definition of “To publish” in the ICAC MAA 2014 is actually the
first and only definition of “To publish” in the ICAC Act,
originally there was no definition at all, which is why the only
potentially relevant definition for the period of my supposed
'offending' is the one you have quoted from 1929.
As it stands, the Independent
Commission Against Corruption, even if acting in good faith by
reproducing false information as provided by others, has mis-led the
Parliament multiple times.
I quote this closing excerpt from your
Citizen's Right of Reply:
In
my submission, Mr Pangallo's statements regarding the cases involving
Ms Hardy and Mr Fletcher amount to a breach of Standing Order 193,
being injurious reflections on the Parliament of South Australia and
on the courts of law in this State. They have the capacity to damage
the public perception of the operation of the legal system and of the
Parliament and ought to be corrected.
Please contact me should you require
any further assistance.
Yours, Nick Fletcher.
****And this is the Commissioner's reply, received the next day, 9th May 2024...***
I acknowledge receipt of your email correspondence dated 8 May 2024.
You may wish to raise the issues ventilated in your email with the Inspector.
The Inspector has the power to investigate complaints against the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Complaints can be lodged online on the Inspector’s website (www.inspector.sa.gov.au) or via email (Inspector@sa.gov.au).
The Inspector can also be contacted by post:
The Inspector
GPO Box 2371
ADELAIDE SA 5001
Yours faithfully
***And obviously that just ain't gunna' cut it, so I wrote again on the 10th May 2024...***
Dear Commissioner
I refer to my original letter to you
(8th May 2024) about the many “patently false”
statements you made to the South Australian Parliament in your
Citizen's Right of Reply as read in Parliament on your behalf, on 7th
March 2024, and therefore recorded on the public record, the Hansard.
In that 'Reply' you named me eleven
times whilst refuting/denying multiple matters of fact relating to my
being investigated by ICAC, prosecuted by SAPol and then convicted
via legislation that had been changed, and fined $540,000 commuted to
Community Service, all under the ICAC Act 2012 Sec56 (a) and (b) (MAA
2014).
You described these matters of fact as
being “wholly unfounded” and “patently false”.
In my letter I briefly explained the
facts as they relate to your 'Reply', explaining therefore how and
why it is your statements that are “patently false”, and
directing you to where the facts may be accessed, eg, in my trial
transcript.
For the record, I include your email
response received at 1520hrs on 9th May 2024;
Dear
Mr Fletcher
I
acknowledge receipt of your email correspondence dated 8 May 2024.
You
may wish to raise the issues ventilated in your email with the
Inspector.
The
Inspector has the power to investigate complaints against the
Independent Commission Against Corruption. Complaints can be lodged
online on the Inspector’s website (www.inspector.sa.gov.au)
or via email (Inspector@sa.gov.au).
The
Inspector can also be contacted by post:
The
Inspector
GPO
Box 2371
ADELAIDE
SA 5001
Yours
faithfully
The
Hon Ann Vanstone KC
Commissioner
INDEPENDENT
COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Level
9, 55 Currie Street
GPO
Box 11066, Adelaide, SA 5001
www.icac.sa.gov.au
The
information in this e-mail is confidential. It is intended solely for
the addressee. Any unauthorised disclosure, copying, or distribution
of the information may be prohibited by section 54 of the Independent
Commission Against Corruption Act 2012.
I do not understand why you have
ignored addressing these “patently false” statements you have
made to the Parliament, and instead referred me to the Inspector.
I agree that former Commissioner Bruce
Lander's conduct during his entire tenure is certainly something that
should be investigated, via a genuinely Independent Public Inquiry,
but the issue here is that you the current Commissioner have mis-led
the Parliament, and that is an issue that only you the Commissioner
may resolve.
You give no indication that you have
reviewed the evidence I directed you to, or that you intend to
access/review that evidence, nor that you intend to go back to the
Parliament and, on the public record, correct the “patently false”
statements you have made on the public record.
You seem unsurprised by my letter and
entirely unconcerned that you have mis-led the Parliament, and
apparently have no intention of correcting your “patently false”
statements.
Your response seems to indicate that
you already knew before I informed you that your statements to
Parliament were untrue, and therefore potentially knew when you made
them, and that you have therefore potentially deliberately mis-led
the Parliament.
You have, on the public record, forever
directly connected my name to numerous 'allegations' that you the
ICAC Commissioner have dismissed as being “patently false” and
“wholly unfounded”, which are just polite but very specific ways
of saying lies; it is entirely not true and not even based/founded on
something true, it is lies.
Again, I do not understand how you can
be made aware of the many serious mis-truths you have placed on the
public record, then fail/refuse to even acknowledge those mis-truths,
let alone immediately commit to rectifying the public record.
I ask that you reconsider your position
and act immediately to rectify the mis-truths you have placed on the
public record.
Yours,
***And so that was on 9th May 2024...the Commissioner did respond, sortta', eventually, sending this email/letter on 17th May 2024...***
Dear Mr Fletcher
Further to your email below, please find Commissioner Vanstone’s response.
Regards
(***Can't get the attached letter to copy so I've had to write it out myself, thusly...***)
I refer to your correspondence 8 May 2024 and 10 May 2024.
I do not intend to reconsider my views.
In the future, correspondence from you regarding these matters will be noted, but no response will be sent.
As advised in my email of 9 May 2024, you are welcome to raise these issues with the Inspector.
Yours faithfully.
***So there ya's go, I "ventilated" the livin' shreck outta' massive and damning errors made by the state's top legal figure, recorded Forever On The Public Record (FOTPR), and said legal eagle refuses to even acknowledge the many issues/errors...(so how many of these sortta' "I'm not responding to you" official letters do we have now?-Ed)...counting this one? dunno', across ICAC and the St Martins Lutheran School Child Abuse Cover-up, well into double figures...(it's not really appropriate is it for State politicians and/or public officials to just ignore you, officially, rather than acknowledge what you're sayin' and act to address/resolve those issues-Ed)...indeed...(hey remember when you proved "Abuse of Process" and Magistrate Anderson "recused" herself, etc, during your "bizarre trial" and somehow, someway, but as never explained to you, a 'new Magistrate' was miraculously manifested-Ed)...how could I forget...(and yet, when you wrote to the same corrupt public officials, eg, Attorneys-General Labor's John Rau and/or Liberal Vicki Chapman, nobody was 'allowed to interfere'-Ed)...yes, when it comes to screwing-over Nick Fletcher anything and/or everything is possible, but heaven forbid that the same corrupt clowns address the many gross failings/illegalities in my persecution/prosecution...
So ICAC Commissioner Ann Vanstone is really only continuing the fine South Australian Legal/Political Tradition of Get Nick Fletcher At Any Cost, entirely unrestrained by appropriate application of The Law...
Tomorrow: The 7-Page Index
As described above, I spent a full week putting together a dossier of documents with related 7-page Index for Frank, mate, and what he's done with that is as good your guess as mine 'cos I ain't heard diddly-squat in over 3 months...(well like we said, Frank mate's got what Frank mate needs to protect Frank mate, so, um, Fuck You Hippy-Ed)...seems to be the plan, sure...
I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...
