ICAC Commissioner Ann Vanstone Lies To Parliament Then Quits - Part IV

Howdy dear availees, apologies that it's taken a week to get to 'Part IV' which is in fact 'Part Deux' of the 2 posts specifically about the 7-page Index...there's a tonne of stuff here, so let's g-g-g-go...

Just to let y'all know just exactly how important the current Labor Attorney-General Kyam Maher thinks it is that the ICAC Commissioner has suddenly quit only a little over half-way through her 7-year contract/appointment...(and quit citing the bureaucratic dysfunction/ineffectiveness of ICAC as brought about by changes to ICAC legislation 3 years ago-Ed)...indeed, that's her excuse..(couched in terms like "But I have run out of steam" and 'it's all too frustrating and too difficult', etc-Ed)...well absolutely, and it's such a critical disaster for the State Government and the ICAC and the whole thing's an unworkable mess, etc etc etc, it's so important to the State's future that a full fortnight after this extraordinary resignation the AG hasn't even called the artist formerly known as Commissioner Vanstone...(oh yes, and how do you know that?!-Ed)...well he said it in an ABC SE Radio News story Monday morning (22nd May), 'haven't spoken to her'...(fair dues-Ed)...so the ICAC Commissioner has resigned stating that the ICAC is effectively ineffectual/powerless/pointless, and the AG hasn't spoken to her?...(mmm, I'm calling 'bollocks"-Ed)...of course it's bollocks, he knew before it was announced... 

So here in her own terms/words is the (now outgoing) ICAC Commissioner Ann Vanstone, link followed by related statement...*** 

https://www.icac.sa.gov.au/public-statement/public-statement

9 July 2024

Statement by the Hon. Ann Vanstone KC
Commissioner, Independent Commission Against Corruption

This morning I advised the Governor of my resignation as Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, effective 6 September 2024. At that time I shall have served four years of my seven year term.

It has been a pleasure to work with the exceptional team that makes up the Commission. I have led them through tumultuous times and have been impressed by their commitment to finding a way to make an impaired system work, so that it provides public value.

Since the 2021 amendments to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2012 (SA), our focus has been on streamlining our investigations, assisting public entities to identify systemic vulnerabilities to corruption and providing education to public officers. In my time we have published 25 reports (with another 12 in progress) and undertaken nine evaluations of agencies. This activity is informed by our investigations, which remain vital to our work. We have conducted hundreds of education sessions, which I know public officers find useful. Then, there is the work we do behind closed doors. The importance of all this work has sustained me, and everyone at the Commission. I am immensely proud of it.

My resignation is prompted by a number of factors, some personal, but most professional.

The 2021 amendments to the legislation governing public integrity in South Australia damaged the scheme, under the guise of making it more ‘effective and efficient’. I have been saying this since before the amendments passed and have had reason to continue to say it. In essence, the public interest is not served by narrowing the definition of corruption, or by isolating the Commission from the intelligence sources constituted by all complaints and reports, or by completely divorcing us from the prosecution process so that we are unable to assist a prosecution. Absurdly, we are not even allowed to speak to the prosecutor, meaning they are denied access to the expertise and knowledge of Commission investigators who best know the matter. Likewise, the public interest is not served by gagging us to ensure we cannot comprehensively share with the community what we know about integrity issues in South Australian public administration; and of course, it is not served when the public is required to pay the legal fees of those convicted of an offence, simply because they were investigated by the Commission.

On multiple occasions I have pointed out the significant problems within the scheme to this Government and the last, and to the parliamentary committee that oversees us. It is not that the legislation is wholly unworkable, but it does need to be as robust and effective as possible. I have not asked for the previous scheme to be restored. I have recommended modest reform and an independent review of the amendments to see how effective they are. My words have fallen on deaf ears.

I hope the next Commissioner will succeed where I have failed.

There are two reasons I have remained in the role despite my frustrations with the scheme that governs it. I perhaps naively expected that the weaknesses and issues I have identified would be addressed. That has not happened and I have no confidence that it would, even if I stayed until the end of my term.

Most importantly, I have stayed for the staff, to help them retain faith that the work they do is important and valuable, notwithstanding the attacks on the Commission.

But I have run out of steam.

In closing I wish to thank every person who has ever reported conduct suspected of being corruption and those witnesses who have assisted in the investigations of such allegations. You are the most important cogs in the public integrity wheel.

To the staff of the Commission, I say thank you. I have so enjoyed working with each of you and am grateful for your hard work and commitment to the Commission’s cause. I shall miss you.

***(Wow-Ed)...I know right?...(I particularly like the bit about thanking "every person who has ever reported conduct suspected of being corruption and those witnesses who have assisted in the investigations of such allegations."-Ed)...indeed, and let us show our gratitude by sending SAPol Anti-Corruption Branch to raid your home, relentlessly persecute you via 3+ years of wantonly corrupt 'Trial', load you up with a Criminal Conviction, and then try to gaol you via CorrectionsSA...(it's all your Xmas's at once-Ed)...ain't it though...and then, and then flat-out lie about it on the Hansard, Forever On The Public Record...(unbelievable-Ed)...then, knowing your statements to be "patently false", to be lies, refuse to correct those lies...(that's the bit I struggle with, it's entirely unacceptable-Ed)...damn straight it isn't acceptable...but we digress...

Oh, and good luck gettin' someone, least-ways anyone worth half-a-damn, to apply for that vacancy given those less than complimentary parting shots from the outgoing Commissioner...just gunna' kick-off with the last paragraph of the previous post re the 7-page Index, being 3(h), and then it's all new material from 'Completed Monday, etc'...enjoy...***

3(h) Is the Addendum that Magistrate White produced (5^th March 2018) in response to my questions about the legislation changes and as TBW reported it (see document 2(b)). (*should be 2 (a)*)

In this Addendum, Magistrate White now acknowledges that I was 'prosecuted under the wrong legislation', specifically identifying that date when the ICAC Act was changed (27^th November 2014) but blames me for supposedly not explaining it to him correctly in my written Verdict Submission, and then proceeds to say 'but it doesn't matter because you're guilty anyway'.

Part Finished as of Friday 15^th March 2024

***Completed Monday 18^th March 2024***

Magistrate White only produced this Addendum (and “re-issed (his) written reasons”) after I spoke-out about it in Court, but more importantly, because The Border Watch reported this exchange, as per attached copy 2(a).

This entire 'Verdict Hearing' was bizarre (yet further proof of why I need those recordings/transcripts) with Magistrate White appearing 20 minutes late, then not even reading his 'Verdict', just declaring me 'Guilty on all Counts', and refusing to answer my questions about the change of legislation, etc, as in 2(a).

Note that M White does not identify where his alleged “relevant definition” comes from, whilst on many other occasions/issues he is very quick to quote Case Law, etc.

3(i) Is the original version of the Addendum I received.

The critical issue here is, either way that Magistrate White, the Courts, or whoever wants to defend this retrospective prosecution, I was either prosecuted under the “no definition” of pre-November 2014, or the altered legislation post November 2014; either way I was prosecuted under the 'wrong legislation'.

Also critical here, as per 3(f), I was originally 'Charged' with 20 Counts of breaching ICAC Act 2012 Sec56 (a) and/or (b), and there were multiple applications by SAPol to alter these 'Charges', and even directions from Magistrate Anderson, etc, but ultimately this somehow morphed into being 'Guilty' of just 'ICAC Act 2012 Sec56', without the defining (a) and/or (b).

The ICAC Act MAA November 2014 completely changes Sec 56(b), and this is why SAPol Prosecutions and M White have changed the final 'Charge Sheet' particulars, to deny/avoid the reality that the definition/application of Sec 56(b) is also incorrect and also applied retrospectively.

3(j) Magistrate White's 'Remarks on Penalty', again referencing the “massive fines” and again stating that he is not fining me only because I have no money.

The language here is also very relevant, where-in, at trial Magistrate White repeatedly threatened me with Contempt of Court, over 10 times, and the whole trial was conducted as a pseudo-Defamation case against me with an agenda to stop me blogging.

4) Is my correspondence to the (then) Local Government Minister Geoff Brock relating to the sort of abuse/harassment I was regularly subjected to when attending Mt Gambier City Council and other public meetings.

Magistrate White ignored my statement about this in Court, when he then issued Final Intervention Orders against me that legally blocked me from attending any MGCC meetings.

Bizarrely, even though my complaint identifies multiple incidents with (then) MGCC CEO Mark McShane, my complaints were forwarded by Min Brock, to CEO McShane, for the CEO to resolve.

5) Is one of many letters I wrote to (then) Chief Magistrate Hribal and/or (then) Attorney General Vicki Chapman, included here because it covers many relevant issues/topics, shows I was in frequent contact with either CM Hribal and/or AG Chapman, and is yet further proof of why I need those recordings/transcripts.

6) Comm Bruce Lander tries to get me to re-report what CM Hribal already has, to therefore make myself yet again subject to the bizarre and itself arguably criminal 'Secrecy Legislation' of Sec56, which is also now applicable to any/all Judicial or Police Complaint processes.

The man who instigated the whole deeply corrupted ICAC Act 2012 Sec56 prosecution against me, openly acknowledges that at least 'some of the matters raised in my emails to CM Hribal' already do 'fall inside of his jurisdiction', but he still wants me to formally complain.

7) From the ICAC website section relating to the matters finalised across the time period my trial concluded, ie, February 28^th – April 20^th 2018.

This relates directly to the spurious claims that my case was not initiated by ICAC and therefore that's why my case/trial is not mentioned anywhere in the entire ICAC website/literature.

This is of course entirely false, ICAC Comm Lander did investigate me and then refer me to SAPol, etc, but it is also an aberration of ICAC's responsibility to inform all citizens that a person, especially as being merely a private citizen, had been tried and convicted and massively fined under the ICAC Act 2012 Sec56.

8) From the Certificate of Record, identifying that I was already trying to get my transcripts/recordings, and yet another specific 'self-Order' that M White later refused to look at/acknowledge.

9) My 4^th/5^th letter to Attorney General Vicki Chapman that also identifies the allegations/charges she was facing under Sec56, only to be 'excused' by Comm Lander.

A private citizen gets prosecuted, as instigated by the ICAC Commissioner, gets their own personal SAPol 'Operation Baritone', then subjected to over three years (mostly self-representing) of the Precedent Legal Case, etc, then multiple 'Convictions', massive fines, and a bizarre 'Criminal Record', etc etc, and the Attorney General gets 'excused' by the ICAC Commissioner.

10) AG Chapman's dismissive response to me, and as generated only because an independent journalist had contacted her about my “bizarre trial”, and as concluded with a vacuous threat about 'publishing'.

AG Chapman silently concedes that this entire matter should have gone to COAG (Council of Australian Governments) by stating that she “declines this request”; she doesn't say it cannot be done, she says she will not, thus defining that it can be and therefore should have been done.

Index Concludes

I apologise that it has taken me so long to compile these documents and index, but I'm sure you appreciate the volume of documentation I've had to trawl through and whittle down to these relative few, and the trauma doing so has re-ignited for me.

However, given the importance of my Precedent Prosecution and the many, many issues covered in just these few documents, I would be happy to discuss this in detail with you, talk you through this index, etc, and/or provide you any further documentation/proofs you may require.

Again I ask that you help me access a full copy of all my trial recordings.

Yours,

Post Script 19^th March 2024

As per our phone conversation yesterday 18^th March 2024, at your request I have added Magistrate White's 'Judgement/Reason for Decisions' Wednesday 28^th February 2018 (Updated Version).

This 'Judgement' is a farcical attempt to re-write the reality as it occurred, eg, M White making completely false statements about how he gave me numerous adjournments to review evidence, etc, when the reality is he repeatedly refused me, eg, when he refused me an adjournment, so I provided a Medical Certificate, but he dismissed it and 'Convicted' me in my absence.

Also added are three documents marked as 'Abuse of Process', being,

1. Magistrate Anderson's official account as per the Certificate of Record;

2. The related article from The Border Watch;

3. Magistrate White's 'Reasons for Ruling' after he flatly refused to allow me to present my 100-document 'Malicious Prosecution' submission.

Magistrate Anderson originally identified my repeated claims of 'Political Persecution' as being 'Abuse of Process', but Her Honour changed that to “you are talking about Malicious Prosecution” by October 2016, and that was the term I used on the title-page of my 100-document submission.

As the transcripts will prove (if I ever get them), I was Ordered by HH Anderson to present about 'Malicious Prosecution' and that is what I proved to HH to the degree that HH immediately recused herself, albeit only identifying 'Abuse of Process'.

Regardless, how many times in Sth Australian legal history has a Magistrate recused themselves citing 'Abuse of Process – Stay of Proceedings'?

Replacement Magistrate White refused me presenting my submission (8^th February 2017) so I just stood up and started talking, but could not address any specific documents.

Magistrate White then produced this 'Reasons' with the deeply cynical and deliberate attempts to;

1. set me up for future 'Defamation' action, and;

2. deny the Child Abuse Cover-up I had identified as being the primary motivation to prosecute me, and;

3. identifies the precedent “remedy” but then ignores it because it will result in “preventing the defendant from being prosecuted”

When this 'Reasons' was tabled in Court, I stood up and roundly abused M White; “How dare you? Who do you think you are? You don't get to say that there's no cover-up”, etc, and he just sat there.

Again, these “Malicious Prosecution/Abuse of Process” hearings and related verbal testimony, etc, proves why I need all these transcripts, and as (legally) should have already been provided to me.

This Post Script completes and supercedes the Index letter 18^th March 2024.

***And there ya' go...and I haven't heard from MLC Frank Pangallo in over 3 months...(really? that's odd-Ed)...how so?..(well back in March he was so urgent, so insistent that this was time-critical, etc, and he's had plenty of time to mouth-off about all manner of other issues in Parliament, upto and including vitriolic, sycophantic support for the Zionist Israel Genocide in Gaza and the West Bank-Ed)...indeed he has...(but like we mentioned previous post on this issue, he hasn't found time to inform the Parliament or even send us an email, not diddly-squat-Ed)...no no, Frank maaate did exactly what Frank maaate does and what we knew Frank maaate would do...(make sure he's okay and then scurry-off back under 'is rock?-Ed)...precisely, Frank maaate got the info Frank needed to protect/benefit Frank and that's all Frank cares about...just another self-important, self-indulgent, selfish pro-paedophile corrupt South Australian politician... 

Tomorrow: Back To MGCC's Dismantling Of Mt Gambier Tourism

So in closing we'll just make that point again...on Thursday 7th March 2024 ICAC Commissioner Ann Vanstone made a series of factually incorrect statements (on Hansard) about my ICAC Prosecution/Conviction, upto and including that ICAC played no part at all in that prosecution ...as of 2 weeks later, and at his repeated request, I had provided MLC Frank Pangallo irrefutable documented proof that those statements were untrue/incorrect/false, and when he failed to act at all, I contacted the ICAC on the 8th and 10th May 2024 to inform Comm Vanstone...Comm Vanstone has refused to acknowledge the issues, refuses to address her "patently false" statements, and is now quitting...

So at the very least, Comm Vanstone and MLC Frank Pangallo know about these errors/falsehoods/lies on the Hansard, and yet neither have seen fit to act in any way to inform the Parliament and/or correct that official public record...and I'm the one with the Criminal Conviction...there will by necessity be several more posts on this extraordinary issue...

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

 

ICAC Comm Ann Vanstone Lies To SA Parliament, Then Quits - Part III

Howdy dear availees...following directly-on from the previous two posts re the extraordinary/bizarre conduct of the ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) Commissioner Ann Vanstone...please find attached below the first 4 pages of the 7-page Index of Documents I provided to MLC (Member Legislative Council - Upper House of South Australian Parliament) Frank Pangallo...(provided to him along with the referred-to documents, of course-Ed)...of course...Frank was very insistent, rang me twice in 5 days, etc, and Frank was gunna' get it all straight to the ICAC Commissioner...(I believe he said in that second call back in March "by next week"?-Ed)...correct, Frank was gunna' do this and Frank was gunna' do that...(and has Frank done any of it?-Ed)...couldn't say for sure 'cos I ain't heard from Frank for months now...(well frankly I'm shocked-Ed)...I'm not...

The only thing I can say for fact is that Frank has not raised this issue in the Parliament in the 18 Sitting Days since I provided him concrete proof that the ICAC Commissioner Ann Vanstone misled the Parliament in her 'Citizen's Right Of Reply'...(18 Sitting Days?-Ed)...yep, across March through April, May, and June...(wow...ummm doesn't he have some sort of legal/legislated responsibility to at least notify the Parliament about this 'misleading' of the Parliament, most especially 'cos it's all been officially recorded into Hansard, and therefore Forever On The Public Record?-Ed)...like the Parliament give a fat dead rat's festered clacka, it looks increasingly like this may well have been the set-up from the get-go...(how so?-Ed)...well, get all these Official ICAC Lies FOTPR which would greatly suit Labor and Liberals and all the other trite numpties lounging-about in their collective filth we otherwise call State Parliament... 

But, admittedly, I'm just spit-ballin', just kickin' the can about to see what falls out, whatevs, in the absence of any rational explanation as to why this has happened...(and why now?-Ed)...yeah, and why now when it was pretty-much all over bar the whinging, etc etc etc, but ultimately it could just be a massive miscalculation by all involved...(well I can see the merit in your first theory/argument there, but my second guess was that the new Commissioner had been set-up by her 'Own Side'-Ed)...really? set-up? but why?...(well if one considers her predecessor Bruce 'Brews Slander' Lander's definable corruption, and most especially as it relates to your persecution/prosecution, it would benefit everyone involved if they could get a bunch of OIL FOTPR-Ed)...ah yes, OIL FOTPR, I can see that...(so get all that misinformation about your case/trial FOTPR on the Hansard, then release that 'Inspector's Report' that completely exonerates Bruce mate of anything and/or everything then shazzam! the current Commissioner quits, saying it's all a bit too difficult-Ed)...and having built that OIL FOTPR Wall between Reality and what the Parliament would have everyone believe, if there's any blow-back at all, it's still most likely gunna' be at Ann Vanstone...

So there, dear availees, are some guesses/theories, but if I had to land somewhere I'd be inclined toward a combination of the above, roughly, that Frank shot his mouth off about me in the heat of the moment in defense of someone else...(I can see that-Ed)...then the Commissioner has come-back hard at him, super-aggressive and over-the-top abusive and denying accusations that haven't been made, etc...(well we can all read that for ourselves, I mean, "wholly unfounded" and "patently false" are just very obnoxious, condescending, pseudo-polite ways of saying 'Completely Fabricated Lies'-Ed)...indeed, and Frank's panicked and contacted me, etc etc, but that's were the conjecture kicks-in 'cos why the Commissioner did this, made these damning statements that are themselves "patently false", etc etc, I just can't tell ya' why...(mmm, I see the problem, riding that train of thought brings ya' loopin' back to the idea that it's all deliberate to achieve OIL FOTPR-Ed)...so ya' see the problem I'm havin' with gettin' this damn thing to land anywhere... 

And here's another question for ya'...(I thought we here at TMGI were about providing answers?-Ed)...we do heaps of both, and plenty of everywhere in between...(fair dues-Ed)...did Commissioner Vanstone know that these were lies when she submitted her prepared statement/CRoR? or did she act in good faith, having gone to her own ICAC files and SAPol etc only to be provided false information, which she has then repeated...(well it's a moot point really, given that you've written to her twice and she refuses to acknowledge the issues and now refuses to respond at all-Ed)...indeed, whatevs the Commissioner did and/or didn't know, she sure-as-shreck knows now, and her response has been to ignore the issues, refuse to act, then refuse to respond further...(it is reasonable to summise that whatevs were the motivations and/or machinations, etc, where we are now is entirely definable, and as done in the title of these posts-Ed)...lovely summary sir...

If I may run with that 'cos you're spot-on...whoevs/whatevs/whyevs, where we are now is that the ICAC Commissioner has lied to the Parliament, on Hansard, is aware of those multiple deceits/falsehoods, but refuses to rectify this entirely unacceptable situation, and has now resigned...and leading-up to this current undeniable reality, as mentioned, I provided Frank mate with a dossier of documents and this 7-page Index (below)...it's fairly self-explanatory, so here's the first coupla' pages and we'll finish this in the next post...enjoy...***

Dear Mr Pangallo,

Thankyou for your call on Friday 8^th March 2024, and follow-up call of Wednesday 13^th March, and your renewed interest in my Conviction for 18 breaches of the ICAC Act 2012 Sec56.

As I understand it, you recently made some statements in the South Australian Parliament (8^th February 2024) about my ICAC Prosecution (May 2014 - April 2018), and have subsequently been asked/required by the new ICAC Commissioner Vanstone to explain/justify your statements.

To assist you in this, you have requested that I provide any information and/or documents in my possesion relating to three specific issues, namely;

1. Was I investigated by ICAC, under former Comm Lander?;

2. Was I fined $540,000?;

3. Was the ICAC Act 2012 Sec56 changed in 2014 in such a manner as to allow me to be prosecuted retrospectively?

Whilst you have a broad understanding of some of the many issues related to the motivation, implementation and conduct of my ICAC/SAPol prosecution, eg, via the personal testimony and many supporting documents I provided to your 'ICAC Harms and Adverse Outcomes Inquiry', etc, you cannot begin to understand the trauma that you have re-introduced to my life.

Since I spoke with you I have spent that entire long weekend and most of this week retrieving and trawling through documents, constructing this index, etc, being constantly bombarded with relentless reminders of just how corrupted my 'trial' was, and of the genuine motivation behind all of this.

And again, you know what that original, genuine motive is; that which motivates me to behave the way I do, and the exact same motivation that has seen me punitively persecuted for speaking-out, that has driven SA 'Authorities' to retaliate against me in the manner that they have.

It has become almost impossible for me to just pick-out a few documents that prove how corrupt my ICAC trial was/is, because literally every interaction, every document, every transcript is testiment to how corrupt that entire process/trial is.

For example, the first (unmarked) document is self-evidently the Court's own Certificate of Record showing where Her Honour Magistrate Anderson recused herself officially citing “Abuse of Process” re my claims (of Malicious Prosecution) and the supporting documentation I had provided to the Court at HH's Order.

***Somehow, it was never explained to me, but somehow the Court, (then) Chief Magistrate Hribal, and the (then) Attorney General Vicki Chapman managed to ignore this “Abuse Of Process” finding, appoint Magistrate White to take over, and the 'trial' continued like nothing had happened.***

(***19^th March 2024 Error spotted...in 2016 AG was Labor John Rau, Chief Magistrate (???) Rang FP and corrected...'no problems'...NF***)

When I tried to raise the many related issues of this Abuse of Process/Malicious Prosecution, Magistrate White flatly refused to allow any discussion.

As per your specific request, please find attached some of the documents (numbered) and as indexed below.

Point 1: Yes, I was investigated by the ICAC regarding my alleged breaches of the ICAC Act 2012 Sec56, and was then referred directly by (the then) ICAC Comm Lander to SAPol Anti-Corruption Branch (and rather than the usual referral to Director Public Prosecutions).

This was established very early in Court proceedings, via various documents, testimony, etc, and discussed as fact many times in Court.

My two related attachments prove this, being;

1. three pages (marked 1(a),1(b),1(c)) of the testimony of SAPol Anti-Corruption Branch's (*******) from Trial in March 2017, where-in (******) again states as fact, “ICAC informed our branch of the allegations against you”.

2. (******)'s inability to identify the actual date that ICAC first contacted SAPol ACB in February 2014 is addressed in this SAPol document (marked 1(d)), which identifies that 'first contact' was made by ICAC in a letter to SAPol ACB dated 20^th February 2014.     

    (***name removed due to Final Intervention Orders-14 July 2024-NF***)
   

Attachment 1d) also identifies where SAPol ACB went to ICAC (4^th April 2014) seeking advice “...on ICAC act Sec56 and when it applies? (When reported to ICAC? When referred to ICAC? When complainant is advised it is reported to ICAC?) Matter discussed – No firm direction provided.”

When SAPol ACB had to ask ICAC when/if Sec56 even applied, and ICAC could not or would not even tell them;

1. how is a private citizen meant to know/understand?

2. how can anyone be prosecuted for an alleged 'breach'?

Point 2: Yes, as it played-out in Court in February/March/April 2018, I was originally fined the full $540,000, which was then “Commuted” to 260 hours of Community Service.

I cannot prove this with any documentation I have because the Magistrate only said this, “Commuted” during Sentencing and I have been refused access to those transcripts by the Courts Administration Authority.

Please find attached the article from The Border Watch 1^st March 2018 (marked 2(a) where Magistrate White is quoted identifying this maximum $30,000 per Count, and that when I question this and identify that total as $540,000, the Magistrate does not challenge/refute that.

I maintain that originally I was fined $540,000 and that fine was not reduced at all but “Commuted” entirely to Community Service, and as identified, even then only because I had no money.

I have also included here a copy of the The Border Watch article 1^st December 2017 (marked 2(b)) that identifies in part how appallingly I was treated by Magistrate White.

Suffering under his constant abuse and harassment and refusal to provide me an adjournment, etc, I obtained a Medical Certificate, but Magistrate White subpoenaed my doctor, discussed my personal medical details in open Court with the media present, and next morning I heard it all being reported on ABC South East Radio and it was in TBW.

Two of the Counts I faced and was ultimately convicted of were for just 'speaking to the local ABC and TBW', in a context where no story was ever aired/published, and both were willing SAPol Prosecution witnesses against me, but who were also attending my trial daily albeit flatly refusing to talk to me, but then publishing/broadcasting about it.

I was found Guilty of merely speaking to the media, and speaking only after the alleged ICAC investigation into Mt Gambier City Council had concluded with no action resulting.

This public discussion of my private medical issues was done quite deliberately by Magistrate White to humiliate and denigrate and discredit me in the community.

It also proves that even when my doctor did specifically express 'concerns for my mental health', Magistrate White ignored that and continued in my absence.

Point 3: Yes, ICAC Comm Lander and Labor Attorney General John Rau did conspire to change the ICAC Act 2012 with specific intent to facilitate my prosecution.

As you are aware, I have previously provided all of these relevant documents (attached again here at your request) to the Parliamentary Inquiry into ICAC Harms that you chaired.

Attachment 3(a) – 2 pages: The first letter that my lawyer wrote to ICAC Lander, 2^nd July 2014, (following SAPol Anti-Corruption Branch raiding my home on 7^th/8^th May 2014) seeking clarification about many problematic issues with the ICAC Act 2012 Sec56, but most specifically;

1. The term “published” is not defined, and:

2. “...is he allowed to talk to a lawyer...”, or “...talk to his family and friends”, etc.

My first question to my lawyer was “Are you even allowed to speak with me?”, they politely laughed, then they read Sec56, then they apologised to me and wrote to Comm Lander asking that very same question.

This single letter identifies that there are/were so many issues/faults/failings with the ICAC Act 2012 Sec56, upto and including can the accused even talk to a lawyer?

3(b) Comm Lander's dismissive refusal (14^th July 2014) to provide any information, which prompted a second letter from my lawyer.

3(c): My lawyer's second letter (18^th July 2014) asking again about 'To publish' and 'can he even talk to his family' etc.

3(d) ICAC Comm Lander's response, 28^th July 2014, his official 'Authorisation' allowing me to speak with my family, friends and doctor, thus addressing some of the many issues raised by my lawyer.

3(e) SAPol Prosecutions email to my lawyer identifying that, as of 12^th August 2014, I had not even been 'Charged' yet.

This is a critical time-line link to attachment 3d) showing that even though I was a 'private citizen', who had not actually been Charged with anything, I still apparently required specific written permission from the ICAC to even talk to my lawyer, family, friends, and even a doctor.

Deliberately not identified by Comm Lander in his 'Authorisation' is the implicit acknowledgement and related approval that I was now 'allowed' to speak with my lawyer.

3(f) – 2 pages: Is from the ICAC website where-in it identifies the 27^th November 2014 changes to the ICAC Act, changes that are directly referencing the two main issues/questions raised with ICAC Lander by my lawyer, namely;

1. changes defining 'To publish', and in a manner that also then;

2. allows defendants to speak with a lawyer, their family, etc.

These changes are the exact issues repeatedly raised by my lawyer in July 2014, directly in writing to Comm Lander, and as then passed through Parliament in November 2014.

3(g) Is from the Hansard (November 2014), immediately pre-dating the ICAC statements (in 3(f)), where-in (then) Labor Attorney General John Rau states;

“The amendments are made in response to specific requests from the commissioner to clarify some provisions and to facilitate some operational aspects of the legislation.”

AG Rau openly acknowledges that “...the confidentiality requirements of the Act...has caused some confusion for inquiry agencies, public authorities and public officers.”

The ICAC Miscellaneous Ammendments Act 2014 was passed on 27^th November 2014.

My 'Trial' then commenced Tuesday 3^rd February 2015, without me in attendance, because I had not been Charged or Summonsed; I found out the next day via a phonecall that it was reported in The Border Watch that I had “failed to attend”.

This documented timeline, as previously provided and explained to your ICAC Inquiry on the Parliamentary Record, is absolutely irrefutable and proves that I was prosecuted retrospectively.

In July 2014, my lawyer twice wrote to Comm Lander asking specific questions about specific faults/failings with the ICAC Act 2012 Sec56, and then Comm Lander went to AG Rau about those specific faults/failings, as then ratifed by the ICAC MAA November 27^th 2014, and then my trial commenced, without me even being Charged or Summonsed, on 2^nd February 2015.

It also proves that this retrospective prosecution, as originally directed by ICAC Comm Lander to SAPol ACB, was not an unfortunate accident or oversight, etc, it proves that Comm Lander acted with intent to specifically alter the ICAC Act 2012 to facilitate my prosecution.

***And that's as good a place to pull stumps as any other...like we said, it's all fairly self-explanatory...(and it's a given that those documents do exist-Ed)...indeed, and they're only part of the extensive documentation proving the various related points/issues...we'll do the second half of this Index...

Tomorrow: Well We Just Said Actually

Also gunna' do more about Mt Gambier City Council's rank lies regarding how MGCC have deliberately chosen to shut-down the Engelbrecht Cave Tourism business whilst blaming the tenant for supposedly ending that Lease...(yes, MGCC openly lying as consumate liars do, and most especially  when they know there will be no consequences-Ed)...indeed, MGCC is is so corruptly bankrupted in literally each and every context you care to mention ain't nobody goin' near that...(it's so bad in fact that even our rancidly corrupt ICAC has had to step-in to try and protect them-Ed)...indeed, and Ann Vanstone wants to quit 'cos it's all a bit too difficult...

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

ICAC Comm Ann Vanstone Lies To Sth Oz Parliament Then Quits - Part II - Correspondence With ICAC

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 7^th 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 8^th 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:

1. that I was ever investigated by ICAC (under Comm Bruce Lander);

2. that the ICAC Act 2012 was changed in November 2014 specifically so that I could be prosecuted;

3. and therefore I was retrospectively prosecuted, starting February 2015, and;

4. 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;

1. investigated by ICAC for 'blogging' about ICAC;

2. at Comm Lander's specific, direct request then further investigated by SAPol ACB;

3. then prosecuted by SAPol under ICAC Act 2012 Sec56 (a & b) (and/or ICAC MMA 2014);

4. then 'Convicted' and fined $540,000, commuted to 260hrs of Community Service;

5. 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 (8^th 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 7^th 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 9^th 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...

ICAC Comm Ann Vanstone Lies To Parliament, Refuses To Correct Hansard, Then Quits

Howdy dear availees...ya' know how we here at TMGI have been bangin'-on about some mysterious but allegedly massive issue that we weren't sure how to handle it?...(yes we have been doin' that quite a bit-Ed)...well today any course of action I might have considered, and again, not really any idea what if any 'actions' were exactly ever available to me/us...(which is why we were stuck-Ed)...precisely...well as given away in the title, today Wednesday 10th July 2024 it was reported that ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) Commissioner Ann Vanstone is quitting...(but why? you may well ask-Ed)...well I've got a fair idea, somewhat given away again in the title of this 'ere post...

So this is gunna' start with 3 specific posts, being this 'ere one what you is readin' right now, and as concurrently posted with 2 others covering the Index of Documents that I provided to MLC (Member Legislative Council - Upper House of Sth Oz Parliament) Frank Pangallo after he contacted me and asked me to help him...but that's gettin' in the cart before we've even shoed the horse, so first things first, here's what my mate Frank...(maaate-Ed)...had to say in the Parliament...(and therefore recorded for posterity in the Hansard, the official Parliamentary record-Ed)...exactly, as said by Frank, Forever On The Public Record...(why have you put capitals on "Forever On The Public Record"?-Ed)...'cos it's a phrase that we're gunna' be usin' alot, and it's an actual thing, this isn't just some inconsequential stuff that was just said wherevs, whatevs, it was in the Parliament and is now therefore FOTPR...

Below here is the link to and a direct cut-'n'-paste from the Hansard of the South Australian Parliament, the Legislative Council, 8th February 2024...*** 

https://hansardsearch.parliament.sa.gov.au/daily/uh/2024-02-08

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:31): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General about the ICAC investigation into John Hanlon.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Today's Advertiser carries a story about ICAC's secret surveillance tapes, made during the bugging of the office of former Renewal SA boss John Hanlon. No secret: they were in the inspector's report tabled last year. The conversations published appear to be another attempt by ICAC, the DPP or the Attorney-General's Department to further smear Mr Hanlon and his former senior colleague Georgina Vasilevski and derail mediation, which is about to start in a civil action by Mr Hanlon. No mention is made anywhere in the article of the most damning findings by the inspector of institutional maladministration by ICAC while he conveniently absolved individuals responsible for the botched investigation.

Only in the last lines is it mentioned that neither Mr Hanlon nor Ms Vasilevski were convicted of any offence and entitled to the presumption of innocence. Neither a court, the inspector nor ICAC have ever seen Mr Hanlon's substantive defence to the charges levelled against him—only the DPP, and when they were viewed they folded. In an obvious plea deal to get something from nothing, former Renewal SA worker Stephanie Hardy pleaded guilty to unlawfully disclosing the ICAC investigation to Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski, which was also caught on the secret surveillance tapes. She was not convicted. She walked away with a $1,000 fine.

So, after a costly exercise leaving ICAC humiliated and facing civil damages, not one person has been or will be convicted of anything. Compare this to a similar matter of Mr Nick Fletcher, a pensioner in the South-East, publishing information about an investigation in an obscure blog in 2013. The definition of 'publish' was so broad that, when Mr Fletcher tried to get clarification, the government of the day instead moved to quickly fix it in 2014, capturing Mr Fletcher's offending retrospectively. No mercy was shown to Mr Fletcher, nor a plea deal. He was convicted and the fine was $500,000—500 times that handed to Ms Hardy, with no conviction. My questions to the Attorney are:

1. Can the Attorney explain the chasm between these two offences, and was he aware of the plea deal?

2. Can he assure the chamber that the timing of the story as mediation begins wasn't the result of tip-offs from either his department, the DPP or ICAC?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:34): I thank the honourable member for his question. In relation to a sentence or a fine imposed by a court, as I have answered questions from the opposition before, it is, as it should be, properly a matter for a court.

If a sentence is thought by the prosecuting authority, whether it be the police or the DPP, to be too lenient, there is usually an option to appeal the sentence that is given in a court. If a defendant considers a sentence or a fine manifestly excessive, there is always the possibility that can be appealed in a court as well. I have not taken the habit—and I am not going to start the habit today, I am afraid, Hon. Mr Pangallo—of commenting on why a court imposes a fine within the bounds of what we set down in parliament.

In relation to the honourable member's second part of the question that relates to a story in The Advertiser, I have seen the headlines. I have not read the story myself. I have had no suggestion that anywhere from government had anything to do with the publication of a story at all. The headline is all that I know about that story. I am not aware of any suggestion, apart from what has been raised today in parliament, that there was anything from government that had anything to do with any story in any media right now about the Hanlon case.

***(Strewth!-Ed)...you and me both cobber...as regular availees will have already deduced for y'allselves, mate Frank got that info from the testimony and documents I travelled to Adelaide to personally present to his 'ICAC Harms and Adverse Outcomes' Inquiry, aways back in 2021...(and as posted on this 'ere blog under posts "My ICAC Testimony Parts 1-4"-Ed)...and of course Frank didn't print a single word of my document-supported testimony in his precious Inquiry's Final Report...(but that hasn't stopped him slingin' it about as and when it suits him-Ed)...indeed not, didn't contact me before doing this, didn't contact me afters to just let me know what he'd done...(but I thought you said that he did contact you, asked you to send him stuff, etc?-Ed)...well spotted, 'cos yes maaate Frank did contact me, but only after this (below) happened... 

Below is the link to and a cut-'n'-paste copy of ICAC Comm Ann Vanstone's Citizens Right of Reply, as read onto the Hansard on 7th March 2024, and therefore?...(FOTPR?-Ed)...exactly...if ya' wanna know more about what a CRoR is, here's the link, followed by the Hansard link...***

https://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/en/House-of-Assembly/Citizens-Right-of-Reply

https://hansardsearch.parliament.sa.gov.au/daily/uh/2024-03-07

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.

***(..............-Ed)...I know right?...(......I mean......it......why?-Ed)...mate, ask me a question that answers itself, 'cos I just don't know...(especially the stuff about 'ICAC definitely didn't have anything to do with investigating and/or prosecuting Nick Fletcher'-Ed)...yeah mate, like I said, I dunno' why the     Commissioner has come-back so hard about my persecution/prosecution...(it's just so...she names you 11 times...wow and strewth just don't seem adequate-Ed)...and I tell a gentle half-lie, 'cos I do know why, I just don't understand why...(I mean, nowhere has maaate Frank actually accused the ICAC of doing anything to you and/or about you-Ed)...indeed...(in fact, the only one's he's havin' a go at is the government/Labor-Ed)...yep...('they changed the legislation, etc'-Ed)...sure...(and then he mentions the Court stuff, 'no mercy, conviction, fines, etc'-Ed)...keep going, you'll get there...(so why is the Commissioner furiously denying something that she/ICAC has not actually been accused of-Ed)..............(ohhhhhh, the Commissioner is denying an accusation that hasn't been made-Ed)...bingo...

The ICAC Commissioner is furiously denying an accusation that hasn't actually been made.

The classic tell of a guilty mind...I do not know why ICAC Comm Ann Vanstone has felt so driven to deny this accusation that was never made, but I am bewildered as to why she would then choose to make these "wholly unfounded" and "patently false" statements about what ICAC did and/or didn't do...(and not least of all bewildering in that her statements are immediately proven false by the litany of documents, including extensive sections of Trial Testimony, etc, currently already in the hands of Authorities-Ed)...absolutely, that's what's so bizarre, denying an accusation that hasn't been made with lies easily, immediately proven to be "patently false"...  

Here's a transcript of what was reported on ABC Radio SE (news service via Adelaide) at 0700hrs 21st March 2024, for some reason 2 weeks after the fact...***

The Head of the Independent Commission Against Corruption has descried claims made about the agency by an Independent MLC in State Parliament as patently false.  In a Citizen’s Right of Reply tabled in State Parliament, Commissioner Ann Vanstone QC says she had been adversely affected in a speech by Frank Pangallo in the Legislative Council in February.  He’d referred to a newspaper article saying it contained detail to further smear the reputation of former Renewal SA boss John Hanlon and his colleague Georgina Vasilevski.  Ms Vanstone says Mr Pangallo also made patently false remarks about the conviction of Nick Fletcher for 22 counts of breaching the ICAC Act.  Mr Pangallo told Parliament Mr Fletcher was fined $500,000.  Ms Vanstone’s Right of Reply says Mr Fletcher was charged $3,500 for prosecution costs and received a community service order.

***And maaate Frank did contact me by phone on Friday 8th March and asked that I provide him any documentation in my possession such that he might defend these "patently false" statements by ICAC Comm Vanstone...and we'll get into that in coming posts...

Tomorrow: My 7-page Index For MLC Frank Pangallo

If I had to hazard a guess, and at this stage it is still very much a guess, but I'd reckon that Comm Vanstone has gone to the ICAC filing cabinet and found it to be entirely uncontaminated by any mention of a certain 'Nick Fletcher'...(perhaps it was under 'Mr Bastard'? perhaps she should look there?-Ed)...very amusing I'm sure, but the immediate implications are deeply sinister and massively concerning...

Because at face value, it looks like former ICAC Comm Bruce 'Brews Slander' Lander has conducted a 'Secret Investigation' of a private citizen, moi, a 'Secret Investigation' for which there is no 'official' paperwork...(never was?-Ed)...who knows, whatevs, and then that 'Secret File' has likely gone in maaate Bruce's pocket when he's shot-through...

At face value, it looks like ICAC has done a 'Secret Investigation' of a private citizen...and if ICAC has done this to me, then to how many others?...how many other 'ICAC Secret Files on Private Citizens' existed under maaate Bruce?...(or still exist?-Ed)...indeed, has maaate Bruce passed-on info from his illegal 'Secret Investigations' to others, eg, his politician mates for them to use?...

It's all pointless speculation until ICAC Comm Ann Vanstone is held to account for her extraordinary lies...and I call them lies 'cos I've contacted ICAC Comm Vanstone, twice, and very, very politely pointed-out that she has "Mis-led the Parliament", but she ain't havin' a word of it and, as the title states, has refused to correct her 'lies'...

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