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...
No comments:
Post a Comment