Blown PCB electrics - bad manufacture

This little piece is aimed at all electrical equipment installers [ white goods included ] and just goes to show you what sort of perpetrated bullsh*t goes on in the industry. We bought a 'MODERN' group roller door about 2 1/2 years ago and has given trouble free service [ chalk one point up for modern ]. But the 'MODERN' roller door is really made by 'Centurion" - that is, all the hard mechanical bits. The electrics are made by 'BOSS' electrics. All very fine and dandy, dandy and fine UNTIL something goes wrong and your out of warentee. The Motor PCB died a half death [ it lowers the door but won't reverse ]. .MODERN' only instal the thing through independant contractors with the kit from Centurion [ MODERN only put their badge on it ] so they recomended one of their repair contractors [ fair enough ]. Mind you I did take the thing apart [ motor assy ] and know it's the PCB. The PCB by the way is not laquared against weather or rodents or moisture [ kick in the arse to 'BOSS" ]. The local service agent TELLS ME that this model controler has ALWAYS given trouble with burnt out PCBs because of weather.
Ohh thats great, so every one who services these units [ including the people who make them ] has always known of the problem. The service agent told me I would be looking at $250 to replace the board [ presumably with an identicle one - Oh yea ] BUT I would be better off if I went directly to 'BOSS' and bought the board over the counter and fitted it myself because he's sure [ from my description of the fault ] that's what the problem is.
What are the chances of me going right up the arse of 'BOSS' for shitty manufacture. Nobody in their right mind makes a PCB board without laquaring it if it's prone to weather and this unit is NOT rubber sealed. In fact, it has more vent holes in it than a sieve. Stupidity personified or is it cunning ????. I should take the old board back and point out that it ' Musta missed the laquar stage , so it's faulty manufacture and I want a new one - LAQUARED!! - for free.' my chances ?? J.S. and F.A.
Following on from this story, I decided to buy the board myself - GOOD NEWS STORY

The 'BOSS' company was more than helpful, the PCB board is cheap and in abundance [ so much for prevoius bullsh*t about the cost from an instaler ] what's more I have identified the part that can itself be easily changed for [ wait for it :) ]
the princly sum of $7:55. I have decided to buy another board and keep the old one as a spare since the dodgy part is easily removed [ and there are 4 identicle ones to each board ] and placed on another board. I win.

A pont to ponder here, I found out, is that the part is exclusive to 'BOSS' so any old electronics store may be able to supply a near replacement but not the exact part. This is not a problem yet as I have 3 spare on the old board. I will be sure to lacquar the new board before fitting and eliminate the moisture problem which prabably caused the initial failier.

how to Defeat Road Radar rubbish - maybe :)

I have not personally inspected the workings of these cameras but I have been informed by someone who is conversant with their operation and knows how a mechanism must work to imprint additional information on hard film.

So the government is determined to crack down on speed demons by putting up stationary radar sites all over the shop [ eventually ] This is a typical case of treating the symptom and not the cause. Lets examine this methodology. If radar traps [ and thats all they are- traps ] were placed according to accident rates at those spots - well,
it would be a challenge to argue against it but when they are placed where there hasn't been an accident on that particular stretch of road since moses was a lad; that's just blatant revenue gathering. Some dick heads shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel not because of speed but WHERE they speed. I will expand on this later but first lets examine HOW the radar camera works hee hee !.

Because of legislation, radar cameras MUST use film and not electronic data gathering. Now if your unlucky enough to be 'flashed' by a stationary radar [ on a pole ] you will certainly get a little notice in the mail which will contain a nice picture of your car [ plates clearly visible ] and a time, date stamp as well as the recorded speed. Gotcha!!!. What most of you DONT know is HOW that date, time, speed stamp is superimposed on the film. The camera has to record images from 2 different locations - YOU in the lens and the data information from inside the camera [ everyone got that so far ? ]. In order to achive a double location image, the camera must use POLARIZED lenses [ getting the picture yet ?] one lens is polarized verticle and one horizontal [ like your sunglasses dummy ]. In order for only the data info to go to the film, the actual data is polarized so that garbage is filtered out, same with the actual lense gear. Which way the lens gear is polarized is as yet unknown but that doesn't present a problem here.

If I get one sheet of polarized film or plastic [ it will appear absolutely clear ] cut it in half, rotate one bit 90 degrees and butt the ends THEN slap it over my number plate; I have half a number plate polarized horizontal and half polarized vertical.

When the camera takes a picture of YOUR plate - either the numbers OR the letters will appear blacked out !!!! depending on which way the camera lens is polarized. Legislation dictates that if the picture does not identify the vehicle by plates - in the bin it goes. Thats why NOW these stationary cameras take a picture from behind to catch motor cycles [ which do not have front plates ] be sure to put the polarized film on both front and rear of a car. The legality of this is questionable but the reality is, its absolutely undetectable because the polarized film is absolutely glass clear from any angle and the plate is easily read by eyeball.

I have not confirmed absolutely this method and until proven, it's a 50/50 each way bet - but it sounds reasonable. Who wants to try it out and report on this blog ??

I am adding this bit because soon there will be NO toll booths on the gateway. If you do not have a transponder to register on the detector as you go thru, a camera will take a picture of your number plate from behind. You have 7 days to pay the toll.
Motor cycles have a rear [ and ONLY a rear ] number plate. Just watch how many cycles wizz through with a phoney plate [ stuck on by magnets over the real one ]
Seems old cycle plates kept by some will be worth a sh*t load to others, check e-bay guys and see what some are going for hee hee hee!. How much trouble is it to chuck a lump of mud on the rear plate of a car also. The Dept will spend more time chasing down unrecognised plates than collecting legit cash. Give up guys, even a copper couldn't detect when and if a car or cycle plate is phony when thousands of vehicles will whiz thru every hour.

Gone bad by 'use by' date - dairy products

I have related this tale before and I am going to make this little number informative as well as bitching about food products that go off BEFORE the 'use by' or 'best before' date. One notorious product or brand that I have stayed away from is 'PAULS'. In particular, their milk range. God only knows what they put in their products but as you will read, any dairy product will lose half its life with a little corruption in the chain.

When you live in a cold climate, or at that time of the year that freezes your buns off going to the store, you can bet there is hardly a hic-up in the chain of product deliveries that will knock half the life of dairy products - it's just too damn cold OUTSIDE. So in the days of the milko leaving milk on the front door step, it was either ice cold or frozen when you opened the door at 6am. Those days are gone but there is something you should know that has been going on for over 20 years [ that's right - 20 bloody years ] that is both blatantly illegal and a danger to your health.

A friend of mine [ a Milko for 20 years ] tells it like so. Delivery times are tight and the quicker you can get the milk from the bulk depot to the retailer, the better [ sounds fair enough ]. With refrigerated trucks of all sizes up to semi trailers, you can guarentee that the milk product will arrive at the retailer as cold as it left the factory [ Ummm sounds ok so far ]. HOWEVER, in order to save a sh*t load of time and agro AT the bulk depot, some one is there who will inevitably take the milk from the depot cold store and move it to the loading DOCK!. And there it sits till the truck arrives, getting warmer and warmer - the life of the product getting shorter and shorter by the minute. When the trucks deliver it to the retailer [ woolies, coles - the corner store ] it is NOW back to cold level but with half the shelf life knocked off it. Small delivery trucks might have their mates be at the store first to do all the work; who wants to spend half an hour of precious delivery time taking it straight from the cold store directly into the truck which has already arrived ?. I mention PAULS products because for some unbeknown'st reason, every paul's milk I have bought in the last 6 years [ 3 liter plastic cartons ] including funny brands processed by paul's, has gone totally off BEFORE the use by date. They should put in a revolving door with my name on it at woolies because if it goes off before the use by date, back it goes for another one - and another one [ hell - have I paid for any woolies milk at all lately ? damn, can't remember ].

Despite a plethora of authorities being informed of this practice for 6 years now, no-one has apparently done anything.
It made front page headlines in another city when authorities discovered the method and the company concerned was fined heaps, and that's 20 years ago!!. Old habits die hard, I guess. In any event, PAUL'S milk tastes funny to start with. There is a method of detecting the shelf life of milk.

When you buy your milk, use it as you will but leave about 200 MLS left and don't use it. About 2 days BEFORE the use by date [ if it lasts that long at your place ] put half of whats left in a mug [ with some instant coffee if you like ] and make yourself a 'cafe latte' by micro waving the mug of milk until it just starts to boil. Now take a sip. If it tastes like crap, it's off even though it may taste OK when cold. Take what's left [ 100 ML ] back where you bought it and tell them the shelf life was reduced when you bought it - by policy, you are certain to get a new full carton of milk. If some smart arse smells your left over COLD milk and sez it's OK, tell them to make a latte out of it while you wait. In all the milk returns I have made, I have not been challenged because its a customer satisfaction policy. After a while, maybe the message will sink in, but don't hold your breath. At least you will never have to pay for crappy milk again.

Now some bright sparks may think it clever to deliberately let the 200MLS of milk left go off by leaving it in the sun for a day and THEN take it back stone cold but totally off. I don't condone that sort of bullsh*t, I just want what I paid for.

cops corruption law references

some of the references may be out of order but I think the notes are right
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be aware of the fact that, according to the PPRA, [ Police powers and responsibilities act – Queensland ] a police officer may be DIRECTED to use unlawful means during a investigation; but this directive is governed by set rules and task force conditions. I cannot believe that this investigation possibly falls under this category, nor do I believe that such regulations governing this possible directive were fulfilled. I am confident that nothing of any nature was done to allow investigating officers to take ‘carte blanche’ in this instance of apparent and conveyed triviality. An inordinate amount of resources seems to be expended by somebody in the police service for what ever reason concerning this event.

[ Ref 01 ]

Legal advice informs me that this is a political statement reflecting statistics of the day, plain and simple. It is obvious that the unknown person in the Premiers office has taken it upon himself to declare what is ‘harassment’. This allegation is a ‘civil’ matter and although the police may be informed, and the matter reported to Telecom; it is up to Telecom to act on the complaint by informing the owner of the traced number that his phone is being used to ‘harass’ the terminating number. The fact that 126 pages of the message were received is not relevant. Ref: Queensland pensioner fined for feeding Pelican – A Current Affair calls for all Queenslanders to FAX a protest message to the Premiers office. Accordingly, when the number of faxes reaches 126, ACA would be guilty of harassing the Premiers office by incitement. The above facts were confirmed by Terry O;Gorman’s office when I attempted to explain the situation [ after confiscation of my wife’s PC ] . The CJC said – quote “ this is a civil matter NOT a criminal matter, goodbye ”.

[ Ref 02 ]

Here an assumption is made with flawed logic – it may well be an offense to send a ‘harassing’ message using Telstra but the prima-fascia allegation is harassment itself and since this is a civil matter, a charge under the Telecommunications act cannot apply until the charge of harassment is proven in court. Sect 92-1 breach “Extrinsic fraud” where by the officer has stated absolutely that a charge under the Telecommunications act applies absolutely no matter what. Note that my apparent identification of my wife’s machine and no other machine was at that instance, the only machine capable of sending an intelligible fax. Later enquiries to the CMC were met with the extraordinary statement from a female staff member that the ‘charge’ of harassment IS a criminal matter [??]. If this is correct, all the legal advice that I have been given from both solicitors, a retired QC, 4^th year law students, legal aid and internet commentaries – is wrong!. I will make no further comment on this but to say that I have been told NOT to go to the CMC by half the people I have sort advice and comments from. During conversations with the CMC representative, I had the strangest impression I was talking to a police officer. This CMC rep did everything in her power to convince me that every thing I have [ and will later ] related did not even constitute a breach of ANY description.

[ Ref 03 ]

PCC K.T. has just told me how serious the offence of ‘harassment’ is in one breath; now she is saying it is not. [??].

[ Ref 04 ]

1.Slanderous statement; that is – a totally untrue statement concerning myself made to my wife and overheard by me. By what stretch of the imagination can they make this slanderous statement ?.

The CMC rep commented that this was not a slanderous statement as it was a statement of belief at the time. However; this answer does not satisfy the basic criteria of a belief in the circumstances. A belief must be substantiated by a probability that is reasonable and BASED on KNOWN facts. Again this statement flies in the face of legal advice obtained from many sources.

If this statement had been made DIRECTLY to me as the person believed to be responsible for the event, I could have questioned the allegation and confirmed it to be nothing more than an ‘allegation’. But law dictates that a slanderous statement would, could be upheld in this case; where-by a third person is told directly that, in essence or by inference, the police have PROOF that I did it. In plain language – The police have told another person that I am guilty of the alleged offence when there is, cannot be at the time, not a shred of evidence to support the statement. If that is not slander then something is seriously wrong here.

2.Breach PPRA – “A police officer shall not obtain a confession by threat or promise”

Whether or not I may be deemed to have done it, one cannot say without proof positive which is impossible to obtain.

Here the CMC has advised that the officer was just quoting a probable outcome. Does this mean that I have to be threatened with physical injury before the breach occurs ?. I have been advised elsewhere that in this particular instance, the breach is real because of the choice of words, it’s connection to the unfounded, unreasonable belief that I MUST have done it, and an incentive to ‘admit’ I did it with total disregard to any statements previously made. No other qualifying statements were attached to this quote; as example – “ ..now IF you did do it. .and you admit to it “.

3.Sect 92-1 breach – No obligations or rights were conveyed to either myself or my wife when I was asked to attend a formal interview. As I understand it, [ and this too has been confirmed by legal advice ] one is obliged [ but is not mandatory ] to have legal representation present at any formal interview. However, police are obligated to inform anyone that legal representation is advisable and allow a suspect to have one present. What would a formal interview achieve ?. Under the section as defined, this constitutes ‘extrinsic’ fraud where-by there was an omission of information that would effectively deny me my legal rights or a right under law to have legal representation present.

[ Ref 05 ]

1. PPRA – “The person[s] for whom the warrant is issued against must be so named on the warrant” If the warrant was issued for confiscation of goods believed to be on the premises, then third party allegation wording would / should have been used. IE: It is alleged that there is on the premises at …items [ software / hardware ] which may have been used to blah blah blah. But personal 1^st party allegations are implied so a suspect must be named. By stating that ‘You’ - any person to whom the warrant was given on the premises would imply that THAT person was the alleged offender. This makes the warrant issued ILLEGAL!!

Again, casual internet legal advice has confirmed that it’s the specific wording that makes it ‘fall over’. Of all things that have to be correct to the letter, the warrant is certainly one of them. The exceptions to the naming rule are so named under the legislation and, in this case, do not apply [ Public house, hotel, park etcetera ].

The advice from the CMC in this instance was emphatic. According to their interpretation, nobody need be named on the warrant under any circumstances. But an attempt WAS made to cover this aspect with the above phrase – which I tried to explain. My attempts to clarify this were in vain

2. Questions that must be asked.. Who made the decision to issue a warrant for the confiscation of SELECTED item[s] in a civil accusation of harassment ? An allegation that has been confirmed – cannot possibly be sustained under law. Why was there such a delay between investigation in the first instance and the issuing of the warrant ?. Based on what hard evidence was the warrant issued [ forget the test fax – technical reasons exclude it] . If you take all my statements, it would be reasonable to conclude that there was a high probability that evidence of the alleged offence would not be present after this initial visit. What was presented as reasonable to the issuing authority that granted the warrant ?. Was there consultation regarding the format of the fax, it’s wording [ a political statement reflecting known facts of the day ] as well as resources committed to pursuing an event that would have apparently no value or legal definitive outcome in law before a court. And several other questions that don’t make any sense.

3. Why was only ONE machine confiscated. No software or any other machine was taken. If my statements in the first instance were to be believed, what events followed that led them to believe I was not telling the truth ?. IE. If I was lying, why take only ONE machine and nothing else. If I was telling the truth, why take any machine ( and NO software ) ?. Nothing adds up except the fact they must have been TOLD to go though this scenario by others with total disregard for rule of law and common sense.

[ Ref 06 ]

The warrant for the PC is controlled by the 30 day time factor [ legislation dictates that a proceeding MUST have been started ] This is under the assumption that evidence either for or against the suspect HAS been sighted ON his PC [ Not his wife’s PC ]. Now the definition of Proceeding may have multiple interpretation – but In actual fact, the LEGAL definition of a ‘proceeding’ is bound with and tied to a process of prosecution by charge.

The continuance legislation says the PC can be held if EITHER and investigation OR a proceeding has started OR [ in the first instance ] is on-going.

But the legislation dictates that this continuance or form 25 can only be issued AFTER the retention period with ‘proceeding’ marked on it. The fact that there is a box with investigation on the form does NOT tell you the conditions or time scale under which it too can be marked. This condition is enshrined in the legislation.

The fact that any box is marked isn’t worth anything if it doesn’t fore-fill the legislation requirements !!. By failing to issue the form 25 within the 30 days [ where-by an ‘ongoing investigation’ could be legally marked ], a proceeding [ according to the PPRA ] is deemed to have been started; there-fore ONLY this box may be so marked if the form 25 is so issued after the 30 days [ can’t get any plainer than that ]. Since a proceeding had not been started, because the PC had not been examined – AND since any evidence of the fax that may have been sighted [ if it existed – which it did NOT in any event ] could never lead to any credible charge against anyone, for anything…. The police obviously lied to the issuing authority [ falsified an official court document ] in an effort to retain the PC. Any of this make sense ??. This is official corruption and a breach of both the PPRA AND the crimes act and probably a public service act as well.

[ Ref 07 ]

In a attempt to trivialise the breach, PCC Thomas’s commander has breached Section 92-1 of the PPRA. He now had full knowledge that under the act, a police officer had committed an offence which was covered under 3 acts.

Attempting to pervert – Conspiring to pervert – Attempting to defeat – Conspiring to defeat – Perverting and Defeating the course of justice as well as PPRA 92-1 extrinsic fraud [ three counts ].

[ Ref 08 ]

So many breaches here, one hardly knows where to begin. According to the chief magistrates clerk at Brisbane central court – the following should have occurred. I should have been given a hearing date BEFORE serving any papers. I should have presented the complaint hearing papers to Roma Street Headquarters [ the station of the issuing officer ]. I should have signed an affidavit of service at Sandgate after serving the papers. The date set should have NEVER been a Tuesday as this day [ according to her worship ] is EXCLUSIVLY and KNOWINGLY by all - set aside for family matters ONLY!.

I have been so advised that this multiple scenario [ inspired perhaps by the police prosecutor AT Sandgate Magistrates court who would have received the complaint petition first to forward to Roma Street headquarters ] is definitely grounds for the chief clerk to ‘please explain’ before the public service board. Any proven influence by the local police prosecutor on the clerk amounts to another serious PPRA breach.

[ Ref 09 ]

This fiasco was related to my solicitor who agreed that this was a favourite ‘trick’ that is acceptably played on unsuspecting complainants. I maintain that this admission of methodologies warrants immediate investigation of the system. This is an act of fraud, plain and simple and is covered under the PPRA, public service and criminal acts. Please be aware that PCC Kristan Thomas was NOT named specifically on the first court petition.

[ Ref 10 ]

Multiple instances of breaches by both the chief clerk and police prosecutor at Sandgate Magistrates court.

[ Ref 11 ]

Clearly a breach of PPRA 92-1 Unconscionable behaviour by a police officer. It is not her right or duty to have a stand up argument with a complainant BEFORE entering the court for the matter to be heard by a magistrate.

[ Ref 12 ]

Multiple breaches of the public service act – failure to execute proper procedure as defined under the act. What are the odds that a public servant [who had dealt with perhaps a hundred other people since my last visit] should instantly recognise my face and sir name ?. The act quoted on the submission is EXACTLY the same act as submitted to the clerk at Brisbane Central Magistrates Court who checked and approved the application.

[ Ref 13 ]

Continuing breaches of the public service act. I did everything but leap over the counter and threaten assault when I initially stressed that NO ONE but Her Worship, Ms Dowes, was to re-hear this submission by direct instruction from the Brisbane Central Court Magistrate. Failure to notify me that Ms Dowes was NOT going to be present. This scenario begs the following evaluation –

Why was Ms Dowes unable to be present [ was she TOLD to go away or had her trip been previously planned ?] Who instructed Ms Dowes [ if she was told to go elsewhere ] and WHEN ?. Either way, the clerk of courts is blatently guilty of misconduct under the public service act [ Please be aware that on this, my 4^th attempt to have the matter heard, I so NAMED P.C.C. Kristan Thomas on the complaint form submission ]. The complaint form would have been passed to the Sandgate Police Prosecutor before being delivered [ if it ever was] to Roma Street. If consultation between the police prosecutor and the clerk of the court was initiated – this amounts to serious interference and a criminal act.

[ Ref 14 ]

A police officer is not, either by regulation or law, obliged to appear in the court with regards to a complaint, that’s exactly what the Magistrates Court Police officer’s duty is . . . EXCEPT, when SO named on a petition or submission subsequently GRANTED for hearing by the court. P.C.C. Kristan Thomas, under rule of law, was in contempt of the court. She was the ONLY person who would, could, should answer the question “ why was proceeding so marked by you on the form 25 after the obligatory 30 days when a proceeding was impossible” ?.

[ Ref 15 ]

This seems more than odd to say the least – I reiterate; I was the complainant not an accused. My reason for the submission was completely ignored. Does this not come under ‘abuse of process’ ?.

[ Ref 16 ]

As a former Commonwealth Public Servant of 10 years standing, if any paperwork pertaining to any matter is submitted to a court, [ and this fax was so submitted for the magistrate to read and quote from- I am the COMPAINANT! And this fax was read as an apparent reason to retain the PC so it is deemed as part of a ‘defence’ argument and there-fore, part of the court process and ruling. It does not have to be officially declared as a court document unless I was the ACCUSED in a court proceeding. Since the final ruling was based solely on this revelation by fax to the magistrate, it automatically becomes a court document in argument ] a copy of it MUST be held in the file if one exists [ and it does ] so that there is argument by police as to why they held the PC; it’s also argument for me as to WHEN the PC was examined.. It is a federal offence to alter, destroy, remove, omit or add anything to a public file without due authorization.- This document was non – existent in the file on inquiry to the Magistrates clerk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A short form of what's involved here

This reference has been ammended as of 14 dec 2011. The PPRA has been completely re-written with my references no longer applying [ sect 92.1 ]. I downloaded a complete copy of the NEW PPRA [ when was this passed into law ?]. Having read it from page one to end, I am shocked beyond belief at some of the directives police can now get away with. Your rights as a citizen NO LONGER EXIST !!!. The PPRA in essence states that police can do anything, say anything, if THEY have a suspicion [ without a shred of proof, evidence, data] that a crime might, could, should, may, happen anytime now or in the distant future. Without the slightest plausable excuse, the police have been granted the power to tell you what to do, when to do it, how to do it and threaten you with further powers for questioning them. God help you all, citizens, you have no idea what the ammended PPRA gives police in this state.

cops corruption - the longest yard

This little piece is written from 2 aspects. The first part is mine but written after a net buddy took the guts half way through the scenario and wrote a net piece in another blog so the time span will be backwards. It's bloody long and there are reference files to go with it but I urge you to read it in it's entirety even if you know nothing about the law. It's a pain and its wordy and it's all true - every f*cking word of it; whats more, I intend to keep multiple copies of every scrap of evidence until it's passed on to my family at life's end. Also be aware that every liberal politician in Queensland got a full copy. Only one replied and he told me he wasn't going to touch it with a barge pole [ wonder why :) ??] So much for a concern for your welfare and justice. The covert and secret network of upper management corruption is now so intrenched [ I believe ] that no one could root it out. So settle back, grab a coffee and be prepared to have your eyes opened to a few home truths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think that, in Queensland, corruption has been reduced to not significant stage following the big clean up of 16 years ago ?. Then your in for a rude shock. From a theoristic standpoint, every big clean up does 2 things. Firstly, it catches out most of the stooges that the REAL corruption perpetrators would like to get rid of in the first place.

Remember, a corrupt cop has to be smart enough not to get caught, and stupid enough to follow orders from king pins without question for a supposed benefit. Unfortunately, as the king pins realize, the longer you use stupid people, the more slip ups they inevitably make. And it only takes one slip up to open the box to someone like me with enough curiosity to see what’s inside. The smart cops in the lower ranks will bend the law as much as they KNOW they can get away with and not follow directions from anyone, including the crooked higher ranks. So it’s to the advantage of the real crooked cops to cull the idiots from their network and perpetrate criminal action with a few key players. The best way to get honest cops out of your road AND get the job done is keep the honest cops as stupid as possible about their own function in a particular circumstance. Once the honest cops realize they have been ‘had’ by crooked superiors, there is no other course to follow than do what they are told, don’t ask questions and follow the ‘I was only doing what I was TOLD was legal” scenario. It gets to a point when others try to tell the respective person that what they did [ are doing ] is blatantly illegal, they just refuse to allow themselves the luxury of proof. You want to nail someone for possession? Easy, just send out people who know as little as possible about the laws they are challenging someone with. But everyone can get the idea. Now it follows logically, when you have the big ‘cleanup’; it don’t take too long to get dirty again [ even with a touch up once a week – just like house work ]. But this time the real perpetrators of corruption have had enough time to establish a covert and almost clandestine network; that is so finely tuned and stretched, it takes someone with time and patience to put the puzzle together and get the picture. Mostly it takes the gathering of tiny bits of information to see where its all going – in the end, you don’t need the last piece of the puzzle because all the other bits put together virtually spell it out. So here is how I put it all together and what really surprised me was [ and I won’t name the identity ] MOST criminal lawyers in Brisbane KNOW about the whole setup and consider it ‘par for the course’. There is no way I could possibly get ‘done’ for slander or defamation in all this because every fucking word of it from letter one is both true and in the public interest. Why I will not reveal who I am is contained within these documents and if you haven’t guessed, the light will dawn on you as you read this saga.

Below is a submission that SHOULD have been seen by a magistrate, but as you will read, everything short of arresting me was done to make sure I did not submit it before stepping into court with my complaint. Oh sure, I can still contact a plethora of people privately and present them with all the facts but this isn’t good enough in law. For a starter, it would then take ten times longer for any officials to covertly investigate everything. It would of course have the added advantage of not alerting the perpetrators to anything amiss allowing said perpetrators to carry on believing all is well. I haven’t the time nor patience to go through this additional bull shit as I have spent more than enough time piecing it all together – nor do I have the money to embark on a crusade like action that entails hauling someone into court to answer questions [ unless there is adequate compensation for me at the end of it ]; however I will make certain that all this is exposed to the public first, then see who does what about it. Remember, it would take me forever to make enough noise to catch someone’s attention who would nail these S.O.B’s; in the mean time, the mothers who are doing this to everyone [ not just me ] would have more than enough time to compose bull shit stories and make documents disappear. In my case, I can go through the best course of action here. Documents can’t disappear in my case because I already have kept my copies and other bits are secured by the public service act. So if certain records ‘magically’ vanish – that confirms the allegation in the first place. In other words, they’re fucked.

The reference numbers pertain to breaches of law and additional comments. These may be found in another enclosed document

On or about the 17^th November - 2002 [ A Sunday ] – Two plain clothes policeman [ PCC C. Thomas (young female) and another believed to be a senior detective] from the ‘organized crime squad’ ask to discuss a matter at my premises. The police explained they had received a complaint from the Premiers office from a person in the premier’s office. The alleged complaint was - a fax had been sent to them and that this unnamed person in the premier’s office considered the fax to be harassment of the afore-said office. The fax [ copies of which were produced ] contained the phrase.

“get over 45’s back to f**king work – we don’t need no f**king training – we have been trained to f**king death – you cant buy food with f**king brownie points”.

[Ref 01 ]

My wife and I denied any knowledge of the fax – the police stated that tracing the source through Telecom had shown that the fax originated from my premises.

Please note that only the premises can be identified – it is impossible to identify the machine that sent it.

I told the police that there was only one personal computer capable of sending a readable fax [ we had no fax machine perse ]. The computer was shown and I also said the other computers present at that immediate instance on the premises were – my wife’s employers working computer which had no connection to the alleged phone line number traced, [ I pointed out the Telstra ISDN unit socket and demonstrated the phone attached to it ] and my own personal computer which was being modified and incapable of sending a readable fax of any description due to serious program errors. [ the officers sighted this unit with the covers removed and various wiring exposed ] They said that they accepted my word in this instance. I also informed them that, as far as I could recall; on or about the time of the ‘alleged’ offence, there were as many as seven people on the premises. All of the afore said persons [ friends of my son ] were gathered to play games using computers and the internet via the premises data line.

During all of this inquiry, no notes were taken down by anyone. The senior detective [ who appeared older than me] spent most of the time sitting at the kitchen table, staring blankly at the table and chewing gum – totally bored stupid with the whole scene – or so it appeared.

I offered [ without prompt ] to send a demonstration fax to the police headquarters as a test and comparison of format but stating this really would not prove anything as the format depends entirely on the receiving device and NOT on the sending device. With difficulty, this was done in the police presence. [ PCC Thomas was in the kitchen talking to my wife; I was less than 3 meters away in the work room attempting to send a fax with the senior detective beside me ]. Both officers stressed to my wife and myself that they knew absolutely nothing concerning the operations of computers and appeared bored to tears when anything technical was quoted to them; in fact, I was told in plain language that they were not in the slightest bit interested in any technical explanations and did not wish me to elaborate [ a polite way of saying shut up ].

My wife asked what the alleged offense was [or alleged charge if applied ] and was told [verbatim] “ that it was an offense to send ‘harassing communications’ using Telstra and that this alleged offense was defined under the Telecommunications act “.

[ Ref 02 ]

My wife then asked what the penalty in this instance would be if the charge was proven against anyone on these premises in this particular instance. The reply was [verbatim] “ It is such a trivial matter that there would be an extremely high probability of no charges being laid or any penalty of any description applied “.

[Ref 03 ]

While I was in the wife’s computer room with the senior detective, I overheard the following comment made by PCC Thomas to my wife. –Verbatim “ we know he did it but if he agrees to a formal interview and admits he did it, all he will get is a slap on the wrist and ‘naughty boy, don’t do it again’ “.

[ Ref 04 ]

At NO TIME! In the first instance [ first inquiries ] Were the following questions put by either officer

“ Is this the same PC that was present, with all hard drives, at the time of the alleged offense” [ To which I would have answered ‘no’ - the hard drive had failed between the time of the alleged offense and that instance, and I had replaced it. ]

“ Were any other PC’s on the premises at the date of the alleged offense that had access to the afore-mentioned phone line” [ to which I would have said – and did make known to the police officers present - ‘yes’ possibly as many as seven PC’s on the premises at the time of the alleged offense – all having free access to the phone line afore mentioned so the fax could have come from any machine present on that date ].

Again we have a total disregard for this statement.

The officers left.

On the 22^nd of November. The afore mentioned police officers presented themselves at my premises with a search and seizure warrant which stated that they may search and seize ‘ any material or thing of any description capable of sending a fax ’. The date of the alleged offense was 21^st October 2002. The Warrant also stated “ It is alleged that you did ….” My name did not appear anywhere on the warrant

[ Ref 05 ]

They proceeded to remove one whole computer – that which I had previously sent a demonstration fax with. I started to remove the hard drive only since that is essentially where all information lies. This would leave me the ‘box’ to install another drive and give functionality to the PC whilst they had the data drive . The officer said “No – we want the whole computer “.

[?] I then informed them that this was NOT the same PC that was present at the time of the alleged offense. This fact made no difference to the removal of the whole PC.[??] Quote verbatim by PCC Thomas – “ It doesn’t matter – we are going to take it anyway” [?]

A comment was then made by the officer with PCC Thomas at the front door just before they departed “ I fully sympathies with your situation – but if you come down to police headquarters and JUST SAY you did it – you get THIS PC back, no repercussions, just a slap on the wrist and ‘naughty boy, don’t do it again’ discuss this with your wife and let us know”

[ Ref 04 – 2 second breach ]

The wife’s work computer was not removed, nor my system which was still only partly operational. No software capable of installing a fax program was removed. No software or media of any description was removed. Only that PC which I had stated was capable of sending a fax at that very instance on the afore-mentioned phone line was removed.

After legal consultation, my wife explained over the phone that very day that under legislation, they may only retain possession of the PC for 30 days unless specific charges against someone could be laid. The comment by PCC Thomas was [verbatim and maybe recorded by police tapes] “ We can keep the PC for as long as we like until the forensic lab get around to testing it for information – and at the present time, this may be up to 16 weeks due to their work load and the low priority of this investigation, we will let you know ”.

[ Ref 04 – 2 third breach ]

On the 6^th Of January, I rang PCC Thomas [ 5 times in fact before I got a return call ] and reminded her that the required period had elapsed, no communication of any description concerning anything regarding the alleged charge had been forth coming, and that I wished to repossess the PC; to which she replied “ I will take out an order to retain the PC dated the 6^th January 2003 – a copy will be mailed to you”. [ I was under the impression that such a document must be presented in person ? ]

On the 8^th of January 2003, I received a letter through normal mail deliveries, with the continuance [ form 25 ] enclosed. The continuance was signed by a magistrate or J.P. dated 6^th January 2003. [ 4 days after the mandatory period of 30 days ]. The box marked “proceeding” only was marked.

[ Ref 06 ]

I made a formal complaint to the district commander of police over the phone. Later the same day, I received a phone call from an officer whom I believe was PCC Thomas’s superior. He told me that they could and would keep the PC for as long as required until the forensic department could see their way clear with work load to do it. He , nor PCC C.T. could do nothing until that time. I mentioned the clear breach of the form 25 according to the PPRA and he admitted it was an slight error and that PCC Thomas had been reprimanded for it. I told him that an offense had been committed by his police officer in that an official court document [ form 25 ] had been falsified. This made no difference to his insistence that they could hold the PC for as long as the police deemed it necessary.

He also stated that if I should have any knowledge of the alleged person who sent the alleged fax, that it would be in my best interest to have the alleged person send a letter of apology. This suggestion by the officer to whom I was talking, it was conveyed to me, to have the probable result that all matters would be finalized with no penalty to myself [ or the alleged sender of the afore mentioned fax ] being forthcoming. The officer also stated that it would not be in their interest to return the PC as – Quote “ we will only have to enact another order and take it off you again when you get it back. “.

[ Ref 07 ]

After paid legal council advice, I approached the Sandgate Magistrates court with a submission to have the PC returned quoting legislation that enabled me to do this. The required and directed paperwork was submitted and copies duly delivered to the Sandgate police station before I was subsequently notified by the magistrates court [ via phone communication ] of the due date to be heard which was to be a Tuesday. At no time was it suggested that this date was for mention only. At no time until appearance, did I know that this date was usually and exclusively set down for domestic matters. [?]. I was informed of this date of appearance AFTER the appropriate papers were served on police at Sandgate police station.

I did NOT sign an affidavit of service, and I was NOT directed to serve the papers at the station of the warrant officers.

[ Ref 8 ]

On the due date, I presented myself at the court, anticipating that this matter would be addressed only to find that this day had indeed been set aside exclusively for ‘domestic’ cases and the Magistrate had absolutely no knowledge of this matter and it would there-fore be held over for mention as previously described.

After discussion with a police officer involved with the mention, he said – quote ‘ We’ll go to my office and give her a ring and see what date is convenient for her to appear next time ‘ had ascertained by inquiry on the phone to PCC Thomas in his office in my presence that the 17^th of March 2003 would be a suitable date for PCC Thomas to attend a formal hearing. [ This in itself is , in my opinion, a bizarre procedure after I had emerged from the court room – PCC Thomas is neither required by protocol or legislation to appear anywhere; – unless so ordered by petition granted by the court in proceedings enacted by a complainant - This is the function of a police spokesperson in each magistrates court. And she is NOT named specifically on that submission. The answer to this fiasco would be interesting indeed .]

The date was thus apparently set and I left the court without further inquiry of any description to the clerks office. [ This makes it nearly the 16 weeks that the PC would have been held for examination – the same length of time quoted by police as the time needed until the afore mentioned PC could be examined by forensics ]. The police representative at the Sandgate Magistrates court had assured me in his office that it was absolutely mandatory that I should set a date totally convenient to PCC C. Thomas.

He said – quote –“ She can’t very well appear in this matter if she’s bogged down with other court appearances “. Leading me to believe that she had a court appearance every day up until the apparent free date quoted by the police officer of the court – fantasy at it’s finest. This statement also verifies the contention that I was supposed to accept the belief that she WOULD appear on a set date when it became blatantly obvious she had no intention of doing so.

[ Ref 09 ]

On or about 4 days before the due date [ having absolutely no communications of any description from the Sandgate Magistrates Court either verbally or in writing ] I presented myself before the clerk to inquire about my appearance date and more specifically, the time for appearance. I was told that the date was previously set for the 7^th of March 2003 [ not the 17^th as convey to me by the police representative of Sandgate Magistrates Court ] – I did not appear so the matter was summarily dismissed.

[ Ref 10 ]

A former QC was queried in this matter over the internet to gauge response - quote - “ This is unconscionable behavior on the part of the Sandgate magistrates court clerk and is definitely, by rule of law, a clear and absolute breach of section 92-1 where-by this behavior has not only prejudiced the complainant in his legal right to redress before THAT court, but cost him time and money in his efforts to correct it” .

Considerations [ For Her Worship Ms Dowes ]

The alleged fax.

The fax contained profanity that is not in law perse – illegal in the reference it has been allegedly used let alone any other arguable reference [ reference sources: dictionary and German town of the same name – a printed copy of which is produced here-with. ]

The fax contained no threats, cohesive or retributive statements against anyone either as an individual or body corporate, private or government entity.

The fax contained in texture and degree, a political expression and statement of plain facts as reflected by statistics.

The allegation of ‘harassment’ of a government department is in this instance assumed to be one persons view of ‘harassment’ within that department. This personal singular evaluation has caused this person to assume the judgmental role of what in law is deemed to be ‘harassment’ from a fax of blatant and obvious political motive and stature.

The fax was repeated 125 times in the instance of it occurrence but does not reflect any intention or proof of intention in law, of the alleged sender to either send the alleged fax 125 times or convey any alleged purpose in sending the alleged fax 125 times.

That is – the alleged sender of the fax has/had apparently no control over the replication of the alleged fax on the second party machine if the receiving machine was incompatible with the instructions sent to it from the alleged first machine.

This is a regular problem with communications between a computer based fax program – of which there are a plethora - and a dedicated fax machine. Protocol incompatibility may be where page breaks and ‘end of transmission’ codes are not interpreted correctly by the receiving dedicated fax machine. Pure ASCII code or words are received according to international standards but machine control codes may be corrupt or misunderstood.

On some dedicated fax machines there is a provision in the set up for “forced release” to account for just this event but it must be enacted in the setup of the receiving dedicated fax machine for it to function – Some Voca machines are particularly prone to this anomaly .

The wording of the alleged fax may be imprinted on any other medium [ T-shirt, sign ] with out projecting or appearing to project anything of any nature in law that is unlawful by projecting and expressing a political view with the medium at hand or medium of preference or convenience. It is unlawful [ federal legislation ] to discriminate against anyone expressing a political view and the legislation does NOT discriminate nor define the medium by which a person or persons may/might/must OR not - chose to express such a political view.

The alleged charge.

In order for a criminal proceeding to be initiated against anyone that involves the Telecommunications act and subsequent alleged charge of an offense under that act, it seems logical that Telstra MUST be a co-participant in the alleged accusation of harassment of the third party under the act. Does Telstra know in any capacity of the alleged harassment ?. Are they co-participants in the alleged investigation of an alleged breach of the Telecommunications act ?. Will they be a co-participant in any legal proceedings involving the alleged harassment of a government department in this instance ?. [ Unknown at this instant ]

The alleged premises.

It is possible that the alleged fax may have been sent by person or persons unknown at the date of the alleged fax since it is alleged that as many as seven machines may have been in operation and may have used the alleged phone line for purposes of entertainment.

The dates:

Between the time of the alleged offense and the questioning of the occupiers of the alleged premises – there was a gap of approximately 2 weeks

Between the time of the questioning of the occupiers of the alleged premises and the serving of the warrant, there was a gap of approximately 2 weeks.

Between the time of the seizure of the PC for examination and the time that I rang PCC Thomas to remind her a second time of legislation [ took 5 calls to track her down ], there was a gap of 34 days.

The date set by the magistrates court for apparent expedition of the matter was set AFTER the appropriate documents for this submission were delivered to police.

The date set for this submission was on a date commonly known to be set aside for domestic matters [?] and was subsequently set aside by the magistrate for formal hearing at police convenience. [ I am the complainant – the police are the respondent ]

The date set by PCC Thomas for formal hearing and submission after the matter was set aside on 21^st January was to be the 17^th of March 2003. This date was conveyed to me by the police representative at the time. I was to assume at that time [ and was so stated by the police spokesperson ] from this statement that the respective officer was bound up in court appearances every day until the 17^th of March [ ??] inquiries before that date of appearance were met with the discovery that the date had been re-set by the court for the 7^th of March and the matter was heard and dismissed as mentioned above. PCC Thomas had no intention of appearing anywhere as she is not required too.

No communication of any description from the Sandgate Magistrates Court has / was made from the time of initial date notification to this date. [ Sandgate Magistrates Records should / would confirm this fact ].

Alleged offense considerations:

The PC held in storage by Roma St Police Headquarters for examination at their convenience, [ and as yet, NOT examined – as far as I am aware ] is allegedly not the same PC to have been present at the date of the alleged transmission of the alleged fax. No information of any nature attached to, or connected with the alleged fax can possibly be found. This fact was made known to the police prior to seizure of the alleged PC.

Discrimination of suspected alleged offender is apparent since it is / has been automatically assumed that the male partner of the premises from which the alleged offense occurred has / is assumed guilty until the alleged offender proves definitely that he is not. And that’s disregarding all considerations and implications of proving a real alleged offense had apparently taken place.

Whether any alleged information pertaining to any alleged and as yet unproven offense, is found or not; There cannot be, nor will ever be any proof of alleged offense by anyone since the PC is and has been accessed by a number of person at the date of the alleged offense..

The police have projected an assumed total air of triviality in this matter by constantly reminding me of the triviality of the alleged offense. The police have projected the view to me that a fine [ if applicable at your worships pleasure ] would be minimal and have a great probability of not being applied [ absence of previous appearances or convictions for anything plus character references ].

All the above events have been described to the shadow police ministers office and it has been made known to me that this alleged offense is the second instance of a person or persons being suspected of an alleged similar offence with a maximum fine to be applied or not [ at the magistrates pleasure ] of $70-$100 and no conviction recorded - This second alleged offense made known to me by the shadow ministers office, was conveyed to me to be in their opinion, of a purely political stature and motive.

The alleged offender [ Me ] of the alleged criminal act is a telecommunications technician of some 35 years standing, and is fully aware of what can be done with telecommunications medium – including probability of detection for an alleged offense.

The alleged offender has proven that a fax of any description may be transmitted by anyone to anywhere from any ‘Centerlink’ office with out fear or possibility of being identified as the alleged sender of a said fax. Equally, E-mail box flooding techniques would be a guarantee of effective and anonymous political statement.

Consideration questions

If data pertaining to the alleged offense is found on the confiscated PC, does this mean the alleged accused is guilty of composing and subsequently sending the alleged fax, deemed to be allegedly a harassing fax by accusation from one person unknown in the premiers office; simply because he is unemployed and resides at the alleged premises where the fax line was allegedly traced to ?.

If any alleged data that can be deemed to be related to the alleged offense is found on the PC, does it follow that the author as identified by data, should be charged ?. The author of works composed on a PC is ‘locked’ to the registrant of the loaded program and all works composed using that PC with the afore-mentioned program will always have that authors name stamp on/in it irregardless of WHO used the PC to compose that data using that program. [ In which case my wife would be charged since the programs are registered in her name – not mine ].

Is it acceptable that anyone found on the alleged premises at the time of inquiry concerning an alleged offense over 3 weeks old, should be arbitrarily named as the alleged offender based solely on his social circumstance because these circumstances address the subject contained in the alleged fax ?.

Is it acceptable that police inquiries should convey an air of triviality to an alleged offender of an alleged illegal act and simultaneously convey an air of seriousness in the matter to other bodies ?. [ police records confirm this apparent projected air of triviality with regards to the seriousness of the alleged offense ]

Is it acceptable that police officers who conducting an investigation into an alleged criminal breach, should make an alleged statement to the alleged accused, that constitutes in law, extortion or coercive methods that have no legal basis to execute during routine inquiry ? [ affidavit to the alleged statement can be forth coming at your worships pleasure ].

What was the apparent or real motive for accepting my word that ONLY the confiscated PC was capable of sending a fax on the respective phone line – then NOT accepting my word that it was not the same hard drive as present at the time of the alleged offense ?

That is – if I was lying, why wasn’t all three PC’s removed ?

If I was telling the truth, why remove the PC at all ?

It does not add up no matter which way you look at it. There is only one conclusion left and that is, removal of the afore-mentioned PC had apparently nothing to do with any alleged breach of law.

Is it acceptable that police procedure should be so nonchalantly disregarded in following rules and legislation then knowingly and purposefully breach these regulations - and cause a magistrate or J.P. to breach these regulations also ? [ dates on submitted forms are confirmation of this fact ]

Does Telstra have any knowledge or legal involvement in any proceedings or investigation into the alleged matter of alleged harassment using an electronic medium under their control ?. [ This is unknown to me – but it would be interesting to find out !]

Is personal perception of media by one or more persons constitute grounds for criminal action rather than civil action of any description for alleged and perceived ‘harassment’ by one or more persons in a Government establishment ?.

Does 16 weeks [ or 7 months to this date !! ] to examine evidence in an alleged criminal act [ Harassment ?? ] constitute a fair and reasonable time [ under legislation ] to expedite all matters in ascertaining the presence of proof ?; Does this time period also constitute fair and reasonable expedition of an investigation when assumption of guilt is already instituted in the minds of the investigating officers – without reasonable doubt or examination of circumstances surrounding all aspects of the alleged offense at the alleged premises on the alleged date ?.

Does the burden of innocence or guilt in the alleged offense as stated, rest solely and completely on the findings of examination of the assumed alleged offender’s property ? and does THIS not warrant fair and speedy expedition of the matter by police in proving ONLY that an assumed alleged offense was committed [ or not ] using the alleged PC afore mentioned and confiscated ?. [ At the exclusion of all other apparatus or software present on the alleged premises at the time of warrant execution – this action was based on the assumed alleged offenders sole statements ].

Does the presence of any alleged offensive or assumed offensive data on the afore mentioned PC that may constitute proof of an alleged offense of ANY description, automatically make the alleged suspect an assumed perpetrator of the data ? [ despite the fact that the PC is used exclusively by the alleged perpetrators partner and that anyone in the house hold at the alleged date of the alleged offense, had access to both the PC and/ OR the phone line to which it was connected ].

Extract: Legislative L92P1

(d) Section 92(1) - Abuse of Office - provides for:

"Any person, who, being employed in the public service, does or directs to be done, in abuse of the authority of the person’s office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another is guilty of a misdemeanor, and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years."

In this instance refers to – ‘Extrinsic fraud’ - giving misleading information with regards to my legal rights

The form 25 – Order in relation to the seized thing. Type of order sought:

1]a. that the thing be kept in possession of a police officer until the end of:

i) any investigation in relation to which the thing may be relevant: or

ii) any proceeding in which the thing may be relevant: or

iii) any appeal etc etc

The above would be valid provided the - continuance was initiated within the 30 days AND , “investigation” and/or “proceeding” so marked - and the form 25 was duly presented to the alleged accused within the 30 day retention period.

But legislation dictates that if the form 25 is NOT issued within the 30 days, a “proceeding” is deemed to have commenced. “Investigation” singularly marked is not valid. The form 25 may or may not be issued after the 30 days but only a “proceeding” can be validly marked if so issued and only if that proceeding has commenced within the first 30 day period after confiscation by order. In any other circumstance, the PC must, by legislation, be returned to the owner.

BOX ii) is marked by the magistrate OR PCC Thomas. Here, a definitive distinction is made in law between Investigation and Proceeding –

proceeding

n. any legal filing, hearing, trial and/or judgment in the ongoing conduct of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution.

procedure

n. the methods and mechanics of the legal process.

so what the police have done is alleged by me to be illegal and professional misconduct if proof of a proceeding commenced within the 30 day period, is not presented on demand by your worship.

There is no proceeding against anyone to the best of my knowledge. If a proceeding has taken place during the afore mentioned 30 days [ as so marked on the form 25 ] this again is misconduct as no one has been notified.

“. - Furthermore, you can’t initiate a proceeding without telling the alleged accused, whom ever it may be, that one has commenced. You can’t proceed against someone ‘in absentia’ if he is not ‘in absentia’. This infringes on his constitutional right to rebuttal in any form as well as preparation for defense and argument. The police would have to present proof of proceeding to a magistrate on demand as well as proof of notification to the alleged party they are proceeding against.” [ Taken from a real case on the internet ].

Proof of proceeding against the owner of the PC [ Or worse still – a third party ] in this instance would represent an incredulous line of inquiry with no definitive outcome nor direction in law of any description in resolving the allegation.

I maintain that a proceeding of any description concerning any matter dealing with the alleged breach of law in this particular case, is an absolute and blatantly obvious impossibility if the principal and ONLY article in contention has never been examined [ and still sits, to the best of my knowledge, on the shelf of police forensics department to this day – unexamined! ].

Furthermore; even if the alleged file should magically appear by an act of god!, the composer of this mythical file would/could never be found.

And if further divine intervention presented itself and the composer of the afore said file was positively identified by witness and affidavit, the charge of ‘harassment’ would have more than a good chance of being unsustainable in light of it’s construction. In short – an investigation that goes absolutely nowhere. I can’t believe the police responsible for this DON’T know that. I don’t think any higher authority would believe it either.

Breach of Section 92 Para 1:

Person [s] in the Premiers office – possibly one

Clerk of courts – Sandgate Magistrates court. One, possibly three.

Police representative – Sandgate Magistrates Court. Multiple instances.

PCC Thomas – Multiple instances. [ 3 Known absolutely by witness and record ]

Police officer assisting PCC Thomas – Multiple instances.

Police officer directing PCC Thomas – Multiple instances.

There can only be a litany of total disregard for any legislation and obligation under the police powers and responsibilities act, furthermore it would appear that compositions of any nature by police after the afore-said actions would / could / may be validly viewed in a more than suspicious light on behalf of judiciary.

As a result of this – My wife and I have both suffered through 7 months of professionally and socially suspicion, innuendo and in some cases – ridicule.

This has been particularly distressing for my wife professionally as she is a Justice of the peace and a University gold key holder.

This whole scenario has been eloquently put by an internet consulted legal representative.

Quote – “The police in this instance, and for what ever real motive, only needed to have you in their blind justice eye to metaphorically strip you of all rights; ignore all legal legislation; lie to you [ and a magistrate !! ] bare faced about what they can and cannot do; confiscate anything or everything you own for examination at their pleasure, which is blatantly unlawful, to supposedly find proof that may or may not be found, to lay a charge [ less than some parking fines if applicable ] that can never be proved, against persons who can never be found for making an obvious political statement, to satisfy somebody that all exhaustive steps have been taken in this non-event no matter what the cost to the taxpayer and particularly, the alleged accused“.

In light of this submission which is complete as to the best of my kept records, I here-by petition the court to have the PC returned immediately by the confiscating officer, to the premises from which it was seized in the same fit state and order at the time of it’s seizure. [ THIS SUBMISSION NEVER GOT TO MS DOWES !!!! ]

After the second attempt at appearing in the Sandgate Magistrates Court, I applied to have the matter heard in the Brisbane central court since it was blatantly obvious that there was an attempt by the police to see that the form 25 never came before a magistrate. [ At this point I had not NAMED PCC Thomas on the submissions]

The correct procedures were applied by the central court. I got a date within 3 minutes at the counter, the submission was accepted, I took all the papers to Roma Street [ which I was instructed to do] , filed out an affidavit of service and showed up at the appointed time.

When I arrived at the court room, a police woman approached me acting for the police. She proceeded to have a stand up argument with me that the form 25 was valid. She disappeared into the court room and 5 minutes later I entered. The magistrate told me that he could NOT hear the submission as it had already been heard by the Sandgate Magistrate – Ms Dowes.

[ Ref 11 ]

I was instructed by the magistrate to take my submission BACK to sandgate and tell the clerk that I wish it to be heard by Ms Dowes and NO ONE ELSE!!. Following these instructions, I returned to Sandgate and submitted the same paperwork that I submitted to Brisbane Central Court.

The chief clerk RECOGNIZED me instantly [??] and addressed me initially by my sir name [ rather remarkable in this instance since there had been weeks between visits ] AGAIN – I did not server any papers on anyone, as the clerk said he would look after all the details and AGAIN notify me by phone when the hearing would be held. I still had not NAMED PCC Thomas on the submission. A few days later, I received a phone call from Sandgate Magistrates Court. The clerk informed me that they could find no reference to the criminal acts I had quoted and told me I would have to modify my submission. This time I NAMED PCC Thomas on the final draft. I took the new draft over to Sandgate. The clerk looked at it and said to me “ this still is not correct – you don’t ’petition’ the court, you’ll have to do it again” I informed him that my application was accepted without question in the central court, at which point he conceded it was correct. I was again informed of a time and date of appearance over the phone [ no written communication has ever been received by me from the Sandgate Court concerning any appearance as a complainant ].

[ Ref 12 ]

The day before I was due to appear [ keep in mind I am the complainant ] I went over to Sandgate Court to give Ms Dowes a document explaining the total circumstances to date. The clerk informed me “Ms Dowes had to go away for 2 weeks so another Magistrate will be hearing it” Of course I was fit to be tied but I let it go to see what would happen.

[ Ref 13 ]

On the day of the hearing, P.C.C. Thomas did NOT appear but was represented by the police prosecutor at Sandgate Magistrates Court.

[ Ref 14 ]

On entering the court, the first words I spoke was in reference to the form 25. His worship pondered over a plethora of papers before him for at least a full minute [ transcript of this hearing is available – and I did order it but did not collect it ].

After the silence, the police prosecutor then told the magistrate that the PC in question had indeed been examined and that a number of questionable files had been found on the PC. The Magistrate totally ignored my initial question [ the reason why I submitted the request for hearing ]. The police prosecutor then pushed a piece of paper towards me on which was written ‘kiddie files’. The Magistrate stated that he had a copy of a fax sent to him. This fax stated there their were some 1500 files of children on the PC and that these files were being examined by the Department of ????. I announced that this was total unmitigated rubbish. Still ignoring the reason why I was present, the Magistrate said he would hold the matter over for mention – then decided he would make a ruling. I agreed to HIS suggestion that, if nothing was evident of an illegal nature on the PC that it should be returned to me within 28 days.

[ Ref 15 ]

My wife and I took legal consultation. Legal council informed us that unless the ‘fax’ quoted by the magistrate was officially part of the court proceedings, it’s apparent disappearance was not relevant. I had previously asked that a copy of the fax be made available to me from the clerk of Sandgate Magistrates Court – but nothing was found in the file.

[ Ref 16 ]

Less than 10 days later – The police [ P.C.C Thomas, The Senior detective, and another person ]arrived at my door with another search warrant which stated they were to seize or otherwise confiscate any and all computer equipment and software for examination by the police to ascertain if any ‘child abuse games’ were present. P.C.C. Thomas sat at, and placed on the kitchen table, a tape recorder stating that anything said during their seizure of goods would be recorded.

All 5 computers were removed – inclusive of my wife’s working computer which was supplied and maintained by her employer. The personal PC she was using was less than 30 days old and was being paid off on a time payment plan. The computer in the library had NO hard drive at all [ a fact so stated but ignored – the cover was not even remove to verify this by the 3^rd plain clothes officer ].

The wife’s working computer – This computer was supplied by her employer, there was, nor had their ever been any connection to the normal data line. It is connected via a dedicated ISDN data link fitted by Telstra. Nothing of a personal nature is allowed, or was installed on this PC as it could be removed with NO notice, by her employer. Anything found on this PC that was not work related would, could result in instant dismissal. [ Made known to the police present ].

During the course of the search, a number of instances presented themselves which was totally inconsistent with the methodologies of procedure.

1. The tape recorder used by police remained on the kitchen table during the whole time goods were being seized from various other parts of the premises.[ My guess is that this recorder was not present to record anything we said but to record specifically anything C.T. said in return ]
2. PCC Thomas remained at the kitchen table while others were in various parts of the house examining goods.
3. All three officers again stressed that they knew nothing about computers.
4. Library - I informed the third officer that the computer here had NO hard drive and, to prove it, I started to lift the case. The officer said he wasn’t the least bit interested and took the whole computer.
5. In my son’s room I heard the police officer say ‘ do you know what’s on your P.C.?”. My son replied – “ I know what should be there but, no, I can’t tell you everything that is on the P.C.’. To which the officer replied – ‘Why not ?, I know everything on my computer”
6. In my work room; the third person did the following. Sighted a hard drive sitting on top of the filing cabinet, but ignored it completely. Opened a cupboard and sighted some 40 odd CD’s with no labels but banded in pairs . He briefly looked at them and put them back without removing ANY in the search. Opened the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet which was full to the top with floppies in boxes; when asked if he wished to take any of them he said ‘No’ Opened another filing cabinet and sighted legal adult erotica VHS tapes and then insisted that I play several of them on the recorder [ disregarding any and all persons present who may casually sight the tapes being played – breach of statutory safeguard which states “Search must cause minimal embarrassment to the person”]. Confiscated selected floppies on a shelf which were clearly labeled and were/ would be known to be 80’s computer games. Did not confiscate any CD’s of any description from my workshop. No program disks of any description were confiscated [where a copy of any fax may reside in a cache directory ]

I have never heard of police deliberately ‘bootstrapping’ warrants without presenting a notice of appearance on what they already had in their possession. AFTER all the P.C’s were removed [ and approximately 5 days later ] the first P.C. was returned, no charges pending and everything on the P,C, was wiped clean !!!!!!!! [ Including all intellectual data ].

PCC Thomas stated that it was wiped to prevent anyone from recovering deleted files. From my understanding and casual legal advice, no-one has ever been convicted of possessing deleted illegal files, that’s why they are deleted in the first place. The officer also stated that they will contact us later to find out where the hard drive [ second hand ] was purchased so that they may track down the person who sold it to me. To this date [20^th August 2004] nobody has ever contacted us regarding this matter. The only contact we have had with police [ PCC Thomas ] is her statement to my wife that no data may be copied because ‘ coping it would change the dates of the file’ and her next contact a few days later stated ‘ when the PC’s are ready to be examined – we will contact you so that arrangements may be made to copy off all intellectual data’. My wife rang her new boss [ she has been moved to another department ] several weeks later and this person stated to her ‘ I’ll make sure that PCC Thomas contacts you because it is her responsibility by regulation to handle the cases she has been assigned from start to finish. When the PC’s are ready to be examined, she will contact you so that arrangements can be made to copy data’.

Questions: If we were apparently oblivious as to what was erased on the HD of the first PC, how and why in the hell would anyone want to recover it ?. How can you attempt to recover what doesn’t exist ?.

The offer was made for us to make arrangements to recover intellectual data when the first PC was removed but no one was told that everything would be wiped clean we were never informed that it would be so : in fact we were told by C.T. quote verbatim “ when the forensic people are ready to examine the P.C. I will contact you and we can make arrangements for you to copy off your needed data” this was NEVER done. We made several attempts to contact C.T to arrange such a time to copy off data after this statement by her over the phone but was told that this would now be impossible because Forensics haven’t had time to get around to it. In the case of the second warrant – we were informed that only one PC at a time could be accessed to copy data WHEN the time comes for forensics to get around to them and then we were informed several days later by C.T. again that only ONE PC could be accessed to retrieve data and the other PC’s would remain untouched [ different story every time we managed to contact her ] . C.T. has , as far as we have been informed, transferred to a different section in the police force and our PC’s have apparently disappeared into a black hole. According to police regulation [ or so we have been again informed ] C.T. is solely responsible for this so called investigation from start to finish but it looks like it has been tossed aside. As of this moment we have no idea what is going on; where the PC’s are being held and by whom; what, if anything has been done to them, what time scale or priority for anything has been programmed. In short, we know absolutely nothing about anything and have been in this state since the PC’s were removed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I get to the crux of all this.

Apart from the fact that I have enough evidence by document, methodology, process and witness to have all the people involved in this fiasco to front up to a full bench hearing, the important aspect is the following.

I will tell you [ briefly ] why I think all this was being perpetrated. I have no hard evidence but all the probable evidence exists and is on record. About 8 years ago, I was involved in an accident with a police car. My daughter was in my car; the police car had all its lights flashing and committed an illegal turn without looking. Witnesses to the scene [ 2 cars ] were told to leave before anyone else arrived on the scene [ no statements taken – they were told to metaphorically ‘piss off’ ]. The police tried everything in the book to make it appear it was my fault; I sent a complete statement with diagrams to their insurance company including the bit about witnesses told to leave without so much as a ‘by your leave’; The insurance company had to threaten legal action on the police if they did not admit liability; There was NO mention of witnesses during all the commotion after the accident [ not even to the drivers boss who showed up ] and I didn’t think to mention it either since it was a plain case of the police car driver chopping in front of me.

The police eventually paid up [ after 6 weeks of bullshit ]. NOW!!

You can readily guess what would have happened from the police angle. Let me jog your memory. Insurance company sends MY statement to them, Police chief reads it, police driver is dealt with accordingly. Police driver now holds grudge. Record of incident MUST be on police computers [ Now I wonder what is on the C.O.P.S computer about this . PCC C.T. mentioned to me when confiscating 1^st computer with warrant ‘ You don’t have a police record – do you ?’. You work it out, because a bell rung the instant she slipped in this statement. Another instance of using ignorant coppers to do your dirty work, a case of inevitable slip ups and clues to the cluey.

It’s a case of – a credible and perfectly probable reason exists why I am being targeted and even if in reality this was not the case, the motive is so blatant and visible, it gives them a perfect excuse to do everything they can to frustrate all efforts to finalize this matter – including erasing everything on the wife’s PC without notifying her. All legal advice informs me that they have never heard of police doing this if they have credible evidence that an offense has been committed AND that this evidence was enough to issue a summons. But now for the FINAL PIECE.

I have had all the equipment returned as of August 2004. Here is a synopsis of the said return.

1. It has been verified that no data was erased on any machine.

2. Only one machine was accessed to view files [ mine ]

3. most of the documents you see here were accessed and viewed but not changed.

PCC Thomas had this to say ‘ Oh were sorry about all this delay – have a nice day – goodbye’ Yep…. That’s it after 18 months of fucking corrupt bullshit and destroying 10 years work on the first machine. What shit arse gall.

Of course I have other contacts with people who have seen these files and assure me of the following.

1. These casual contacts will set plans in motion to bring to account [ by both legal and illegal means ] the people responsible however I have no control over what OTHER people do in sympathy for me.
2. The retribution planned [ of which I will never be privy too – so I am told to protect both me and family ] will be a long term agenda, possibly years but I am assured that it will happen before I die of old age [ or these corrupt sons of bitches do ].
3. It doesn’t matter a pinch of shit what information is on the COPS system about me – I still have all the paperwork [ official with signatures yet ] which will NEVER disappear. What have we here a Mexican standoff J. Just as I never forget a wrong doer in this situation, the records of the events are also enshrined on police computers and just as perpetrated crap is entered on COPS so too is this enshrined on the records somewhere in the personnel files of the people responsible. Corrupt police are just as unforgiving of stooge stuff-ups as they are someone like you all [ or me ]. So by theoristic standards [ of which I am probably the only unknown expert in Australia ] the corrupt cops will be caught out eventually by being recruited for still more corruption and this continued corruption [ led by morons of the first order ] will expose itself. Equally, the microcosmic honest cops with power [ do they exist ?? ] will probably have a secret symbol marked on a personnel file somewhere which means “not to be promoted”. Oh yes indeedy, my lordy yes. And when PCC Thomas wonders why she didn’t get that promotion, or why she failed that written test for same, or why she was posted to woop woop, then she can look in the mirror and ask this question “was my career really worth it ?” Like – it wont happen overnight…. But it WILL happen. Now add up all the money lost over 20 years of service [ if you last that long sweetheart ] and it amounts to a tidy retiring sum. I don’t have a fucking shred of sympathy for you.

People involved.

PCC Thomas – corrupt, no doubt about it, even if she was only obeying instructions; should be either kicked off the force [ no second chances here ] or blow the whistle on everyone involved.

Senior Detective directing Ms Thomas. Corrupt as shit, no doubt about this either. I would guess [ with a good deal of accuracy ] he was given explicit instructions similar to “keep an eye on her and make sure she doesn’t stuff us up AGAIN!!”

“Give me a report on everything in case she says something that can be used against us in court”. Should be charged even if he appears like a geriatric moron of the first order, then jailed or booted dishonorably off the force. Can’t remember his name [ wasn’t worth remembering at the time ] Nice if someone found out and put it HERE!!!.

The THEN chief of the “organized crime squad”. Absolutely corrupt. This arse hole is a key pin in the corruption. It was he who gave all the orders to those below him and is totally responsible for all events that were perpetrated. He even admitted the breaches and fed me bullshit in an effort to make it go away [ covert intimidating threat to re-possess the PC AFTER it was returned].

Police prosecutor at Sandgate Local Magistrates court. This copper has been so corrupt for so long feeding complainants bull shit, he probably thinks he’s doing his job !. A frontal lobotomy wouldn’t go astray but removal to the black stump and re-education is probably more his style [ can you re-educate the brain dead ?].

Chief clerk at Sandgate local magistrates court. As a former federal public servant, I would like to see him hauled before the public service board, demoted or sacked. He obviously is deep in this shit and got his directions from the police prosecutor or higher up.

Magistrate who eventually heard the case at Sandgate Local Magistrates Court. Walking the thin line of official corruption, how much to push him over the edge ?.

Ms Dowes of the Sandgate Local Magistrates Court. 50/50 here. Was she TOLD to disappear ? or was the trip her own before the event. I reserve judgment to impart a bit of fairness here [ though that’s stretching the limits of my anger ]

Female rep in the CMC. Oh brother. Theoristics tells me this person is corrupt as sure as the sun shines. I thought the CMC’s job was to get all the facts ?. This official thwarted any and all attempts at explanation of events and did everything but hang up on me in her vain efforts to convince me that everything I was telling her was absolutely legal by police methodologies and standards. Wonder if her bosses know she is a stooge for corrupt police ?. I wonder if SHE knows she is a stooge for corruption.

Conclusion: I will NOT permit my name to be made known here for an obvious reason.

I don’t need nutters of the first order ringing to abuse, threaten or hassle me and my family. Also, the officialdom can easily find out who I am [ of course ] so if I DO get any bullshit from out of the blue, I will know the source [ the cops themselves ] since my name will ONLY be referenced on THEIR computer and not here. Logical isn’t it ?. They then cannot claim the threats or intimidation or abuse to be anonymous and do nothing. Catch 22 [ for them ]. I would love to go absolutely public but this gives corrupt officialdom an open door and no way to prove any covert retribution by them. Protecting my family from idiots is a prime concern.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------