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.