What redress do I have if my local member refuses some 20 written
requests for a meeting on serious allegations, as stated by that
Federal Member ?
What redress do I have, given the fact that the Ombudsman and Privacy
Commissioner refuse to investigate complaints and provide no reason
for refusal:
1. Proven lies by top departmental lawyer
2. Repeated systemic lies by department embracing approx 16 specific
and proven lies
3. Departmental threats to my solicitor and to me in court to
withdraw claim and settle for 1% of advised payment in case where 39
year liability accepted, OR be sued for all payments made to date
using "incriminating and new evidence" [gross fabricated criminal
allegations against me resulting from within the departmental
infrastructure after I refused to pay a bribe and sacked the Advocate
concerned(which department know would bankrupt me) These matters being
undue and extreme pressure, particularly when some 8 investigations on
matters in the case were outstanding and some 4,500 requests for
information under FOI and the Privacy Act, also requested information
denied and details of unproven and fabricated forged documents leading
to criminal allegations against me, being refused
5. Bribery corruption, vendetta and orchestrated terrorism against
me - see also Daily Telegraph article of 31 May 2004 - "Official
torture of our Heroes"; see also ABC documentaries
6. Bad administration, corruption, conspiracy, concealment and
serious FOI and Privacy Act complaints involving Natural Justice and
Duty of Care issues with serious breaches of Federal Legislation
7. Departments frequent and systematic breaches of Commonwealth Legislature
8. Bastardisation and severe treatment in the Armed Services
resulting inpart in the injuries for which claims were rejected
9. Trial "in absentia" and finding of me guilty without a hearing
10. Multiple acts of gross terrorism against me by the department
11. Collusion between the department and the Ombudsman
All these matters have been clearly proven.
Not one complaint has been acknowledged by the Ombudsman to which
organisation the Attorney General's Department advised the complaints
be sent.
The Ombudsman refuses in writing but without giving reasons to
investigate the complaints, despite the Prime Minister advising in
writing that ... see exerpt from my letter to the PM:
"?The allegations you make are serious and are being examined appropriately.?
This statement is false, and a lie as clearly shown by the last
paragraph of the Ombudsman?s letter of 15 November 2004."
It is true that these questions relate to earlier questions regarding
wrongful dismissal and difficulties in dealing with government -
lodged 26 and 31 December 2004.
Known to me are several suicides due to this style of government
action, the Daily Telegraph points to suicides and other most severe
affects, while the ABC quote many many cases - verified by me in their
many hundreds through and by people who contacted me after one ABC
program and my contact with the ABC.
These horrific government procedures are well known and against our
Australian ethic. They show how the government has abandoned
conscience and all that Dr Tony Fitzgerald stated in The Age article
during 2004.
The process is indecent and severely damaging to all Australians, all
who serve this country clearly demonstratess the failure of our
Constitution and Federal Legislature. Please note "Good
decision-making for Government", a series of publications on
administrative law prepared by the Government Services Group of Messrs
Clayton Utz, leading lawyers, including to government. The current
Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan is acknowledged as having made a
significant contribution to the preparation of these key documents,
which spell out law relating to matters such as Natural Justice, Duty
of Care, Reasons for Decisions, Interpretation of Legislation and
other vital laws of our country.
I recognise that the issues I raise are comples, but Legal Aid,
Community Legal Assistance, numerous major legal firms providing
specialised services, individual legal firms, the RSL, Vietnam
Veterans Association of Australia, Vietnam Veterans Federation of
Australia, Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service, Defence Welfare,
Defence Legal Services and a wide range of investigatory, surveillance
and control bodies have refused to assist me in these matters.
I thank you most sincerely for reading this and taking an interest in
the halting of the skyjacking of our laws, ethics and justice in this
country as determined by our Founding Fathers.
Any suggestions for halting and correcting the situation will be much
appreciated, as well as answers to my various questions.
Thank you and a very Happy New Year
Sincerely
JDA |
Clarification of Question by
inverchaolin-ga
on
04 Jan 2005 01:15 PST
Thank you for your comments - they are helpful, encouraging and
provide support for my effort - I am very appreciative.
1. Press, radio and TV are aware of my problems but have taken other
and less well documented issues to write about a use to bring presure.
My case adds to the proof, but is not a case tht they will push on
its own !
2. With regard to documenting and categorising actions/complaints -
this has been done as I have gone along the route. All complaints
and causes for action have been isolated, documented and categorised.
For soe time I have felt that I am in pretty good shape and legal
minds and a medico/legal expert witness is most surprised with my
detail and how I have documented events into categories, while keeping
the government legal experts at bay through discovery of additional
key legal and suporting information. Of course I am helped also by
a wide array of people acting for others and these people include a
group of 5 lawyers in Melbourne.
The key issues relate to administration law and specifically Duty of
Care, Natural Justice, Interpretation of Legislation (including use of
The Reasonable Man Test), Reasons for Decisions, Discrimination/Hunam
Rights issues, Privacy Act matters and particularly Privacy Act
Principle 7, also Principle 6 and the FOI Act each of which has been
breaches in an orchestrated, conspiratorial and systematic manner,
with proven lying by top departmental management and Ministers of the
Crown.
Failure to refer me to doctors and lack of treatment, are other key
issues and therefore duty of care matters.
Failure to record events are the most serious of duty of care issues,
as well as issues of Natural Justice.
So, we have established a sequence and are investigating the
Constitutional base for action.
New health matters involving lead, arsenic and parasitic poisoning,
with exposure to CS, mustard and other gases in trials during the
1950's are proving to be very supportive of my case.
The government's reneging on government advised AND CONFIRMED further
payment, WITH ACCEPTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED and discussed in a
Barrister's Chambers, such advised payment being for another 28 years,
above the 4 years already paid for an accepted liability period of 39
years, with pain and suffering, must for a central issue.
A gevernment infrastructure Advocate seeking a bribe and when sacked
he, with his ex-service association, making fabricated, unproven,
unsigned forged medical record and fraud claims against me, when they
are unable to prove such claims said to have been received on the
insecure internet (when I was unable to send such transmission)
inflames the overall issues. Government use of the unproven
material when directed by me to Privacy Act Principle 7 relating to
accuracy and proof just worsens the seriousness of issues involved.
So complaints, and issues under "Good decision-making for Government"
(all about administrative law and outlined above), form the centre
point to my case. Documentation is thorough and contains clear
proof at every stage. Much of the proof comes from departmental
documentation and errors. I have been fortunate to obtain other
information and discovery will further prove my case.
A case study is being prepared for publication with a new book.
This total information will be published on the Web and on existing
web pages which are known within the community.
I am very appreciative of readers and particularly those with long
experience in the law and such matters.
It is a large task and I appreciate and advice and answers to my
questions. Next week a legally trained ex senior government
executive and another activist, with my expert witness propose to
review my whole case.
So, any help will be much appreciated by us all.
Very Sincerly
JDA
|
