AFP continues to protect corrupt senior Management at ITSA/ AFSA/
Veronique Ingram, Adam Toma , Matthew Osborne, Mark Findlay ,Cheryl Cullen
So today at 2.30 I received a phone call from Succar from the Federal Police.
He said he had a brief for me and he asked if I wanted to come and pick it up from AFP head Quarters.
Well hell no I was going to pick it up so he had to bring it to me.
Before I hung up I asked this Federal Officer if he had actually investigated this corruption.
He reluctantly said he had which did not sound very convincing.He asked me was I going to put it on my blog .
I said "Yes"
He did not sound very happy about this because he also does not like me exposing corruption.
At 5.45 he arrived at my door with a box full of evidence. I tried to drag it inside but because this officer has some problem he sai I couldn't have the box because it belonged to him. .......... How funny.... an AFP Officer with an attachment to cardboard box!!!!! I threw the box down the stairs
He bent over me and asked me to sign a document. I told him to stand back because his breath really stunk. He replied .............."like a pigs Arse".............. I replied " something like that"
I again asked if he had investigated the corruption at ITSA or now AFSA!
He attempted to avoid the question and said he would be prosecuting me.I replied that he would be attempting to protect corruption at ITSA.
So I received the Alleged """victims " statements from Adam Toma, Veronique Ingram, Dave Maher, Mark Findlay and Matthew Osborne.
It appears Gavin McCosker is no longer offended because he realises has now been exposed accepting false statement of Affairs by bankrupts.
Cheryl Cullen is paranoid because I seen her once at Town Hall railway in joggers and now because she thinks everything is about her she believes I am stalking her and spending copious hours thinking of her and following her. When I told this skank that Floence Choo had misled me she replied" Itsa has the discretion to do that" What the fuck does that mean???????????????
Adam Toma has admitted he was aware Mark Findlay had been fucking Florence Choo though did nothing to prevent a conflict of interest and allowed Mark Findlay ( Bankruptcy Regulations) to handle complaints about Choo and cover them up .
Matthew Osborne appears to know very little how he come to tell me how to protect fraud and fuck over creditors.
Particularly amusing is Veronique Ingram who appears intent on going down with the ship and claiming ITSA or AFSA is clean even though she is fully aware she is being protected by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Australian Public Service Commission.
Clearly with Federal Police who fail to investigate corruption to protect Government Agencies and now with all senior management of ITSA to take the stand and be cross examined it sould be fun to watch.
Clearly this will expose the conduct so they might like to prepare a resignation letter in ADVANCE because I am sure they will not have a job to go to after exposing corruption .
Also it is very interesting that the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the APS Commission are mot interested in making a complaint as they have probably been given legal advice that if they spill their guts they will have no job
Tuesday, 17 September 2013
Saturday, 14 September 2013
Priorities for 2012-13/AFSA/ Adam Toma Veronique Ingram, Matthew Osborne
Following is shit put out by ITSA or now AFSA
Clearly any added responsibility to this department is fucked over by senior management.
The National Enforcement Manager Adam Toma is corrupt and is being protected by the Inspector General in Bankruptcy , Skanky Veronique Ingram .
The following statement is simply Veronique Ingram and Adam Toma talking out of their ARSES.......
One of the priorities in Regulation and Enforcement is to enhance preventative strategies and become more proactive. We will continue to increase our focus on practitioner systems and controls and offence referrals during 2012-13.
Up one level
Previous
Online services channel
In 2012-13, our biggest priority will be the establishment and release of our online service delivery channel for insolvency services. This represents a major focus across ITSA and a fundamental reform of how we deliver our services.Work areas will undertake process re-design, review and development of standard operating procedures and establish consistent processes. In addition, training all staff to ensure familiarisation and competency with the new online service channel will be a priority, as will informing and assisting our clients and stakeholders to access this new service delivery option. Some advantages of online services are the ability to conduct electronic audits and the ability to receive requests and issue bankruptcy notices electronically.
Staff in the NSC will play a key role in supporting our clients and stakeholders to access our online services, complementing the role they currently have in supporting clients and stakeholders to access the PPSR and the insolvency information service.
Personal Property Securities Register
In 2012-13 we will have a continued focus on bedding down the PPSR, including actions to continue to address outstanding data migration issues and refine our business processes.We will continue to identify and develop additional communication products to assist our clients and stakeholders.
Stakeholders
We look forward to building on the strong relationships with our stakeholders and will continue to seek opportunities to increase insolvency guidance. The quality of our service to clients and stakeholders is very important to us, and in 2012-13 we will look for ways to further strengthen our performance in this area.Legislation and legal matters
There is further work to be done in the harmonisation of personal and corporate insolvency law proposals, liaison with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Attorney-General's Department and planning for ITSA implementation.Our existing memorandum of understanding with ASIC will be refreshed and our legal expenditure will be reviewed to ensure we maximise the benefits from opportunities under the Legal Service Multi-Use List.
Regulation and enforcement
One of the priorities in Regulation and Enforcement is to enhance preventative strategies and become more proactive. We will continue to increase our focus on practitioner systems and controls and offence referrals during 2012-13.Financial resources and reporting
Improvements to our asset management, stocktake procedures and financial management reporting will occur throughout the year.Property, procurement and security
In 2012-13 we will continue to focus on ensuring compliance with the Protective Security Policy Framework and building capability in procurement practices through further training and standardised processes. Strategic property direction will be established for a number of our offices as will a strategy to assist ITSA to forecast property requirements and directions in the medium to long term.'Look how far we've come'
In 1929, Australia was in the grip of the Great Depression, King George V was the reigning monarch and in October of that year, James Scullin became the Prime Minister of Australia. At that time, personal bankruptcy proceedings were held in the Bankruptcy Court and recorded in ink in Proceedings of the Bankruptcy Court books.
ITSA was recently presented with a series of these volumes by the Federal Court of Australia. These beautifully handwritten records contrast with the development this year of ITSA's online service channel, meaning that soon our clients will be able to log on to our website at a time and place convenient to them, in order to undertake transactions. We're looking forward to this next exciting chapter in our service delivery.
Shit from Adam Toma and Veronique Ingram AFSA/Penalty imposed on bankrupt reduced on appeal.
According to Matthew Osborne, Legal Officer at ASFA it complies with the Bankruptcy Act to protect Bankrupts who are in breach of the Bankruptcy Act.
Adam Toma, corrupt Enforcement Manager at ASFA has requested the Federal Police to protect this corrupt practice also.
Tue 27 August 2013
The District Court of NSW heard an appeal from a bankrupt on 22 August 2013.
On 23 April 2013, Ali Reska (aka Mireskandari) pleaded
guilty to offences against the Bankruptcy Act and was sentenced in the
Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney.
Reska was charged with making a false declaration, two counts of obtaining credit without disclosing his bankruptcy status and disclosing false information to the trustee of his bankrupt estate regarding his employment and income.
Magistrate Ryan convicted Reska and said that Reska’s actions showed a certain amount of premeditation as he had changed his name to gain a new driving licence and then used that licence to gain a loan in his new name.
On the first charge of making a false declaration, Magistrate Ryan ordered that Reska was to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.
In relation to the second and third charges of obtaining credit without disclosing his bankruptcy status, Reska was sentenced to complete 100 hours community service for each charge, to run cumulatively, resulting in 200 hours community service. On the fourth and final charge regarding the false employment declaration, Reska was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, to be released forthwith upon entering a recognizance of good behaviour for a period of three years.
Reska subsequently filed a severity appeal in the District Court regarding the penalties imposed by Magistrate Ryan relating to the second and third charges for obtaining credit and the fourth charge of disclosing false information to the trustee.
On 22 August 2013, the appeal was heard before Chief Justice Blanch who upheld the sentence imposed by Magistrate Ryan in relation to the offences of obtaining credit.
With regard to the offence of failing to disclose information, his Honour reduced the sentence from a term of imprisonment, ordering that Reska enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of three years and a $2,000 surety.
The Australian Financial Security Authority also issued a press release on 9 May 2013 in relation to this matter.
Reska was charged with making a false declaration, two counts of obtaining credit without disclosing his bankruptcy status and disclosing false information to the trustee of his bankrupt estate regarding his employment and income.
Magistrate Ryan convicted Reska and said that Reska’s actions showed a certain amount of premeditation as he had changed his name to gain a new driving licence and then used that licence to gain a loan in his new name.
On the first charge of making a false declaration, Magistrate Ryan ordered that Reska was to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.
In relation to the second and third charges of obtaining credit without disclosing his bankruptcy status, Reska was sentenced to complete 100 hours community service for each charge, to run cumulatively, resulting in 200 hours community service. On the fourth and final charge regarding the false employment declaration, Reska was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, to be released forthwith upon entering a recognizance of good behaviour for a period of three years.
Reska subsequently filed a severity appeal in the District Court regarding the penalties imposed by Magistrate Ryan relating to the second and third charges for obtaining credit and the fourth charge of disclosing false information to the trustee.
On 22 August 2013, the appeal was heard before Chief Justice Blanch who upheld the sentence imposed by Magistrate Ryan in relation to the offences of obtaining credit.
With regard to the offence of failing to disclose information, his Honour reduced the sentence from a term of imprisonment, ordering that Reska enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of three years and a $2,000 surety.
The Australian Financial Security Authority also issued a press release on 9 May 2013 in relation to this matter.
Document Actions
Friday, 13 September 2013
More shit from Adam Toma , Enforcement Manager and Veronique Ingram, Inspector General at AFSA or ITSA./ False Statement of Affairs
It is obviously routine to for the ASFA or ITSA to protect bankrupts that file false Statements of Affairs so clearly this is another case of Adam Toma and Veronique Ingram talking out of their ARSEs
Two time bankrupt convicted for signing a false declaration
Wed 17 October 2012
Ms Julianne Springer of Newham, Tasmania, was convicted under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Springer, 50, a production manager and a two time
bankrupt, was convicted for making a false declaration in her Statement
of Affairs when she filed for bankruptcy a second time. She had
initially pleaded not guilty but changed her plea on the day of the
hearing.
Mr Adam Toma, National Manager of Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia’s (ITSA) regulation and enforcement business area, said that Ms Springer, knowing she was in financial difficulty, should not have acted dishonestly and obtained further credit in circumstances where she did not have the ability to repay the creditor.
“Ms Springer was sentenced to a community corrections order to perform 120 hours of unpaid community service and to pay costs of $50.40,” he said.
Springer was convicted for making a false declaration in her Statement of Affairs when she failed to disclose several bank accounts and a credit card debt. She was also found guilty of two counts of incurring a debt without reasonable or probable ground of expectation of being able to pay that debt prior to becoming bankrupt. Springer withdrew cash advances on her undisclosed credit card in the days prior to becoming bankrupt for a second time. Springer then continued to use the credit card after becoming bankrupt until it was cancelled by the bank.
In sentencing Springer, Magistrate Hill noted the seriousness of the offending, which was reflected by the significant penalties he could have imposed.
Mr Adam Toma, National Manager of Regulation and Enforcement for the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA) said that Ms Springer’s prosecution served as both a deterrent and a reminder to the wider community that breaches of the Bankruptcy Act are investigated by ITSA to the full extent of the law.
“Any engagement in deceitful and fraudulent behaviour against the community is not tolerated and ITSA will ensure that abuses of this nature are dealt with accordingly,” he said.
Of the conviction, ITSA’s Chief Executive and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy, Veronique Ingram said that Australia has a highly effective personal insolvency system which is strongly underpinned by an equitable and efficient regulatory system regulatory system.
“It’s important that Australians are confident in a system that is transparent, fair and strong,” she said.
Mr Adam Toma, National Manager of Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia’s (ITSA) regulation and enforcement business area, said that Ms Springer, knowing she was in financial difficulty, should not have acted dishonestly and obtained further credit in circumstances where she did not have the ability to repay the creditor.
“Ms Springer was sentenced to a community corrections order to perform 120 hours of unpaid community service and to pay costs of $50.40,” he said.
Springer was convicted for making a false declaration in her Statement of Affairs when she failed to disclose several bank accounts and a credit card debt. She was also found guilty of two counts of incurring a debt without reasonable or probable ground of expectation of being able to pay that debt prior to becoming bankrupt. Springer withdrew cash advances on her undisclosed credit card in the days prior to becoming bankrupt for a second time. Springer then continued to use the credit card after becoming bankrupt until it was cancelled by the bank.
In sentencing Springer, Magistrate Hill noted the seriousness of the offending, which was reflected by the significant penalties he could have imposed.
Mr Adam Toma, National Manager of Regulation and Enforcement for the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA) said that Ms Springer’s prosecution served as both a deterrent and a reminder to the wider community that breaches of the Bankruptcy Act are investigated by ITSA to the full extent of the law.
“Any engagement in deceitful and fraudulent behaviour against the community is not tolerated and ITSA will ensure that abuses of this nature are dealt with accordingly,” he said.
Of the conviction, ITSA’s Chief Executive and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy, Veronique Ingram said that Australia has a highly effective personal insolvency system which is strongly underpinned by an equitable and efficient regulatory system regulatory system.
“It’s important that Australians are confident in a system that is transparent, fair and strong,” she said.
Document Actions
Saturday, 7 September 2013
Malicious Prosecution/ Proof of Elements
Reasonable cause is established when the following conditions exist:
It is reasonable for the prosecutor to bring the charge if the question of whether the plaintiff was sufficiently involved in the offence is a matter to be left to a jury. Also, if the plaintiff's involvement is a question of fact to be left to the jury, then the prosecutor's decision to continue the prosecution gives no grounds for the action.
It is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the prosecutor did not hold the belief, or did not hold the belief on reasonable grounds. The evidence necessary to challenge the belief is not supplied by proof that the prosecutor was aware of facts which might or might not have satisfied the prosecutor of the plaintiff's guilt, or that the defendant had information, some of which pointed to guilt and some to innocence.
To escape liability, the prosecutor need only be found to have had an honest belief in the fact that there was a sufficient case to launch a prosecution against the plaintiff, not a belief that a conviction would be secured.
Examples of malice are where prosecution was brought:
Being charged and therefore exposed to the risk of loss of liberty has been held to constitute sufficient damage: Rayson v South London Tramways [1893] 2 QB 304.
See also:
Nye v State of New South Wales & ors [2003] NSWSC 1212.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517
Mitchell v John Heine and Son Ltd (1938) SR (NSW) 466
 |
Introduction
Malicious prosecution is a tort which enables a person the subject of groundless and unjustified court proceedings ("the prosecution proceedings"), to seek a civil claim for damages against their prosecutor. In order for a plaintiff to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution, they must prove:- the prosecution proceedings (normally criminal) were initiated by the prosecutor against the plaintiff;
- termination of the prosecution proceedings was in the plaintiff's favour;
- no reasonable cause for the prosecution
- evidence of malice on the prosecutor's part; and
- the plaintiff suffered actual damage.
Termination
The following are examples of prosecution proceedings terminated in the plaintiff's favour:- Acquittal of the plaintiff on the merits of the case;
- Termination of the case where conviction is quashed for technical reasons such as a misdirection to the jury by the trial judge;
- Discontinuance of the prosecution by the prosecutor before verdict.
Reasonable cause
The plaintiff must prove that the prosecutor started the prosecution without reasonable cause.Reasonable cause is established when the following conditions exist:
- The prosecutor must believe that the accused is probably guilty of the offence.
- This belief must be founded upon information in the possession of the prosecutor pointing to such guilt, not upon mere imagination or surmise.
- The information, whether it consists of things observed by the prosecutor himself or things told to him by others, must be believed by him to be true.
- This belief must be based upon reasonable grounds.
- The information possessed by the prosecutor and reasonably believed by him to be true, must be such as would justify a person of ordinary prudence and caution in believing that the accused is probably guilty.
It is reasonable for the prosecutor to bring the charge if the question of whether the plaintiff was sufficiently involved in the offence is a matter to be left to a jury. Also, if the plaintiff's involvement is a question of fact to be left to the jury, then the prosecutor's decision to continue the prosecution gives no grounds for the action.
It is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the prosecutor did not hold the belief, or did not hold the belief on reasonable grounds. The evidence necessary to challenge the belief is not supplied by proof that the prosecutor was aware of facts which might or might not have satisfied the prosecutor of the plaintiff's guilt, or that the defendant had information, some of which pointed to guilt and some to innocence.
To escape liability, the prosecutor need only be found to have had an honest belief in the fact that there was a sufficient case to launch a prosecution against the plaintiff, not a belief that a conviction would be secured.
Malice
Malice is a wrongful or improper purpose in bringing the prosecution. It can be notions of spite, ill-will and improper motive. It can be established if you can show the prosecutor has an improper, collateral purpose in bringing the prosecution.Examples of malice are where prosecution was brought:
- in order to silence the plaintiff in other legal proceedings,
- to punish the plaintiff for given evidence against the police in other proceedings,
- to prevent the holding of a shareholders meeting.
Damage
The plaintiff must prove actual damage. This can be under one of the three heads- Damage to reputation
- Damage to plaintiff's person or property
- Damage to plaintiff's pecuniary interest
Being charged and therefore exposed to the risk of loss of liberty has been held to constitute sufficient damage: Rayson v South London Tramways [1893] 2 QB 304.
See also:
Nye v State of New South Wales & ors [2003] NSWSC 1212.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517
Mitchell v John Heine and Son Ltd (1938) SR (NSW) 466
Monday, 2 September 2013
Class Action / NSW Police
This is the class action that the NSW Government tried to close down....................................
"Deprivation of liberty is the most serious penalty that you can impose on someone - young or old": Ben Slade. Photo: Steve Baccon
A class action on behalf of about 100 NSW young people who were allegedly wrongfully imprisoned for breach of bail because of errors in the NSW Police Force database, will have its first substantive hearing in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday. Law firm Maurice Blackburn and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre say scores of children and young people have been arrested, detained and even strip-searched based on out-of-date bail information in the COPS database.
The problem, they say, occurs when the bail conditions placed on young people are either dropped because their case has been finalised, or varied to allow for work, study or family commitments but this change in status is not being added to the database. Officers are then allegedly arresting young people for breaching bail based on faulty information.
The lead applicant in the case is 19-year-old Musa Konneh, who was arrested for breach of bail in August 2010 despite his protests that the charges against him - for travelling on a train without a valid rail ticket - had been dismissed in the children's court four days earlier.
Musa was arrested, handcuffed, strip-searched and spent the night in the adult police cells at Penrith.
After two unsuccessful attempts by state government lawyers to have the matter struck out, it will proceed to a substantive hearing for the first time on Monday.
Central to this is the fact that, under the NSW Bail Act, if an officer believes on ''reasonable grounds'' that a person has failed to undertake their bail conditions, they can arrest them without a warrant.
The government will use this clause to argue that, while using faulty information, the officers who arrested Mr Musa and others like him were acting lawfully.
But Maurice Blackburn and the PIAC will argue that this section of the act only applies where there are, in fact, bail conditions in force.
''If a child, or any person for that matter, is not on bail, how can there be a 'reasonable belief' that they have breached bail?'' Mr Slade said. ''If we are successful on those questions, then we're in a good position to sit down with the state and work our a compensation regime for the young people.''
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/youths-wrongly-detained-by-police-will-get-hearing-in-court-20130901-2syud.html#ixzz2dntNqzSc
This is the class action that the NSW Government tried to close down....................................
Youths wrongly detained by police will get hearing in court
Ads by Google
Australian House Prices
Access The Most Comprehensive Free Online Property Report in Australia"Deprivation of liberty is the most serious penalty that you can impose on someone - young or old": Ben Slade. Photo: Steve BacconThe problem, they say, occurs when the bail conditions placed on young people are either dropped because their case has been finalised, or varied to allow for work, study or family commitments but this change in status is not being added to the database. Officers are then allegedly arresting young people for breaching bail based on faulty information.
The lead applicant in the case is 19-year-old Musa Konneh, who was arrested for breach of bail in August 2010 despite his protests that the charges against him - for travelling on a train without a valid rail ticket - had been dismissed in the children's court four days earlier.
Musa was arrested, handcuffed, strip-searched and spent the night in the adult police cells at Penrith.
Advertisement
''Deprivation of liberty is the most serious penalty that you can impose on someone - young or old,'' said Maurice Blackburn's NSW managing principal, Ben Slade. ''We don't chop people's hands off in this country, we deprive them of their liberty. For that to happen without justification is, in our view, unacceptable.''After two unsuccessful attempts by state government lawyers to have the matter struck out, it will proceed to a substantive hearing for the first time on Monday.
Central to this is the fact that, under the NSW Bail Act, if an officer believes on ''reasonable grounds'' that a person has failed to undertake their bail conditions, they can arrest them without a warrant.
The government will use this clause to argue that, while using faulty information, the officers who arrested Mr Musa and others like him were acting lawfully.
But Maurice Blackburn and the PIAC will argue that this section of the act only applies where there are, in fact, bail conditions in force.
''If a child, or any person for that matter, is not on bail, how can there be a 'reasonable belief' that they have breached bail?'' Mr Slade said. ''If we are successful on those questions, then we're in a good position to sit down with the state and work our a compensation regime for the young people.''
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/youths-wrongly-detained-by-police-will-get-hearing-in-court-20130901-2syud.html#ixzz2dntNqzSc
Sunday, 1 September 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)