Saturday, 24 May 2014

Changes to buy a politician scheme in Queensland
So when are we going to get some accountability in the Federal Government also?
 Senator Nick Xenophon and Christine Milne head of the Greens  have both raised this.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman  is a shonky Government Agency that should be dismantled because instead of exposing systemic corrupt conduct  and corruption , actually protects it. Clearly you only have to look at their statistics.
Joe Hockey ripped his skirt off this week and filed in the Federal court against the Media.
This should be one of the best shows in town  when it  finally gets in court and should expose some of the shonky ways of the Liberal Party and their deals

Queensland corruption fighter Doug Drummond says CMC changes 'very dangerous, very worrying'

Updated Thu 22 May 2014, 12:26am AEST
Changes to Queensland's Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) are designed to spare the Newman Government political embarrassment, a top Queensland corruption fighter says.
Doug Drummond QC, the special prosecutor who helped convict former police chief Terry Lewis and dozens of others in the wake of the 1989 Fitzgerald Inquiry and later served as a CMC commissioner, told the ABC the reforms would leave the door open to the kind of corruption uncovered by the ICAC inquiry in New South Wales.
He claimed the amendments to the Crime and Misconduct Act were designed to allow the ruling Liberal National Party (LNP) to raise campaign funds unimpeded by the attentions of an anti-corruption body.
"It's quite obviously not intended to encourage corruption, but it's equally clearly intended not to impede the Government in its many activities, including its fund-raising activities," Mr Drummond said.
The changes posed "the real risk of money, moneyed interests acquiring benefits which they shouldn't legitimately acquire" in Queensland.
A special amendment to extend by another six months the term of LNP-appointed acting chairman Ken Levy while he was under police investigation was "extraordinary" and could undermine the probe, he said, a claim supported by a CMC commissioner closely involved in the matter.
Dr Levy's term was due to run out tomorrow.
Under the changes enacted last week, the Queensland Government has removed the need for bipartisan support for the appointment of the CMC chairman, raised the threshold for complaints and given the Attorney-General control of the body's research program. It is also changing the name of the body to the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC).
There's a serious attempt underway to make sure that the CCC doesn't embarrass the Government.
Doug Drummond QC
When it announced the reform plan last year the Government said it wanted to "depoliticise" the CMC. But Mr Drummond said the changes had the opposite effect.
"There's a serious attempt underway to make sure that the CCC doesn't embarrass the Government," he said.
The abandonment of the need for the Opposition to approve the appointment of the body's chairman, which had been "passed off as taking the politics out of the CMC", was "just the reverse", he said.
"The only point of having a corruption watchdog over government and the public sector ... is that it must be independent of government control - I think we've lost that.
"I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that whoever is appointed will be seen by many Queenslanders as politically tainted."

Former commissioner says government 'prejudged' Levy

Acting CMC chairman Dr Levy is facing allegations he misled the parliamentary committee that oversees the CMC, a criminal offence in Queensland.
Dr Levy told the committee he had had no contact with government over an article he wrote in The Courier-Mail newspaper last year praising new anti-bikie laws, but Premier Campbell Newman's chief media adviser testified otherwise.
A special parliamentary committee was convened to investigate and the matter has now shifted to the hands of the police.
Mr Newman sacked the main oversight committee that brought the discrepancies in Dr Levy's evidence to light.
This is [a] temporary stop-gap measure to allow a transition between the current Acting Chairman and whoever is appointed the permanent chairman.
Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie
"What the Dr Levy episode suggests to me is here we have a government that will behave with complete ruthlessness when its perceived interests are at stake or challenged," Mr Drummond said.
"You've got a committee of the parliament solemnly investigating whether Dr Levy is fit to be chairman of the commission at the same time as the Government puts legislation through the Parliament saying he's fit to be chairman.
"There's a powerful argument that the Parliament has condoned any misconduct that Dr Levy may have engaged in, if that turns out to be the case - and it would be a perfectly complete answer to any attempt to sack him."
Philip Nase, a CMC commissioner who also gave evidence about Dr Levy's contact with government, agreed that the extension of the chairman's term "may indicate (Premier) Newman and (Attorney-General Jarrod) Bleijie have prejudged the outcome of the allegations against Levy".
In a statement to the ABC, Mr Nase said: "At the time, the Attorney-General explained the reason for the decision to remove the committee by analogy to a decision by a judge to remove a jury on the ground of bias.
"The problem with the analogy to an impartial judge is that it breaks down if Newman and Bleijie are not impartial, and in those circumstances the decision to replace the committee becomes little more than an unprincipled exercise of power."

CCC will be 'modern, unmuzzled watchdog': Bleijie

Mr Drummond, a former Federal Court Judge and a CMC commissioner between 2005 and 2008, said he had found the body had poor management, was set in its ways and in need of a shake-up.
But he said the changes were "very dangerous, very worrying".
The CCC must now seek the approval of the Attorney-General annually for its research program.
Mr Bleijie criticised the CMC in 2012 when it launched a desktop review of the regulation of political donations. He said the subject was not an issue in Queensland.
This is [a] temporary stop-gap measure to allow a transition between the current Acting Chairman and whoever is appointed the permanent chairman.
Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie
The CMC had earlier found no wrongdoing by Mr Newman after allegations were made during the 2012 election campaign about election funding irregularities.
In a statement to the ABC, Mr Bleijie said the new CCC would be "a modern, unmuzzled watchdog that will fearlessly and effectively tackle serious crime and corruption in Queensland, something the old Crime and Misconduct Commission was unable to do".
Mr Bleijie said no research topics were off limits for the CCC, and he denied that extending Dr Levy's term impeded any future prosecution of him.
"This is [a] temporary stop-gap measure to allow a transition between the current Acting Chairman and whoever is appointed the permanent chairman," he said.
The ABC has obtained a copy of the CMC's response to the Newman Government review that prompted the reforms, which was never made available to the public.
In the document the body argued that "the CMC's research function - and its independence from executive government - must be retained".
It also warned that proposed measures to screen out frivolous complaints were "unlikely to generate the desired outcomes" and would impact on all categories of complaint, not just the less serious ones.
The CMC did not comment on the removal of the bipartisan support requirement for the body's chairman, as this was not one of the review's recommendations.
Do you know more? Email investigations@abc.net.au

Friday, 23 May 2014

A Howrey LLP creditors committee / what I think here in Australia
So this is why my blogs  have been going crazy in America. Sure looks like some law has been fucked over for a very long time and the authorities have failed to act accordingly. 
 So who administers Bankruptcy Laws in America? It appears they are just as shonky as Veronique Ingram  In Australia. Americans should look at the Bankruptcy Act in America to identify the cause. How to fuck over the Act would  lay with the principal legal officer. Here in Australia Matthew Osborne is  responsible  for fucking over the Bankruptcy Act using S134/s3






Howrey Creditors Want Atty DQ'd In Suit Against Ex-Partners

Law360, New York (December 10, 2012, 10:08 PM ET) -- A Howrey LLP creditors committee on Friday asked a bankruptcy judge to disqualify a lawyer, their former co-counsel, from bringing a class action against more than 300 of the defunct law firm's ex-partners.
The official committee of Howrey unsecured creditors said their former co-counsel, William McGrane and his firm McGrane LLP, should not be allowed to pursue claims against Howrey partners on behalf of unsecured creditor Howrey Claims in the bankruptcy court. McGrane, who was once a lawyer for the committee, sued 302 former Howrey partners in November under a so-called “alter ego” theory, saying the partners dominated Howrey and should be directly responsible to creditors.

The committee did not explain its rationale for asking for McGrane's disqualification, and it asked that it be allowed to file papers supporting its motion under seal. It did, though, allude to comments McGrane allegedly sent to the trustee.

McGrane allegedly told Ben King, a lawyer for Howrey trustee Allan Diamond, that he “very much look[s] forward to being freed from the constraints of the attorney-client privilege in that last regard so that the whole story of the sorry/sordid way this case has been manipulated.”

In a filing the same day, the committee complained that McGrane's alter ego case is nothing but a “disguised avoidance action.”

“It belongs to the estate,” the committee said.

McGrane has in his own filings with the court complained that the trustee and committee act as though the trustee “owns” alter ego claims.

“No mere trustee (let alone a committee) is the only game in town when it comes to that subject of 'who owns alter ego,'” McGrane said.

McGrane did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

Howrey Claims said in its November filing that its alter ego suit is the only way it will be paid.

Pointing to the “hopeless insolvency” of the law firm’s estate and its mounting administrative costs, Howrey Claims said that given its lower priority as an unsecured creditor, it was unlikely to recover any of the money it is owed unless the equity security holders are held liable, according to the complaint.

Howrey Claims "will almost certainly never be paid anything in the future by anyone on account of its present status of being an unsecured creditor by assignment in the debtor’s bankruptcy case, except possibly the [Howrey equity security holders], and then only by way of a successful outcome in this class action,” the plaintiff said in the complaint.

Howrey was once one of the nation's top antitrust and intellectual property law firms, employing more than 750 attorneys in 17 offices across the U.S., Europe and Asia.

Its downfall began in 2009, as declining profits caused much of the firm’s top talent to jump ship. After one-third of its partners left, the firm opted for an out-of-court wind-down of its global operations. The firm’s partners voted in March 2011 to dissolve the firm.

Howrey Claims LLC is represented by McGrane LLP.

The creditors committee is represented by Bradford F. Englander.

The case is In re: Howrey LLP, case number 11-31376 DM, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Sindhu Sundar. Editing by Jeremy Barker.

Thursday, 22 May 2014

Magistrate Suspended by Parliament 
by Parliament



REPORT



SUSPENSION OF A MAGISTRATE:  MR D JACOBS, MAGISTRATE AT CLOCOLAN



1.                   PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Parliament of the suspension of Mr D Jacobs, the magistrate and Judicial Head at Clocolan, pending consideration by Parliament of a recommendation by the Magistrates Commission for his removal from office in terms of section 13(4)(a)(iii) of the Magistrates Act, No 90 of 1993. 

2.                   BACKGROUND

2.1        Mr Jacobs is the magistrate and Judicial Head of the District Court, Clocolan. He joined the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on 20 January 1983 and was appointed as Magistrate on 14 June 1997.  He serves the district of Clocolan as Magistrate since 1 January 1998. 

2.2        Mr Jacobs was charged with twelve (12) counts of misconduct in terms of regulation 26 of the Regulations for Judicial Officers in Lower Courts, 1994 (herinafter the Regulations).   He denied all the allegations against him but was prepared to make certain admissions. The inquiry commenced on 6 August 2010, continued on 22 September 2010, 6, 7 December 2010 and was concluded on 18 April 2011.  Mr Jacobs was legally represented throughout the inquiry. 

3.                   DISCUSSION

3.1        The inquiry commenced in terms of regulation 26 (misconduct proceedings) of the Regulations  but was by mutual agreement between the parties terminated, as reports by Mr Jacobs’ Clinical Psychologist were handed in and after he testified at the inquiry on the contents thereof, which evidence indicated Mr Jacobs’ incapacity to carry out his duties efficiently.  The Ethics Committee of the Magistrates Commission was approached for approval to immediately commence with an inquiry into Mr Jacobs’ incapacity to carry out his duties efficiently in terms of Regulation 27 of the Regulations.  Due process was followed and the Presiding Officer in the misconduct inquiry was by mutual agreement between the parties and with the approval of the Ethics Committee duly appointed to conduct the incapacity investigation. 

3.2        The Clinical Psychologist testified that:
a)                   he started consulting with Mr Jacobs as a therapeutically psychologist during June/July 2010;
b)                   Mr Jacobs suffers from post traumatic stress disorder;
c)                   the disorder was untreated/neglected which resulted in amongst others Mr Jacobs’ alcohol abuse,
d)                   he is of the opinion that brain damage/brain atrophy was caused due to Mr Jacobs’ abuse of alcohol which is incurable and which could present the following characteristics:

(i)                   inconsequent behaviour,
(ii)                 judgment varies from day to day
(iii)                a lack of insight

e)                   Mr Jacobs’ memory has been affected.
f)                     he is of the opinion that Mr Jacobs does not have the capacity to carry out the duties of office of magistrate any longer
g)                   that Mr Jacobs needs to be examined by a neurologist and a neuropsychologist to give expert evidence in respect of the factual brain damage and the cause thereof.

3.3        Various statements (inter alia from Magistrates, members from the bar and the side bar, and administrative staff) and reports were handed in and admitted as evidence at the inquiry.  The statements all confirm the essence of the initial charges of misconduct against Mr Jacobs.
-           that he absented himself on numerous occasions from the office without prior approval or leave,
-           that he on numerous occasions was intoxicated during office hours and unable to perform his official duties.

3.4        The Chairperson at the inquiry was addressed by both the Commission’s representative     and Mr Jacobs’ legal representative. Both were ad idem that Mr Jacobs does not have the capacity to carry out his duties in an efficient manner.  The Chairperson found it clear and undisputed that Mr Jacobs does not have the capacity to carry out his functions as a magistrate and informed Mr Jacobs accordingly in terms of regulation 27(5) of the Regulations.

3.5        Mr Jacobs, through his legal representative, was, at the conclusion of the inquiry on 18 April 2011, given the opportunity in terms of regulation 28(2) of the Regulations to submit to the Chairperson of the Commission his written comments regarding the finding and the reasons therefor.  He was nevertheless again given another opportunity to do so on 29 June 2011.  He however failed/refused to respond.

3.6   The Chairperson (the person who conducts the incapacity investigation) shall in terms of
regulation 28(1) (b) of the Regulations forward to the Commission the record of the proceedings of the investigation and all documentary evidence or certified copies thereof admitted at the investigation, as well as a written exposition of his or her reasons for the finding and any observations on the case which he or she may desire to make.

3.7                The magistrate concerned (Mr Jacobs) may, within 10 (ten) working days, after the date on which the finding of an incapacity hearing has come to his notice, submit to the Chairperson of the Commission written comments regarding the finding and the reasons therefor.


3.8                In terms of regulation 28(3) the Commission shall consider the relevant documents regarding an incapacity investigation, together with the comments of the magistrate, if any, and shall, if it is as a result of an incapacity investigation, of the opinion that a magistrate should be removed from office due to incapacity, recommend to Parliament that the magistrate be removed from office as contemplated in section 13 of the Act.

3.9        At its meeting held on 21 and 22 July 2011 the Magistrates Commission considered the contents of the documents as required by regulation 28(3)(a) of the Regulations.

3.10      Based on the undisputed evidence placed before the investigating officer (Chairperson) at the investigation into Mr Jacobs’ capacity to carry out his duties of office efficiently, and the latter’s finding and reasons therefore, the Commission resolved in terms of section 13(4)(a)iii) of the Act, read with regulation 28(3)(b) of the Regulations, to recommend to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to remove Mr Jacobs from office on account of incapacity to carry out the duties of his office efficiently.

3.11      The Commission further noted the fact that Mr Jacobs did not submit any written comment/representations in respect of the finding made.

4.                   LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

4.1        In terms of section 13(4)(a) of the Magistrates Act, No 90 of 1993, the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, if the Magistrates Commission would recommend that a Magistrate be removed from office on inter alia account of incapacity to carry out his duties of office efficiently, must suspend that Magistrate from office or if the Magistrate is at that stage provisionally suspended in terms of the Act, confirm the suspension.

4.2        A report in which such suspension and the reason therefore are made known, must be tabled in Parliament by the Minister within 14 days of such suspension, if Parliament is then in session, or if Parliament is not then in session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing session.

4.3        Parliament must then, as soon as it is reasonably possible, pass a resolution as to whether or not the restoration to his/her office of the Magistrate so suspended is recommended.

4.4        After a resolution has been passed by Parliament as contemplated in paragraph 4.3, the Minister shall restore the Magistrate concerned to his/her office or remove him/her from office, as the case may be.

4.5        As indicated above, once the Magistrates Commission has recommended that a Magistrate be removed from office on the ground of misconduct, the Minister must suspend that Magistrate from office.

4.6   On this basis I have suspended Mr Jacobs from office.

  1. CONCLUSION

This report, as required by section 13(4)(b) of the magistrates Act, 1993 is submitted for Parliament’s  consideration.


GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AT ………………..THIS………DAY OF ……………………..2011


MR J T RADEBE, MP

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 

Tuesday, 20 May 2014


Jo Hockey/ treasurer for  sale

  It looks like Joe has finally ripped his skirt off !!!!!
Why wouldn't the newspapers  think Joe is for sale as  it appears there was so many NSW Liberal MP's for sale as we can see at ICAC.
 You just have to roll around laughing.......................

Joe Hockey is suing Fairfax newspapers for defamation


TREASURER Joe Hockey is suing several Fairfax newspapers for defamation.
The move comes following front-page stories published this month which were related to his role in Liberal Party fundraising, the ABC has reported.
At the time Mr Hockey's office responded to allegation he was up for sale with this statement: "Any suggestion that the Treasurer is for sale is offensive and repugnant."
His office has confirmed that the Treasurer today filed statements of claim in the Federal Court in relation to defamation proceedings.
Mr Hockey is taking legal action against the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Canberra Times and their online services

7K
Email
Joe Hockey has confirmed he is suing Fairfax Media over its "treasurer for sale" front page.
Mr Hockey this afternoon lodged documents to commence defamation proceedings against the publisher, in response to the story that ran on the front pages of The AgeSydney Morning Herald and Canberra Times newspapers on May 5.
A spokesman for the treasurer told AAP that his "determination to prosecute this matter against the relevant publications should not be underestimated".
"The Treasurer has filed statements of claim in the Federal Court in relation to defamation proceedings against SMHThe Age and the Canberra Times and their online services," the spokesman said.
The story, published a week before Mr Hockey handed down his first budget, claimed the treasurer was offering privileged access to a select group that included business people and industry lobbyists in return for tens of thousands of dollars in donations to the Liberal Party.
The donations were funnelled through a secretive fund-raising body whose activities were not fully disclosed to election funding authorities.
May 13, 2014: Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey has delivered on his promise of a budget of ‘pain’, as he outlined it in a speech to parliament on Budget night.
The donors were members of the North Sydney Forum, a campaign fundraising body run by Mr Hockey's federal electoral conference, the Fairfax story said.
In return for annual fees of up to $22,000, members were rewarded with "VIP" meetings with the treasurer, often in private boardrooms.
Mr Hockey, in rejecting the claims at the time, described the accusations as both offensive and repugnant.
Author: Chloe Ross, Approving editor: Martin Zavan