Jane Brockington VCGLR subpoenaed to give evidence she is protecting corrupt employee Adam Toma
 Jane Brockington is stepping aside from the VCGLR on the 24th March 2014 just in time to give evidence on the 28 th March 2014 .

 Clearly there is no integrity to this skank who protects corruption and fraud.

Commonwealth Director of Prosecution considering how to protect Fraud and corruption in Government Departments

From: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: REASONABLE PEOPLE S474.17 [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:38:41 +0000

Sensitive: Legal

Dear Ms Brown,

I am not permitted to give you any legal advice about the meaning of “reasonable persons”.

I advise that I will be seeking an adjournment at the call over tomorrow until Friday 7.3.14, to carefully consider whether these charges ought to proceed further.

Many thanks,

Stephen Grodzicki

A/ Principal Legal Officer | Prosecutions (3)

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sydney Office

T: 02 9321 1111 | F: 9321 1351 | E: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.aup

CDPP considering defeat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Clearly it is a very sad evening  for me when I receive an Email from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution that they are considering defeat!!!!!
Considering the AFSA and the shonks at the Australian Federal Police tried their very best to fuck me over there is only one thing left for them all to do.............................
Come kiss my fucking ARSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
Subject: Considering defeat?
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:04:52 +1100

Hi Stephen,

               please don't  drop the charges against me because it will clearly spoil all the fun I am going to have cross examining all the shonky staff at the the Australian Financial Security Commission  and exposing systemic  corrupt conduct at the Commonwealth Ombudsman , the Australian Public Service Commission and the Australian Federal  Police.

As you are aware this matter  was an abuse of power and malicious prosecution you  will also be aware that  these Government Agencies will  still face the difficulties of being exposed on the internet should you  consider defeat   is your preferred option.

Thank you

Fiona Brown

Search Warrants/ shonky Magistrates and shonky documents!!!

+Top of Form

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 255

Issue of search warrants (1) If, on the application of a police officer, a magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe—
(a) that an offence to which this Act applies has been, or is intended to be, committed; and
(b) that there is in any premises an object relevant to the investigation of that offence;
the magistrate may issue a search warrant in respect of those premises.
(2) An application for the issue of a search warrant may be made either personally or by telephone.
(3) The grounds of an application for a search warrant shall be verified by affidavit.
(4) An application for the issue of a search warrant shall not be made by telephone unless in the opinion of the applicant a search warrant is urgently required and there is insufficient time to make the application personally.
(5) If an application for the issue of a search warrant is made by telephone—
(a) the applicant shall inform the magistrate of his or her name and of his or her rank and number in the police force, and the magistrate, on receiving that information, is entitled to assume, without further inquiry, that the applicant is a police officer; and
(b) the applicant shall inform the magistrate of the grounds on which he or she seeks the issue of the search warrant; and
(c) if it appears to the magistrate from the information given by the applicant that there are proper grounds for the issue of a search warrant—he or she shall inform the applicant of the facts on which he or she relies as grounds for the issue of the warrant, and shall not proceed to issue the warrant unless the applicant undertakes to make an affidavit verifying those facts; and
(d) if the applicant gives the undertaking—the magistrate may then make out, and sign, a search warrant, noting on the warrant the facts on which he or she relies as grounds for the issue of the warrant; and
(e) the search warrant shall be deemed to have been issued, and shall come into force, when signed by the magistrate; and
(f) the magistrate shall inform the applicant of the terms of the warrant; and
(g) the applicant shall, as soon as practicable after the issue of the warrant, forward to the magistrate an affidavit verifying the facts referred to in paragraph (c).
(6) A magistrate by whom a search warrant is issued shall file the warrant, or a copy of the warrant, and the affidavit verifying the grounds on which the application for the warrant was made, in the Magistrates Court.

Corby seeking what documents  what documents where put before magistrate  who signed search warrant.

Clearly as Julian Assange says that there are some shonky magistrates out there!!!!!!!!!!!!

The case has been listed for its first mention tomorrow before Justice Jayne Jagot in Sydney.

The development is yet another sensation twist in the Corby saga with armed agents from the AFP raiding Seven’s Sydney offices last Tuesday to search for documents relating to an exclusive deal for a paid interview with Schapelle Corby.

Justice Jagot, presiding over the mention of Mercedes’ case, is also hearing the case lodged by Seven West Media against the AFP over the raidson Seven and on the offices of New Idea magazine last week.

ALSOSeven is seeking details of the material the AFP presented to the magistrate who signed the search warrants. The media company has asked the court to review and set aside the warrants.

FOI AFSA/ Dave Maher/ protecting fraud and corruption
 Well it only gets funnier when I have  all the shonky senior management in court so they can expose themselves.

FOI Coordinator
Australian Financial Security Authority
GPO Box 821
CANBERRA ACT 2601

27^th February2014

Dear Mr Maher

I refer to your letter dated 19^th February 2014

I requested a copy of your certificates of compliance and the number of AFP referrals made in the  financial year 2012-2013

 You made a decision to refuse me the certificates of compliance  because disclosure could reasonably  be expected to have an adverse  affect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the Agency.

I make a special note that the Commonwealth Ombudsman provided me freely  the same information   and the certificates of compliance for the  past  3 Financial years.

This indicates to me that  there is no transparency at AFSA and you are attempting to protect Fraud and systemic corrupt conduct.

I also remind you Mr Maher that you have obligations under the the FOI Act and one of them   is not the discretion to  protect systemic corrupt conduct

and  fraud at AFSA

 

I find it particularly amusing you find that releasing this information to me would not be in the PUBLIC INTEREST

Please explain to me why you fail  to be in uniform with transparency of other Government Agencies.

I also refer to the 11 search warrants and referrals made by ITSA or AFSA to the AFP.

Please also  advise me how many of these were made by a corrupt Adam Toma or a shonky Veronique Ingram to  intimidate any person who exposed fraud and systemic corrupt conduct by senior Management at your agency.

Thank you

Fiona Brown

FOI Commonwealth Ombudsman

S15 Commonwealth Ombudsman Act requires that all systemic breaches , fraud and corruption be referred by the Commonwealth Ombudsman to the relevant Minister. However this requirement is fucked and shonkey Government department are protected


From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: ombudsman.north@ombudsman.gov.au
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request 2014-1008 decision [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:37:53 +1100

Hi Sandra,
I refer to your reply dated 17th February 2014.
It appears the statistics I wish to obtain is unavailable in the Ombudsmans Annual report . Although there is statistical information available it fails to reflect what is required of the Commonwealth Ombudsman under S15 Commonwealth Ombudsman Act 1976.
Therefore could you please help me with the statistics available on investigations .
Thanking you
Fiona Brown