Monday, 22 October 2012

Australian Government Investigation Standards

These are the standards that are to be applied to investigations as set down by the Federal Police.

According to the Australian Public Service Commission and in particular the Commonwealth Ombudsman who bravely told me that they have no investigation policy because they do not do"investigations" Colin Neave must have his fist uphis arse!

Posted 18 minutes ago by bankruptcy coverup by ombudsman

Add a comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

bankruptcy coverup by ombudsman

Saturday, 20 October 2012

Robert Cornall AO

Under the Financial Management and Accountability Act , and according to the Australian Government Investigation Standards( AGIS) Commonwealth Government Departments and Agencies are required to comply appropriate guidelines that would make the handling of complaints transparent. Investigators are required to have also the appropriate level of training.
In 2010-2011 the Australian Public Service Commission received 33 complaints from whistleblowers and also under S41(f) of the APS ACT.
The Skank Karin Fisher and Commissioner Steve Sedgwick fucked over and covered up all of these complaints but one which was investigated by Robert Cornall .
Clearly , in his position as the Secretary Attorney General Department there would have been a conflict of interest in his role to investigate a complaint made under section 41(f)
This would be like asking the Catholic Church to investigate the Catholic Church or asking Corrupt Adam Toma to investigate the now deregistered trustee Paul Anthony Pattison. It has now become clear that the reason Adam Toma failed to competently investigate Pattison is because they were both on the take.
Robert Cornall was awarded an AO for his service to the Community through contributions to the development of Public Policy.
Simply put Public Policy is an attempt by a government to address a public issue, however it has been shown that it is of little value to put guidelines into effect if there is a failure to have these correctly adhered to.
Robert Cornall with his fists holding his balls, clearly has covered up a detailed complain made about an Agency Head with the clear knowledge that being a past or currently employed by the attorney Generals Office would have made him unsuitable as an investigator in this matter. The 2 past Attorney Generals Philip Ruddock and Robert McClelland had actively covered up atrocious conduct at ITSA.
A recent example of the Attorney General Nicola Roxan attempting to cover up corrupt conduct was in the mater of Peter Slipper and James Ashby. Also Nicola Roxan complained that the opposition leader Tony Abott was a misogynous and hated women is very tiring. Nicola Roxan should consider that Mr Abott( who wanted to become a priest after fathering a child who turned out to be another man's after a DNA test was done 30 years latter) just doesn't like the look of Skanky Hoe's.Or maybe Nicola Roxan was referring to the matter of Pauline Hanson where Tony Abott set up a slush fund to have her charged and consequently jailed. I am sure there was certain hatred in this matter by the MAD MONK.

Friday, 19 October 2012

Paul Anthony Pattison Deregistration by Justice North

This is the Federal Court Judgement by Justice North after this trustee was found to have fucked over numerous bankrupts For a long period of time he had been protected by ITSA, Veronique Ingram and the corrupt Adam Toma

23 April 2012

Today, Mr Paul Anthony Pattison, of Melbourne Victoria, was deregistered as a trustee in Bankruptcy.

The decision follows a Federal Court of Australia order in July 2011 accepting Mr Pattison’s voluntary resignation from his 272 active matters.

Mr Pattison resigned as trustee of these matters and gave an undertaking that he would cease to carry out, consent to, or otherwise accept appointment as a trustee, unless and until he produced evidence in a form acceptable to ITSA or to the Court demonstrating he has the practice and financial capacity to adequately and properly carry out his duties as a trustee.

Since that time Mr Pattison has not been administering any bankruptcy matters. Mr Pattison had been the subject of lengthy investigations conducted by ITSA relating to his capacity to adequately and properly carry out his duties as a registered trustee and to re-start a personal insolvency practice.

As a result of these concerns a statutory committee was convened by the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy. The committee included an experienced registered trustee nominated by the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia.

After weighing the evidence and interviewing Mr Pattison the committee concluded there was sufficient evidence to warrant the cancellation of Mr Pattison’s registration. Upon receipt of the committee’s report this morning, the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy gave effect to the decision and immediately moved to deregister Mr Pattison.

Veronique Ingram, ITSA Chief Executive and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy, said that she appreciated that the committee decision to cancel Mr Pattison’s registration is one that is made following due process and intense deliberation.

“In accordance with my obligations prescribed in the Bankruptcy Act I have today formally given effect to the committee’s decision.

“The Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia has a key role to play in maintaining the integrity of Australia’s personal insolvency system.

“ITSA will continue to work with practitioners and take proactive disciplinary action where appropriate to ensure stakeholders maintain confidence in the system," she said.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tuesday, 16 October 2012

Adam Toma ITSA"s propaganda

Adam Toma ITSA's propaganda

Acosta, Victoria - ITSA prevents fake bankruptcy ploy by jilted lover

4 October 2012

Alain Omar Acosta of Deer Park, Victoria was convicted in the Melbourne Magistrates Court yesterday in relation to offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995.

Mr Adam Toma, National Manager of Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia’s (ITSA) regulation and enforcement business area, said yesterday:

“Acosta’s actions were malicious and deliberate with total disregard for his victims and the integrity of the insolvency system.”

Acosta, a twenty six year old unemployed office manager was charged with making and producing false documents to ITSA, namely, Debtors’ Petitions and Statements of Affairs completed in the names of six (6) young females known to him with the intention of having them declared bankrupt.

This is the propaganda released by Adam Toma, the corrupt National Enforcement Manager at ITSA .

.

The Insolvency system requires a petitioner to lodge a petition either with the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court. This must be accompanied with a Fee. If it is in the Federal Magistrates court it is approximately $800 and in the Federal Court around $2,200.

The petitioner is then required to appear in court with the relevant parers. Obviously Mr Acosta had not done this so it now shows that the oversight would have been that ITSA 's

If these procedures are not completed then there is no possibility of Bankruptcy.

***********

Adam Toma and ITSA then went on to report...............

The offences came to light when a victim received documentation from ITSA advising that her bankruptcy application had been accepted. The victim then contacted ITSA to advise she did not lodge the documents and was solvent.

Her bankruptcy was reversed. ITSA was able to pick up on other suspect documents as there were numerous similarities between them.

The fact that ITSA accepted documents that had not been though the correct channels shows this report from ITSA is complete propaganda and full of Shit.

If this matter was ever legitimate Mr Acosta would have paid a considerable amount of money as ITSA claimed there were 3 women who were victims.

Mr Toma said.....

" This outcome highlights the vital role of ITSA’s enforcement program"

So .... clearly there appears also another agenda for this story.

Acosta could not have filed false papers with ITSA because the correct procedure was not adhered to.

Adam Toma continues to try and fuck over and intimidate those who he considers to be targets.

Clearly Adam Toma is leaving behind a paper trail he did not intend anyone to ever find.

Did Adam Toma also profit from this case???

After contacting the Victorian Magistrates Court they requested $75 to get a copy of this decision. If this matter was genuine and this matter only concerned ITSA Enforcement then Adam Toma should have put Magistrate Rozencwajg decision on ITSA site.

.

Did not this dumb Magistrate realize that Mr Acosta had not filed false Bankruptcy Papers because the Bankruptcy Process had not been complied with in the first place.

Magistrate Rozencwajk was the magistrate who sentenced Derryn Hinch for broadcasting the names of Rockspiders.

.

By Noel McNamara on August 11th, 2011

Derryn Hinch is a man who speaks without fear or favour and when Derryn (who has been a great support of victims and their rights for as manys years as I have been in a very unbalance justice system), under these two Attorney Generals when they were in office the late Jim Kennen and who could forget the Rob Hulls years some how because of their leniency to violent criminals especially Rob Hulls with the bleeding heart magistrates, and judges appointed to the judicial chambers, we at CVSA start to question if they knew what side they were meant to bat for.
Now we have always had suppression order in our our courts that is meant to protect the victims where they could be identified. Fair enough, a good thing but the bleeding hearts decided to beef it up a bit by bringing in suppression orders to protect vile pedophiles, rapists and all sex offenders.
Derryn Hinch was among many of us at a rally on the steps of Parliament where we all named these vile creatures in the interest of ours children and grandchildren. What followed after that was like Hitler’s Germany, Derryn was charged and the rest of us waited for summonses that never came, go figure. After that the rest is history. Derryn cops five months home detention from a magistrate called Charlie Rozencwajg. I thought that this sentence was a disgrace and that if they were still in Government Hulls mob, they would have a Reverse Sex Offender list for Derryn.
Charlie Rozencwajg would have to be one of Rob Hulls’ bleeding hearts appointed to the bench as he told us his thoughts on justice which they believes belongs to them not the people who pay their wages. Charlie told the court that Hinch had campaigned for the abolition of suspender sentences and encouraged the passing of a “one size fits all approach which removed judicial discretion” in sentencing. Such an approach would lead to injustices, the magistrate said.
Charlie, that is what victims have had to put up with for years, suck it up charlie it is now happening…

Derryn Hinch is fighting to avoid a jail sentence for breaching suppression orders. Source: Herald Sun

OUTSPOKEN broadcaster Derryn Hinch could face four years’ jail for publicly naming two sex offenders – if doctors can save his life with an emergency liver transplant.

Hinch, who has been told he has only three months to live due to cancer, was found guilty on four counts of contempt of court for naming the sex offenders in the face of suppression orders.

In front of a courtroom packed with Hinch supporters, Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg dismissed one charge against the radio commentator, but found four others proven.

Those four charges relate to Hinch naming the sex offenders on his website and at a rally on the steps of Parliament in 2008.

A resolute Hinch has decided to run his own defence and do the talking at his plea hearing.

“I know that people say that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client … but just for the plea, I know who I am and what I’ve done, and I think it’s only fair I do it myself,” he said.

In March, Hinch lost a High Court constitutional challenge to secrecy provisions in Victoria’s serious sex offender laws. The 67-year-old now faces jail for the second time in his career.

Chief Crown prosecutor Gavin Silbert, SC, told Mr Rozencwajg a custodial term would normally be expected.

As a sentencing option, Mr Rozencwajg asked for Hinch to be assessed for home detention, though he stressed that did not indicate his eventual sentence.

Hinch stuck to his guns outside court.

“I’m not sorry for what I’ve done,” he said. “It’s a good cause and the law’s a bad law … their names are suppressed and that is just bloody wrong.”

Hinch said he would still campaign for a public register of sex offenders.

“I’m glad to see the Herald Sun’s come out editorially in supporting that idea,” he said.

Hinch will return to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on June 21.

andersonp@heraldsun.com.au

Categorized under: Law and Order.

Tagged with: no tags.

One Response to “Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg suck it up! Leniant sentences are on the way out.”
1. Warwick says:
December 21, 2011 at 9:00 am

Two points to make:

1. Apparently Derryn Hinch was told he had liver cancer and had three months to live so Charlie Rozencwajg gives him a five month home detention sentance!! Bright!! Go figure!!

2. Derryn Hinch is given a five month home detention sentance and is banned from engaging in gainful employment. Given Derryn Hinch’s trade then isn’t that a restraint of trade under the Act!! Go figure!! A case for abuse of process perhaps?

Posted 1 minute ago by bankruptcy coverup by ombudsman

Add a comment

Saturday, 13 October 2012

Commonwealth Ombudsman has no investigation policy

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au
Subject: RE: Your FOI request of 13 September 2012 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 12:58:48 +1100

To
Luke Phelps
FOI Officer Commonwealth Ombudsman,

Dear Luke,
I understand you do not understand my request.
In the 2010/2011 Commonwealth Ombudsmans statistics there are 579 complaints made about the Commonwealth Ombudsman. I am seeking a copy of each of these complaints.
I understand the Commonwealth Ombudsman consider this too difficult and wish to refuse my request for purely practical reasons.
To overcome this, I would accept that the Commonwealth Ombudsman email me 15 copies of the complaints made to the Commonweath Ombudsman each week for a year . This should dramatically lighten your workload.
I refer to the statistics
Category 1—resolved without investigation, outcomes include decisions not to investigate and referrals to appropriate agency or authority
Category 2—cannot be resolved at category 1 and require further internal enquiries/research or more information from the complainant, resolved without contacting the agency
Category 3—investigation conducted and agency contacted

I also understand that the Commonwealth Ombudsman has no investigation policy, no one at the Commonwealth Ombudsman has any investigation qualifications and Australian Government Investigation standards do not apply to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Is this correct?? Could you pease respond to this.
I would understand that according to the Financial Management and Acountability Act this would require that this is complied with. Clearly you will be aware that that failure to comply with the AGIS would allow the Commonwealth Ombudsman to be seen to condone corrupt conduct and even corruption.
You will understand this is not the role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman .
I also now would request under FOI that the Commonwealth Ombudsman also suppy me with a copy of the 70 complaints made to them about the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia in the same financial year.
Thank you
Fiona Brown

Monday, 17 September 2012

Reply OAIC RE Freedom of Information

From: FOI@apsc.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:36:00 +1000
Subject: FW: FOI [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Ms Brown,

The purpose of this message is:

1. to acknowledge receipt of your FOI request of 24 June 2012;

2. to acknowledge receipt of your FOI request of 23 August 2012; and

3. to provide you with information about further communication with this office.

1. Your FOI Request of 24 June 2012

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner recently provided this office with a copy of your FOI request of 24 June 2012. Although this office does not have a copy of your original request, I am writing to acknowledge receipt of that request. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has granted an extension of time until 2 October 2012 to respond to this request. I will write to you again in the near future with further information about the Commission’s response to this request.

2. Your FOI Request of 23 August 2012

I acknowledge receipt of your FOI request dated 23 August 2012 (below) for documents disclosing “the name of the individual or the name of the Company that the Australian Public Service Commission uses when complaints are received from Whistleblowers under S16 of the Australian Public Service Act and also S41(f) of the Australian Public Service Act”. I understand your reference to S41(f) to be a reference to paragraph 41(1)(f) of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act).

This FOI request is receiving attention and I will write to you again in the near future about this request.

3. Further communication with this office

For reasons explained further below, please observe the following protocols in relation to future communication with this office about FOI:

1. Please address any FOI email correspondence to foi@apsc.gov.au. If you do not observe this instruction your correspondence may not be received.

2. Please do not address email correspondence to foi@apsc.gov.au if the correspondence is not in respect of an FOI request.

In March 2012, the Public Service Commissioner wrote to you and made the following request:

· “Finally, many of your emails to the Commission include offensive language and abusive personal remarks about individuals. Please stop sending abusive emails. Any further abusive correspondence may be filed without reading.”

Similarly, in April 2012, Karin Fisher wrote to you and stated the following:

· “The email is defamatory and highly offensive. I am advising you to stop sending similar emails to me and copy recipients, and to remove this material from websites that you have established.”

As you did not comply with these requests, measures were put in place on the Commission’s email servers to divert email messages from you. Although it was intended that any FOI requests would be directed to the appropriate recipient, this did not occur.

Additional measures have now been put in place to ensure that messages you address to foi@apsc.gov.au will reach the intended recipient. Please note that if you send offensive, abusive or defamatory material to foi@apsc.gov.au or if you send a substantial volume of correspondence to this address, the Commission may take further steps to block or divert email messages from you.

You are, of course, free to address correspondence to:

FOI Coordinator

Australian Public Service Commission

16 Furzer Street

WODEN ACT 2606

Please note that a copy of this message will be forwarded to the OAIC so that the OAIC will be aware of the instructions provided to you above.

Regards,

____________________________________________________Chris Luton
FOI Officer
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au

From: fiona brown [mailto:fionabrown01@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2012 7:57 PM
To: FOI; LUTON,Chris
Subject: FOI

Dear Chris
Thank you for supplying me with a copy of the Australian Public Service Fraud control plan and your accompanying letter explaining that the Australian Public Service finds it unnecessary to have an investigation policy pursuant to the AGIS. You also informed me that Commissioner Steve Sedgwick or Karin Fisher or in fact nobody in the Australian Public Service Commission has any qualifications to do investigations as required by the AGIS.

I understand that the Australian Public Service Commission would contract a suitably qualified investigator to undertake enquiries in accordance with the guidelines.

Under Freedom of Information please supply me with the name of the individual or the name of the Company that the Australian Public Service Commission uses when complaints are received from Whistleblowers under S16 of the Australian Public Service Act and also S41(f) of the Australian Public Service Act.

I would assume that the Australian Public Service would attempt to avoid a conflict of interest and appear to be transparent when dealing with these matters. It would be an abuse of Office and power should it be found that the Australian Public Service Commissioner deliberately protected Agency Heads and failed to comply with the AGIS by failing to use qualified investigators.

You may be aware that Fairwork Australia was criticized this week by KPMG for lack of qualified officials who had no standards to follow and failed to investigate key areas.

The correspondence in the form of emails I received under Freedom of Information sent to Veronique Ingram Head of ITSA and Alison Larkins Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman was sent by Karin Fisher and not a qualified investigator as required under the AGIS. From this it can only be assumed that the Australian Public Service Commission considers that extensive evidence of systemic corrupt conduct by senior management at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia to be extremely minor or Commissioner Sedgewick has made a decision that this must be covered up at all costs.

Earlier I also requested a copy of the emails or letters that were sent to the respective Agency Heads when a complaint had been received under S16 or S41(f) of the Australian Public Service Act. This would have been the first or initial contact that would have been made. I understand for privacy reasons all names would be blacked out . I requested under FOI a copy of all these initial contacts in the financial year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. I believe I received confirmation that none of these emails or letters exist. I therefore find this particularly confronting that of all the complaints made to the Australian Public Service Commission in the particular time span the complaint made by me was the only complaint that the Karin Fisher actually contacted the Agency Heads asking them to explain their behavior. If this is correct it would show a complete lack compliance with the AGIS.

This is taken from the 2010-2011 APS Annual report:

Whistleblowing reports and other allegations

APS employees are able to report alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct to their agency head or a person authorised by the agency head.

Whistleblowing inquiry functions are handled by delegated senior staff in the Ethics Group, with the Commissioner reserving for his personal consideration matters that raise serious public interest issues.

During 2010–11, the Commissioner received 14 whistleblowing reports from APS employees and three complaints from former public servants. Table 4 shows the number of cases received and finalised. Four complaints were carried over from 2009–10. All whistleblowing reports were acknowledged and many substantially responded to within six weeks.

The complaints from public servants concerned poor administration, the handling of internal investigations, and allegations of misconduct by senior managers including allegations of bullying and harassment.

Eleven matters were finalised in 2010–11, including two of the four matters carried over from the previous year. Table 4 also shows the action taken by the Commissioner in response to these cases. The one investigation undertaken found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant recommending an investigation into an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct. In most cases, however, the employee was advised to refer the matter to the relevant agency head for investigation.

While the number of whistleblowing reports lodged is low, they often concern complex interpersonal matters and the issues can take a long time to assess, including whether any or all of the matters have been investigated by the agency in the first instance.

The Commissioner also handled 16 allegations against agency heads made by APS employees and members of the public under section 41(1)(f) of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act). The complaints commonly featured allegations that agency decision-makers had failed to comply with their legislative obligations or not exercised their decision-making powers properly. Only one of the ten cases finalised warranted an inquiry.

.You will be aware that Commissioner Steve Sedgwick has abused Office in this circumstance.

I will now be specific what I require under Freedom of Information.

*********Please supply me with the name of the investigator or the Company which the APS uses for investigating all complaints made under S16 and S41(f) of the Australian Public Service Act.

*********As I cannot believe that no emails or letters were sent to Agency Heads when a complaint was made asking for an initial explanation except for the complaint that was made about ITSA or the Commonwealth Ombudsman by myself could you again verify this for me. If this proves to indeed be correct I would unfortunately be very concerned that the correspondence I received under FOI from Karin Fisher was a forgery.

I would appreciate confirmation of this email.

Thanking you

Fiona Brown