Desert Rat

To Absent Friends

2010-11-15T16:39:00.000-08:00

Idealism Unclean, Sacrificed Justice and Paradise Lost?

The inactivity generally of Western Australian lawyers, academics and "intellectuals" following the contempt for natural justice and fair play and the carnage caused by the political activists at Corruption and Crime Commission is a reflection of the selfishness of our society.

Too much power always results in excesses. Surely there must be good people in the CCC who are appalled at the bias and disregard of the CCC senior officers for fairness and proper treatment of those it investigates.

Who stood up for Michael Moodie?
Who questioned his and many others treatment in the hands of the CCC?

The famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) could equally apply to the Corruption and Crime Commission activities.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Where are the civil libertarians in the Labor movement or are they all just lining up for parliamentary careers and too scared to offend the controlling and powerful Left?

The gutless are frightened by strength and consequence and are stricken by fear. They eschew justice for the safety of the gang, loyalty to the strong - not the just. Weakness against tyranny is their hallmark.

Let' lament absent friend's, not in Robbie Burns the working mans' poet's words, but those another Scot who evoked the Australian spirit:

"Absent Friends!" -- The lost legion that lies in the grave;
The friends who were false and the friends we forgave, --
Whose words had the edge of the enemy's knife,
To torture the heart and poison the life; --
The friend who lay dying and never could know
That we loved at the last as we loved long ago!

So each across his wine-cup bends,
And silently, and tearfully,
We pledge our "Absent Friends!"
Will H. Ogilvie (1869- 18630

The Farce of Regulating Lobbying

2010-11-13T23:35:00.000-08:00

Lobbyists - Business as usual

Legislation to "control" lobbyist in Western Australia has always been ineffective. Geoff Gallop's puny register of lobbyists nets only about 10% of lobbyists actively working in Western Australia.

Independent Liz Constable's two very potent and probably very effective Bills were both ignored by the Labor and Liberal Governments. The Corruption and Crime Commission has failed to have a public or private inquiry into lobbying and its extent in Western Australia. Such an inquiry would have been more effective than the pursuit of high profile political enemies of the ruling elite of the time.

Readers may be surprised to know that some of our most prominent lobbyists are former Prime Ministers.

Bob Hawke has sold his lobbying services to many foreign governments. He was a regular golf partner of the Burmese Generals in his early days. In recent years he has praised the military junta and been silent on Aung San Suu Kyi and didn't raise human rights on his most recent visit.

Paul Keating has long had a client list of foreign governments and government controlled company on his consulting services list going back many years. One company of which he was a lobbyist or shall we use the euphemism "business associate" was a Chinese Government company Aldoga Aluminium Smelter Pty Ltd.

Kevin Rudd became a lobbyist after he fell out with Queensland Premier Wayne Goss. Rudd was his Principal Private Secretary. Rudd promptly went to work for the Chinese Government consulting in Africa.

What Chinese interest was Rudd serving when he went to the Sudan on the Chinese Government's behalf when the Sudanese government backed militia were slaughtering refugees in Dafur?

Former Prime Ministers and other politicians should not be allowed to work as lobbyists without some form of effective parliamentary oversight.

We certainly have not got that in WA - by design, the Desert Rat thinks.

Michael Moodie loses everything - McGinty rewarded

2010-11-13T02:01:00.000-08:00

Phoney CCC charges thrown out of Court - Moodie vindicated but broke, no job and poor health

Michael Moodie who was central to attempts to bring some accountability to Jim McGinty's IT bungles at WA Health, paid a heavy price for his efforts.

Moodie the fearless bureaucrat was crushed by a fruitless Corruption and Crime Commission prosecution which left him penniless, bankrupt and still without a job at WA Health, despite being found innocent.

Why was Moodie really prosecuted?

Moodie's trouble started in 2006 when he was put in charge of WA Health IT. He uncovered the mess under McGinty Health Ministry and immediately began a searching audit process [Michael's first BIG mistake!].

Moodie demanded that Treasury run the tender process.

Moodie also uncovered that Fujitsu was preparing the WA Health Department tender "in such a manner that would ensure an ongoing role for itself - a yearly contract of some millions".

Veteran Nationals MP Max Trenorden said in the Legislative Council that the charges brought against Michael Moodie were nothing more than a side show, a diversion to to get him out of the Department of Health and finish him off financially, to destroy him.

The Desert Rat believes Michael Moodie was the goods, and IT in WA Health would be quite vibrant if he were still there. He was shafted first by the doctors at PMH and then by senior health bureaucrats and finished off by the Corruption and Crime Commission - under McGinty's watch.

Without the maverick Michael Moodie, the culture of intransigence and wasting money which was the hallmark of WA Health under Jim McGinty, continued.

Why hasn't Moodie been reinstated in his WA Health job after being found innocent? Double jeopardy. Was he fucked-over because he wasperceived as an enemy of the State - like Grill and Burke?

Meanwhile unrivaled fool and Left Labor hero Jim McGinty (the former Health Minister) who stuffed-up badly on many fronts (including this one) is now advising Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon.

What financial black holes has Roxon given this idiot to superintend?

The Desert Rat presumes this sinecure is worth at least $200 000 a year - plus more?? This, on top of his $2 million plus parliamentary superannuation payout?

The Desert Rat regards this as double dipping on a grand scale. What next? An Order of Australia for services to the nation?

Sad greedy people.

Incompetent McGinty's Improper Conduct Costs Taxpayers $115 million

2010-11-11T16:55:00.001-08:00

No CCC Inquiry over health record shambles.

During former Labor Minister Jim McGinty's stewardship of WA Health, the Auditor General has revealed that not only did he hand out a $115 million contract for an electronic health records system without a tender, but he also failed to have a business case prepared to justify that expenditure - as required by his own Health Act.

Bit Smelly?

Will the Corruption and Crime Commission Chairman Len Roberts Smith inquire into this improper conduct or possible corruption?

The decision by Jim McGinty and WA Health to award the Patients Admission System (PAS) to British Company iSoft without a tender was a disgrace. WA Health called a meeting of all prospective vendors at which it was expected that the tender would be announced. Instead WA Health said there would be no tender and that they had already awarded the work to iSoft.

Bit smelly?

Imagine if Brian Burke or Julian Grill did this. The CCC and Robert's Smith would be down on them like a tonne of bricks, investigating for evidence of a kick backs, corruption and improper conduct.

As well as criticising the omission in awarding the contract, under Jim McGinty's stewardship the Auditor General said WA Health failed to monitor the contract, he criticised the alarming inadequacy, sometime absence of important financial records. Incompetence after bungling incompetence is documented in the Auditor General's report. see www.audit.wa.gov.au

The contempt for taxpayers by these braggadocios and their foolish incompetence is no surprise to the Desert Rat.

The Auditor General clearly lays the blame at Jim McGinty's feet when as Health Minister Parliament appropriated $335 million for the electronic health records system in 2004 but McGinty stuffed it up; he dropped the ball.

Jim McGinty it would seem has political immunity when it come to investigation by the CCC - why?

Shades of the Führer?

2010-09-26T17:40:00.000-07:00

The Rancorous Spite of Roberts-Smiths Secular World:
"Do unto others, as you wouldn't have them do unto you."

Every day the CCC looks more like a single party dictatorship based on totalitarian and autocratic ideals. Like the CIA the CCC refuses to confirm or deny the existence of listening devices, hidden camera, email and fax monitoring devices long after the excuse for them has lost credibility.

These devices and software allow the CCC to undertake unrestricted surveillance of their perceived "enemies of the State". Disturbingly, all communication is monitored from love-making to privileged communication between defence lawyers and the CCC's victim. All those involved in the Smith's Beach Inquiry are still being monitored by Dad's Army; Len Roberts-Smith band of overpaid, under-achieving, toadying incompetents.

After 7 years they still do not know if they are being monitored. Even if they defeat the last desperate appeal, we can be sure Roberts-Smith will not inform them that the investigation is at an end. That would be seen as a potential public admission of failure. Despite over $100 million being spent to "expose" assumed corruption associated with the Smith's Beach development (Brian Burke, Julian Grill, David McKenzie; and media manipulation to ensure enough mud (propaganda) has been thrown to destroy their reputation, to soften-up and convince the public that their is no question of innocence, the victims can only assume they are still being spied on by the CCC surveillance machine.

Fiannaca's Appeal against Dismissal of Charges against Grill & Burke

2010-09-24T06:06:00.000-07:00

Fiannaca - In Pursuit of Glory or Ignominy?

The conduct of Bruno Fianacca the deputy DPP, has goaded the Desert Rat back into action.

Fiannaca was an important player in the bringing of the CCC corruption charges against Julian Grill and Brian Burke. Fiannaca is central to the current appeals against the dismissal of the recent charges against Grill and Burke, where a Judge Michael Murray a former Crown prosecutor found that the they had "no case to answer".

Fiannaca has a very grubby record of draconian activity in relation to a number of high profile criminal fiasco’s, including the Mallard appeals and the JWRL case among other. He has been an enthusiastic soul mate of the Court Jester Major General Len Robert-Smith.

Just as well this idiot is a lawyer and not a surgeon or nurse where rigour and protocol are critical if you want avoid havoc and destruction and continue to practise those professions.

The need for Fiannaca to feed his massive ego and his incompetent pursuit of position and status beyond his ability, has created unnecessary misery for many honest and innocent citizens of Western Australia.

Fiannaca Record- When Integrity's Absent, Malice Reigns

2010-09-23T21:30:00.000-07:00

Fiannaca's Earlier Disgrace

Senior prosecutor denies 'stifling' Mallard appeal

Posted ABC Wed Oct 24, 2007

Prosecutor Bruno Fiannaca has denied trying to stifle Andrew Mallard's murder appeal. (ABC)

A senior prosecutor who contested Andrew Mallard's first attempt to appeal against his murder conviction has denied deliberately stifling efforts by the defence to subpoena material which cast doubt on Mr Mallard's guilt.

Bruno Fiannaca is giving evidence to a Corruption and Crime Commission Inquiry, which is investigating Mr Mallard's wrongful conviction for the 1994 murder of Pamela Lawrence.

The inquiry has heard that in 2002 Mr Fiannaca was asked by the Director of Public Prosecutions Robert Cock to consider a petition to launch an appeal from Mr Mallard's legal team.

Mr Fiannaca said although several aspects of the case had not been disclosed to the jury at trial he advised Mr Cock to oppose the appeal.

He said he was inundated with subpoena requests from Mr Mallard's legal team and at times found their actions unreasonable, but he denied trying to stop their attempts to find information which would have cast doubt over Mr Mallard's guilt.

The inquiry has been shown a report sent to Mr Fiannaca from a British forensic expert confirming that despite the prosecution case at trial, a spanner drawn by Mr Mallard could not have been used to kill Mrs Lawrence.

The report was not provided to Mr Mallard's lawyers until six months after it was written, but Mr Fiannaca has denied "sitting on it", saying he needed to clarify some things and it was always his intention to disclose it.

"Pigs might fly?"

Fiannaca - Misconduct by DDP Prosecutor?

2010-09-23T21:12:00.000-07:00

Fiannaca get the biggest Shellacking Ever of a Senior Prosecutor by a Senior Judge

from Crikey.com

13 September 2010
Justice takes a back seat again in WA
by Greg Barns

Last Friday was not a good one for the Western Australian Office of the DPP. Its conduct in a case involving a young man aged 17, who had been given a two-year suspended sentence after being found guilty of a serious assault that resulted in the death of the victim, was described by the Western Australian Chief Justice Wayne Martin as a “a conspicuous departure from appropriate prosecutorial conduct”, and as “patently indefensible”.

The case known as State of WA v JWRL was a high-profile one in Perth. Steven Rowe, a 17-year-old, was killed in 2008 after a fight in a suburban park. Rowe was bashed over the head with a garden stake by the defendant, who cannot be named because he was not 18 at the date of the offence. A widely reported Supreme Court trial in 2009 saw a jury acquit JWRL of murder and manslaughter but find him guilty of assault.

The case was yet another from the West that involved the prosecution failing in its duty to disclose all relevant evidence to the defence. This has been a common theme in a handful of high-profile Western Australian criminal trials over the years — one involving Andrew Mallard, a man wrongfully convicted in 1995 of murder, being the most prominent. Here the DPP’s office received new information from a witness shortly before the trial but did not disclose this to the defence. Chief Justice Martin described the DPP’s office’s conduct as patently unjustifiable and that it was a “conspicuous departure from appropriate prosecutorial conduct”. Of other submissions made in the appeal by the DPP Chief Justice Martin peppered his judgment with words such as “pedantic” and “utterly without foundation”. He described another submission as “extraordinary”.

The DPP’s appeal in this case was argued by one of WA’s most senior prosecutors, Bruno Fiannaca, who has prosecuted former premier Brian Burke and who ironically argued the appeal on behalf of the state against the overturning of Mallard’s conviction by the High Court in 2005. Given the fact that the state’s most senior judge is so relentlessly scathing of the conduct of DPP’s office in the JWRL trial and thought its appeal was without any merit, WA Attorney-General Christian Porter, a former prosecutor himself, might care to ask some very hard questions of the office responsible for running the state’s criminal cases. With the JWRL decision, the roll call of miscarriages of justice in WA just grew by one — and that’s one too many.

Demise of "nowhere man" Carpenter

2009-09-28T05:34:00.000-07:00

Isn't he a nowhere man, living in a nowhere land, making up his nowhere plans, for nobody.
Doesn't have a point of view, knows not where he's going to .....

Did youu have the misfortune of watching Alan Carpenter's retirement announcement on ABC TV last night?

The interview was marked by immaturity and superficiality.

The ALP Caucas gave Jim McGinty the failed former minister a free hand to pick leading lights for safe seats and Carpenter was his fifth choice after five knockbacks.

No person can claim to be grown up if they don't take responsibility for their own decisions. Carpenter blamed everybody except himself for his demise. He followed his own well trodden path of scoring off his colleagues.

When asked to make some comment on his term he could say nothing more profound than he "had a wonderful vision" and he "got rid of Brian Burke, for which he deserved a big tick".

His lament at the loss of superannuation was a far cry from his high profile sanctimony when he self righteously campaigned for its abolition in the first blush of his Parliamentary term. He told some of his colleagues including Kim Chance, that it was" the biggest mistake of my life".

The Desert Rat knew Alan Carpenter and saw him as an abject failure, bereft of ideas to contribute to the ALP and Parliament.

Graeme Campbell got him right, from day one, two decades ago, when he told me he was a pissant.

Archer Charges "Baseless" - More Humiliation for CCC

2009-09-27T04:03:00.000-07:00

Roberts-Smith, Silverstone and Ingham disgraced by latest CCC fiacso.

Shelley Archer gave Brian Burke, a copy of a letter that was already public. The letter was given openly by the Shire of Broome and was publically available on the Shire of Broome website. All pealing companies received it except Brian Burkes client - who engaged him because he thought he was being victimised by the Fisheries Department..

The incompetent Corruption and Crime Commission ignored the fact that the letter was publically available and dishonestly claimed the letter was “confidential” – how ignorantly quaint or is the breathless incompetence of the CCC on display again?

The Desert Rat and many others suspected these charges should never have been brought against Shelley Archer and that she should never have been subjected to the ordeal that she has had to face. The DPP conceded in his short press release that there was “no clear evidence that there was any actual benefit to Mr Burke”. That didn't stop her enemies in the Labor Party who have no regard for natural justice.

The CCC ruined Shelley Archer’s political career and reputation; McGinty and Carpenter turned caucus against her and the rest, mostly to their dishonour, followed suite and she was forced out of the Labor Party and out of Parliament by her gutless colleagues.

Labor MP John Ford’s comments on ABC TV the night the charges were dropped that he had no sympathy for her were just disgraceful. The smacked of old fashioned Stalinism. Her secretary Shelley Eaton disowned her and grabbed her seat in Parliament. It would be interesting what Shelley Eaton now thinks about her behaviour to Shelley Archer. Archer was stoically confronted an array of malignant forces and maintained her loyalty to her friends and was ready to take the CCC head on in Court. The CCC denied her the chance to completely demolished the CCC’s credibility.

The Desert Rat holds with contempt these unthinking and spineless types who hunt in packs; like the follower of Stalin or Hitler who did their bidding. These camp dogs and confederates would never be found among the ranks of the partisans standing up and fighting for what is right. They would sell their principles to the lowest bidder. Thirty pieces of silver would be extortion.

The whole episode reflects poorly on those members of parliament that joined in and cheered the public "flogging and hanging" of Shelley Archer. Some of them may well be the next victims of the precedent they have allowed; they have created a flawed system that will consume other innocent people and politicians.

Although these matters did not relate to Smith’s Beach investigation directly, they were a part of the CCC clumsy and dishonest attempt to find evidence of corruption by Brian Burke and Julian Grill, n the sworn enemies of CCC architect the abject failure Jim McGinty. After $50 million wasted by the CCC on the Burke Grill vendetta, it is clear that Grill and Burke most often achieve good for the State in situations where many parliamentary incompetent were too visionless and indolent to aspire.

CCC humiliated again on Smith’s Beach

2009-09-20T00:03:00.000-07:00

CCC's Phony Brabazon Charge - Exposed as Grubby Politicking

The grovelling but unreserved apology by Major General Len Roberts-Smith to senior public servant Mark Brabazon underscores the abject failure of the Corruption and Crime Commission and its inability to objectively investigate the Smith’s Beach matter.

It was a case of verdict now and gather the evidence later, even fabricate it if necessary and destroy and “prosecute them through the media. A conviction is just “icing on the cake” to these modern day Beagle Boys.

Parliamentary Inspector Christopher Steytler QC found the reasoning and the “material” (Steytler doesn’t give it the dignity of evidence) in the report did not support the opinion expressed about Mark Brabazon.

Len Robert-Smith’s apology was immediate and he withdrew the CCC’s opinion that Mr Brabazon “acted with a lack of integrity” in his dealings with Mr Brian Burke.

That makes six people against whom the CCC has launched cases, where the CCC charges have been unceremoniously tossed out of Court.

Mike Allen. Was acquitted on two count of giving false evidence in testimony. The CCC lied and omitted facts that didn’t suite them in their report.

David McKenzie. Two charges of giving false evidence dismissed.

Paul Frewer. A concocted misconduct finding was rejected by Parliamentary Inspector Malcom McCusker QC.

Julian Grill. He was acquitted on two charges of giving false testimony in evidence. The Magistrate said he was a witness of truth.

Wally Cox. A misconduct finding was rejected by a Public Service inquiry. The CCC's only win was when Cox (probably on poor legal advice) challenged the CCC right to make a finding. Cox lost. The Judges said the CCC did have the right but stressed the judgment did not reflect on whether the finding was right or wrong. These was no vindication there for the CCC decision - only that they could express it i.e could tell lies.

The prosecutions following the Smith’s Beach inquiry were based on a dishonest investigation involving gross misconduct, of which the Desert Rat is now aware of evidence.

The Brabazon inquiry and report was a Stalinist sham to damage Brian Burke and Julian Grill. Trail by media – hoping the courts would follow suite.

The House of Cards Inquiry into Smiths Beach has already collapsed. The CCC case is in its dying throws – a death tryst of a morally bankrupt organisation that is a weeping ulcer on the justice system of Western Australia.

The Desert Rat’s opinion is that Premier Colin Barnett and the Parliament should give it the last rites.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Julian Grill's phone is still being tapped six years later, by the Robert -Smith and Silverstone entourage. They are still being spied on and photographed. Their mail is being tampered with; email and faxes are examined back at the CCC's own headquarters reminiscent of the Smolny Institute (after it was a school for noble maidens - see picture and statue of Lenin in foreground).

All in the hope that they can find some minor breach that will help justify the $50 million spent on the political witch hunt, curiously targeted at the enemies of McGinty.

Mr Ward's Death - Margaret Quirk's mea culpa

2009-07-11T22:43:00.000-07:00

Are McGinty and Carpenter Fred Chaney's real racists?

The continued publicity following the manslaughter of Warburton Elder Mr Ward has prompted this comment. The Desert Rat previously covered this issue when praising the sole public comment from Labor by Labor MP Ben Wyatt.

Fred Chaney is reported to have weeped recently as he talked of Mr Ward's death as an example of entrenched racism in government bureaucracy.

Chaney is no doubt genuine and caring about Aboriginal people but the Desert Rat always thought he was part of the problem and not, part of the solution. Chaney talks often of self determination and Aboriginal control but it seems - never without them accepting any real responsibility for themselves.

Former Prisons Minister Margaret Quirk in a TV interview recently issued a public mea culpa in respect to Mr Ward's death saying she wanted to apologise for

"failing to convince her cabinet colleagues about the need to replace the ageing fleet of prisoner transport vehicles".

This comment suggests Quirk repeatedly asked for the funding in cabinet but got rolled.

This begs the question of who rolled her?

If either of Jim McGinty as Attorney General (and the previous Corrections Minister who jettisoned the department from his AG ministry), and or former Premier Alan Carpenter supported her call for funding, it would have been approved by cabinet.

It would appear that these two idiots were not particularly troubled to see Aboriginal prisoners shipped around the state in vehicles that could double for Pizza ovens on a hot day.

Are these the actual 'racists' to whom Chaney should have directed his remarks? Chaney is quick to criticise the public servants, but those primarily responsible are the politicians in cabinet whose did nothing when they had the opportunity to appropriate the desperately needed funding to replace these death traps.

Chaney's comments should have been directed at McGinty and Carpenter - but he avoids offending them. By the way Fred, how much did you earn Chairing McGinty's Bill of Rights inquiry and in other government sinecures?

Chaney has been on the public tit ever since he left the Senate; he like many other people who the Desert Rat thinks are the architects of the current indigenous mess.

One is entitled to ask: What practical achievements has Fred Cheney helped gain for Aboriginal people to ameliorate their plight?

CCC Monster out of control.

2009-06-03T20:03:00.000-07:00

A grubby official CCC leak or are the CCC Tarts serial incompetents?

Anyone would think it was budget time down at the Corruption and Crime Commission, it's apparently leaking like a sieve.

That's not to confuse this latest leak with Mike Children Overboard Silverstone other leaking SIEV 4 (Suspected Illegal Entry Vehicle 4) which also leaked and sank north of Christmas Island. The leaking SIEV4, that he claimed children were thrown overboard by illegal immigrants - a claim now denied and debunked by the Defence Forces.

The leaking of documents from the CCC containing damaging ambit allegations against Hon John Bowler MLA, raises serious questions about the integrity and competence of the watchdog and its procedures.

Earlier the CCC said there would be no further disciplinary action or charges against John Bowler. This back flip after three years of investigation and the current leaks, really underlines the administrative incompetence of Executive Director Mike Children Overboard Silverstone.

The Desert Rat suspects the leak is designed to keep the continuing vendetta against Julian Grill and Brian Burke on the boil and stir up public indignation against Julian Grill and Brian Burke before the forthcoming batch of charges and trials. Is this the CCC desperate attempt to justify their costly investigations (vendetta?) against these two lobbyists.

The Desert Rat finds it interesting that the wee timorous beastie, Mike the Mouse Silverstone is again mute. Has he lost all confidence in himself to make a public comment?

Silverstone has left the the chattering Director of "Botched" Operations Nick Anticich to front the media. Is this a way to give this clown a leg up into the top job when Silverstone makes his strategic retreat, to spend his myriad of government sponsored pensions and fat salary and allowances leftovers - in his eastern states hideout?

After three years the Desert Rat expects any competent investigator should have had the inquiry and any charges completed.

How would Silverstone and Roberts-Smith if innocent of any wrongdoing, like to spend the next 3 or 4 years in limbo waiting for some incompetent idiots to finish their inquiry and have their private and personal conversation listened to, their email and faxes intercepted, their mail tampered with and being spied on by hidden miniature 'voyeur' cameras - at the same time?

CCC dumps Finance Brokers Inquiry. No report after four (fruitless?) years.

2009-05-26T02:37:00.000-07:00

We are dangerously incompetent. We specialise in ruining the reputations of honest hardworking citizens and refuse to be accountable.

What a hide these Corruption and Crime Commission clowns have!

What, no Report?!!

The CCC have refused to admit that they are idiots. "We may be liars, incompetent and a miserable failure" a spokesman said "but we are not idiots".

After four year of investigation and public hearing into the Finance Brokers term of reference, which was designed to damage the reputations of a number of politicians, Brian Burke and Julian Grill, the chief clown and ringmaster Major General Len Roberts-Smith has informed the victims that:

"...I have concluded it would be unproductive and not in the public interest to proceed further and, specifically, not to proceed with the preparation of a report for tabling in the Western Australian Parliament."

The Desert Rat wonders what the investigation was about.

Earlier last year the Desert Rat undertook his own detailed investigation of this matter and asked the same question! This was thoroughly reported in an earlier post here.

It took about six hours of work to investigate and write the article. The Desert Rat could have done an investigation and written a report for the clowns at the CCC for about $5000 - that's about 10 days work at the Desert Rat's modest fee.

Why has it taken the CCC, four years, costly public hearings, millions of dollars and thousands of hours of unproductive staff time to reach this conclusion? Commissioner Roberts-Smith and Executive Director Silverstone are spendthrifts and pathetic incompetents.

Would they waste their own money as they waste public taxpayers funds?

The backsliding Roberts-Smith says "he has concluded it is unproductive and not in the public interest to proceed further.." surely they must have done something in four years? Roberts-Smith has also "concluded" to "not to proceed with the preparation of a report for tabling in the Western Australian Parliament". There is no CCC grovelling media release making this announcement, just a grubby low key letter to the victims.

Well Major General Roberts-Smith, we want to know what you found out in four years?

Is it not in the public interest to expose your former patron Jim McGinty's role in the Finance Brokers term of reference?
Is it not in the public interest to conclude that Brian Burke and Julian Grill did a public service by placing enormous pressure on Jim McGinty to honour his pre-election commitment to compensate the many pensioners who were defrauded?

The public and the WA parliament deserve a report, so that there is some indication as to whether these citizens have done anything wrong or right which is more likely!

Would the CCC open themselves to public ridicule if they admitted they got it badly wrong again in respect of Julian Grill, Brian Burke, Anthony Fels and Noel Crichton-Brown? The CCC's gratuitous public humiliation of each of these men, sanctioned by the likes of Roberts-Smith and Mike Children Overboard Silverstone was like kicking someone while the were down - and yet no apology!

Has Roberts-Smith been sufficiently vague in the wording of his letter, to suggest there was not enough evidence to prosecute these men?
Has the CCC run out of money and can't afford to complete the investigation and write the report?

What has happened to dump this investigation after four years without any report?

The Desert Rat is very confident that all the main facts are in his earlier post on the matter . The only missing part is, Jim McGinty's version of his dealing in the Finance Brokers matter? McGinty's vindictive treatment of those who worked so hard to get a resolution of the matter should have come under scrutiny. Neither Jim McGinty or any of his apologists has disputed the Desert Rat's account of events.

Don't expect the sleazy duo of Len Roberts-Smith or Mike Silverstone to ever be gracious in defeat, it is not part of their thick and bullying demeanour to be fair.

McGinty - Reign and Succession

2009-05-15T05:48:00.000-07:00

McGinty: Failure on all front or deliberate deliverance of Fremantle to the Greens?

Tomorrow is the unwanted by-election for Fremantle. Jim McGinty politically odouriferous stench has ensured he has remained invisible during the campaign which presents most Fremantle voters with Hobson's choice. A Green, no Liberal candidate and a Liberal standing as a Labor candidate and nondescript independents.

Jim McGinty's legacy is an embarrassment, he controlled the biggest Left union, and therefore the Left Wing of the ALP and therefore the State Executive of the ALP, which in turn has endorsed all ALP candidates for seats in parliament; McGinty effectively controls the Parliamentary Labor Party for the last 19 years. This power gave him defacto control of the WA Parliament and the Government of WA for the 7 years of the Gallop and Carpenter Ministries.

Despite this power and influence, he always failed to plan for the future and in 19 years put Left Faction types into Parliament of insufficient ability, to be ministerial material, let alone leadership material - the goons gig - the star recruit being Fran "Do you want a threesome" Logan.

McGinty failed to groom people to be able to take on the Left leadership. Perhaps he thought it would never be necessary once the self appointed Emperor assumed the Kim Jong Il mantle.

The result was that after the 2008 election, the cupboard was so bare he had to desperately move to slot Roger Cook (who was elected by the skin of his teeth in Kwinana) into the position as deputy leader of Labor, even before he had taken a seat in the house. Other obvious talent with parliamentary experience such as Aboriginal Victoria Park MLA Ben Wyatt were passed by because they were not paid up obedient members of the McGinty controlled Left Faction.

The net result has been a talentless group of Left members who McGinty could herd and bring to heel and a policy bankrupt ALP Left Caucus of voting fodder.

When McGinty resigned from the state seat of Fremantle, he left the ALP in a hole because there was no-one with an ALP pedigree with any local credibility, to slot into Fremantle. The result is a card carrying Liberal Peter Tagliaferri who contested the 1990 election against McGinty, who recently donated to the Liberal Party. Remember Julian Grill was expelled from the ALP for forwarding a cheque to the National Party from one of his clients. Bare-faced hypocrisy again!

The Desert Rat reckons Tagliaferri could well be an Independent either shortly after (or before if he gets a chance) he locks in his pension.

McGinty has achieved all this with one vote, one value and increased the malapportionment in the Upper House which was supposed to entrench Labor in the Lower House and the Greens in the Upper House.

One can only think about missed opportunities to consolidate Labor with good like-minded people. All they have got from poaching outside the Party are rent-a-politicians Alan Carpenter, St Carmen Lawrence and now Peter Tagliaferri, perhaps.

The Desert Rats wonders if Jim McGinty would actually prefer a Green elected in Fremantle, as he has done his level best to achieve that end by (unwitting or deliberate?) stealth.

At least McGinty has that in common with the Liberals in this by-election.

The whole sorry saga reflects McGinty's pre-occupation with short term thinking and action - today's quick fix is tomorrows f f...failure.

Parallels between Mallard Investigation and the Smith Beach Investigation.. Part 3.

2009-04-11T20:33:00.001-07:00

The CCC's dirty war on Burke and Grill - the Smiths Beach Investigation. Part 3. The Paul Frewer Report.

Compare the Corruption and Crime Commission's investigation of widely-respected senior public servant Paul Frewer that was part of the Smiths Beach investigation with the police investigation of Andrew Mallard which was denounced by Justice Dunford QC. Neither investigation was honest or impartial. The CCC report has proved to be a shameful embarrassment to Mike Silverstone and Mark Ingham.

The Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC's review of the CCC's report is scathing and damning. Read the Executive Summary (pages 1 to 4) to see the deceit and dishonesty of the CCC modus operandi, exposed by McCusker.

Crucial evidence was ignored by the CCC and their principle finding had absolutely no basis in fact. The CCC disgraceful report was of the type the Desert Rat would expect to be tendered to a Star Chamber show trial. Shades of the Mallard case?

In the Desert Rat's opinion the CCC Report reveals incompetence aggravated by self-deception.

McCusker exposes it as a sham:

The CCC claimed Mr Frewer did not disclose he had been lobbied, when they knew he did make the disclosure. They were forced to admit, that although it was not recorded in the minutes, his disclosure was on the tapes and the CCC had the tapes and were aware of it. Deceit? Questions in the public hearings were framed on this deceit; questions which Paul Frewer had to assume were correct and his memory faulty! Unnerving! The tapes show Frewer had made full and proper disclosure.
The CCC incorrectly blamed Frewer for an amendment (No 92) being deferred. Inconsistencies between the Busselton Shire Council resolution and Amendment 92 were raised by the reporting officer, a Mr Scribilia and the motion was adjourned unanimously by the (whole) Committee. That amendment is now the subject of a State Administrative Appeals Tribunal appeal and will be the subject of a future article by the Desert Rat.
McCusker found the opinion of "misconduct" expressed in the CCC Report was unsound, because the Commission had failed to properly consider some basic facts and had mistaken views about a number of matters. McCusker was too kind to the CCC in the Desert Rat's opinion.
The CCC failed to give Mr Frewer reasonable opportunity to respond to their adverse findings, a requirement under s 86 of the CCC Act, forcing Mr Frewer to incur expensive personal legal costs to successfully challenge the CCC report.

The Desert Rat was amused to hear that when Malcom McCusker QC was undertaking his inquiry, the CCC's senior investigator involved, Mark Ingham, refused to talk to the Parliamentary Inspector (Malcolm McCusker QC) without his barrister being present!!

Why would a senior CCC investigator need to have a senior lawyer present?

The $50 to $60 million Smiths Beach investigation by the Corruption and Crime Commission shows the same lack of honesty and impartiality, which in Judge Dunford's opinion was lacking in the Mallard investigation by police.

The investigation into Paul Frewer, like the investigation into Mike Allen, was also a disgrace, again there has been no apology from the CCC, just the usual dissembling comment from the nameless faceless spokespersons.

Why does Mike Children Overboard Silverstone tolerate similar unethical behaviour by his investigators which has resulted in the now completely discredited Smiths Beach investigation and Report?

What does this say about Executive Director Mike Silverstone's professionalism and character, that these activities are allowed and such reports are produced; are tabled in Parliament sullying reputations without any apology or withdrawal?

They stand for all time unchallenged and uncorrected and are a pox on our justice system, the WA Parliament and the people who wrote the report.

Parallels between Mallard Case and Smith Beach Case. Part 2.

2009-04-11T19:41:00.001-07:00

The CCC's dirty war on Burke and Grill - the Smiths Beach Investigation. Part 2. The Mike Allen Report.

Like the Andrew Mallard case, the Smiths Beach investigation was neither honest nor impartial, as shown by the Corruption and Crime Commission's investigation of Mr Mike Allen.

The $8 million the CCC spent on the Justice Dunford's review of the Andrew Mallard case showed the police withheld important and vital evidence from the defence and behaved in a manner that resulted in Mallard's wrongful conviction.

The $50 to $60 million Smiths Beach investigation by the Corruption and Crime Commission also shows the same lack of honesty and impartiality, which in Judge Dunford's opinion was also lacking in the Mallard investigation by police.

Why does Mike Children Overboard Silverstone tolerate similar unethical behaviour by his investigators which resulted in the now discredited Smiths Beach Report? What does this say about his professionalism and character? Does Silverstone want to risk another miscarriage of justice?

The investigation into Mike Allen was appallingly incompetent, yet there has been no apology just brief dissembling comment from the nameless faceless spokespersons in the CCC. CCC Exposed put the appalling treatment of Mike Allen more forcefully than the Desert Rat's first examination of Mark Ingham's behaviour.

"Senior CCC investigation officer Mark Ingham was the Officer in Charge of the Inquiry into Smiths Beach when senior DPI Officer Mike Allen was judged guilty by the CCC of serious misconduct. The finding turned on claims that Mr Allen asked one of his officers – Ms Barbara Pedersen – to write a report on the development. The Commission found that former Premier Brian Burke had suggested to Mr Allen that Ms Pedersen write the report and this, the Commission said, showed Mr Allen was influenced by Mr Burke and, as a result, was guilty of serious misconduct.

There is just one problem: Mr Allen was not asked by Mr Burke to instruct Ms Pedersen to do anything; Ms Pedersen never wrote any report and was never asked to do so.

How could such a monumental injustice be done to Mr Allen, a highly regarded senior public servant with an impeccable record?

Enter Mr Ingham.

Mr Ingham actually interviewed Ms Pedersen before the finding of serious misconduct was made against Mr Allen. In that interview, Ms Pedersen told Mr Ingham she was never asked to write a report and had not done so. She told Mr Ingham that no such request had been made of her by Mr Allen.

Now, most fair minded people would have thought: “That’s the end of it – Mr Allen didn’t do what he was accused of”.

But not Mr Ingham!

In his report overturning the finding against Mr Allen, the Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC reported:

On Friday, 29 February 2008, I interviewed Mr Mark Ingham, senior investigator with the CCC. Mr Ingham had been the investigator in charge of the "Smiths Beach investigation". With my permission, his barrister was present.

The Parliamentary Inspector asked Mr Ingham about his interview with Ms Pedersen

MCCUSKER: … Now, when you interviewed Miss Pedersen, having completed the interview, what did you do with the record of interview? Did you convey the contents of it to anyone else?

INGHAM: I don’t know Sir…I didn’t do a written report to the best of my knowledge I most certainly, no. I can’t remember who I reported to if

MCCUSKER: In particular, you may not be able to be specific in terms of memory but as a matter of practice would you have conveyed the contents of that interview to a Commissioner or any senior officer or lawyer?

INGHAM: I’m sure I would have done, Sir, but I have no recollection of …

Remember: The claim that Mr Allen instructed Ms Pedersen to write a report is the crucial key point on which the Commission justified it’s finding against Mr Allen…here it’s clear the Senior Investigator in charge of the inquiry knows the claim is untrue but can’t recall telling anyone.

Undeterred by what he had learned from Ms Pedersen, Mr Ingham produced a "Final Report and Recommendations" on 2 April 2007.

It recommended that "consideration be given to a finding of misconduct", based solely on the incorrect proposition about which Mr Ingham knew the truth.

The crucial importance of this key point was not lost on the Parliamentary Inspector who tried time and time again to get some sense out of Mr Ingham.

Mr McCusker asked (Mr Ingham) if he had been involved in the formulation of the "misconduct finding" in the CCC's Report. He said that he had not, and was unable to tell me how that proposition had evolved, or by whom.

He, the chief investigator, had not suggested it.

Mr McCusker put to Mark Ingham that the evidence of Ms Pedersen, given to him in the interview of May 2007, contradicted the "finding" in the CCC's Report that Mr Allen had appointed her to write "the DPI report"

The Parliamentary Inspector then asked Mr Ingham whether he had realised this, when he read the CCC Report.

He said that he had not.

Then Mr McCusker asked Mr Ingham whether he agreed that, given the terms of the misconduct finding, witnesses who were obviously relevant were not only Ms Pedersen, but also Ms Cherrie, Ms Clegg, and Mr Singleton (the Director to whom they, and Ms Pedersen, were responsible).

Mr Ingham accepted that, and said that he considered it was unnecessary to interview them because he was investigating possible "misconduct" (and not a criminal offence).

Pity Mr Allen, his reputation and his career.

Mr McCusker then asked Mr Ingham if he had read the CCC Report before it was tabled.

MCCUSKER: Were you asked to consider it in any way before it was finally tabled?

INGHAM: Yes.

MCCUSKER: …And did you read it?

INGHAM: Yes.

MCCUSKER: The report makes no mention, as you are no doubt aware, that’s the CCC report makes no mention of the contents or even the fact of the interview that you conducted in May two thousand and six (sic, seven) with Miss Pederson. Does it?

INGHAM: Not with. She was or

MCCUSKER: No.

MCCUSKER: True. But did you, did you notice at the time the report was produced before it was finally tabled that there wasn’t any reference to what Miss Pedersen had told you?

INGHAM: No it didn’t.

MCCUSKER: No. It didn’t jump out at you?

INGHAM: No Sir it didn’t.

MCCUSKER: that was only the negative finding. Now when that (CCC) report was finalised, by then of course you’d, you’d interviewed Miss Pedersen.

INGHAM: Yes.

MCCUSKER: And Miss Pedersen had told you that as far as she was aware there was no report.

INGHAM: I didn’t consider it at the time Sir.

MCCUSKER: But before making a finding of misconduct, against Mister Allen …based upon his alleged agreement with Mister Burke to have her, Miss Pedersen, write the report in reference to Miss Clegg … did you not consider that it was desirable and indeed essential to determine whether any such report existed?

INGHAM: I didn’t and the Commissioner didn’t.

Mr McCusker continued to say that the CCC’s preparedness to rely on speculation, to support its conclusion is disturbing.

He said it showed a lack of objectivity (and) coupled with a "fudging" of the evidence…in the cases of Mr Allen (and Mr Frewer) serious damage was done to their reputations, and their careers, by the public examination and the accusatorial way which counsel assisting put questions.

They were sometimes based on incorrect information, as for instance, when Mr Urquhart, counsel assisting, put to Mr Allen (T1294):

"Were you aware that your colleague, Mr Frewer, was also assisting Mr Burke in getting amendment 92 deferred?".

There was in fact no evidence to support that proposition; nor had the CCC any basis for suggesting that Mr Allen was "assisting Mr Burke in getting amendment 92 deferred".

Mr McCusker concluded: ‘Such "loaded questions" are damaging.’

In his most damning conclusion, Mr McCusker reported:

Whilst both men (Mr Frewer and Mr Allen) have been vindicated by the fuller (and objective) investigation … showing the CCC's investigation to be inadequate and its "findings" to be seriously flawed, that does not compensate them for damage to their careers, the anguish and stress which, for over 12 months, they endured as a result of the CCC's public examination and accusations, followed (many months later) by the findings of "misconduct".

Which brings us back to Mr Ingham.

The one person who had full knowledge of the truth because he interviewed Ms Pedersen and learned the “Report” did not exist, was Senior Investigator Mark Ingham - who could not remember if he told anyone what he learned.

With his barrister present, Mark Ingham – a trained and experienced investigator - repeatedly failed to recall crucial details of his inquiries and, in the final analysis, did nothing when he read the CCC report condemning Mr Allen for something he (Mr Ingham) knew to be untrue."

Think about the unethical practices in the investigation of the murder, for which Andrew Mallard was wrongfully convicted and ask why Mike Children Overboard Silverstone and the CCC are reluctant to prosecute the police and the DPP prosecutor! They may have to look at themselves!

The Desert Rat asks, "How different was the behaviour in both cases?"

Parallels between Mallard Case and Smith Beach Case.

2009-04-10T02:28:00.000-07:00

The Smiths Beach Investigation, like the Mallard Case, was neither honest or impartial. Part 1. The Andrew Mallard Case.

The parallels between the police handling of the Andrew Mallard case and the Corruption and Crime Commission's investigation of Smiths Beach matters and their report, have many similarities. Mallard, who was innocent, spent 12 years in prison.

The opinions expressed by Justice Dunford QC $8 million CCC investigation, which leaves many questions unanswered, revolve around the behaviour of various police officers and a prosecutor which were in Dunford's opinion, not honest or impartial.

The report reveals that evidence that was exculpatory (that shows a person to be not guilty of a wrongdoing) was ignored and omitted by police. Evidence tampering by police; original witness statements that did not fit, were altered and changed by leading on witnesses and getting them to change their statements. The accused Andrew Mallard was effectively put "out of circulation" by the police making it difficult for Mallard to get any assistance while the police assembled their case.

In the Mallard case, Justice Dunford set out his opinion of various police officers and a prosecutor's actions, he said:

Police officer Caphorn wrote a letter to the Police Prosecutor dated 17 June 1994 containing errors and incorrect statements, constituted the performance by him of his functions in a manner which was not honest or impartial resulting in Andrew Mallard being remanded to Graylands for further psychiatric assessment and Dr O’Dea admitted him as a compulsory patient.

If the true state of affairs had been disclosed, it is possible that Andrew Mallard would have been released on bail and, whatever the intention, the effect of the remand was that Andrew Mallard was out of circulation whilst police built up their case against him.

Mallard had not been charged with the murder of Mrs Lawrence and the only charges he was facing were assaulting Det Sgt Caporn on 10 June and the charges arising from his arrest on the morning of 23 May 1994.

Another police officer requested Mr Lynch to delete from his report all reference to the salt water testing which constituted the performance by him of his functions in a manner which was not impartial.

That Det Sgt Shervill engaged in misconduct causing the witnesses Katherine Barsden, Michelle Englehardt, Meziak Mouchmore, Katherine Purves and Lily Raine, to alter their statements as they did without any reference in their final statements to their earlier recollections, involved the performance of his functions in a manner which was not honest or impartial.

That Det Sgt Shervill engaged in misconduct by making false entries in the Running Sheets relating to the amendments to the statements of the witnesses Katherine Barsden, Michelle Englehardt, Meziak Mouchemore, and Katherine Purves, involved the performance of his functions in a manner which was not honest.

That Det Sgt Shervill engaged in misconduct by failure to disclose to the DPP’s Office the prior statements of Katherine Barsden, Michelle Engelhardt, Meziak Mouchemore, Katherine Purves and Lily Raine, the original report of Bernard Lynch and details of the unsuccessful efforts by police to find a tool capable of inflicting the injuries suffered by Mrs Lawrence’s, involved the performance of his functions in a manner which was not honest or impartial and/or involved a breach of the trust placed in him by reason of his employment as a public officer.

That Prosecutor Mr Kenneth Bates engaged in misconduct in conducting the trial on the basis that the murder weapon was a wrench as drawn by the accused, but making no attempt to prove that such weapon could have caused the deceased’s injuries, particularly in circumstances where it was known that there was a problem about the pattern of some of the injuries, and involved a breach of the trust placed in him by reason of his employment as a public officer.

That Prosecutor Ken Bates engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose to the defence the results of the pig’s head testing of the wrench constituted or involved a breach of the trust placed in him by reason of his employment as a public officer.

It is not surprising that there was a miscarriage of justice in the original Mallard trial and the Court of on which sat Judge Roberts Smith the now CCC commissioner.

No criminal charges have been laid by against any of these police officers or the prosecutor.

The Desert Rat doe not find that surprising when we look at the behaviour of investigators working under Mike Children Overboard Silverstone on the Smiths Beach investigation.

Even when their behaviour has been exposed, no disciplinary action has been taken by Mike Silverstone the Executive Director of the CCC.

Secretive Silverstone peeps over the parapet

2009-04-06T01:12:00.000-07:00

Rare public comment from Silverstone on Andrew Mallard case inquiry reveals CCC's apprehension.

The Desert Rat was surprised to find a public comment from Mr Invisible Mike 'Children Overboard' Silverstone, albeit from the safety of a letter to the obscure Western Suburbs Weekly (3/2/2009) probably written with the help of his brigade of propaganda and public relations militia.

This valorous outburst from the timorous mouse was the first since the defamatory press release (subsequently amended without any apology) that he handed out when he jumped in front of the TV cameras, to announce the 'findings' of the Smiths Beach Inquiry many long years ago. After this disaster and humiliation, he has had no public profile and has hardly been sighted.

Silverstone's recent tentative effort was a response to a letter by civil liberties campaigner Brian Tennant asking why no criminal prosecutions had been made in the $8 million inquiry into the wrongful conviction of Andrew Mallard, by Judge John Dunford QC. The inquiry was commissioned by the Corruption and Crime Commission presumably because the job was too difficult for the Dad's Army duds.

Silverstone's defence in the letter, is that John Dunford did not recommend criminal charges, but that did not stop Mike Silverstone and the CCC from proceeding with criminal charges against Brian Burke, Julian Grill and Norm Marlborough even though the Director of Public Prosecutions recommended against charges. Judge Dunford QC didn't say criminal charges should not be laid against police.

The real reason the Desert Rat suspects, is, that if charges were laid against the police officers and the prosecutor involved, then the CCC investigators and Silverstone himself would be placed right in the firing line, because the CCC has been guilty of the same lack of honesty and impartiality in its Smiths Beach investigation.

The Desert Rat is currently researching the striking similarities between the police investigation into the Mallard and his wrongful conviction, and the CCC's officers in the Smiths Beach investigation.

Mike 'Children Overboard' Silverstone and his inept outfit have every reason to fear the police officers being charged and successfully prosecuted, because they would soon find themselves in the same perilous situation.

"Le Cirque McGinty a pris un coup de soleil.." - claims scalps

2009-04-05T21:21:00.000-07:00

McGinty and Silverstone desert the CCC's sinking $$ Black Hole.

As predicted this transparent fool His Irrelevance Jim McGinty has retired. McGinty, rejecting recent rumours, showed his usual honesty with the public by saying he had no intention to retire.

Strange how McGinty and his minions are happy to see others pilloried, who make genuine mistakes about the minutiae of detail in unrepresented cross examination.

McGinty's had three major achievements according to The West Australian in his 19 years of politicking:

a prostitution Bill - that Bill will never be proclaimed, so its failings will never be exposed.

the electoral reform of one-vote, one-value laws - where he actually increased the malapportionment in the Legislative Council and delivered enhanced prospects to the Nationals and the Greens with a more blatantly distorted voting system. The reform was so 'clever' and opportunistic that it helped Labor lose government. Most of the worst crimes of humanity have been perpetrated by those who have allowed the means to justify the end.

homosexual law reform - to allow the legal sodemisation of 16 and 17 year old teenage males - in effect lowering the bar for pedophiles. No one of this age in recent decades has in effect been prosecuted where the ages of consenting males are similar.

Well done Jim McGinty, that deserves an Australian Honour which the Desert Rat is sure is on the way.

The Desert Rat is not surprised that Mike Children Overboard Silverstone is not reapplying for his Executive Officer job at the Corruption and Crime Commission.

Their masthead Smiths Beach Inquiry targetting Julian Grill and Brian Burke, which has probably cost $50 to $60 million of taxpayers funds, has completely unravelled and shown to be a house of cards. The CCC in their embarrassment at their incompetence being exposed, are resorting to petty behaviour with ridiculous false testimony charges - all of which, so far, have been shown to be petty and malicious and thrown out of court.

McGinty we are told by The West Australian is rumoured to be getting another job on the public tit - a cushy Rudd government job from Left Faction mate Julia Gillard as an Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner on $250 000 a year, together with his $2.5 million pension. The Socialist Left, whilst always obedient to the faction bosses, never aspires to vows of poverty and chastity.

As an under achieving parasite, Jim McGinty has never lived in a world where his income has not been guaranteed by government or a union with captive members and where his incompetence has exposed his own wallet.

Smith Beach Case Documents

2009-04-05T18:29:00.000-07:00

Documents that show the Smiths Beach Investigation was neither honest or impartial.

Document 1

Desert Rat: This is an unsigned electronic copy of the original Shire resolution of which the Shire staff could not find and provide a copy of the original signed version.

TOWN PLANNINING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928

SHIRE OF BUSSELTON

DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING SCHEME No 20 - AMENDMENT No 92

'Development Investigation' area pursuant to the Scheme; and
'Development Investigation Area' pursuant to the Land Use Strategy Plan (Figure 5) of Statement of Planning Policy No. 6.1 - Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Policy,

the provisions under new schedule 13 will apply

3. Amending the Scheme to insert new Schedule 13 that contains provisions for land identified as-

'Development Investigation' area pursuant to the Scheme; and
'Development Investigation Area' pursuant to the Land Use Strategy Plan (Figure 5) of Statement of Planning Policy No. 6.1 - Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Policy.

Dated this fourteenth day of December 2005.

Unsigned

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Document 2.

Desert Rat. This is a copy of the heavily modified final version sent for approval to the Western Auastralian Planning Commission (WAPC). This modified resolution was never advertised as required by law. The version was never sent back to Council for approval as required by the Council Resolution (See Point 4).

The WAPC and the Minister for Planning would have thought this amended version had been through the proper Council process - which it had not. It selectively and severely impacted on David McKenzies development. The Smiths Beach Resort next door was not subject to the same constraints which the Desert Rat will show in the next article to be posted.

Couldn't the CCC smell the odouriferous stench of misconduct, perhaps corruption or did the ignore it because it gave great legitimacy to what Burke and Grill were employed to get to the bottom of and sort out just what was going on in the Busselton Shire Council?

TOWN PLANNINING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928

SHIRE OF BUSSELTON

DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING SCHEME No 20 - AMENDMENT No 92

RESOLVED that the Shire of Busselton, in pursuance of section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, amend the above Town Planning Scheme by:

1. Amending schedule 4 of the Scheme in respect to 'Additional Use No 36' to properly identify use classes and their permissibility and include a new condition limiting residential development to a maximum R-Code of R25 in accordance with PS 1.3 of Statement of Planning Policy No. 6.1 - Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Policy.

2. Amending clause 25 of the Scheme to insert new sub-clause (3)(j) and new sub-clause (14) that apply provisions under new Schedule 13 that contains specific provisions for Sussex Location 413 Smiths Beach Road, Yallingup.

3. Amending the Scheme to insert new Schedule 13 that contains specific provisions for Sussex Location 413 Smiths Beach Road, Yallingup.

Dated this fourteenth day of December 2005.

Signed

Andrew Macnish
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Document 3
Busselton SC Minutes - 14 December 2005 - Point 4

Desert Rat. The modification is clearly contrary to the resolution of the BSC. It was fundamental and significant and never went back to Council. Additionally, Council does not legally have the power to delegate this responsibility to staff.

4. Where notification is received from the Department for Planning and
Infrastructure that a modification of the Amendment is required prior to
approval of the Amendment this modification be undertaken in
accordance with the requirement of the Town Planning Regulations
1967 unless it is considered by the Chief Executive Officer (or his
nominated representative) that the modification affects the intent of
the Amendment whereby it shall be referred to Council for
consideration.

Smiths Beach: What's in it for me? Part 2. Adele Farina

2009-03-30T19:15:00.000-07:00

Adele Farina. What were the motives in her dealings with the Smiths Beach development?

The Desert Rat has applied his limited forensic psychology skills to plumb the depths of the working of Adele Farina's mind, to elucidate her schizophrenic position on the Smiths Beach development and what explains her friendship with Bill Mitchell and her strange behaviour towards Brian Burke.

Publicly she was seen to oppose Smiths Beach but she privately attended at least 2 meetings with the developers, that the Desert Rat is aware of, to further the project.

Why her unusual interest in the Smiths Beach development, when she has shown only minimal interest in environmental causes, let alone actively prosecuted them?

An opposition to the Smiths Beach development is all Adele Farina and multi-millionaire developer friend Bill Mitchell seem to have in common. This article examines the possible motives behind Adele Farina's public opposition.

Like Mitchell, neither could reasonably claim they were driven by environmental concerns as neither had any history of environmental activism before Smiths Beach. Mitchell appears to have been more interested in pursuing his own extensive development projects, rather than community benefit and has had several green groups up-in-arms and critical of his various development activities.

Farina has no record of interest in environmental matters, except lamenting the plight of 'misunderstood' timber workers in her maiden speech.

2001 Elections - Burke to the rescue

In Parliament during the Committee debates on Planning and Infrastructure and the WA Planning Commission in October 2001, when Hon Barry House MLC raised the matter of Smiths Beach, Adele Farina, despite being present, made no comment. If she had deep seated environmental concerns about the project, why didn't she voice them?

In fact, a search of Hansard shows she has never raised the Smiths Beach development in Parliament since she was elected in May 2001. Strange?

Environmental concerns therefore would appear to have little to do with Farina's motives in respect of the Smith's Beach development.

The Desert Rat thinks her pre-selection tribulations are the real key to her behaviour and actions.

It seemed strange to the Desert Rat that Farina, who is a member from the Centre Faction of the ALP, got a winnable position on the South West ticket in 2001 when the Centre could not muster the numbers for a seat. A deal had to be made or a favour granted or conceded; so this is where the investigation starts.

The clue is in her maiden speech, when she thanked her supporters. She gratefully said:

"I have been fortunate to have the support of a number of those unions, and I take this opportunity to thank the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Workers Union of Australia, the Transport Workers Union, the Australian Workers Union and the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association of WA."

That, for the uninitiated, is a Centre and Right Faction union grouping. There is no Left Faction support there. The success has the fingerprints of Julian Grill and Brian Burke written all over it. Grill often did the negotiations for the Centre Faction and Brian Burke would have had to agree to bring Right Faction support behind Farina. In fact, that is what people in the know, tell the me what happened.

Effectively Brian Burke had secured her a winnable position and seat in 2001, so Farina can thank Burke.

The reason why she did not thank Burke in her speech, is that would have alienated her from Jim McGinty and Geoff Gallop whose support she may need to advance her in the parliamentary ranks. Burke was treated like a pariah by the Left who took every public opportunity to put the boot into Burke to limit his effectiveness within the ALP, which threatened the Left's power base.

Adele Farina, the Desert Rat is told, originally wanted the lower house seat of Perth, vacated by the retiring Centre Faction's Diana Warnock. But Farina was foiled when Centre Faction member John Hyde defected to the Left and got the numbers for the pre-selection. Cold war politics and no loyalty - but all quite legal.

Julian Grill tried to find Adele Farina a seat in the 2001 election - I presume to keep the fragile Centre group together or there would be more defections. He must have somehow secured Burke's support - why he would have bothered, is beyond the Desert Rat - Burke must be a soft touch.

There is no doubt that Farina owed her pre-selection to a safe seat in 2001, to Brian Burke's help and support.

After the 2001 election Farina realised she would have to impress the Left Faction if her political career was not to wither on the vine. The Desert Rat suspects she saw that, by supporting the Smiths Beach Action Group and opposing the Smiths Beach development she would have the potential to endear herself to the Left. This she did not do publicly or in Parliament but, behind the scenes. Farina, the Desert Rat thinks, was cultivating the Left with her opposition to the Smiths Beach development to prop up her future prospect for pre-selection.

By demonstrating her Green credentials she sought to garner enough Left support to guarantee a winnable, even safe, position. Hence the marriage of convenience with Bill Mitchell and the developers who controlled the Smiths Beach Action Group. The environment may not have been a priority at all.

Secretly, however, at the request of Brian Burke, she was also meeting with the developer of Smiths Beach and their consultants. Farina was playing two ends against the middle.

2005 Election - Burke again to the rescue

In the run up to the 2005 election, Farina was again in a difficult situation. There were only two safe Labor seats - one Left and one for the Right and one marginal. The ALP's National Executive intervened into WA and with Burke's Right Faction support, Adele Farina was given a winnable position on the ticket. Matt Benson-Lidholm was elected for the Right and the Left Faction's Sally Talbot scraped in to the marginal position.

Again Farina had fortuitously survived with the help of Burke but needed to shore up her position with the Left for the future.

2008 Election

The looming 2008 election presented a different problem for Farina, as one-vote, one-value meant there were now only two possible ALP positions on the South West ticket for the Legislative Council. Notionally one for the Right and one for the Left. Farina, from the Centre Faction appeared to be stranded on the third unwinnable position on the ALP ticket.

This is where the Desert Rat thinks she devised a strategy to ingratiate herself once again with the Left and make it impossible for the Party (ALP) not to preselect her.

The strategy involved publicly dumping on Burke when giving evidence at the Corruption and Crime Commission's Smiths Beach public hearings. That was done after Burke had got an orchestrated public pillorying by the CCC, which played selected phone conversations, many of which were out of context. Adele Farina was the last witness to give evidence.

Farina seized the day. She gave headline grabbing evidence in the Smiths Beach public hearing of the CCC, condemning Brian Burke and accusing Burke of bullying, blackmail and intimidation. Her 'testimony' would have really impressed the Left leadership!

The Desert Rat has been told, that in the weeks following her evidence to the CCC ,of the alleged offensive behaviour by Brian Burke, Farina wrote to Burke thanking him for his help, support and guidance and invited him to a function in her office.

The strategy was successful. Giving evidence against Burke ingratiated her with the left and also made it impossible for the ALP not to select her in a winning position on the South West Region ticket -because if it did it would be seen as disciplining her for giving evidence against Burke.

The Premier Alan Carpenter said publicly that she had to be put in a winnable position. Even though the Left adopted her, they refused to give up their safe position now held by Sally Talbot who was placed in the No 1 position. Poor Matt Benson-Lidholm was shunted out of his home area of Albany in the South West Region and forced to run in the Agricultural Region

Interestingly, Farina's testament indicting Burke never resulted in any charges. Nor was it even mentioned in the CCC report on Smiths Beach. It appears to have been dropped from the CCC's Smiths Beach report, like a hot potato!

Farina, having created the anti Burke headline that the CCC thrived on - saw Mike Silverstone and the CCC subsequently decide her evidence was not relevant and jettisoned it from further consideration.

The Desert Rat has come to the view that most of Farina's actions can be attributed to her own self-interest in advancement in the ALP, rather than to any higher 'noble' motives.

Coming soon: How Farina used the Iron Ore Industry Committee proposal and the CCC to destroy Brian Burke.

Smiths Beach: What's in it for me. Part 1 - Bill Mitchell

2009-03-22T03:20:00.000-07:00

Mitchell & Farina. What were the motives of these strange 'bedfellows' in opposing the Smiths Beach development?

The Desert Rat in this article, intended to explore the relationship between multi-millionaire developer Bill Mitchell and Labor MLC Adele Farina and how they came to work together in their opposition to David McKenzie's Smiths Beach development. Did these strange Liberal - Labor 'bedfellows' have common motives?

Part 1 looks at the more simple picture that emerged of Bill Mitchell's motives for opposing the Smiths Beach development.

Bill Mitchell has condemned the relationship between Brian Burke and Noel Creighton-Browne who were working for David McKenzie on the Smiths Beach development - on the basis that their politics were different.

Bill Mitchell told gullible ideologue Liz Jackson of ABC TV's Four Corners:

"I was very surprised because I thought with the Liberal-Labor poles apart.."

That shallow bit of public hypocrisy was no impediment for Bill Mitchell to work closely with Labor MLC Adele Farina in lobbying against the Smiths Beach development.

Mitchell can hardly claim opposition on environmental grounds given his own carnage along the Cape. Nor would it interfere with his surfing - more likely floating these days.

The Smiths Beach development will certainly interfere with the view from his Smiths Beach property, so that is a strong reason for his opposition.

There is certainly some jealously that David McKenzie secured the property back in 1986. Who was the other determined potential buyer who David McKenzie outbid in 1986? The Desert Rat does not know and has, as yet, been unable to find out.

The Desert Rat thinks Mitchell and many others would love to pick over Smiths Beach if the proponents become financially stressed and sell because of inordinate delays. Long delays in the project and costly Corruption and Crime Commission generated legal costs have increased the financial risk of the project for David McKenzie.

Bill Mitchell also told Liz Jackson on ABC TV Four Corners

"I couldn't imagine a property development that would be more profitable than this one anywhere in the State, so what's at stake - massive profits, the bigger the development, the bigger the profits."

That in itself is a powerful motive - but the Desert Rat wonders if there may be more honourable motives.

Mitchell greatly appreciated the help of Labor MLC Adele Farina in his opposition to Smiths Beach. In an emotional outburst before the 2006 election Mitchell felt compelled to issue this rather unctuous media release:

Farina to be congratulated
BILL MITCHELL, SMITHS BEACH

13/12/2006 12:00:19 PM

ADELE Farina is to be acknowledged and congratulated as a woman of high integrity who demonstrated enormous courage under fire.

This endorsement is from a Liberal voter.

I know the intense pressure and intimidation she was under from Burke. As a consultant I was appointed by him to restructure the West Australian football industry, the Public Works Department. and greyhound industry in the 1980s.

He was and is a huge political figure who always got his way.

Adele by not being prepared to trade-off the community values she endorses and represents is prepared to put her career on the line in a stand for principles and ethics.

A rare performance in today's political arena. I and the community commend you.

Whatever the motive may be, Mitchell has successfully garnered the support of the CCC and all their resources in his Smiths Beach Action Group campaign.

Who is the meat in all this self interest and politicking? It is a decent guy named David McKenzie who has a dream of establishing a development that fits in with Smiths Beach in a sensitive way, thatis consistent with planning requirements and allows many more people to enjoy this beautiful place.

There are no Bill Mitchell style 10 metre high sand pads planned for houses in the Smiths Beach development and no views will be interrupted from the ridges. Bill Mitchell's vista from his Smiths Beach property will overlook the McKenzie's development and be affected.

The Desert Rat's not sure if the view from the sand pad perched, grandiose $2 million Cowaramup mansion, is compromised.

Postscript: The truth of the matter about the reports Mitchell brags about in his self-aggrandising media release above (his nickname in some quarters is FIG JAM), is they they were poor and had to be rewritten by John Horgan.

McGinty despondent about mandatory sentencing or his own failures?

2009-03-18T17:58:00.000-07:00

Jim McGinty despondent - doesn't that require emotion?

The Desert Rat is unimpressed by Jim McGinty's crocodile tears. He is quoted on ABC TV as being despondent about the Barnett Government's mandatory sentencing legislation.

McGinty's political policy gymnastics in crises, shines a flashlight into the greasy recess of the sad cockroach infested policy making apparatus within the state ALP. It's driven by polls.

McGinty should have thought about the folly of mandatory sentencing and its unintended consequences when he and Labor Premier Carmen Lawrence first introduced mandatory sentencing in 1991. The Stalinist streak in McGinty retreats only marginally, when he is in opposition.

Labors 1991 three strikes legislation was a shambles and from the Desert Rat's memory - had no effect on crime statistics and tied the courts up in red bureaucratic tape. It was an embarrassment just like the fiasco of McGinty's Truth in Sentencing legislation.

What McGinty can't comprehend is that the Labor Party can never outbid and should never outbid a conservative party on mandatory sentencing. It was a stupid road to go down and set the rabbit running.

After pathetically failing to protect nurses when he was Minister for Health and Attorney General, McGinty and the rabble called "Labor" now want nurses covered by new laws which they claim at the same time are dangerous and ineffective. Illogical Jim?

Will Jim McGinty ever understand that public respect will come from well argued policy that is coherent and consistent in both government and opposition? McGinty's position shifts with every change in the polls. Pot polls, mandatory sentence polls you name it.

Smiths Beach: How the CCC and Silverstone were manipulated. Part 3

2009-03-16T22:40:00.000-07:00

The Players: Bob McKay - a Damascene Conversion? The Links between Smiths Beach Action Group and competing developers.

The third spokesperson and founding member of the Smiths Beach Action Group, along with multi-millionaire developers Bill Mitchell and Kevin Merrifield, is Bob McKay, a former Busselton Shire Councillor.

The Desert Rat doesn't know a lot about his business activities but is aware that Bob McKay is a significant commercial property owner in Dunsborough and has subdivided coastal land south of Smiths Beach.

The track record of former Councillor Bob McKay is erratic indeed. In respect of the Smiths Beach development - he must have had a Damescene conversion when he co-founded the Smiths Beach Action Group with Bill Mitchell and Kevin Merrifield!

Bob McKay spearheaded a motion in the Busselton Shire Council rejecting the draft Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Policy Planning. The Busselton Shire Council submission was moved by Bob McKay. It read, under the heading:

11. Table 5 Hierarchy

It is considered that Table 5 needs to be reviewed in a number of areas to provide for an increased and a more realistic target population for the coastal nodes given the existing resident population numbers to match the servicing requirements, in a number of cases.
The notes in respect of tourist nodes also need to be modified to reflect that the agreed position at Smiths Beach is that 1/3 of the accommodation maybe (sic) developed for permanent residential purposes.

Here Bob McKay argued for more permanent residential development on the Smith Beach node, when 230 dwellings had already been recommended for permanent residents!

Bob McKay also supported the extension of the Development Investigation Areas at Smiths Beach at the Steering Committee meeting of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Planning Review on 10 December 1997.

ABC TV's Four Corners gullible ideologue Liz Jackson displayed her ignorance of Bob McKay's duplicity in this excerpt from her unrestrained dump on the lobbying work of Brian Burke and Julian Grill. In the excerpt that follows, McKay complains about the size of a development - of which he earlier had unsuccessfully tried to increase! Jackson's grubby juxtaposition of these two excerpts makes Bob McKay look real good, when she should have exposed his hypocrisy - not to mention the comments of multimillionaire developer Bill Mitchell's she slotted in between.

BOB MCKAY, SMITHS BEACH ACTION GROUP: The first glimpse the public got a look at it was in the year 2000 and everybody was horrified. There was spontaneous public meetings. When it was put out for advertising, over 3,000 people wrote in written submissions against it, the State record.
BILL MITCHELL, SMITHS BEACH ACTION GROUP: I couldn't imagine a property development that would be more profitable than this one anywhere in the State, so what's at stake - massive profits, the bigger the development, the bigger the profits.
LIZ JACKSON: The Canal Rocks proposal was for 230 houses, 360 tourist units and over 100 hotel rooms, clustered here on the southern headland of the beach. The then Opposition leader, Geoff Gallop, pledged that if the Labor won the upcoming election, they would amend the regional planning scheme to restrict the development's size.

The Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Statement Policy Planning Report (LNRSPP) stipulated the Smith Beach Tourist node development and it remained as before.

It is an irony that the LNRSPP decided there was to be less development than that proposed by the Busselton Shire Council and moved by Bob McKay who also attended the Steering Committee meeting on behalf of the Busselton Shire Council.

It was Bob McKay who moved the Busselton Shire Council submission that was unsuccessful in locking in more area for permanent residents.

What or who influenced Bob McKay and made him change his mind? Why the change of opinion to total opposition of the Smiths Beach development, which is much less than originally proposed and less than McKay wanted to expand the development?

Mike Children Overboard Silverstone and the CCC must have walked into the Smiths Beach development with closed eyes or maybe they only wanted to know half the story. Then again the CCC have been very selective and impartial in most of what they have done while investigating the Smiths Beach development.

It's Cape rape by Silverstone's star CCC complainant

2009-03-15T16:22:00.000-07:00

More about Bill Mitchell - Silverstone's CCC complainant and Labor MLC Adele Farina's good mate

Bill Mitchell the environmentalist, ageing surfie, Corruption and Crime Commission 'complainant' and ABC 4 Corners 'star' informant had his own exposé by Sunday Times writer Janet Wainwright a while back.

This is what seasoned hack Janet Wainwright said about Bill Mitchell and his partner:

"Developers who encroached into the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park and damaged vegetation have been given the go-ahead to build four houses.

This is despite Conservation and Land Management (CALM) condemning the siting of the houses as 'most unsuitable'.

The Gracetown Progress Association, Cape to Cape Alliance and Leeuwin Conservation Group are irate that despite the developers putting in earthworks without council permission and damaging the park, they have been allowed to proceed.

Bill Mitchell admitted that sand pads up to 10m high had been put on the ridge without building permission and there had been some damage to adjoining park vegetation by the contractor.

'We had planning permission. I did not realise building permission was needed. It was a mistake.' he said. [To which the Desert Rat would respond: "What dissembling bullshit - a seasoned developer not knowing the difference?!"]

Mr Mitchell is building the houses in Juniper Road for his family and his partner because of the potential loss of ocean views from Mr Mitchell's property at nearby Smiths Beach.

He bought 104ha adjoining the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park for $1.2 million in 1994 after getting council assurance that he could site the houses on the ridge.

[The Desert Rat may take readers on a virtual tour of this gross grandiose mansion - at a later date. The 490 square metre house took around two years of construction worth more than $2 million. Its render is a special feature, inappropriately described as (feral) camel-coloured but looks more like baby-shit yellow to the Desert Rat - who sees camels and dodges camel dung daily.]

While admitting damaging the vegetation was a breach of the National Park regulations, he said the damage was minor and was being rehabilitated.

'An area of National Park was damaged - not cleared - by a rubber tyred scraper,' Mitchell said.

CALM's Regional Manager for Bunbury, Bob Chandler, said CALM stood by its original advice that the building sites were the worst possible on the block for the protection of landscape values on the ridge, but but the council had planning powers.

In a detailed submission on December 14 1998 following the unauthorised (10m high) sand pads, Mr Chandler drew attention to the Cape to Cape Walk within the National Park, which is 500 metres from one (10m high) sand pad.

The spokesperson for the the Cape to Cape Alliance and the Leeuwin Conservation Group, Bill Meiklejohn, said that council's own planning policy was that 'no development should be permitted that would affect the landscape'.

As late as February the council's planning committee recommended the sand pads should be removed and plans rejected. [Now there's a job for the CCC which they won't want to know about.]

Gracetown Progress Association Wayne Baddock said the council had not paid enough attention to the area.

'There should never have been approval for buildings directly adjoining CALM land on a sensitive area of the ridge.'

Council chief executive Max Eastcott said in hindsight the zoning was inappropriate and there should have been some landscape protection."

The Desert Rat wonders just how much homework Mike Silverstone did before he rushed into the Smiths Beach inquiry fiasco. It was too good to be true Mike! Don't ever let the facts or background get in the way for a sensational public "investigation" or "story" - to lift the profile of the CCC.

Let's hope that some day, CCC chief clown Mike Silverstone has to come out of hiding and publicly explain his incompetence.

Smiths Beach: How the CCC and Silverstone were manipulated. Part 2

2009-03-11T13:55:00.000-07:00

The Players: Bill Mitchell. The Links between Smiths Beach Action Group and competing developers.

This article is the second in a series that shows how the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) was manipulated by greedy developers that wanted to maintain their control of development in the Busselton Shire area.

Bill Mitchell, the second and pivotal player is also a spokesperson for the Smiths Beach Action Group (SBAG). Like Merrifield, Bill Mitchell is also a significant property developer and landholder in the Busselton Shire area and has played a much more public role than Kevin Merrifield in his opposition to the Smiths Beach development.

Bill Mitchell was one of the SBAG spokespersons depicted as an ageing surfie and environmentalist when interviewed at the beach side by ABC TV's Four Corners program. There was no mention of Bill Mitchell being a significant property developer and landowner in the area. During that interview, Mitchell claimed credit for making the Smiths Beach complaint to the CCC?

Bill Mitchell lives in a grandiose house on a prominent ridge above the Smiths Beach overlooking the the bay and David McKenzie's proposed development. Mitchell was involved in the development of four properties on the top of the ridge and has retained at least one for himself.

Bill Mitchell will look down on the Smiths Beach development area and it will affect Mitchell's beautiful panoramic view of the bay, the natural surrounds and the now undeveloped private land on which David McKenzie wishes to develop for a range of accommodation.

The Smiths Beach development is not allowed to obscure the view from any of the five or six ridges below Mitchell's much higher ridge. How did Bill Mitchell get approval to build on a ridge which breaks the skyline? Different rules for different people?

Interestingly, Bill Mitchell's property on top of the ridge has a restrictive covenant which prevents the clearing of natural vegetation. It now has rows of planted olive trees and pines. The Busselton Shire Council advised Mitchell was in breach of the covenant but he has done nothing about it and strangely, the Shire have not pursued to breach with any vigour.

Mitchell also built a house at Cowaramup for himself in 2004 and during construction rock from the excavation spilled over into the adjacent CALM reserve. He was prosecuted but came to an arrangement with CALM.

Bill Mitchell was the developer behind Regency Park on the site of the old Greenacres Caravan Park located 1 to 2km west of Dunsborough. Mitchell tried to get the beach privatised! The development was to be prestige apartments and homes and the reason he sought a private beach was that "schoolies" were detrimental to an up-market estate. About a dozen beautiful trees in the development mysteriously died overnight.

Mitchell was responsible for the development, some would say environmental vandalism of the beautiful Gunyulgup Valley some 5 to 6kms from Smiths Beach. This pristine area was sub-divided into 80 to 100 large individual lots.

It was Bill Mitchell pictured on Smiths Beach with the opportunistic Geoff Gallop 3 weeks prior to the 2000 election with Allanah McTiernan and Adele Farina, the latter at least seems to have a very close working relationship with Mitchell. More of than anon.

Mitchell and Merrifield had two meeting with Allanah McTiernan and Adele Farina and there was at least one private dinner held in Mitchell house on the ridge overlooking Smiths Beach. McTiernan refused to meet with David McKenzie to allow him to put his case.

Brian Burke and Norm Marlborough played a role in getting the reluctant Allanah McTiernan, later as the Minister for Planning, to meet with the frustrated David McKenzie the proponent of Smith Beach development who had been 'locked out' of all discussions with the Minister.

Bill Mitchell claimed in the ABC TV Four Corners interview that he was the person who initiated the Smiths Beach CCC investigation. The Desert Rat has been told that he openly bragged about being the "whistle blower".

If so, what then did Bill Mitchell tell Senior Investigator Mark Raymond Ingham and Executive Director Mike Silverstone of the CCC, that was of such gravity for the required affidavits to successfully apply to have phone tapped, bugs placed in the houses and camera surveillance of Brian Burke, Julian Grill and David McKenzie for three years? The Desert Rat has been told by a highly placed source, which is difficult to verify, that Kevin Merrifield and Bill Mitchell met with Jim McGinty about the Smiths Beach lobbyists and McGinty is alleged to have advised them to take the matter to the CCC.

A simple denial that none of these three met or discussed Smiths Beach lobbyists would put that allegation to rest.

The thickening plot lends itself to a remake of 'How Green was my Valley'.

Smiths Beach: How the CCC and Silverstone were manipulated. Part 1

2009-03-10T18:56:00.000-07:00

Links between Smiths Beach Action Group and competing developers. The Players - Kevin Merrifield

Research by the Desert Rat shows how the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) was manipulated by greedy developers that wanted to maintain their control of development in the Busselton Shire area.

Who are the players behind the Smiths Beach Action Group (SBAG)? What do we know about these prominent spokespersons for the SBAG, one of whom was Kevin Merrifield; another was Bill Mitchell, who has claimed credit for making the complaint to the CCC?

The Smiths Beach Action Group's inaugural chairperson was Kevin Merrifield and was one of three spokespersons for the SBAG. Kevin Merrifield was probably the biggest developer in the Busselton area and the surrounding 25 km.

Merryfield developed the Busselton shopping centre as well as many other tacky shopping centres in regional WA including the the eyesore Newman, Carnarvon and Esperance shopping centres - the latter a big disappointment that didn't live up to expectations for parking, landscaping and visual amenity.

His partner in many earlier developments was Kerry Stokes, until they fell out.

Kevin Merrifield lives at Millbrook a beautiful property about 5 km from Smiths Beach which is the site of an old mill. It he subdivided the picturesque property into 25 lots in about 2002.

Merrifield describes himself in the CCC hearings and transcripts as a retired property developer but makes regular presentations to the Busselton Shire Council. Merrifield is still one of the most significant landholders and property developers in the area.

The Smiths Beach Action Group seems to have a close relationship with the Busselton Shire Council and they seem to be able to obtain information from the Busselton Shire Council that is not normally available to other members of the public.

The ABC TV program Four Corners depicted these ageing SBAG spokespersons as surfies and environmentalists when interviewed near the beach in the surfies gear. There was no mention of any being significant property developers and landowners.

Are many of these protagonists wolves in sheep clothing?

In following posts the Desert Rat will examine the background and role of other competing developer from the Smiths Beach Action Group.

Remorse, restitution and rehabilitation not enough - so in with the Silverstone slipper

2009-03-06T23:24:00.000-08:00

Silverstone wreaks savage retribution as well, on world renowned piano tuner.

The Desert Rat was appalled that the Corruption and Crime Commission used all its resources to drag a penitent Walter Haass before the courts.

Walter Haass stole a $20 000 Steinway piano some 12 years ago from the University of WA music school, after succumbing to a gambling addiction.

Months later Walter Haas told the school about his misdeed and came to an informal arrangement to cover the loss. Haass completed his part of the bargain and his unpaid work more than covered the cost of the loss to the university.

Haas overcame his gambling addiction, was remorseful (as he reported the offence himself) and had made restoration. All the ingredients of restorative justice, the Desert Rat would have thought.

Ten years later Brigadier Mike Silverstone and the crew down at Dad's Army saw this as a great opportunity to stamp out corruption and unorganised crime.

Haass defence lawyer Mark Andrews told the court that "an unknown party with an axe to grind" had brought the matter to the CCC's attention some 10 years after the offence was committed.

Haass was fined afurther $4500. He had not offended before or since the solitary offence.

Well done Mike Silverstone! We owe you our heartfelt gratitude for saving us from these vicious criminal types who must be up to other "no good" business - perhaps even organised crime. Just what did he really do with that piano?

The Desert Rat thinks a Military Medal should be awarded to Mike Silverstone for this CCC triumph.

CCC (taxpayers) to pay $19149 Legal Fees and Court Cost to Julian Grill

2009-03-06T22:41:00.000-08:00

Court Costs - a win for truth and integrity over malice.

The Desert Rat suspects that Julian Grill and his wife Lesley are not about to travel to the south of France to spend the $19 149 costs that were awarded to them for legal fees and court costs in yesterday's acquittal.

The Desert Rat has the sad duty to inform punters that all this gratefully received money will disappear into the black hole of legal fees. Even though this was Silverstone's and Roberts-Smith first group of charges against Julian Grill - and their first embarrassing failure, Grill's legal fees are known to be well over $300 000 already and mounting.

This legal bill has accumulated over the three year that Silverstone has been desperately trying to justify the estimated $50 million his outfit the CCC has wasted trying to find some evidence of corruption against Julian Grill.

There is a formula that magistrates use to calculate costs and it not meant to cover all costs by the successful defendant. In this case it will cover about 5% of Grill's costs to date.

The Desert Rat thinks that Mike Silverstone would be less reckless if he was spending or wasting his own money on these nasty actions - instead of frivolously spending taxpayers funds.

If Silverstone was to be sued by his victims, Silverstone's costs would unfortunately be paid for by the State and taxpayers. We all lose.

All Brigadier Silverstone of the Children Overboard infamy can only lose, is he remaining credibility. Some would argue that is little for him to lose.

Magistrate: Grill "a witness of truth".

2009-03-06T21:15:00.000-08:00

Third group of CCC charges thrown out in CCC Smith's Beach "House of Cards" Inquiry and Report

Julian Grill was yesterday cleared of two charges of giving false testimony at the Corruption and Crime Commission's Smith's Beach hearings about 3 years ago.

Magistrate Wheeler said Grill was a witness of truth and any erroneous answers are understandable given the circumstances. He said Mr Grill had little input into the proposed Smith's Beach development and was in the USA for most of the 4 weeks of the deferral of the town planning amendment .

Magistrate Wheeler said he had watched a video of Mr Grill's evidence and declared him to be studious, respectful and trying to answer correctly.

Julian Grill was awarded cost of $19 149.

Smug Brigadier Mike Children Overboard Silverstone, Senior "Investigator" Mark Ingham and the antique, sphinx-like Major General Roberts-Smith have suffered another humiliating defeat.

Every finding of the phoney Smith Beach Inquiry has already been discredited and their dodgy practices exposed. Also the vindictive and malicious false testimony charges belatedly made against Mike Allen, David McKenzie and Julian Grill, by the CCC incompetents to save face - have been thrown out of Court.

Read the latest Eastern States comment on VexNews.

Organised crime out of control in Perth

2009-03-02T02:07:00.000-08:00

Cage fighter fears for safety after Molotov attack

The West Australian 2nd March 2009, 12:00 WST

"The manager of a Northbridge gym fire-bombed overnight, star cage fighter Brian Ebersole, says he believes organised crime is out of control in Perth and he fears for his safety."

This story in today's The West Australian makes the Desert Rat wonders why the Corruption and Crime Commission and Police can't get their act together and tackle organised crime.

The CCC it seems would rather be in hot pursuit of a miscreant middle aged piano tuner. The CCC believed the piano tuner presented a serious challenge for them because he was armed with a tuning fork and therefore must have had a concealed knife.

The CCC requested the assistance police tactical response group because of the danger involved.

The police refused to help saying the CCC were operationally inept and a security risk.

Brigadier Mike Silverstone the Executive Director of the CCC said he will be forced to subdue the piano tuner with our own CCC militia. The resources involved he said will make it impossible for the CCC to interview Mr Brian Ebersole and risk tackling organised crime at any time in the near future.

Where's McGinty's Guts? Step up Kim Beasley.

2009-02-28T17:03:00.000-08:00

When the going get tough, the wimps get going

When the Desert Rat saw ALP heavyweight (not in the sense of her obese colleagues) Ljil Ravlich on ABC TV "news" last night lambasting the decision to allow lead carbonate shipments through Fremantle, it revealed a lot about the dysfunctional ALP. The Libs were doing what Labor set up when in government!

The interview tells the Desert Rat that McGinty will resign from Parliament in May and Peter Tagliaferri will be the ALP candidate for Fremantle.

McGinty has no guts and at 58 years of age can't find the courage to take on the Barnett Government. A costly by-election for taxpayers will result and McGinty will walk away with $2.5 million in superannuation. What's Kevin Rudd got to say about that golden handshake?

The Desert Rat has heard, that like his mentor Napoleon, McGinty will exile himself to an island off Italy. Since the fall of communism in eastern Europe, McGinty has discovered God probably doesn't think much of athiests and so he is contemplating repenting and becoming a born-again catholic and adopting a cloistered monastic life on the island.

Ljil Ravlich's claim to fame is, the first Croatian born woman from Split to be elected to Parliament in Western Australia. Ljil was encircled by Fran "Want a threesome?" Logan appropriatly the Member for Cockburn (in more than one sense of the word) and Fremantle Mayor Peter Tagliaferri and someone else, a nodding cheer squad member.

They must have begged the ABC to run this non-story! Not a good professional decision Aunty.

Why wasn't Jim McGinty there, after all it his electorate? Normally he would be spitting chips if other ALP members encroached on his turf. McGinty hasn't complained about their opposition to Magellan Metals plan, which has been approved by the Environmental Protection Authority.

The reason for McGinty's absence is that he is an embassassment to the ALP. He has no friends now that he can't dispense patronage. McGinty the self-crowned Emperor of WA is lost without the trappings of ministerial office and the shiny leather-seated ministerial car.

Since the election debacle, he is miffed; underlings have refused to genuflects before him and pay proper obeisance. The only use now for this one-time cock-sure rooster, is, as a feather duster.

Normally Peter Tagliaferri would not stand a chance of endorsement, but McGinty is doubtful that his preferred man Dave Kelly the secretary of the Misco's Union, can win. Losing Fremantle would be a dreadful reflection on McGinty's already pathetic legacy and on his dwindling respect among his ALP constituents, and add to his ignominy.

Former Docker Peter Bell is no longer interested in the seat since he found out the bullshit he would have to endure in the dysfunctional ALP.

Well Ljil Ravlich fronted up to the camera [not Sue Ellery the local Upper House member and McGinty acolyte, who should be the ALP's spokesperson on health and obesity]. Ljil condemned the Barnett Government for allowing lead carbonate to be exported from Fremantle. The rabble's hypocrisy was shameless and cynical, as the shipments were set up by the Carpenter Government!

Well the Desert Rat thinks Kim Beasley is a decent man and too young to be out to pasture, so why not have a go Kim - you would get a lot of support and would double the IQ of the shadow cabinet, if elected.

Peter Tagliaferri is not a sure bet, the Desert Rat always thought of him as a card carrying Liberal. His old man, a close mate of commo Paddy Troy and decent man would have warranted strong support - the son is an unknown quantity , at least to the Desert Rat.

CCC prosecution of David McKenzie thrown out of court

2009-02-27T19:50:00.000-08:00

Administrative incompetence. Could Silverstone organise a root in a brothel?

After almost three years of preparation, the Corruption and Crime Commission incompetents have had their prosecution of David McKenzie, thrown out of court. McKenzie was charged for allegedly giving false evidence at the Smiths Beach public hearing.

There seems no limit to the stress these sadists will put ordinary people under because of their incompetence. If Brigadier Mike Children Overboard Silverstone and Major General Roberts-Smith down at Dad's Army decide to appeal the decision, a result of their own incompetence, it will mean ten of thousand of dollars of extra legal and court costs to David McKenzie and his family and to the us taxpayers who already fork out $170 000 for Silverstone's farcical performance and are charge $30 million a year to fund the CCC.

This malicious prosecution of David McKenzie for giving "false" evidence, proceeded some two years after that evidence was given in the public hearings, and after the failure of the substantive cases of corruption and misconduct against Mike Allen, Paul Frewer and Wally Cox.

The charges were laid after every major allegation ('finding' in the CCC view!) in the CCC's Smiths Beach Report had been discredited.

The CCC's House of Cards cases collapsed when their investigation practices and sham reports were exposed. It was shown by Malcolm McCusker QC that the CCC ignored evidence they were aware of and did not disclose, because it contradicted their case. Petrice Judge the independent investigator for the Public Sector Management Commission revealed that exculpatory evidence was concealed and left out of the Frewer report.

Excluding exculpatory evidence corrupts justice in the Desert Rat's simple view.

Again this latest bungle reflects dismally on hapless Executive Director Mike Children Overboard Silverstone who has overseen more dodgy investigations, more stuffed up investigations and more clumsy prosecutions than is believable.

Who would now believe his account of the conversation with Commander Banks in the Children Overboard Scandal?

Silverstone's strategy over the last year seems to have been to pursue prosecutions that will improve his and the CCC dismal win-loss record. He is now becoming a national laughing stock.

The pitiful prosecution of a piano tuner has plumbed new depths in useless and pointless prosecutions. More on that in a later post.

When CCC opinions become findings - truth is the victim

2009-02-27T15:32:00.000-08:00

CCC conditions the public mind with half truths.

The Desert Rat's examination of the media statement of Mike Silverstone referred to in the previous post and the Letter to the Editor by Major General Roberts-Smith, highlights both mens' shortcomings.

Do either of these men really understand the role of the agency they head as Commissioner and Executive Director of the Corruption and Crime Commission?

It is about time they understood more about the CCC Act under which they operate.

They appears to be either amateurish and incompetent or off on some political vendetta redolent of the intoxicating effect of having too much power. Read on and decide for yourself.

In Silverstone's opening paragraph in his media statement of 9 October 2007 he says the CCC has found evidence of misconduct against a former minister and others. Silverstone goes on to highlight four findings; against Norm Marlborough, Dr Wally Cox, Mr Paul Frewer and Mr Mike Allen.

No wonder the public regards the CCC opinions (which should be nothing more and nothing less) as findings. Like the police they cannot find any guilty of any offence - it is for the courts to decide.

God only knows what the Desert Rat would find if he had the time to examine all of Silverstone and Roberts-Smiths public comments or if he was allowed to listen to all their private conversations and read their corrospondence. A camera and bug in their respective bedrooms may relieve the humdrum of this tedious research.

Commissioner Major General Roberts-Smith in his letter to the editor of The West Australian 24 February 2009 uses the words opinion and finding interchangeabily. He says:

"It [the CCC] has not formed any opinion (finding) about Mr Grill..."

One would expect a lot more intellectual rigour from a former supreme court judge - maybe he has spent too much time on military tribunals as Judge Advocate.

The CCC can only express an opinion - it cannot make findings. It should never use the word 'found' or 'finding', as they imply a much higher level of authority - that of a tribunal or even court in the minds of most of the public. Any CCC views should properly be expressed as an opinion and sent with any evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Public Sector Commissioner or the relevant authority to inquire into and if there is a case to answer, recommend a course of action such as discipline or prosectution.

Malcolm McCusker QC in his recent John Curtin Institute of Public Policy address lamented the lack of success both he and the CCC have had in educating the public that the CCC can only express opinions - and that it was up to others bodies to make findings of guilt or otherwise.

When material such as the above are fed into the media by Silverstone and Roberts-Smith it is not surprising that the public think of their opinions as findings.

All of the Smiths Beach inquiry opinions above, which are in their public report, have been wrong in fact or law and discredited and all resulting charges to date have been discredited or thrown out of court.

CCC record exposes Roberts-Smith dissembling in Letter to Editor

2009-02-26T21:00:00.000-08:00

The truth, half-truths and lies.

In Australian parliaments, members are not allowed to call another member a liar because it is considered unparliamentary. They must use a euphemism such "he told an untruth" or "that is an untruth". A lie is deliberate and told on purpose, whereas a mistake is inadvertent. We all make mistakes occasionally and most people correct the record when they are drawn to their attention.

Describing a person as a liar questions their integrity.

The Desert Rat read with interest Major General "Mallard's Guilty" Roberts-Smith letter to The West Australian (24 February 2009) claiming that the Corruption and Crime Commission:

"has not formed any opinion (finding) about Mr Grill"

Is Roberts-Smith a disingenuous fool and blatant liar who doesn't care about the truth or is he and Mike Children Overboard Silverstone unaware of what the CCC has written about Julian Grill?

The Desert Rat is gob-smacked by this false claim of Roberts-Smith and refers readers to the Corruption and Crime Commission's Media Statement of 9 October 2007 headed: "Evidence of misconduct in Smiths Beach development" where Mike Children Overboard Silverstone the Executive Director of the CCC is quoted, and he says:

"Also, in the Commission's view lobbyist ... Julian Grill .. influenced or attempted to influence public officers to engage in misconduct".

Given the contradiction of Roberts-Smith claim and the CCC media release, Grill protests in a response (Letter to the editor The West Australian 27 February 2009):

"This 'opinion' is hugely detrimental to my reputation. For the CCC to refuse to explain or justify it, on the basis that it is not technically a formal finding of misconduct pursuant to the Act, is disingenuous and very unfair. Mr Roberts-Smith should either properly and legally justify it or have it withdrawn."

The Desert Rat does not expect an apology from Roberts-Smith or for him to justify the original opinion (finding) or for Mike Silverstone to correct it on Roberts-Smith's behalf or to justify the original opinion (finding) on which Silverstone name was quoted. [This was just before he went into hiding.]

The revelation of this written contradiction calls for a response and apology from Roberts-Smith and Silverstone. We will see in their response, if any, whether these officers have integrity. Will there be silence or some dissembling avoidance of this blatant "untruth"?

The Desert Rat has been thinking about making a proposition to those vermin at the CCC ... that if they stop telling lies about Julian Grill, I will stop telling the truth about them.

Silverstone's "Misconduct Resistance" Campaign - he can't find corruption and organised crime is too hard

2009-02-01T17:56:00.000-08:00

"Just Don't Do It" - decision and danger avoidance campaign.

The Desert Rat received an anonymous leak, presumably from the Corruption and Crime Commission, about their new "Misconduct Resistance" Campaign (see page 15). Its forthcoming campaign slogan "Just Don't Do It" appears to be a blatant bit of plagiarism from Nike.

This lovely piece of vague jargon, "Misconduct Resistance" Campaign, doesn't even refer to corruption! Have Mike Children Overboard Silverstone and Major General Roberts-Smith thrown in the towel on corruption as well as organised crime?

Why "Misconduct Resistance" - it's a bit odd? Does that policy jargon require more resistance to some misconduct (forget about corruption) and less resistance to other forms - such as securing dodgy phone tapping and bugging warrants? Will this new catch cry be able to "justify" many massive salaries, in the eyes of the public, of dysfunctional shiny arses at the CCC?

Making decisions is already personally dangerous for public servant and will get worse. The result will be more third party negotiators, or government relations consultants, who in plain English are - lobbyists.

What, a campaign that will result in more lobbyists?!

When bureaucrats resort to jargon the Desert Rat suspects they have lost their way and don't have much of an idea about what they are doing or could do - they have no direction!

Plain English would of course be a campaign of "Corruption Prevention" or "Misconduct Prevention" - but that is obviously not sophisticated enough for the feckless trash in the CCC - the great big wheelie bin that seems to have been filled with the flotsam and jetsam of every public service in Australia.

Under the new "Just Don't Do It" campaign, public servants will be advised not to make any decisions that may advantage any citizen or corporation.

They will be advised to report to the CCC any person asking for a decision or action that may advantage any private citizen or corporation.

The Desert Rat predicts that getting a decision out of a public servant and therefore a Minister will soon be near impossible. Who will bother to apply directly for a planning or other government decision?

The Desert Rat predicts this new policy will be circumvented by a massive increase in the use of third parties to negotiate the minefield of personal benefit - precisely what happened when the process oriented McGinty - Gallop Government took office. No Minister made a decision unless it was recommended by the public service (and no public servant would make a decision that they weren't sure a Minister would approve. Catch 22?

The Desert Rat thinks he could turn a good dollar in this government relations business. No grubby lobbying for this trouble-shooting Rat.

Malice in Wonderland - CCC occupies the moral low ground

2009-01-31T20:06:00.000-08:00

Silverstone snubs DPP to prosecute Burke and Marlborough

The revelation on the website CCCexposed that Mike Children Overboard Silverstone and Major General Roberts-Smith ignored the advice from the DPP that the CCC should not charge Burke and Marlborough should dispel any doubts about the malicious nature of the decision by the Corruption and Crime Commission to pursue these prosecutions.

CCCexposed alleges the CCC kept this advice from the DPP, secret - and who would doubt it?

The Desert Rat thinks it must have been for fear of embarrassment and to hide their rancorous and spiteful tactics. Let's hope substantial costs are awarded against the CCC when the case is eventually thrown out of court.

These charges were laid over 2 years after the evidence was given relating to the Smith's Beach development. In pursuing these charges the CCC's design is to place Burke and Marlborough in unnecessary jeopardy and bankrupt them if possible, particularly if an appealed is required.

The Smith's Beach Inquiry has been a embarrassment and financial fiasco for the CCC and WA taxpayers.

In some coming articles the Desert Rat will demonstrate how naive and stupid Silverstone and company were by allowing the CCC to get sucked into local Busselton - Dunsborough development politics and take the side of developers who opposition to Smith's Beach is not on environmental matters.

Blessed Brian Burke: Canonise or crucify?

2009-01-27T17:35:00.000-08:00

Some are more equal than others

The website CCCexposed carries an interesting post on former Judge Kevin Hammond's role in the gaoling of Brian Burke on the "travel rorts" charge back in the 1990's. Graeme Campbell former Federal Member for Kalgoorlie claims in the article that Judge Hammond the first CCC Commissioner allowed as admissible evidence, photocopies of travel claims when the originals should have been used.

Judge Hammond strangely departed the Corruption and Crime Commission after hearing all the evidence in the Smith Beach Inquiry fiasco, but before the report was finalised! We now know Judge Hammond's report was extensively rewritten after Hammond left the CCC, presumably with the full knowledge of CCC Executive Director Mike Children Overboard Silverstone.

The cavalier acceptance of photocopies, instead of originals, as evidence at Burke's trial, by Judge Kevin Hammond, reminded the Desert Rat of a few other dodgy aspect of Burke's treatment and gaoling for two years on the unwarranted conviction.

In respect of Burke's travel claim and it should be noted that public servants filled out Burke's travel claim, not Burke or his political staff. If Burke was deliberately trying to rort the system, one of his loyal political (on contract) staff would have done the job.

Burke was charged and convicted in the feeding frenzy that followed the "WA Inc" hysteria. It is interesting, that Carmen Lawrence after she opportunistically usurped the Premiership also claimed a $5000 travel allowance for travel which she never took. It was over a year before what could also be called a "travel rort", was "discovered".

Although the story was around parliament house for a few days before, news flashed around caucus members on 5 November 1992 that the "travel rort" story was to be front page on tomorrow's The West Australian (6 November 1992).

That afternoon, in time for the evening TV news bulletins, John Halden MLC rose to his feet in the Legislative Council and tabled the infamous "Easton Petition" which reflected unfairly and misleadingly on Opposition Leader Richard Court.

This sensational "news" was designed to, and had the effect of displacing the Carmen Lawrence's "travel rort" story off the front page of The West Australian.

Why Carmen Lawrence was never prosecuted and Burke was prosecuted, is still beyond the Desert Rat understanding, if everyone is equal before the law?

The Desert Rat knows of about 15 to 20 federal politicians who have made mistakes or perhaps "rorted" their travel allowance but were never maliciously prosecuted and gaoled at all, let alone gaoled for two years as meted out to Burke by Judge Hammond.

That subtle differentiation of who gets charged, allows some unaware perhaps unthinking journalists to refer to Burke as "the disgraced former premier". But that same epithet could have easily been applied to Carmen Lawrence, (and a similar epithet to about 20 federal members) had someone just as malicious and prejudiced decided to charge her (and the Federal MP's) with stealing!

Given that it is very easy to make mistakes with travel claims, particularly by country members and ministers who travel frequently and rely on their staff to complete claims, both Burke and Lawrence should never have been charged.

There is a fine line sometimes between being cherished and canonised and being castigated and crucified by malicious enemies, then the media and public opinion.

There but for the grace of god go many of us mere mortals.

Children Overboard Fiasco: Silverstone's version of events doesn't make sense.

2009-01-19T22:38:00.000-08:00

Serious flaws in Silverstone's (on left) secret submission to "Children Overboard" Inquiry.

The Desert Rat knows from the Senate inquiry into the infamous "Children Overboard" fiasco that Brigadier Mike Silverstone made a written submision to the inquiry or tabled written notes of his activities.

We can presume that Silverstone made a request to the Senate Committee to keep the submission or notes secret, because the submission or tabled papers does not appear on the list of public submissions to the Inquiry or tabled papers. Under Senate practice, all submissions and tabled documents are public and listed, except where the person making the submission has asked, and the Committee agreed, to keep it secret.

What we know from material tabled to the inquiry revealed, is that Brigadier Silverstone claimed he had scribbled the word "child" into the notes after the call from Commander Banks. The word "child" replaced "men thrown over side". Silverstone never rang back to Commodore Banks to check that crucial change in the notes of his conversation with Commodore Banks. "Child" we known later blossomed into "children".

We also know that some three or four days later, Silverstone added to his record of the phone conversation to Commodore Banks, a notation of the supposed time of the call (7.20am Darwin time).
The time of this call is in dispute, and importantly, Silverstone's evidence was not challenged on this issue.

This alleged time added days later is important, because the time zone of the HMAS Adeliade was 2 hour and 30 minutes behind Darwin time, that is at 4.50 am.

The HMAS Adelaide logs record the first man overboard after first light at 5.06am followed by further man overboards between 5.43am and 5.56 am - an hour later. This latter time interval was when the fictitious "child overboard" incident supposedly occurred - a whole hour after the time of 7.20am that Silverstone added to his notes.

According to the Senate report transcript page 41:

3.54 According to Brigadier Silverstone, he spoke with Commander Banks at 7.20am Darwin ('India-Kilo') time on 7 October 2001. The time difference between Darwin and the Adelaide was then two and half hours, meaning that, on Brigadier Silverstone's account, the time on the Adelaide ('Golf" time) would have been 4.50am.

It doesn't add-up in the Desert Rat's calculations and it's strange it wasn't challenged by the Labor Senators on the Committee.

In fact, it was dark at 4.50am where the Adelaide was positioned 100 nautical miles north of Christmas Island; due south of Djakarta - some 2800km west of Darwin.

No-one jumps overboard in the dark!

The ALP Senators on the Committee seemed to be preoccupied with nailing the Howard Government and its Ministers - nailing military or naval small fry was a distraction and not politically in their interests - blame needed to be pinned on the Howard Government.

The time of the call was not confirmed by Brigadier Silverstone with Commodore Banks and it was some four week after the incident before Banks was even contacted!

The Desert Rat can not find any record of Silverstone contacting Banks within the following month to clear up the confusion. The rabbit was off and running.

How much did this one phone call fiasco cost Australia and its taxpayers? It all revolved around a disputed conversation between Silverstone and Banks - a conversation that Silverstone version has been proved didn't happen. Did Commander Banks tell a lie or did he get it bizarrely wrong or did Silverstone tell a lie or get it bizarrely wrong?

The political benefit and destruction was all at Silverstone's end of the conversation and should have been confirmed by him in writing immediately - which it wasn't.

Brigadier Mike Silverstone has now retired to the invisible job as the Executive Director of the Corruption and Crime Commission in Western Australia.

How good is Mike Silverstone's memory?

2009-01-17T22:56:00.000-08:00

Why did Silverstone have false testimony charges laid where the exact detail of a lawful conversation could not be recalled accurately?

Michael Greenberg of the New York Review of Books in a very enlightening review of Sue Halpern's Can't Remember What I Forgot: The Good News from the Front Lines of Memory Research - shows just how dangerous the Corruption and Crime Commission charges of false testimony can be.

When the Desert Rat read the various media accounts of Julian Grill's false testimony charge and trial before a Magistrate, it sounded like Grill denied or thought he never spoke to Mike Allen at the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, which was not the case. In fact Julian Grill admitted under oath that he had a number of conversations with Mike Allen about a variety of planning matters - which were all intercepted and taped by the CCC, but did not recall a conversation which apparently touched briefly on Smith's Beach which was a matter being dealt with by Brian Burke.

What is both strange and malicious is that it was subsequently determined (when some crucial evidence, known to, but deliberately left out by the CCC), that Julian Grill had not done anything unlawful nor had Mike Allen a senior public servant. Yet the CCC supremos Silverstone and Roberts-Smith still pursued an expensive prosecution of alleged false testimony against Grill. A case where they have to prove intent to give false testimony - even though the whole process was lawful. Mind boggling?

The point of all this vindictive prosecution escapes the Desert Rat. Halpin's account of recent memory research shows how dangerous charges like this can be, even where very serious matters that involve unlawful conduct are dealt with.

Giving evidence on matters at the CCC public hearings circus would be incredibly stressful, because the CCC does not advise the victim about what matters, on which they intend to publicly interrogate them. The CCC have usually seized all the victims files and records so that they cannot refresh your memory on issues they may anticipate could arise. Witnesses can be maliciously set up by this evil and poisonous practice used by the CCC.

Greenberg writes in his review (which can be read here):

In her fascinating book about memory loss and the efforts of scientists to understand it, Sue Halpern reports an experiment in which members of the Cambridge Psychological Society were asked to reconstruct a meeting of the society that had taken place two weeks before. The average person was barely able to recall 8 percent of what had happened, and almost half of this was incorrect, peppered with the recollection of events that had never occurred or that had occurred elsewhere.

Such paltry power of retrieval in an educated, and supposedly attentive, group is not surprising. Memory, Halpern reminds us, "is not an archive," nor does it record in real time. It lives in the brain "in chemical traces. The traces can fade...and they can be augmented," depending on one's experience and observation. The intensity of an experience may sharpen the memory of it, while making it even less accurate. During situations of extreme stress, for example, the body is flooded with damaging amounts of the hormone cortisol, causing communication relayed by neurotransmitters and other chemicals in the brain to break down.

Why is Silverstone's Dad's Army swarming with ex-military?

2009-01-15T18:17:00.000-08:00

Is oxymoronic taskmaster Mike Silverstone recruiting foot-soldiers for Dad's Army?

A few oxymoron came to mind when the Desert Rat discovered that Donald Barrett the Liberal candidate for the seat of Cockburn in the recent state election, was, prior to the election, an intelligence analyst (oxymoron) with the Crime and Corruption Commission.

Did Donald Barrett ever work for Brigadier Children Overboard Mike Silverstone in the army? Why is the CCC swarming with retired military - army to boot?

Is there real corruption involved in the appointment of staff to the CCC? Does it help to be a retired army serviceman? Does it help to have worked previously for or under Brigadier Mike Silverstone?

Our erstwhile CCC intelligence analyst Barrett must have been a little slow off the mark as he failed to make any headway against Left Faction super-dill Fran "How about a threesome?" Logan. Logan is the Left Faction slug and ALP Member for Cockburn who presided over Western Power board members, public servants and consultants who ripped off Western Power and taxpayers during his oversight of the botched break-up of the utility. He also presided over regular power shortages each summer, the Varanus Island fiasco and couldn't string two coherent sentences together and left us with a dysfunctional government power system. Just as well AlintaGas was privatised because Logan would have stuffed that up as well.

Donald Barrett tells us in the election blurb that he was in the army for 18 years, but says nothing about experience in military intelligence work. His rank isn't given so he was presumably an under achiever or wasn't into self promotion - not something you would expect from a political hopeful.

But then again they are really slow down at the CCC.

It is an open secret that these retired soldiers are having a working holiday at the CCC. Perhaps they are well suited to "intelligence" work in such massive vacuum or empty space such as the CCC, undertaking government intelligence or military intelligence, whatever it may be. Was Barrett the person who "discovered" the false evidence about Brian Burke and Julian Grill? Or was it the wee beastie who wishes to appear invisible, Mike Silverstone who dreams up the false evidence? The CCC clowns seem to equate military justice with civilian justice - as dispensed by our courts. That's not surprising as CCC supremo Roberts-Smith is a former military Judge Advocate.

We can be thankful that this potpourri of chablis sipping cut-lunch soldiers and amateurs is not running military operations in Afghanistan. Given their performance at the CCC and in the Timor Sea (Children Overboard), they should have remained military retirees.

Sentence first - verdict afterwards. Silverstone's incompetence or maliciously deliberate delays?

2009-01-11T18:18:00.000-08:00

The "House of Cards" Smith's Beach Inquiry now becomes Alice in Wonderland trials.

Unbelievably, Mike "Children Overboard" Silverstone and his minions at the Corruption and Crime Commission have taken over two years to lay new charges of giving false evidence against Julian Grill, Brian Burke, Norm Marlborough and two public servants. The charges relate to giving false evidence at public hearings in 2006, into the Smith Beach Development.

Is this undue delay, just plain incompetence on Siverstone's part or is the CCC deliberately delaying the process to bankrupt both Burke and Grill, damage their reputations and stave-off any embarrassing acquittals?

Incompetent outfits like the CCC should be made to bring charges within a reasonable time - perhaps 6 months, unless new evidence emerges.

Effectively, these people have already served more than a two year sentence and the charges have not yet gone to trial, let alone a verdict.

Like Alice's experience, is it all just a bad dream? Can such unreasonable delays be real?

"Sentence first-verdict afterwards" said the Queen.

These Western Australian citizens have lost their jobs, their livelihoods, their businesses and many of their friends in the ALP and those who are employed in government; as they are damned if they associate with them while under investigation and suspicion.

Friends won't speak freely to them because they know Mike Silverstone and his cabal may have a record of everything that is said, and photographs of them.

They may, in the future, hear selective parts of a conversation salaciously played out-of-context in some court. Some, possibly all, have had to live with the intrusion of phone bugs, secret cameras, listening devices and eyes prying over personal emails, mail and faxes - for over three years now.

Not to mention legal costs of $250 000 to $350 000 for some of them and thousands of hours of work going over details, court transcripts, records (that haven't been seized) to respond to the various charges relating to the very same matter - charges that never seem to end.

Like the current abuse of process by the CCC, justice was not exactly done in this Wonderland trial:

Alice's Evidence
`Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
`No, no!’ said the Queen. `Sentence first–verdict afterwards.’
`Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!’
`Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
`I won’t!’ said Alice.
`Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
`Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) `You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’
At this the whole pack rose up into the air, and came flying down upon her: she gave a little scream, half of fright and half of anger, and tried to beat them off, and found herself lying on the bank, with her head in the lap of her sister, who was gently brushing away some dead leaves that had fluttered down from the trees upon her face.
`Wake up, Alice dear!’ said her sister; `Why, what a long sleep you’ve had!’
`Oh, I’ve had such a curious dream!’ said Alice, she told her sister.

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Silverstone dodges Senate questioning

2009-01-09T19:44:00.000-08:00

Was the Major-General protecting the timorous Brigadier?

The Desert Rat was looking at transcripts of the Senate Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and noticed Corruption and Crime Commission were listed to give evidence.

The Committee seemed to the Desert Rat, to be going through the motions. The transcript of evidence revealed most was rehashed material already in their 2008 Annual Report. CCC supremo Major General Robert-Smith fielded all the questions and his responses were about as dry and interesting as camel dung.

Just towards the end of Roberts-Smith's comments, the Desert Rat realised that the Executive Director Brigadier Mike Children Overboard Silverstone was at the Major General's side but hadn't uttered as word during the long and boring session. The Desert Rat only knew because Roberts-Smith asked the Chair for Silverstone to be excused!

Mr Roberts-Smith— Madam Chair, I wonder if Mr Silverstone could be excused at this stage.

He has an urgent commitment elsewhere.

CHAIR— Of course. Thank you very much.

Mr Silverstone— Thank you.

CHAIR— We will shortly be winding this up, but I do have a couple of quick questions. I note that the parliament committee has a formal role in promoting integrity in the public sector. What does it actually do?

There are a number of explanations for Roberts-Smith talkativeness and Mr Invisible Mike Silverstone's silence.

One is that Roberts-Smith has no confidence in Silverstone answering questions from Senators; that Silverstone is a timorous and shy beastie who now lacks any confidence; or that he was just there to waste taxpayers money and was possibly asleep.

For someone that has been paid about $1 million dollars in salary since being at the CCC, it must be retirement after military retirement for Brigadier Mike Silverstone.

The Desert Rat wonders if Mike Silverstone is double dipping by collecting an army pension as well as an inflated CCC salary.

Silverstone's "Chinese Whisper" reflects a lack of basic administrative skill

2009-01-08T00:52:00.000-08:00

What happened when Silverstone transmitted sensitive information orally and without confirmation?

Like the CCC's Smith's Beach fiasco, the Children Overboard political fiasco was also a massive waste of taxpayer's money and resources.

The Desert Rat was interested to read a submission by Commodore Sam Bateman (ret.) to the Children Overboard Inquiry. Under the heading "Communications", he writes:

" The Minister for Defence has acknowledged that there was a breakdown of communications within his portfolio with the “"children overboard”" incident (3) but I believe the causes of confusion are deeper than that.

Developments in communications over the last decade or so, particularly email and mobile phones, have meant that an unofficial and informal channel of communications has developed within the Defence Force that to some extent runs counter to the formal chain of command and formal message channels.

Frequently the informal channel will run ahead of the formal channel leading to the risk of “Chinese whispers” as information is passed from one person to another. Chinese whispers” clearly were happening during the “children overboard” incident as demonstrated for example, by the controversial phone conversations on 7 October 2001 between Commander Banks and Brigadier (Mike) Silverstone and then further “up the line”.

As now appears accepted, the conversation between (Commander) Banks and Silverstone was the main source of the myth that was passed onto Air Vice Marshall Titheridge then to Ms Jane Halton and then seized upon by the political “spin doctors”.

At the meeting of the People Smuggling Task Force on Sunday 7 October (4), Group Captain Walker appears to have had the formal messages but by then, the informal channel had jumped ahead and “the horse had bolted”.

As Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor of The Australian, has suggested, the entire episode was the result of senior professional military officers hurriedly transmitting information orally and without confirmation”.(5) I agree with this assessment but in defence of the senior military officers, I must also say that they were responding to a heavily politicised environment created by aggressive, “shoot from the hip” bureaucrats in senior positions in Canberra.

What can be done about this situation? It is a consequence of technological advances and to some extent, it is inevitable that in a highly political charged situation, bureaucrats and ministerial staff in Canberra are going to seek information from the operational level on which to base their advice to the Minister.

However, for officers at the operational level, these phone calls are highly disruptive. The same might be said within the Defence Force about phone calls from further up the operational chain of command. As Greg Sheridan has rightly observed in The Australian, these phone calls are “a dysfunctional aspect of modern military organisation”. (6)

While Brigadier Silverstone, as Commander Northern Command, was notionally in command of border protection operations, he is an Army officer and not experienced in maritime operations.

His (Silverstone's) phone call to Commander Banks (7) in the heat of the operation on October 7 would not have been helpful, particularly as Banks may have found the need to explain carefully some basic issues of seamanship, seaworthiness, life saving at sea, navigation and so on.

The present system of operational command and control in the Defence is a joint one and officers trained in one military environment (air, land or sea) can find themselves in command of operations in another environment. However, it is most important that they do not move personally into a mode of giving advice or asserting influence outside of their experience. I suggest that this was a feature of the phone calls between Silverstone, Titheridge and Halton. "

The Desert Rat thinks history is repeating itself with Brigadier Mike Silverstone (ret.)

(3) John Kerin, “Communications breakdown, says Hill”, The Weekend Australian, The Nation, February,
16-17, 2002, p. 4.
(4) Marian Wilkinson, “Tampering with the evidence”, The Sydney Morning Herald, News Review, February
16-17, 2002, p.23.
(5) Dennis Shanahan, “A damning indictment of bureaucrats”, The Weekend Australian, The Nation,
February 16-17, 2002, p. 4.
(6) Greg Sheridan, “Out of the blue, a big whopper”, The Weekend Australian, Inquirer, February 23-24,
2002, p.23.
(7) Marian Wilkinson, “A few good men”, The Sydney Morning Herald, News Review, February 23-24,
2002, p.27.

Silverstone goes "overboard" with surveillance

2009-01-07T00:24:00.000-08:00

Silverstone's dark "War on Terror"

The Sunday Times this week revealed that Julian Grill his wife Lesley and visitors to their Mount Street home have been continally filmed by CCC voyeurs. This surveillance and gross invasion of privacy would have continued during the tragic death of their granddaughter last year - and continues today.

Not only is Mike "Children Overboard" Silverstone and the voyeurs down at the CCC bugging Julian Grill's house including their bedroom, we have now learned that Silverstone has also hidden cameras monitoring all movements to and from the Grill's house.

One miniature camera was discovered by an SEC worker last year and immediately shifted by the CCC goons.

The Desert Rat has been told the camera was low enough to see up a woman's skirt, if her hem is above the knee. That must have amused and titillated the spooks in the nearby van. Were any of these images circulated?

There is a strong probability that there are other cameras in the house - perhaps a toilet camera in case someone has a penchant for reading on the loo.

Mike Silverstone is very desperate to find something on Julian Grill to justify his massive waste of taxpayers money and probably illegal warrants.

Silverstone and his goons from Dad's Army, as well, have intercepted all Grill's home phone calls, mobile phones calls, faxes, email and bugged all the rooms in his house, including the bedroom.

To get warrants for this snooping Silverstone had to convince a judge that he had strong evidence that Grill had committed an offence which could incur a 7 year prison term. To date they don't seem to have any evidence that Grill has broken any law. The CCC has resorted to selectively airing salacious bits of conversations to severely damage or destroy Grill's public reputation.

No wonder Silverstone did not want to have the Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC look at the warrant applications. The Desert Rat believes the CCC has dishonestly obtained the warrants and someone should eventually go to gaol for this unnecessary and appalling breach of privacy and civil liberties.

In our Anglo Australian legal system, a strong principle of justice should be that the state must never use these types of powers unless they involve serious crime such as murder or major organised crime AND that they have strong evidence an offence has been committed. They certainly should not be used for CCC fishing expeditions.

Silverstone's grandiose pursuit of high profile politicians does not fit either of these two basic requirements. Silverstone seems to want to run the show like Dick Cheney who said after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that "the USA was going to go over to the dark side".

It is clear to the Desert Rat that the CCC has been operating "on the dark side" of the law for most of its existence and like Chaney - Rumsfeld - Wolfowitz and fellow travellers, the CCC cabal will reap their bitter harvest.

It is becoming more probable as time goes by that the shady CCC operatives will end up in disgrace and in gaol.

Van Onselen argues for an Independent Review of Corruption and Crime Commission

2009-01-06T17:25:00.000-08:00

Who is the CCC trying to protect? asks Peter Van Onselen

In this weeks The Sunday Times, respected political commentator Peter Van Onselen says that:

"In recent months, the extraordinary powers of the CCC have given cause to question the findings and methods of its operations".

Van Onselen was alluding to Edmund Burke's warning that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

He refers to Malcolm McCusker's "scathing review about the most secretive and unaccountable authority in the state." - the CCC, and supports the way McCusker has discharged his role as the Parliamentary Inspector of the CCC and more importantly supports the views McCusker has expressed in his reports which highlight the appalling way it has operated.

Van Onelen castigates the CCC for wasting time bugging politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists and says it should like its NSW counterpart "go after drug dealers and murderers." - a function is has ignored in its five year existence.

Van Onselen says in the article
:

"In a democracy we should value our liberties and our freedoms. Sadly, the CCC does neither. It can invade people's privacy and go unchecked. When it is questioned as to the findings it issues from such invasions it seeks to further shield itself from review, as evidenced by its reaction from McCusker's criticisms."

The Desert Rat say bring on the review and we will see how many CCC officers get are charged misconduct and criminal offences. One certainty is that the CCC will desperately try to stop any independent review.

"Children Overboard" Mike Silverstone changes the evidence

2009-01-03T23:06:00.001-08:00

It's OK for Mr Invisible Mike Silverstone to change his evidence - even when prepared

Wouldn't it be nice if witnesses who were cross examined by the Corruption and Crime Commission on subjects they were not able to prepare for and review information, could fiddle with their evidence or restate it more accurately!

The invisible man, Mike "Children Overboard" Silverstone the Executive Director of the CCC appears to have been quite prepared to extend that privilege to himself according to the Children Overboard enquiry transcripts.

Was this fiddling with the record, just fixing an omission or something more nefarious?

Read this ABC Online report of proceeding of the Senate Inquiry in 2002:

"Wednesday, March 27, 2002 . Posted: 19:35:13 (AEDT)

Brigadier admits adding 'child' to notes

The Brigadier who first reported asylum seekers threw their children overboard has revealed he added the word "child" to his notes after he first received information about the incident.

Brigadier Mike Silverstone has given a written submission to the Senate committee investigating the affair.

The Commander of HMAS Adelaide, Norman Banks, has repeatedly denied ever reporting that children had been thrown overboard.

But the man on the other end of that first phone call, Brigadier Silverstone, insists he said it.

The Brigadier says that is supported by his notes of the conversation, even though he has now revealed that the words he recorded during the conversation were "men thrown over side".

He says he added the word child immediately after the conversation and just before he passed the message on to the head of strategic command, Air Vice Marshall Alan Titheridge.

The Senate committee continues its hearings next week."

Mike Silverstone - The Invisible Man

2009-01-01T20:55:00.000-08:00

Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie,
O, what a panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty
Wi bickering brattle!

Like Griffin the main character in HG Wells classic novella The Invisible Man, has Mike "Children Overboard" Silverstone the Executive Director of the CCC, successfully carried out a procedure to make himself invisible?

If he should try to become visible again, will he fail, and like the forlorn Griffin, become mentally unstable as a result?

The Desert Rat has pondered the invisible role played by Silverstone. It is not as though the CCC is investigating vicious criminals, bikie gangs or organised crime (heaven forbid), where there may be some threat to him - why then is he so reticent. Only one photo of Silverstone has been tracked down to date.

If Silverstone is under threat, then so should Roberts-Smith be, but he is happy to have his pompous image displayed without restraint in the public arena.

When the public hearing were announced into the (apparently legitimate) lobbying activities of Burke and Grill, Silverstone was soaking up all the kudos and glory of the coup in front of the TV cameras. Since then this timorous man has slunk into the shadows - no photos, no publicity, very few if any personally attributable statements or public appearances.

The CCC 2008 Annual Report has one only sentence identifying him as the Executive Director. Silverstone has the hallmark of a fugitive, low lying, refusing to be fully accountable to the Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC by not providing details about the CCC's use of telephone interception warrants, warrants for bugging private homes and offices.

What does he actually do? The Desert Rat thinks he may have been employed because of some possible expertise in running covert operations. We can glean from the Annual Report that about 10 to 20 warrants to plant surveillance devices (bugs) and over 100 telephone interceptions are granted each year.

Administration would appear to be Silverstone's weakness. We know on the administration side he has been responsible for the stuff-up of simple search warrants and the embarrassing stuff-up of a number of charges presented to the Court's, as recently as last month. He had to re-issue the media release on Smith's Beach, CCC reports take forever to be finished and years for simple charges to be laid.

Some, including the Desert Rat, would suspect he lacks competence in that area.

Will or does Silverstone insist on having a barrister with him if and when interviewed by the Parliamentary Inspector, as have his minions such as Senior Investigator Mark Ingham? Why are they so precious and wary about being scrutinised by the Parliamentary Inspector, even in private?

Have they done something illegal or indulged in "misconduct" - God forbid? Will the wrath of justice, like Burns plough, wreak havoc upon this timorous mouse and his minions?

Thou saw the fields laid bare an' waste,
An' weary winter comin fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.

But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving forsight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

To a Mouse by Robert Burns

Burke and Grill's lobbying - now only "corrosive"

2008-12-30T17:15:00.000-08:00

The tune of McGinty's spin changes

The Desert Rat heard the predictable spin and claptrap from failed Attorney General "Truth(less) in Sentencing" Jim McGinty on ABC Radio this morning. His comments reflect his pathological hatred of Brian Burke, who has been his nemesis in the Australian Labor Party for over 30 years.

The State doesn't have to pay McGinty's legal fees now that he is no longer the Attorney General, so McGinty is much more circumspect in his comments about Burke - not mentioning the word "corruption" and Brian Burke or Julian Grill in the same paragraph or sentence. This morning on ABC Radio he said the Corruption and Crime Commission had tackled the "corrosive effect" of lobbyists. Of course Burke and Grill have been singled out by his dutiful minions.

What McGinty didn't say was that Burke and Grill, his main protagonists in the ALP, were the only lobbyist scrutinised in public hearing by the CCC. His mates from his Left Faction who formed the bulk of Labor lobbyists, have been extremely busy lobbying all and sundry, seem to have miraculously avoided scrutiny.

Lobbyists who are or have been members of McGinty's Left Faction such as Clive Brown, John Halden, Megan Anwyl, Karen Brown and Roger Cook seem to have a free reign despite one of them admitting they receive regular leaks from cabinet.

McGinty repeated the spin about what a wonderful job the CCC was doing; claimed corruption by public officers was its main function, yet the legislation gives equal weight to tackling organised crime. He lauded the CCC review by Gail Archer but failed to mention that the reviewer had been given far more work than any other lawyer by McGinty.

The spin and vindictive comments the Desert Rat hears from McGinty are an embarrassment to the ALP and the Parliament.

Roberts-Smith's Retribution?

2008-12-29T16:11:00.000-08:00

Goats will have their revenge

The Desert Rat is aware that humiliation is a very powerful motivator for retribution. Robert Mugabe can't bear the humiliation of electoral defeat and so he hangs on to power oblivious to the destruction and carnage around him. Jim McGinty, could not stand the humiliation of being wrong and so never apologised or acknowledged any failure or error when a Minister of the Crown.

Is Major General Roberts-Smith another who can't bear humiliation and has a long memory?

Recent revelations that Corruption Commissioner Len Roberts-Smith was sacked by Brian Burke when he was his lawyer in a legal action relating to the Burswood Casino in the 1980's, may help explain some of Roberts-Smith's bizarre behaviour. Roberts-Smith it appears may have been deeply humiliated by being dumped by Burke from his legal team.

Burke was dissatisfied with Roberts-Smith's performance as his lawyer and it appears Roberts-Smith may not have forgotten the humiliation. This and the following event may offer some explanation for Roberts-Smith vindictiveness, and both highlight a troubling conflict of interest for Roberts-Smith.

Robert- Smith was a judge on the Court of Criminal Appeal in the Andrew Mallard case which refused to overturn Andrew Mallard's conviction. Roberts- Smith wrote the judgment which was severely criticised by the High Court. The High Court found an embarrassing range of errors of both law and fact in the judgment. Roberts Smith was profoundly humiliated again, this time by the High Court of Australia.

The criminal justice system until then, with luminaries such as Roberts-Smith failed an innocent young man who had no history of violence and who spent 12 years in Casuarina maximum security prison.

The barrister who represented Andrew Mallard pro bono (free of charge) was Malcolm McCusker QC, the current Parliamentary Investigator of the Corruption and Crime Commission whose serious adverse findings against the CCC; Roberts-Smith continues to ignore.

Has Roberts-Smith recovered from his humiliation in the High Court's Mallard judgment?

The Desert Rat always avoids goats and camels, particularly in their feral state. They can cause some nasty injuries particularly when on a rampage, and, like the Desert Rat, have long memories.

CCC - searching for a reason to exist

2008-12-27T12:56:00.000-08:00

The problem caused by too many over-resourced investigators

The Desert Rat found comment by Acting Parliamentary Investigator Ken Martin QC questioning the need for a corruption watchdog, refreshing in both its candour and common sense.

Mr Martin QC said in Saturday's The West Australian, there was no need for the Crime and Corruption Commission. He said a Royal Commission could be set up from time to time to investigate corruption issues.

This makes sense to the Desert Rat. The Smith Beach Inquiry has been flawed because there has been an assumption that corruption occurred and even more concerning the assumption of guilt by many public officers and others involved.

The problem with a costly and bureaucratic body such as the Corruption and Crime Commision is that is has to justify itself, particularly in the absence of any investigations into organised crime. Therein lies a danger of being entrapped in its own bubble of relevance.

Western Australia was graced by the visit some years ago by world respected Professor Christian Pfeiffer, Head of the Criminological Institute, in Hannover, Germany. In a public lecture on criminology, he related a story which showed the problem of too much policing and over-resourcing.

It went something like this...

In Lower Saxony in the 1970's there was a proposal to build a nuclear power plant. Anticipating trouble the number of police in the area was increased dramatically. There was a ten-fold in charges coming before in the courts in the area during the period of the increased police presence.

It came to pass that the plans for the nuclear power plant were scrapped for whatever reason - political or economic but the police remain for some time. Researcher from the Institute of Criminology decided to see what the effect of the increased police number and presence were and to determine their effect on the level of crime.

Much to their surprise they found that although the rate of charges had increased about ten-fold and arrests had increased substantially, the number of convictions remained the same. Nearly all of the increased charges were thrown out of the courts by the sitting magistrates and judges who regarded many charges as frivolous or resulting from police harassment, particularly of young people..

The lesson he pointed out was that too many police can be counter productive because they end up going around looking for trouble, making arrests and charging people (after harassment?) - perhaps to justify their existence, perhaps to compete with their colleagues to get noticed for promotion etc.

The Desert Rat can't help but see the analogy with the comments by Ken Martin QC about the CCC and Pfeiffer's analysis. The second round of CCC charges are about "false testimony" where witnesses have tried to recall accurately minute detail. without documents and being able to prepare for a public hearing. These CCC charges follow the dismissal of the charges over the substantive issue - in respect of Mike Allen etc..

The CCC has been investigating and charging people left right and centre but all have failed relating to Smith's Beach and other major inquiries. Most of their minor successes in other cases have been what the Desert Rat considers petty corruption when compared to the activities of organised crime.

Corruption in Western Australian politics is not rampant or widespread in the Desert rat's view. It is probably very minor and can be addressed as Ken Martin QC has suggested by a Royal Commission when the need arises.

The Desert Rat thinks it would have been informative and interesting to hear public examination by a Royal Commission of many of the Smiths Beach critics, who are competing developers in the area masquerading as concerned citizens, some of whom are probable CCC "informants"?

CCC's Mark Ingham in the witness box

2008-12-27T12:13:00.001-08:00

Smith's Beach small part of Grill's business: lawyer Tom Percy QC

This excerpt is from an AAP news bulletin published on 28 October, 2008.

For legal reasons, comments cannot be published on the matter as Mr Grill's trial, before Magistrate Michael Wheeler, continues in January.

The CCC found Mr Grill and Mr Burke influenced or tried to influence public sector officers to engage in inappropriate conduct.

It made adverse findings against seven public officials over the Smith's Beach matter, but no criminal charges were laid.

From the AAP news bulletin article

“Julian Grill, lobbyist and business partner of former premier Brian Burke made more than 1000 calls a month to clients and associates, a court heard.
Mr Grill made so many phone calls and emails from January 2006 to March 2007, when his phone was bugged, that every detail of the controversial Smiths Beach account could not be remembered, his lawyer Tom Percy says.

Mr Grill is on trial accused of giving false testimony to the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) over a proposed $330 million resort at Yallingup near Margaret River.

Prosecution counsel argue Mr Grill gave false evidence to the CCC in relation to his contact with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure's head of strategic planning Mike Allen.

Mr Percy today asked CCC investigator Mark Ingham if it were true that out of 900 emails sent by Mr Grill in 2006, only two referred to Smiths Beach.

``I don't know that,'' Mr Ingham said.

``A thousand calls a month, would you accept?'' Mr Percy asked.

``He was making an awful lot of phone calls,'' Mr Ingham said.

``I don't know that it was a thousand.

``Would you accept that the telephone intercepts that have been played to this court represent a very low percentage of the (total) calls that were intercepted?'' Mr Percy asked.

``I accept a very low percentage,'' Mr Ingham said.

``I think the total volume of documentation (on Smiths Beach) ... was three pages, was it not?'' Mr Percy asked.

``Yes, it was.'' “

McGinty's Legislative Incompetence - he cops it again

2008-12-27T02:40:00.000-08:00

CCC Act "bad legislation" says Acting Parliamentary Inspector Ken Martin QC

The Desert Rat notes that the deference shown to the defrocked self-appointed Emperor of WA and failed former Labor Attorney General Jim McGinty, is waning rapidly. A rooster one day, feather duster the next!

Fear and obeisance are a phenomenon of the past - people are now saying what they think.

Was there ever any real respect wonders the Desert Rat?

Just to drive home the point of the incompetent McGinty's legislative mess, the Acting Parliamentary Inspector Ken Martin QC is reported on the front page of today's The West Australian making comment about McGinty's Corruption and Crime Commission Act saying the stand-off between Mr McCusker and the CCC was a product of "bad legislation".

Ken Martin QC was commenting about the CCC's legal attempts to curtail the scrutiny of its activities by Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC. Martin added that if necessary he would fight any any Supreme Court action by the CCC to clarify (code for "limit") issues relating to the powers of the Parliamentary Inspector.

In his dismissal of the most recent failed secret action by the CCC to curtail the activities of the Parliamentary Inspector the Chief Justice Wayne Martin QC said in point 25 of his judgment:

"The powers of the Inspector are set out in s 196 of the Act. They include the power to investigate any aspect of the Commission's operations or any conduct of its officers."

The Desert Rat thinks the CCC are on a hiding to nothing, not to mention squandering taxpayer money on pointless court actions. The discredited McGinty will also continue to get a hiding now that his public power has collapsed.

CCC shows contempt for Parliament

2008-12-26T21:23:00.000-08:00

CCC covertly attempts to interfere in Parliamentary Process

The Corrution and Crime Commission has demonstrated little understanding of the role of politicians and the interaction of MP’s with the public - both with interest groups and individuals, in its 5 year and $150 million dollar history.

It now appears they have little understanding of the concept of parliamentary privilege or the role of Officers of the Parliament.

In what is clearly contempt of the Western Australian Parliament, the CCC has tried to gag an Officer of the Parliament, the Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC.

Our doddering chief rooster Corruption Commiioner Major General Len Roberts Smith doesn't seem to realise that it is a contempt of parliament to assault, threaten, insult, interfere with, obstruct or resist any officer of Parliament while in the execution of his duty.

The clumsy attempt by the Corruption Commissioner Len Roberts Smith to covertly stop the presentation of a report to Parliament critical of the CCC, by its Parliamentary Inspector, is a clear breach of Parliamentary privilege.

The action was revealed by the insightful writer of CCC Exposed.

The CCC secretly sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court to delay and hopefully suppress the report. That sneaky action deserves the most severe censure by Parliament. The CCC's unscrupulous operatives did this "in Chambers"; in a way that Malcolm McCusker QC could not be heard or could not respond to their grubby tactic!

The amateurish and foolish attempt to finesse Parliament was summarily thrown out by Chief Justice Wayne Martin QC in a scathing judgment which can be read here.

It is a pity the late Laurence Marquet was not Clerk of the Parliament, because the doddering CCC Commissioner Major General Len Roberts Smith would undoubtedly found himself before the Privilege Committee of the Parliament with a stern please explain.

As an Officer of the Parliament it would have been a breach of privilege by Mr McCusker to present any report containing information he knew to be false or fabricated – so if the CCC really believed that it had a case, it could have been addressed by requesting the privileges committee of the Parliament to investigate.

The real motive of the CCC was to hide their incompetence, which was again exposed by the Parliamentary Inspector.

The CCC has compounded one incompetent folly with another.

Fake Letter or Corrupt Watchdog?

2008-12-26T16:46:00.000-08:00

Simple solution to test the truth of anonymous letter and spike CCC.

The Desert Rat has just read a copy of a letter courtesy of the audacious and daring blog CCC exposed. It was tendered to the Chief Magistrate Steven Heath in an unsuccessful action to make public the grounds for granting warrants to see if they were legal. Although unsigned, everything about the letter and the Corruption and Crime Commission behaviour point to its authenticity. It also has a disarming "ring of truth" which would be difficult to fabricate. Heath decided the unsigned letter was inadmissible and was unable to take the matter further.

If our MP's were interested in seeking the truth (and risk getting on the wrong side of the CCC), they could test its authenticity by calling CCC CEO Mike "Children Overboard" Silverstone, John Lynch and "Tanya" before the Parliament Committee that has oversight of the CCC and getting them UNDER OATH to confirm or deny whether this was said or if this was the illegal and corrupt use surveillance powers available to the CCC. The Committee should instruct them not to discuss their responses and also ask them in committee whether they had - give them a bit of their own medicine!

How did the writer know a "John Lynch" works or has worked for the CCC? Has a lawyer "Tanya" ever worked for the CCC? Have they ever had after work drinks where the alleged conversation took place? Did they discuss the rort of obtaining and using illegal warrants? The Desert Rat would also ask coy senior CCC investigator Mark Ingham to give evidence, despite the inconvenience of his appalling memory and apparent cerebral incapacity.

Lying under oath, that is, perjury; would result in a severe gaol terms and our friend "Tanya" being struck off the role for life as a solicitor. Watch the CCC run to the Supreme Court for an injunction! The Desert Rat is quite sure the truth would come out and CCC staff would be running for cover.

What are they waiting for? The following handwritten letter was delivered anonymously to the home of Julian Grill on 27 December 2007. Judge its authenticity yourself.

“Dear Julian,

I write to you because I think you, Mr Burke, Mr D’Orazio and others investigated by the CCC have been done an injustice.

I have recently heard an investigator from the CCC, John Lynch whilst in the company of his work colleague, Tanya, say that the CCC manipulates its powers to get telephone intercept warrants. This is how he said it works (and Tanya nodded).

The legislation that gives interception warrants (I don’t know its name, sorry) does so only for serious offences, John said for offences of 7 years imprisonment. But for most of the offences the CCC investigates against public servants the actual offence that is suspected is not that serious. John said that if they put on their warrant application the offence that they actually had evidence for, they would never get the warrant.

So what they do is put on the warrant application that they suspect the offence of corruption so that they can get their warrant. Then, when they get their evidence from the telephone intercepts, the charge of corruption is either dropped by the DPP at the last minute, or they run with the corruption charge (along with the more minor charges) at trial, but don’t mind losing the corruption charge because the other ones usually win.

John said that lawyers or the courts have not worked this out yet. He said that if they lost the power to get telephone intercepts they couldn’t do much at all.

He also said that there is a section that defines what a ‘reasonable suspicion’ is in order to get telephone intercept warrants. It is in the CCC Act itself. John said that this section wouldn’t ever be ‘satisfied’ for their warrant applications because they knew that they could not prove the offence of corruption on the evidence they have at the time of making their warrant applications.

He finally said that this is how the CCC has had so much success. Tanya said that she has a law degree, and that if this was ever tested at court the warrant would be ‘knocked out’. If that happened, she said all the intercept evidence would also be ‘knocked out’.

Mr Grill, I think that this is so wrong. In fact, I am disgusted. I hope by writing to you that I help you and others who have been affected by the shameful practises of the CCC.”

It is perfectly understandable why the CCC has opposed any scrutiny of their warrants by the Parliamentary Investigator Malcolm McCusker QC who the Desert Rat points out is an officer of the Parliament.

So MP's why not support him and in the process ask a few simple and pertinent questions yourselves?

McGinty's Justice Portfolio Mess

2008-12-20T17:46:00.000-08:00

McGinty gets "Vote of (No) Thanks" from DPP and Chief Justice

"Reform flawed justice system" says DDP Robert Cock. Widow Natasha Wragg (above) now explores costly option of civil action against acquitted man.

If anyone has any doubt about the abject failure of former Attorney General Jim McGinty, the Desert Rat reckons they should read the extraordinary comments reported in Saturday's The West Australian by the Director of Public Prosecutions Robert Cock and Chief Justice Wayne Martin.

DDP Robert Cock stated the State's justice system was flawed, demanding an immediate overhaul of laws. This followed the bizarre situation where there was no opportunity to appeal against the decision in a murder case where the father of two was smashed so hard with a cricket bat over the head, that the bat broke in two.

McGinty was the Labor Attorney General for 8 years, had a monopoly of most of the legislation that went through parliament (much of it useless) and got far more than his fair share of budget expenditure to do his job, but was an embarrassing failiure.

Would Robert Cock dared to have said that while McGinty was Attorney General? - the Desert Rat thinks not.

Chief Justice Wayne Martin demands cash for Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Wayne Martin was also critical of the poor facilities at the Supreme Court, pleading to the Barnett Government to overhaul the court's "insufficient' facilities. Remember the mass breakout of prisoners from the Supreme Court a few years back under McGinty's reign?

All McGinty ever talked about was plans for this and plans for that, but never fixed the problem.

Did McGinty have an antipathy for the Peter Dowding appointed former Chief Justice David Malcolm QC?

Maladministration, poor legislation and spin were hallmarks of McGinty's 8 year reign as Attorney General and the mess and neglect has been left to others to clean up with only a fraction of the resources at their disposal as the State coffers come under pressure.

McGinty's Legacy - Electoral Reform

2008-12-11T22:50:00.000-08:00

McGinty's Scorecard: Power (Dist.) Politics (Fail)

Power before principle, is the hallmark of much of the mess created in the name of reform by failed former Attorney General Jim McGinty.

The Desert Rat thought it would be instructive to examine McGinty's so-called electoral reform legislation. McGinty thought that by introducing one-vote one-value, he would entrench the Australian Labor Party in power in WA for the next decade. By doing a grubby deal with the Greens to get their support in the Legislative Council for his legislation, McGinty actually increased the malapportionment in the Upper House - something he hypocritically said was immoral and wanted to rid the system of!

A principled approach would have been to have equal vote weighting in the Legislative Council. The Desert Rat has no doubt that considerations of power, not justice were the driving force behind McGinty thinking and actions on electoral reform.

The National Party who were supposed to be obliterated by McGinty's manoeuvre are now quietly laughing. McGinty has handed the National Party many Upper House seats and undreamed of power in the Legislative Council.

The Nationals can't believe how stupid McGinty has been and are very grateful.

This of couse will transfer hundred of millions of dollars to country electorates at the expense of McGinty's own electorate fo Fremantle and other metro seats. Again something McGinty miscalculated. Many former ALP country voters changed their vote because McGinty showed no interest in them - he abandoned them!

McGinty's stupid comments denigrating the vital Royal Flying Doctor Service incensed most thinking and compassionate people and underlined McGinty's contempt for country people.

McGinty's electoral shenanigans came back to bite him on his polished bum. He alienated those who saw through his cheap unprincipled approach and undermined any moral authority the ALP had on electoral reform.

Goebbel's would be proud of the CCC propaganda campaign

2008-12-10T18:35:00.000-08:00

CCC Political campaign in media more effective than their investigations.

There is no doubt that the publicity machine down at the Crime and Corruption Commission has through the media, damaged the reputation of Brian Burke and Julian Grill.

One glaring example has been drawn to the Desert Rat's attention, about comments recently made on ABC Radio by morning announcer Simon Beaumont in an interview with Dr Peter van Onselen.

Beaumont commented in the introduction:

"Mr Burke, as you know listeners, is the former Premier, Mr Grill is a former minister of the Crown. They are people in whom we enlisted our trust and respect.

I have said many times on this program their actions in influencing elected members and public officials were immoral. They were - their actions were an abuse of power. The courts will now decide if these acts were criminal."

Later Beaumont said in conclusion:

"So we can't say a lot about this now because it is before the courts, so listeners, hold your tongue there if you wouldn't mind. But one thing I would agree with Peter van Onselen on is that the stain of Burke and Grill will forever remain etched on our - on the public office of the state parliament and on lobbyists and advocates. We know Mr Burke cannot make a living these days. He cannot work as an advocate or a lobbyist. That's what I've heard at least. I hope that is the case."

The Desert Rat is not aware of any evidence of Julian Grill acting "immorally" in "influencing elected members and public officials". Nor is the Desert Rat aware of any of his lobbying dealings that were an "abuse of power" in their lawful lobbying business.

The comments by Beaumont are clearly defamatory in the Desert Rat's view and reflect the success of the CCC's campaign of media manipulation, in the timing of publicity, the selective "cherry picking' of content to damage the public reputations of both Burke and Grill.

Although Beaumont gives the impression by enlistment that he agrees with Peter van Onselen; Onselen made no such remarks in the interview about the "stain of Burke and Grill will forever remain etched...' - on public officers.

McGinty to vacate Fremantle seat for son-in-law?

2008-12-07T20:23:00.000-08:00

McGinty has wasted ALP majority and goodwill in Fremantle

The Desert Rat predicts that time-serving, lame-duck failed Labor leader Jim McGinty will vacate the seat of Fremantle before he completes his current term. McGinty vote in Fremantle collapsed to 38% in the recent state election.

An added factor of the urgency to vacate is the failure of son-in-law Tim Kucera and his opportunistic cabal to takeover the CFMEU. Young Tim needs another sinecure. Kucera's mates were were soundly beaten in the recent ballot by Kevin Reynolds and his team.

The Desert Rat predicts that once the succession of Tim Kucera is locked in, McGinty will resign and Tim Kucera will be the ALP candidate for the Fremantle by-election. The only spanner in the works is that McGinty may think that Fremantle is no longer a safe enough seat for he son-in-law. That view is more a reflection of McGinty's neglect of the Fremantle electorate since elected. Any half-competent member should be able to establish a comfortable ALP majority in Fremantle.

Contrast McGinty's pathetic electoral performance in Fremantle with that of Julian Grill who increased the ALP vote in the strong conservative area of Esperance from 12% to about 50% over two elections whilst a Minister. Since Grill's retirement, the Labor vote in Esperance has dropped back to about 11%.

The same Left faction shambles happened in Kalgoorlie where the left faction member Megan Anwyl managed to lose the seat after wasting the large majority built up by hard-working local member Ian Taylor. Now the Labor vote in Kalgoorlie; once the "jewel in the crown" of Labor is below 20%. Now wonder the left only want safe seats in Parliament.

Fremantle deserves better than "His Irrelevance" McGinty and the sooner he resigns or is shown the door by the ALP, the better.

Life is cheap under McGinty's "truth in sentencing" laws

2008-12-07T17:23:00.000-08:00

Three year and 4 months for vicious manslaughter under McGinty's "Truth in Sentencing" laws.

Jim McGinty's incompetence and failure as Attorney General in the pathetic Carpenter Labor Government was on display for all to see in the sentencing of 22 year old violent Geraldton thug Mathew McDonald for the manslaughter of Geraldton father of five Bill Rowe, who he bludgeoned with a cricket bat on Christmas Day last year.

Bill Rowe who was bashed over the head by a cricket bat on a Geraldton beach, died on Boxing Day.

This thug already was the beneficiary of a suspended 9 month sentence in 2006 for another bashing in Carnarvon. McDonald was not even a juvenile at the time of both offences. Instead of the maximum penalty of 20 years gaol for manslaughter, and this must rank as one of the worst cases in the Desert Rat's view, McGinty's "Truth in Sentencing" laws reduced his sentence to 13 years and 4 months.

McDonald was drunk at the time and admitted he had smoked a huge amount of cannabis that morning - which he would have been allowed to grow at home under McGinty's lax drug "reforms".

With all the other sentencing credits available to him, McDonald received a sentence of 5 years and could be free on parole in 3 years and nine months.

This is the outcome of the incompetent McGinty's "Truth in Sentencing" laws which were a major contributor to Labor's loss of government.

Is McGinty apologist Ken Travers the only person who doubts McGinty's abysmal failure as a Minister?

Lobbying MP's: CCC Report in LaLa Land says Privileges Committee

2008-12-07T01:32:00.000-08:00

Silly report & recommendations from CCC fools given heave-ho by powerful All-Party Privileges Committee

The Privileges Committee has rejected the silly Corruption and Corruption Commission report recommendations on MP's dealing with lobbyists, describing it as "impractical and naive".

The Desert Rat is pleased to see Parliament reasserting itself since the demise of their guru Jim McGinty the former failed Attorney General who seemed to call all the shots.

Doddering Corruption Commissioner Major General Len Roberts-Smith refused to comment on the outright rejection of the report. It seems he was too embarrassed to defend his own report. MP John Quigley weigh in as well "The CCC as totally unrealistic." he said.

Needless to say MP's John McGrath, John Quigley and Ben Wyatt were all cleared of misconduct in their contact with Julian Grill and Brian Burke, after being smeared and damaged by the CCC. This inquiry and report was another grubby attempt by the desperate CCC to discredit Grill and Burke.

This is the same silly criticism the CCC made of MP John Bowler which the CCC claimed was misconduct but refused to lay charges against Bowler. The Desert Rat recently derided this stupidity dished up by Silverstone and his CCC cabal - who dismally fail to focus on real crime and corruption.

Ken Travers MLC again failed to show any independence of thought when interviewed by The West Australian, he avoided addressing the CCC's fantasyland recommendations in his comments saying he could not deal with this issue until he saw the legislation. Our Ken is always faithful to his Left faction leader McGinty.

Is Shelley Archer's charge designed to justify illegal phone taps?

2008-12-03T19:52:00.000-08:00

Hon Shelley Archer MLC charged with a 7 year gaol - corruption offence.
Justifying dodgy CCC phone tap warrants?

Such is the Desert Rat;s distrust of the seedy operating activities of the Crime and Corruption Commission rodents, he suspects the CCC's corruption charge against Shelley Archer as revealed in yesterday's The West Australian, which clearly states it carries a seven year sentence, was just a smokescreen, to justify and cover the CCC's illegal phone tapping and bugging warrants.

It is the Desert Rats understanding, that Julian Grill still has his phone and emails tapped and his house (including the main bedroom) bugged by the CCC voyeurs. Your trusty Desert Rat is not aware of any activity or offence by Julian Grill that would warrant a 7 year gaol term required to get such a phone tap. All the charges relating to the multi-million Smith's Beach Inquiry have spectacularly failed and the Desert Rat thinks that the new phoney? charges will continue to fail, calling into question on what grounds the phone taps and bugging were granted with the knowledge of former failed Attorney General Jim McGinty.

Back to Shelley Archer: is this charge a ruse by the CCC to cover their polished arses in their suspect warrant to tap Julian Grill phone and bug his house and or part of an attempt to buy some time before some phoney "fishing expedition" warrants are open to public scrutiny?