Labors Insulation stimulus/ Workplace safety
Today Abbott made a statement that if is elected as Prime Minister he intends to have a Judicial into the atrocious conduct of the Insulation Stimulus.
We are all aware that Prime Minister Rudd and Peter Garrett , the singer turned politician who dances like he is having an epileptic fit was too busy sucking each others COCKS to realize that there was insufficient workplace safety in respect to this role-out.
It was very deeply unfortunate and saddens me greatly that some young men lost their lives because of unfortunate precautions.
It was revealed by the Coroner at the inquests that both these fuckers from the Labor Party was sent numerous letters attempting to bring to their attention the hazards of this stimulus
Clearly I was outraged by the failure of these fuckers to act.
However , today at work I was put straight by a customer buying flowers for his wife.
It appears workplace safety is a responsibility of State Government and not a Federal issue.
He also made a point that Queensland has the most atrocious record of enforcing workplace safety of all the states and one territory in Australia.
Friday, 9 August 2013
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Definition of Harassment/ ITSA/ AFP
It truly makes me laugh............... according to the Australian Federal Police my blogs are harassing the Senior Management at ITSA..........................
so the WEB definition of harassment is................... an intense feeling of annoyance caused by being tormented and "so great was their harassment from being exposed that they have asked the AFP to try and destroy me"
It truly makes me laugh............... according to the Australian Federal Police my blogs are harassing the Senior Management at ITSA..........................
so the WEB definition of harassment is................... an intense feeling of annoyance caused by being tormented and "so great was their harassment from being exposed that they have asked the AFP to try and destroy me"
harassment
Web definitions
a
feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented; "so great was
his harassment that he wanted to destroy his tormentors".
ha·rass
er n.
ha·rass
ment n.
Synonyms: harass, harry, hound, badger, pester, plague
These verbs mean to trouble persistently or incessantly. Harass and harry imply systematic persecution by besieging with repeated annoyances, threats, or demands: The landlord harassed tenants who were behind in their rent. A rude customer had harried the storekeeper.
Hound suggests unrelenting pursuit to gain a desired end: Reporters hounded the celebrity for an interview.
To badger is to nag or tease persistently: The child badgered his parents for a new bicycle.
To pester is to inflict a succession of petty annoyances: "How she would have pursued and pestered me with questions and surmises" (Charlotte Brontë).
Plague refers to a problem likened to an epidemic disease: "As I have no estate, I am plagued with no tenants or stewards" (Henry Fielding).
These verbs mean to trouble persistently or incessantly. Harass and harry imply systematic persecution by besieging with repeated annoyances, threats, or demands: The landlord harassed tenants who were behind in their rent. A rude customer had harried the storekeeper.
Hound suggests unrelenting pursuit to gain a desired end: Reporters hounded the celebrity for an interview.
To badger is to nag or tease persistently: The child badgered his parents for a new bicycle.
To pester is to inflict a succession of petty annoyances: "How she would have pursued and pestered me with questions and surmises" (Charlotte Brontë).
Plague refers to a problem likened to an epidemic disease: "As I have no estate, I am plagued with no tenants or stewards" (Henry Fielding).
Usage Note: Educated usage appears to be evenly divided on the pronunciation of harass.
In our 1987 survey 50 percent of the Usage Panel preferred stressing
the first syllable, while 50 percent preferred stressing the second.
Curiously, the Panelists' comments appear to indicate that each side
regards itself as an embattled minority.
Monday, 5 August 2013
Adam Toma/ Veronique Ingram/ AFP protecting corruption
Today I appeared in Downing Center Sydney to plead not guilty to S 474.17 by using this blog to harass the corrupt senior management at ITSA.
Clearly the Australian Federal Police are not amused by the not guilty plea and were obviously hoping to report back to the CORRUPT Adam Toma and Veronique Ingram that they succeeded in protecting the Systemic corrupt conduct at ITSA.
Again clearly the Federal Police are experiencing problems where section of the crimes act requires that a reasonable person needs to be offended in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
The Federal Police are aware that that "in all circumstances" also clearly means that it cannot be taken out of context
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
As it is a requirement that the Federal Police and the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia ( Adam Toma) jointly fund this matter and the Federal Police are aware of the corruption at ITSA just how far are the federal police prepared to go to protect corruption in Government departments.
Further to this I am told by the Federal Police officer Sucar he regularly reads my blogs and when I was asked by him" Fiona what do you really want?" I was completely amazed that this Officer is completely CLUELESS to my agenda!!!!!!
Today I appeared in Downing Center Sydney to plead not guilty to S 474.17 by using this blog to harass the corrupt senior management at ITSA.
Clearly the Australian Federal Police are not amused by the not guilty plea and were obviously hoping to report back to the CORRUPT Adam Toma and Veronique Ingram that they succeeded in protecting the Systemic corrupt conduct at ITSA.
Again clearly the Federal Police are experiencing problems where section of the crimes act requires that a reasonable person needs to be offended in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
The Federal Police are aware that that "in all circumstances" also clearly means that it cannot be taken out of context
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
As it is a requirement that the Federal Police and the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia ( Adam Toma) jointly fund this matter and the Federal Police are aware of the corruption at ITSA just how far are the federal police prepared to go to protect corruption in Government departments.
Further to this I am told by the Federal Police officer Sucar he regularly reads my blogs and when I was asked by him" Fiona what do you really want?" I was completely amazed that this Officer is completely CLUELESS to my agenda!!!!!!
Saturday, 3 August 2013
Intimidation by Israel/ Prof Stuart Rees/ Prof Jake Lynch
Support Free
Speech and Human Rights!
Support Boycotts, Divestment and
Sanctions of Israel!
Prof. Stuart Rees, Chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation and Assoc. Prof. Jake Lynch, Director of Sydney University's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), have been threatened with legal action by Shurat HaDin, an Israeli Law Centre, through agents acting on their behalf in Australia.
The claim is that Rees and Lynch are backing racist and discriminatory policies through their support for the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
These accusations are unfounded and intimidatory. They are intended to stifle free speech.
The BDS movement is a call for justice by all sectors of Palestinian civil society and supported around the world by unions, churches, civil society and human rights groups. It is a form of non violent popular resistance and international solidarity in protest against Israel's persistent violation of Palestinian human rights and international law.
BDS policies make it clear that it is a human rights based movement and opposed to racism in all forms, including anti-Semitism.
Inspired by the effective movement against apartheid South Africa, BDS is directed against the illegal military occupation and settlements of the West Bank, the collective punishment of Gaza and Israeli discrimination of its own Palestinian citizens.
BDS opposes corporations, institutions and organizations which support Israel's violation of human rights and international law including businesses such as Caterpillar, Motorola, G4S and Veolia.
In 2009, Assoc. Professor Lynch wrote to the Sydney Vice Chancellor asking him to revoke fellowships schemes between the University of Sydney and two Israeli universities: Technion University, Haifa and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
In 2012, Professor Don Avnon of Hebrew University contacted Assoc. Prof. Lynch, seeking permission to use his name on an application under the Sir Zelman Cowan fellowship program. Prof Lynch refused, citing his and CPACS’ support for a boycott of institutional links with universities in Israel.
By supporting BDS and in resisting derision and threats for doing so, Rees and Lynch have rejected the attempt by a foreign agency – in this case the Israeli law firm Shurat HaDin – to stifle dissent in Australia. This letter invites you to do the same, and in the following terms:
I hereby support the global BDS movement. I wish to be named a co defendant.
Will you take 30 seconds to do it right now? Here's the link:
http://www.change.org/petitions/supporters-of-free-speech-and-human-rights-defend-free-speech-and-human-rights-and-support-the-bds
Friday, 2 August 2013
A long history of police corruption/ Australia Federal Police
<img
height="1" width="1" border="0"
src="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/viewthroughconversion/1024966411/?frame=0&random=1375430615271&cv=7&fst=1375430615271&num=1&fmt=1&label=8BTjCLXqgAQQi_7e6AM&guid=ON&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=738&u_aw=1024&u_cd=24&u_his=3&u_tz=600&u_java=false&u_nplug=7&u_nmime=22&ref=http%3A//www.google.com.au/url%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CDYQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.smh.com.au%252Fnsw%252Fa-long-history-of-police-corruption-20110811-1iosn.html%26ei%3DZ2f7UaDqHsKWkwXHi4GYCA%26usg%3DAFQjCNGKj-Il_SHrnl9gjMYhmXGZwl_ydA%26sig2%3D9W5m9riRj8&url=http%3A//www.smh.com.au/nsw/a-long-history-of-police-corruption-20110811-1iosn.html&frm=0"
/>
.
.
THIS is not the first time Mark Standen has been under a
cloud in his 30-year career in law enforcement. The organisations he
worked for - the Australian Federal Police and its predecessor, the
Narcotics Bureau - have been the subject of allegations of corruption
and at least three major inquiries. Nor is Standen the first officer in
them accused or convicted of crimes.
The 1979 Williams royal commission into drugs led to the abolition of the Narcotics Bureau and the formation of the federal police. Most of the narcotics agents, including Standen, were redeployed to the AFP. The Williams report remains secret.
After Standen's arrest, a former AFP internal investigator, Ray Cooper, said the federal body had suffered from a culture of cover-up and was rife with corruption. But, despite decades of allegations, it seems beyond public criticism and scrutiny.
One of Standen's former fellow officers claims to know colleagues were involved in drug deals. ''We didn't know who you could trust. You were looking over your shoulders all the time,'' the colleague said, suggesting while some were caught, many still worked in law enforcement.
The commission heard about the 18 flushed foils of drugs and found the behaviour dishonest, but took no further action. Its final report also remains secret.
Standen's colleagues, Richard John Spencer and Allan Gregory McLean, were named at the Stewart commission. Spencer and his colleague, Peter Joseph Marzol, were charged in 1987 with withholding information from an inquest into the death of an informant but the charges were stayed because a judge ruled the 10-year delay since the alleged offence could not be justified.
McLean, a customs agent, was sentenced in 1988 over importing heroin in soccer balls. He had been investigated by Gerry Fletcher, an officer whom Standen later repeatedly falsely accused of misconduct.
In 1990 the AFP officer Michael Anthony Wallace was convicted of stealing $20 million worth of drugs and cash exhibits. In 1995 Standen's colleague, Alan Taciak, rolled over in the NSW Police royal commission and alleged 78 AFP officers - 15 per cent of the force - were corrupt.
Taciak's allegations sparked the Harrison inquiry in 1996. Its final report, which is understood to have alleged widespread corruption in the AFP, has also not been released. The head of the inquiry, Ian Harrison, now a Supreme Court judge, said many agents escaped investigation by quitting the AFP.
In 2001 Standen's former boss at the Sydney drugs unit, Cliff Foster, committed suicide while under investigation over corruption.
The 1979 Williams royal commission into drugs led to the abolition of the Narcotics Bureau and the formation of the federal police. Most of the narcotics agents, including Standen, were redeployed to the AFP. The Williams report remains secret.
After Standen's arrest, a former AFP internal investigator, Ray Cooper, said the federal body had suffered from a culture of cover-up and was rife with corruption. But, despite decades of allegations, it seems beyond public criticism and scrutiny.
One of Standen's former fellow officers claims to know colleagues were involved in drug deals. ''We didn't know who you could trust. You were looking over your shoulders all the time,'' the colleague said, suggesting while some were caught, many still worked in law enforcement.
Advertisement
There were investigations into Standen and rumours about his
integrity, sources say, even before a 1980 incident in which he said he
flushed 18 foils of hash down a toilet. His colleagues in that
incident, Stephen Innsley and Frank Ramaccia, both came to notice again
later. Ramaccia joined the NSW Police and was investigated by the
Integrity Commission, though no charges were recommended against him.
Innsley was jailed for four charges of perjury before the 1982 Stewart
royal commission into drug trafficking.The commission heard about the 18 flushed foils of drugs and found the behaviour dishonest, but took no further action. Its final report also remains secret.
Standen's colleagues, Richard John Spencer and Allan Gregory McLean, were named at the Stewart commission. Spencer and his colleague, Peter Joseph Marzol, were charged in 1987 with withholding information from an inquest into the death of an informant but the charges were stayed because a judge ruled the 10-year delay since the alleged offence could not be justified.
McLean, a customs agent, was sentenced in 1988 over importing heroin in soccer balls. He had been investigated by Gerry Fletcher, an officer whom Standen later repeatedly falsely accused of misconduct.
In 1990 the AFP officer Michael Anthony Wallace was convicted of stealing $20 million worth of drugs and cash exhibits. In 1995 Standen's colleague, Alan Taciak, rolled over in the NSW Police royal commission and alleged 78 AFP officers - 15 per cent of the force - were corrupt.
Taciak's allegations sparked the Harrison inquiry in 1996. Its final report, which is understood to have alleged widespread corruption in the AFP, has also not been released. The head of the inquiry, Ian Harrison, now a Supreme Court judge, said many agents escaped investigation by quitting the AFP.
In 2001 Standen's former boss at the Sydney drugs unit, Cliff Foster, committed suicide while under investigation over corruption.
Ads by Google
New Internationalist
Digital subscription - easy to use. Free trial to award-winning mag.Georg Jensen AU Shop
See The Full Collection Here! Elegant Wrapping & Fast delivery.Buy Ink & Toner Now
Australia Wide - Sale On Now @ Free Overnight Delivery Save 76%- 6:02PM Friday Aug 02, 2013
- 17,542 online now
-
Do you know more about a story?
BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 12/ Obligations of Veronique Ingram/ corrupt Adam Toma Enforcement Manager ITSA
Functions of Inspector-General
(1) The Inspector-General:
(a) shall make such inquiries and investigations as the Attorney General
directs; and
(b) may make such inquiries and investigations as the Inspector-General
thinks fit with respect to the administration of, or the conduct of a trustee
(including a controlling trustee) in relation to:
(i) a bankruptcy; or
(ii) a composition or scheme of arrangement under Division 6 of
Part IV; or
(iii) a personal insolvency agreement; or
(iv) an administration under Part XI; or
(v) property in relation to which a direction has been given under
subsection 50(1); or
(vi) property in relation to which the trustee is the
controlling trustee under an authority given under section 188; and
ITSA has a policy that they have a discretion on Fraud. Clearly this is false. Veronique Ingram needs a cock up her arse for implementing such a policy
(ba) may make such inquiries and investigations as the Inspector-General
thinks fit with respect to so much of the conduct and examinable affairs of:
(i) a bankrupt; or
(ii) a bankrupt or debtor under a composition or scheme of arrangement
under Division 6 of Part IV; or
(iii) a debtor under a personal insolvency agreement;
as is relevant to the bankruptcy, composition, scheme or agreement, as the
case may be; and
(bb) may make such inquiries and investigations as the Inspector-General
thinks fit with respect to any conduct of an administrator that relates to a
debt agreement; and
(bc) may make such inquiries and investigations as the Inspector-General
thinks fit with respect to whether a person has committed an
offence against this Act; andClearly Veronique Ingram is aware of the fraud policy and adam fucks over anyone who disputes it
(c) shall from time to time obtain from Official Receivers and other
officers and from registered trustees reports as to the operation of this Act;
and
(d) must give the Minister, after the end of each financial year, a
report on the operation of this Act during that financial year for
presentation by the Minister to the Parliament.
(1A) Where the
Inspector-General requests a registered trustee or the administrator of a
debt agreement, for the purposes of subsection (1), to provide a report
as to the operation of this Act, the registered trustee or administrator, as
the case may be, shall forthwith provide the report requested.
(1BA) The Inspector-General may
make an inquiry or investigation under paragraph (1)(b), (ba), (bb) or
(bc) at any time, whether before or after the end of the bankruptcy,
composition, scheme or agreement or administration concerned.
(1B) Where the
Inspector-General makes an inquiry or investigation referred to in
paragraph (1)(b), (ba), (bb) or (bc), the Inspector-General may give a
copy of the report of the results of the inquiry or investigation to any
person the Inspector-General thinks fit.
(1C) Without
limiting the generality of paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), the
Inspector-General may make inquiries and investigations under those paragraphs
at the request of:
(a) if the Inspector-General is satisfied that the request relates to an
application, or proposed application, for a confiscation order--the
Commonwealth proceeds of crime authority that is the responsible authority, or
that is proposed to be the responsible authority, for the application or
proposed application under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ; or
(b) if the Inspector-General is satisfied that the request relates to an
application, or proposed application, for an interstate confiscation order--a
person who is entitled, under a corresponding law, to apply for an order of
that kind.
(1D)
For the purposes of paragraph (1)(bb), any conduct engaged in by the
administrator of a debt agreement:
(b) in breach of a duty of the administrator under this Act;
is taken
to be conduct of the administrator that relates to a debt agreement, even if
the conduct does not relate to a particular debt agreement.
(1E) For the
purposes of paragraph (1)(bb), if a person signs a certificate under
subsection 185C(2D) in relation to a debt agreement proposal, the
person's conduct in relation to the certificate is taken to be conduct of an
administrator that relates to a debt agreement.
(1F) For
the purposes of paragraph (1)(bb), if a person:
(a) gives a notification in compliance, or purported compliance with
subsection 185N(5); or
(b) breaches subsection 185N(5);
the giving of the notification,
or the breach, as the case may be, is taken to be the conduct of an
administrator that relates to a debt agreement.
(2) For the purposes of discharging his or her functions under this Act,
the Inspector-General may:
(a) require the production of any books kept by an Official Receiver or
by a trustee; and
(b) require a trustee to answer an inquiry made to him or her in
relation to any of the following matters in which the trustee is, or has been,
engaged:
(i) a bankruptcy;
(ii) the control of property under an authority given under
section 188;
(iii) an administration under Part XI;
(iv) a personal insolvency agreement, scheme of arrangement or
composition; and
(c) at any time investigate the books of a trustee; and
(d) require the production of any books kept by the administrator, or
former administrator, of a debt agreement; and
(e) require the administrator, or former administrator, of a
debt agreement to answer an inquiry made of the administrator or former
administrator, as the case may be, in relation to the administration of the
debt agreement; and
(f) at any time investigate the books of the administrator, or former
administrator, of a debt agreement.
(2A) If the
Inspector-General believes on reasonable grounds that a person has information
that is relevant to an inquiry or investigation under paragraph (1)(bc),
the Inspector-General may, by written notice given to the person, require the
person to give to the Inspector-General, within the period and in the manner
specified in the notice, any such information.
(2B) The period
specified in a notice given under subsection (2A) must be at least 14
days after the notice is given.
(2C) A person
commits an offence if:
(a) the person has been given a notice under subsection (2A); and
(b) the person fails to comply with the notice.
Penalty:
Imprisonment for 12 months.
(2D) A notice
under subsection (2A) must set out the effect of the following
provisions:
(a) subsection (2C);
(b) section 137.1 of the Criminal Code (about giving false or
misleading information).
(2E)
Subsection (2A) does not limit the application of subsection (2) in
relation to an inquiry or investigation under paragraph (1)(bc).
(4) The Inspector-General:
(b) subject to section 64ZA, is entitled to participate in any such
meeting as the Inspector-General thinks fit.
AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
Timely responses/ Adam Toma/ Veronique Ingram/ ITSA discretion / ITSA complaints / ITSA FOI
Any systemic corrupt conduct is required to be reported to the Attorney General under S 15 of the Ombudsmans Act.
Clearly the senior Management at ITSA should bend forward... put their heads between their legs and suck their own cocks!!!
In the communications section of the IPA Code para 8.1 says that practitioners should exercise judgment when “balancing the needs of individuals for information or responses to inquiries with the overall efficiency and costs of the administration”. The IPA often receives inquiries about this issue, both from creditors, and practitioner members.
In Barlaw v Crouch [2011] FMCA 384*, the court explained the issue like this:
51. Barlaw [a creditor] asserts that Mr Crouch [the trustee] failed to answer or deal with reasonable inquiries of creditors. I accept that there have been numerous requests by Barlaw to the trustee for information. I also accept that not all of those requests have been dealt with by Mr Crouch. However, the Bankruptcy Act does not oblige a trustee to answer every item of correspondence or enquiry by a creditor and it needs to be borne in mind that ordinarily, there will be limited if any funds available to a trustee in the administration of a bankrupt estate. If excessive demands are made on a trustee by one creditor that is likely to disadvantage other creditors by reducing funds available for distribution from the estate. The law does not therefore oblige a practitioner to answer every letter, email or inquiry from a creditor. In fact there are usually limited if any funds available to do so. If there are funds, excessive demands made on a practitioner by one creditor are likely to disadvantage other creditors by reducing funds available for all. But sometimes more work, and problems and then complaints, can build up, which a prompt initial response to an inquiry might have averted. It is a matter of professional and commercial judgment, which as IPA members we all have.
This is also a matter of possible law reform, with the cost of attending to the legal requirements in communicating with creditors not much alleviated by the law. The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2013 did in fact look to set legal requirements for responses by practitioners, but it did not offer much by way of reducing the costs of doing so.
Any comments are welcome.
* an appeal judgment from that decision appears to be reserved, since 2012.
This clearly is more shit from the IPAA and ITSA.
Adam Toma and Veronique Ingram have a policy at ITSA of protecting Fraud.
This is also being instigated by Matthew Osborne , Legal Officer at ITSA.
As seen at the NSW ICAC Systemic corrupt conduct must have a network to allow the practice to occur.
Although ITSA was reported to the Commonwealth Ombudsman the acting Ombudsman Alison Larkins who needs a cock up her enormous arse made a decision to protect this practice.
Any systemic corrupt conduct is required to be reported to the Attorney General under S 15 of the Ombudsmans Act.
This conduct was also protected by the Australian Service Commissioner Steven Sedgwick.
Adam Toma has now asked the Federal Police to also protect this practice.
It will now be very interesting whether Adam Toma and senior Management at ITSA perjure themselves in the witness box or fall on their swords prior to cross -examination.
It should be made clear to anyone who reads this that ITSA has a policy that they have discretion on Fraud!!!!
Clearly the senior Management at ITSA should bend forward... put their heads between their legs and suck their own cocks!!!
. Shit from the IPAA
How quickly should a practitioner respond to creditor or other queries?
Writing to individual creditors and others in response to
questions about the conduct or progress of the insolvency does cost and
any communications have to be assessed in commercial terms that take
into account the importance and significance of the information being
conveyed, and the legal requirements. In the communications section of the IPA Code para 8.1 says that practitioners should exercise judgment when “balancing the needs of individuals for information or responses to inquiries with the overall efficiency and costs of the administration”. The IPA often receives inquiries about this issue, both from creditors, and practitioner members.
In Barlaw v Crouch [2011] FMCA 384*, the court explained the issue like this:
51. Barlaw [a creditor] asserts that Mr Crouch [the trustee] failed to answer or deal with reasonable inquiries of creditors. I accept that there have been numerous requests by Barlaw to the trustee for information. I also accept that not all of those requests have been dealt with by Mr Crouch. However, the Bankruptcy Act does not oblige a trustee to answer every item of correspondence or enquiry by a creditor and it needs to be borne in mind that ordinarily, there will be limited if any funds available to a trustee in the administration of a bankrupt estate. If excessive demands are made on a trustee by one creditor that is likely to disadvantage other creditors by reducing funds available for distribution from the estate. The law does not therefore oblige a practitioner to answer every letter, email or inquiry from a creditor. In fact there are usually limited if any funds available to do so. If there are funds, excessive demands made on a practitioner by one creditor are likely to disadvantage other creditors by reducing funds available for all. But sometimes more work, and problems and then complaints, can build up, which a prompt initial response to an inquiry might have averted. It is a matter of professional and commercial judgment, which as IPA members we all have.
This is also a matter of possible law reform, with the cost of attending to the legal requirements in communicating with creditors not much alleviated by the law. The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2013 did in fact look to set legal requirements for responses by practitioners, but it did not offer much by way of reducing the costs of doing so.
Any comments are welcome.
* an appeal judgment from that decision appears to be reserved, since 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)