Wednesday, 25 February 2015

S474.17 Criminal Code 1995/ Letter to Judge Jefferys Downing Center Sydney
Re Interpretation of Offensive by the Supreme Court

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

fionabrown01@hotmail.com

26^th February 2015

Judge Jefferys

District Court

Downing Centre Sydney

Re Question of Law

Standard of “offensiveness” to constitute a criminal charge

Supreme Court NSW

Dear Judge Jefferys

I refer to my Appeal in the District Court and the several times I have appeared before you in applications for fresh evidence.

This was an appeal from the Local Court. The Magistrate was Lisa Stapleton.

The complete failure and total disregard of Stapleton to apply the correct standards in S474.17 Criminal Code 1995 can only show how fundamentally flawed the NSW Judicial system is. Stapleton clearly showed no regard to any Higher Court Judgments in regard to S474.17

Taking everything into consideration it clearly appears inappropriate for you to refer to her as a learned magistrate when you are aware of her failure and abuse of power in her decisions in regard to this.

I therefore need a determination of question of law in the Supreme Court because I cannot have faith in your decisions and believe there is a conflict of interest making you vulnerable to protecting her atrocious conduct instead of exposing it.

S 474.17 states S474.17

using a carriage service to menace harass or cause offence

A/ A person is guilty of an offence if:

the person uses a carriage service and;

the person does so in a way( whether by the method or the use of contents of communication or both that reasonable persons would regard as being in all the circumstances, menacing , harassing or offensive

. You will be aware from experience that Menacing or Harassing to be criminal must cause extreme fear or anxiety in a person to constitute a criminal charge . Therefore “ Offensive” must have a collective interpretation along with menace and harass. The High Court’s decision in Monis V the Queen enforces this interpretation. Stapleton admitted to have read Monis 7 or eight times. Both you and Stapleton have read “Brett David Starkey” which is the decision handed down by the District Court of Queensland that to convict it must be of a severity that it caused the relevant apprehension or fear for safety. Stapleton failed in everyway to take any of this decision into consideration .

You are also particularly aware that in Monis V the Queen the High Court found that the narrow meaning of “offensive’ must be use. Therefore ,S473 Criminal Code must also have the narrow interpretation to be considered criminal.

I have included this section for your convenience so you will not have to go to the trouble of looking this up.

S473

Determining whether material is offensive

The matters to be taken into account for this part whether reasonable persons would regard particular material or particular use of use he standards of morality of the carriage service as being in all the circumstance offensive include:

a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults and,

b/ the literary, artistic or educational merit( if any) of the general character of the material, and

c/ the general character of the material( including whether it is of a medical legal or scientific in character

Judge Jefferys, If you took the narrow meaning of morality then it would need to be immoral to find it offensive. The narrow meaning of decency would be indecency or something close and the propriety should also have a narrow interpretation and although I reminded Stapleton that she should read my blogs in correct context as required by S473 on several occasions Stapleton saw no RELEVANCE in this.

Taking into careful consideration the required legislation of S473 there leaves little room for error of what “offensive’ is to be considered under S474.17.

Therefore in the interest of Justice and also in the interest of transparency the Supreme Court needs to give the correct standard for “ offensive” to be criminal.

You are aware the fault element is “ recklessness’ Recklessness must cause something. You are aware that this must cause anxiety and fearfulness for ones safety. You are clearly aware this standard has in no way been met. and you are aware that Stapleton has failed in her duty as a magistrate.

The Supreme Court has requested a copy of the “Stated Case” or certificate of Judgment for proper determination as soon as possible.

Unfortunately as I must reiterate again it has come to a matter where I have no confidence in you.

I am sure you understand my point taking everything into consideration of your appeared support of Lisa Stappleton as a learned Magistrate

A quick response would be appreciated.

Thanking you

Fiona Brown

Wednesday, 4 February 2015

Royal Commission investigates child abuse among GOD'S chosen people.
Clearly this demonstrate how out of toch these religious people are........

Jewish school tried to 'cure' sex offender

The Royal Commission into child sexual abuse began its second hearing in Melbourne on Monday, focusing on ultra-orthodox Jewish organisation Yeshivah.

PT1M45S620349

Yeshivah Melbourne tried to "cure" serial sex offender David Cyprys and continued to employ him more than 20 years after victims reported he had sexually abused them, a Royal Commission has heard.
The Royal Commission into child sexual abuse began its second hearing in Melbourne on Monday, focusing on the ultra-orthodox Jewish organisation Yeshivah.
The two-week hearing at the County Court will examine Yeshivah Melbourne and Yeshiva Bondi's response to child sexual abuse allegations against their former employees, convicted sex offenders David Cyprys, David Kramer and Daniel Hayman.

Manny Waks, who was a victim of David Samuel Cyprys, appeared before the Royal Commission. Photo: Penny Stephens

Cyprys was found guilty of indecent assault in 1992 and released on a good behaviour bond. In 2013, the County Court found him guilty of five charges of rape, five charges of indecent assault, attempted indecent assault, and two counts of gross indecency. He is still serving his eight-year prison sentence for these crimes.

One of Cyprys' victims, known as AVA, said he was sexually abused between the ages of 14 and 17, when he took private kung fu lessons from Cyprys.
"There is no doubt in my mind Yeshivah College and some of its rabbis were aware of David's penchant for young boys," he told the commission.

Manny Waks arrives at the County Court, Melbourne, where he's appearing at the Royal Commission into child abuse. Manny was abused while at Yeshivah College. Photo: Penny Stephens

His mother, known as AVQ, said she first reported her son's abuse in 1986 to the-then director of Yeshivah Centre, Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Groner.
Rabbi Groner, who died in 2008, responded, "Oh no, I thought we cured him," she said. Rabbi Groner assured her he would "take care of it. It will be fine".
About 2002, AVQ called the rabbi again when she learned that her son had continued to be abused by Cyprys years later. He asked her if AVA was going to the police, and she responded "probably".
"What do you need me for then?" he replied.
AVA said Cyprys should not have been allowed near children at Yeshivah until 2011: "I don't care how cured they thought he was."
Manny Waks, who was also abused by Cyprys, told the commission he had confronted Rabbi Groner in the 2000s about why Cyprys continued to be employed as a security guard at Yeshivah despite abuse allegations against him from 1996.
Rabbi Groner told Mr Waks, founder and former chief executive of Jewish victims' support group Tzedek, that he was "personally dealing with it" and that Cyprys was receiving professional help.
Mr Waks said he had confirmed that Rabbi Groner knew of Cyprys' offending as early as 1984. That year, a victim and the father of another victim relayed abuse allegations to him via another rabbi.
Other victims and their family members are also expected to give evidence they were ostracised by rabbinical leaders and the Jewish community after they reported abuse.
Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Maria Gerace, said in her opening address on Monday that witnesses would give evidence that Chabad communities - who strictly observe Orthodox Judaism - were "insular and set apart from the wider secular community".
"Witnesses are expected to give evidence that historically, there was no sex education whilst growing up and family members and members of the community did not openly discuss the issue of sex," she said.
"I anticipate witnesses will also give evidence that a person's standing in the community and community attitudes to a member can affect, positively or adversely, a member's prospect of marriage and economic opportunities."
The commission would also examine the role the religious concept mesirah, which prohibits Jewish people from handing over another Jew to a secular or non-Rabbinic authority. Mesirah developed in response to the historical persecution of Jews.
"The inquiry will examine whether the concept of mesirah has influenced the attitude of rabbinical leaders and community members in their treatment of victims of abuse who participate in the criminal process," she said.

Appeal to the Supreme Court NSW/ S 474.17 Criminal Code 1995

Interpretation of Offend!!!
Menace , Harass or Offended must have a collective meaning!!!!! Although Offend ( free speech) is not defined menacing and harassing are. Look at the various state laws for harassing and menacing that are criminal which will be the guide for "offending"
To be found guilty of Menacing or Harassing fear anxiety or apprehension must have been caused to an extent that would be diagnosed by a medical professional.
Dodgy NSW magistrates are not applying the correct tests and are fucking everyone over.
The narrow interpretation also must be use for 'offensive"' as required by the High Court. As S 473 is also the test for offensiveness so the narrow test also applies.
The fault element is recklessness. Recklessness lies somewhere between intent and negligence. Recklessness must cause something......... so what does it cause...........

Its time to stop the shit in the court system and make the Supreme Court give a decision on "offensiveness '

What out for the dodgy NSW Magistrate Lisa Stapleton!!!!!

Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) is Use Carriage Service to Menace Harass or Cause Offence and is extracted below.

474.17Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a)the person uses a carriage service; and

(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.

Penalty:Imprisonment for 3 years."

Wednesday, 14 January 2015

Ombudsman and Top Cop's to appear before NSW Parliamentary inquiry
.

NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione, right, with Premier Mike Baird. Source: News Corp Australia

THE state’s top cops and the Ombudsman have been called to appear before a parliamentary inquiry into a police bugging scandal.

Ombudsman Bruce Barbour, Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione and his deputies Catherine Burn and Nick Kaldas have all been called to appear at the inquiry, which will begin on January 28.
It is expected to question the high-profile officers on never-heard-before details about why an internal affairs unit bugged more than 100 police, most of whom were totally innocent.
At the heart of the inquiry is the evidence in affidavits that led to warrants being issued to allow a corrupt police officer to wear a wire and bug 114 police at a social function.
One of those at the function and whose office was also bugged was then homicide squad chief Mr Kaldas.
Both Mr Scipione and Ms Burn worked at the internal affairs unit at the time. It has been the source of tension between the three for years.
An internal investigation into the issuing of the warrants and the operation has been kept secret for more than a decade by both sides of politics.
For the past two years Mr Barbour has conducted an inquiry behind closed doors into the police operation.
Questions are being asked why after two years and $3 million there has been no report.

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

Watchdog exposes tricks public servants use to avoid sharing information with the public

Date: December 17, 2014

(29)
Comments 17

Markus Mannheim

Public service editor

View more articles from Markus Mannheim

Follow Markus on TwitterFollow Markus on Google+Email Markus

Latest public service news

A government watchdog has exposed some of the techniques federal public servants use to wrongfully prevent citizens from accessing their own records.
The Information Commissioner's investigation of the bureaucracy's biggest workplace, the Department of Human Services, revealed an organisation obsessed with process, that preferred legalese to plain English and had increasingly lost sight of its duty to share information.
In one Kafkaesque case, freedom of information officers told a man that recordings of his own voice breached his ex-partner's privacy because he had mentioned her.
Rather than give him the readily available recordings of his phone calls to the Child Support Agency, the FOI team proposed spending weeks of staff time going through each call and censoring the moments he spoke about his ex-partner.
Do you know more? Send your confidential tips to ps@canberratimes.com.au.
Another FOI applicant had asked for a copy of an "actual conversation" he had with department staff. The department refused his request, saying it had no audio recording of the phone call. But it did not tell him it had a written record of it.
The report also cited an applicant who wanted details of a call an official had made to another organisation, within a specific date range, that "apparently infers that I was attempting to extort money". The department denied that request, too, saying there was no document that mentioned "extortion", even though it had a similar record that matched the request.
The commissioner, Professor John McMillan, began investigating the department, which includes Centrelink and Medicare, after noticing a huge increase in the number of times it invoked its "practical refusal" power.
Under FOI law, government agencies can knock back requests for documents if processing them would "unreasonably" waste time and resources.
However, the department used this power 777 times last financial year, a more than twentyfold increase from two years earlier.
Professor McMillan said he had also received many complaints about a change in the department's culture.
The Welfare Rights and Advocacy Service, which uses FOI to help people gain access to benefits they were wrongfully denied, complained it had struggled to understand some of the department's letters since April last year.
"There has been a marked increase in length, complexity of language and use of what appears to be chunks of text that have been 'cut and pasted' and at the same time there has been a marked reduction in the number of documents released to a client," the service said.
Another organisation, the NSW Welfare Rights Centre, said FOI was the "only independent check" on the department, which sometimes failed to disclose all relevant records during legal hearings over disputed debts.
Professor McMillan, whose office may be abolished early next year, said the department was in the difficult position of receiving more than 100,000 requests for documents each year, but a less secretive culture would help it operate more efficiently.
"The default position in many government, or any other, organisations is to control information. Saying 'no' often seems the easiest answer – but that's not necessarily the case," he told Fairfax Media.
He said he understood why agencies turned to lawyers to deal with FOI and said their input was important.
But he cited the example of the Defence Department, which had greatly improved its efficiency in handling FOI requests in recent years.
"Their breakthrough came from taking FOI out of the hands of lawyers," Professor McMillan said.
"Treating everything as an analysis of legal principles is not always helpful. The simplest, most cost-effective way to administer access requests, whether under the FOI Act or otherwise, is to find out what will satisfy the applicant and do what you can to help them."
The Department of Human Services said it would begin to implement Professor McMillan's recommendations.
Its secretary, Kathryn Campbell, said it was "focused on improving the customer experience, particularly for our vulnerable and special needs customers".

Saturday, 1 November 2014

Meta Data, the AFP Commissioner and a whole lot of shit!!!!
So on thursday dinosaur Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin who obviously has no fucking idea about the internet said that the meta data that internet companies were now required to keep for 2 years would be used to track down people who pirated movies and music. Clearly this fucker did not realize that in fact copyright was not a criminal offence even though he holds the position of Top Cop in Australia.
Then on Friday Colvin backed down on his threat because someone had mentioned to him that this was actually none of the fucking AFP's business.
Considering that any hacker wanting to download pirated movies or music would use a proxy server in a far away country and therefore hide their tracks and anyone that has turned to "THE DARK SIDE" will do the same who is the AFP and the Australian Parliament think they are going to catch with these new laws??????
It appears Abbott is just sucking up to Obama and Colvin is just a puppet who has no fucking idea what so ever!!!!!!

Friday, 31 October 2014

Ian Lazar engaged in criminal activity for a decade, court told

This is the jewish shonk along with his father Rabbi David Rogut
threatened to take me to court for exposing his many court cases on the internet because in their very simple minds it was ANTISEMITIC!!!!!!!! REALLY????????

Date: October 31, 2014 - 5:15PM

Nick Ralston

Crime Editor

View more articles from Nick Ralston

Follow Nick on Twitter Follow Nick on Google+ Email Nick

Ian Lazar was arrested on Thursday for allegedly defrauding an elderly woman whom he saw on A Current Affair. Photo: Police Media

A colourful Sydney financier accused of defrauding an elderly woman of her home has engaged in criminal activity for a decade, a court has been told.

Ian Lazar appeared before Sydney's Central Local Court on Friday charged with obtain financial advantage by deception after being arrested on Thursday outside the North Sydney apartment block where he lives with his pregnant fiancee.

Police allege that the 43-year-old lender of last resort fraudulently obtained ownership of the elderly woman's Nambucca home after he saw her detailing her financial woes on A Current Affair in July 2003.

During a bail application the court heard that Mr Lazar's alleged victim was 88 years old at the time of the offence and that after she was evicted in 2009, she died homeless.

Police prosecutor Sergeant Vanessa Robichaux told the court that Mr Lazar was part of a "larger criminal organisation" and there were a number of other victims of the group.

A number of Crown witnesses had also been threatened about coming forward to make complaints, she said.

The court was told that police will allege Mr Lazar has been engaging in criminality for 10 years.

But Mr Lazar's barrister, Richard Mitry, told the court if that was the case then police should have arrested him earlier.

Mr Mitry said his client had instead been the victim of a campaign against him by police and the media which was fuelled by disgruntled investors who couldn't afford to repay Mr Lazar.

He also denied that Mr Lazar was part of a criminal group, telling the court that many of those to whom he is alleged to have links were engaged in legal disputes with him.

Mr Mitry said Mr Lazar should be granted bail because he had known for "two to three years" that he was the subject of a police investigation and had not fled during that time.

But Magistrate Mark Buscombe refused bail, saying Mr Lazar posed a an unacceptable risk as he was concerned about allegations that threatening emails had been sent to a potential witness.

Police will allege that after seeing the woman on A Current Affair, Mr Lazar contacted the show, claiming to be backed by community-minded investors who wanted to pay off the woman's debts as an act of generosity.

After being put in touch with the woman it is alleged that Mr Lazar and an associate made arrangements to pay off the woman's debts.

But when she went to sell her home in 2006 and move to the Southern Highlands to be closer to family she discovered the property had been transferred into the name of a company she did not know.

When she contacted Mr Lazar she was told there had been a mix-up and that it would be resolved. But it was not and in 2009 she was evicted from her home.

The case against Mr Lazar returns to court in January.