Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Paedophile priests/ Chief Inspector Wayne Humphry/ corrupt police
Now  this has got to make me laugh when the shonkey Chief Inspector Wayne Humphrey told an inquiry that he was  not protecting .Paedophile priests in 2010.

Special Commission of Inquiry into the handling of child abuse allegations by the Catholic church.  Newcastle Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy leaves Newcastle Supreme Court. Cross-questioning: Newcastle Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy leaves court. Photo: Darren Pateman
One of the Australian Catholic Church's most senior figures, Father Brian Lucas, confessed in an internal church document that he knew the disgraced paedophile priest Father Denis McAlinden had been "interfering with children" but he had done nothing about it.
Fairfax Media reporter Joanne McCarthy told the inquiry into church and police handling of sexual abuse in the Hunter region that documents handed to her by a victim, known as AL, indicated the systematic protection of paedophiles within the church.
Father Lucas' confession was contained in documents that then bishop of Maitland-Newcastle diocese Michael Malone had authorised be released.
In 1993 Father Lucas had known of McAlinden's abuse of a girl aged under 10, separate evidence tendered to the inquiry alleges. That evidence also states that two years later McAlinden was defrocked in secret.
Advertisement
Father Lucas says the allegations are false. He says he took steps in 1993 to have the priest removed from the ministry and that he respected the then-adult victim's wishes not to take it further.
On Tuesday afternoon the inquiry heard that McCarthy gave the documents to a NSW detective, Shaun McCleod, in April 2010.
"The material that the police had obviously shows on the face of it an intention to alert McAlinden ... if that isn't trying to protect a paedophile, I don't know what is," McCarthy's barrister, Winston Terracini, SC, suggested to her.
"Yes, I agree," McCarthy said.
Father Lucas is now general secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference.
Earlier on Tuesday Detective Chief Inspector Wayne Humphrey told the inquiry he had been wrong to state Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox had been repeatedly asked to supply information from his investigations to a strike force set up towards the end of 2010 and apologised for the inaccuracy to Chief Inspector Fox.
Chief Inspector Humphrey said there had been no attempt to shut Chief Inspector Fox out of the investigation as the latter has alleged, but that a "fresh set of eyes" was needed. He emphasised his view that Chief Inspector Fox's material would be important to the new strike force.
Much of the inquiry's focus this week has been on the relationship between McCarthy and Chief Inspector Fox. McCarthy has agreed the latter sent her an internal police document about his investigation and invited her to correct or amend it, which she didn't. She also agreed she knew he had withheld witness statements from the new strike force, but said she didn't see it as her place to tell police.
McCarthy denied referring to him as "her police officer". So why did Chief Inspector Fox send her an internal police document that was highly critical of police?
"Possibly he was feeling a little bit lonely and isolated at that point, so the caring ear of a journalist ... I don't know," McCarthy said.
McCarthy has repeatedly asserted that her prime motivation was to get police to seriously investigate allegations of sexual abuse.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/priest-knew-of-abuse-but-did-nothing-20130625-2ov7k.html#ixzz2XIelOoVx

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

Deryn Hinch/ Contempt of Court/ bloggs  twitter etc

So why did it take Victorian  police 2 months to serve a writ on Deryn Hinch?????

Was Deryn singled out because of his high profile??? Was  all the other  people who made comments on twitter etc charged or did the Victorian Police think they would only make an example of him.
Everyone in Australian knew that Bailey was on parole at the time of the murder. It was not Deryn Hinch who exclusively reported this.
Quite obviously Deryn Hinch has upset  and exposed corruption in high places  and this is  their payback!!!!

Broadcaster Derryn Hinch charged with contempt over Adrian Bayley case

Updated Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:13pm AEST
Broadcaster Derryn Hinch has been charged with contempt of court for breaching suppression orders regarding convicted murderer Adrian Bayley.
In April, Bayley pleaded guilty to raping and killing 29-year-old ABC employee Jill Meagher in Melbourne last year.
Hinch used social media and his official website to speculate about the case.
That drew the ire of Supreme Court justice Geoffrey Nettle, who at the time ordered that Hinch be charged with contempt.
Hinch says those charges were laid on Tuesday.
"The charges cover material from April 5 through April 9 and the papers I was served outside the St Kilda Police Station totalled 201 pages. Call that a writ!" he said in a statement on his website.
"I fervently believe I am not guilty of contempt of court and will contest the case when it comes up in the Supreme Court on July 16.
"At a time when rapists and killers are out on parole it seems to me that the judicial system is out of whack when so much time and energy is spent on trying to make me a whipping boy for social media.
"I agree that Twitter and Facebook were out of control in the lead up to the Jill Meagher trial but I wasn't one of the guilty parties."
Hinch has previously served time in jail and in home detention for breaching suppression orders.
In 2011, he was ordered to serve five months home detention for four contempt charges over the naming of two convicted paedophiles at a public rally and on his website.
In 1987, Hinch spent 12 days in jail and was fined $10,000 for publicly naming a paedophile priest on trial for child sex offences.
A contempt of court charge carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
First posted Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:12pm AEST

Saturday, 22 June 2013

Corruption amoung custom staff at Sydney Airport/ Alan Kessing /Law Enforcement integrity Investigation

Of course the Australian Federal Police would have been aware that drugs were being trafficked through Sydney Airport.
The whistleblowers Alan Kessing had made sure everyone in Australia was aware of this corruption. For his trouble he was given a suspended sentence in the NSW Supreme Court.
The Liberal Party claims it is because of budget cuts.
So why didn't the Federal Police act when they were first made aware of this????
Here's how it works..... The Federal police are donkeys... they do not act unless they get a request from a Commonwealth Government Agency. The Head of Customs and Boarder Protection is Michael Pezzullo.
So exactly why did this shonk not ask the federal Police to act accordingly???????Was there so much corruption involved the Federal Government attempted to protect the people involved ??? Who benefited financially from keeping this quiet for so long??? Did Australian Public Service employees benefit from this corruption??
Did Steven Sedgwick the Australian Public Service Commissioner receive any complaints under S16( whistleblower) and covered these up??
Why has customs received 700 staff corruption complaints??? How have these been deal with???
Has Jason Clare tried to cover these up???
.

Officers have been able to create an drug trafficking business due to a culture of corruption denial at Sydney Airport, concludes a report by Australian Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity Philip Moss.

Report details corruption among Customs officers at Sydney international airport

Updated Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:27am AEST
A report detailing corruption in the Customs and Border Protection service has revealed a group of officers used inside knowledge to bypass airport surveillance systems.
The interim report from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity investigated allegations of collusion amongst four Customs officers at Sydney's international airport.
Between August 2012 and February 2013 the officers were arrested and charged with a string of offences including abuse of office, bribery and conspiracy.
The report found they used a network of contacts and their inside knowledge to thwart the airport's surveillance systems.
The commission found they started importing steroids in 2007 and later expanded the racket to include more officers and the precursor drug pseudoephedrine.
They allegedly developed friendships in order to gather information and cover their tracks.
Sixteen other people were also arrested during the crackdown and the report states further arrests are likely.
Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare says the report has prompted a raft of reforms at international airports across Australia including a ban on personal mobile phones in all controlled areas and regular officer rotations.
The head of the Customs and Border Protection, Michael Pezzullo, says the agency has also already started to take action.
He says the agency has introduced drug and alcohol testing and mandatory reporting of misconduct and corruption.
Liberal spokesman Michael Keenan says staff and budget cuts are partly to blame for the corruption.
"When you're reducing the agency's operating budget and reducing its ability to do its job, then that obviously takes a toll on the ability of the agency to resist corrupt overtures from organised crime," he said.
"That's clearly been a contributing factor in what is a scandalous occurrence of corruption within the Commonwealth Public Service."
First posted Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:18am AEST
What is intent in criminal law?
The intention to perform a criminal act is often an element featured in a criminal matter: but what does intent actually mean? Law is often a complex vocation and determining the intention of a person in regards to criminal matters is especially challenging – because who really knows the true intention of an individual? Both statute and the common law make reference to intention, and this article will try as best as it can to unravel a difficult concept.

Intention in statute law

A number of legislative instruments refer to intention in the performing of a criminal act, and we can turn to s 23 of Queensland’s Criminal Code Act 1899 for our statutory example. The section states the following:
23 Intention—motive
(1) Subject to the express provisions of this Code relating to negligent acts and omissions, a person is not criminally responsible for—
(a) an act or omission that occurs independently of the exercise of the person's will; or
(b) an event that—
(i) the person does not intend or foresee as a possible consequence; and
(ii) an ordinary person would not reasonably foresee as a possible consequence.
(1A) However, under subsection (1)(b), the person is not excused from criminal responsibility for death or grievous bodily harm that results to a victim because of a defect, weakness, or abnormality.
(2) Unless the intention to cause a particular result is expressly declared to be an element of the offence constituted, in whole or part, by an act or omission, the result intended to be caused by an act or omission is immaterial.
(3) Unless otherwise expressly declared, the motive by which a person is induced to do or omit to do an act, or to form an intention, is immaterial so far as regards criminal responsibility.”
We should add that the courts have generally been reluctant to make a presumption of intention and that if intent is an issue, “it is of paramount importance that the jury be directed as to the obligation of the prosecution to establish intent beyond reasonable doubt”, as was noted in the joint judgment in R v AJS (2005) 12 VR 563; 159 A Crim R 327 (CA).

Intention is inferred as a matter of fact, rather than law

Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ in Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502; 70 ALR 658; 29 A Crim R 12, said the following regarding mens rea in a drug importation matter:
“What we have said is designed to emphasise that the existence of the requisite intention is a question of fact and that in most cases the outcome will depend on an inference to be drawn from primary facts found by the tribunal of fact. In this, as in other areas of the law, it is important not to succumb to the temptation of transferring matters of fact into proposition of law. In that regard, we would emphasise that the foregoing comments are not designed as a direction or instruction to be read by trial judges to juries. They are intended to give guidance to trial judges in order to enable them to formulate such directions as may be appropriate to the facts and circumstances of particular cases.”

If an honest belief is held by a person, means there was no intent

Dawson J in He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; 60 ALR 449; 15 A Crim R 203, said that because intent forms part of a crime in common law, it is up to the prosecution to prove that a “mistaken belief in facts which are inconsistent with the required intent does not have to be based upon reasonable grounds. Either the accused has a guilty mind or he does not, and if an honest belief, whether reasonable or not, points to the absence of the required intent, then the prosecution fails to prove its case.”
In offences where specific intent is relevant and admissible, then it becomes personal to an accused, and in Schultz v The Queen [1982] WAR 171; (1981) 5 A Crim R 234 (CCA), Burt CJ said the following:
“[I]n my opinion the evidence was relevant and, when led by the appellant, admissible. Once it be acknowledged that there is no legal presumption that a man intends the probable consequences of his acts and that in every case the finding to be made is specifically and exclusively as to the intention of a particular person at a particular moment of time, then, as it seems to me, all facts personal to the person concerned which have bearing or which in the judgment of reasonable men may have bearing upon the operation of his mind are relevant to that finding.”

There is no direction on what is meant by intent

It may be hard to fathom that generally speaking, judges should not direct a jury on what is meant by intent. In R v Moloney [1985] AC 905; [1985] 1 AII ER 1025; 81 Cr App R 93 (HL), Lord Bridge said the following, and with agreement from the other Lords:
“The golden rule should be that, when directing a jury on the mental element necessary in a crime of specific intent, the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent, and leave it to the jury’s good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent, unless the judge is convinced that, on the facts and having regard to the way the case has been presented to the jury in evidence and argument, some further explanation or elaboration is strictly necessary to avoid misunderstanding.”
Needless to say intent in criminal law is very complex. Be assured that it was our intention to provide some clarification to readers on the concept of intent.

The war of the Jacobsens

Author: Adele Ferguson
Date: 04/08/2012
Words: 4188
Source: SMH
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
Section: Good Weekend
Page: 14
They brought some of the biggest names in showbiz to our shores, but now brothers Kevin and colin Jacobsen are locked in a legal battle over millions of dollars. Adele Ferguson traces the muddy origins of a bitter family feud. traces a family feud that could be worth millions. His eyes filled with emotion, Kevin Jacobsen quietly closed the front door of his family home in Sydney's Hunters Hill for the last time. The moment had arrived. The eviction notice had been served, the removal trucks had their engines running and the bank was about to have its day. Hurriedly walking down the path, his head bowed, he knew this was no time for sentimentality or fond farewells - even if this refuge, the place that he and his wife, Billie, had called home for the past 28 years, was the last remaining asset to be lost to him. The date was March 30, 2012, and it marked a pride-swallowing final chapter for the man who'd once been lauded in the entertainment industry as a legend for his discovery of bands such as the Bee Gees and his building of a sweeping business empire that had been responsible for bringing to Australia many of the world's biggest acts. This certainly wasn't how the 78-year-old promoter had imagined his twilight years playing out: penniless, homeless, forced to rely on the generosity and goodwill of family and friends after a tumultuous, public and far-reaching parting of the ways with his hitherto closest ally and business partner, younger brother Colin, three years earlier. How did it come to this? How could the one-time multi-millionaire who created an entertainment group that managed rock stars and promoted the likes of Elton John, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson, Barbra Streisand and the Three Tenors find himself in such a parlous financial situation? He and Colin were, after all, a pair with matchless showbiz credentials stretching all the way back to the late 1950s when, together, they appeared as piano player and front man respectively in Col Joye and the Joy Boys, belting out smash-hit covers such as Bye Bye Baby and Be-Bop-A-Lula. "The split between the brothers and what has happened to Kevin is worse than a tragedy because a tragedy ends," says Bruce Glatman, president and chief executive of LA-based entertainment company Encore International, who has known the Jacobsen brothers for 35 years. "It's a tragedy because Kevin's reputation has been tarnished and he is one of the best in the business. When the Bee Gees came to Sydney in 1999, they stopped the show and thanked Kevin for discovering them. Can you imagine that? He's like most people in this business: he deals from the gut and this has hurt him." Glatman compares the Jacobsen fight to the Hatfields and McCoys, two 19th-century American hillbilly families who fought so bitterly that they have become a metaphor for any two feuding rival parties. "If I had a wish it would be to put Humpty Dumpty together again, but I fear that this will never happen. This split is forever." Kevin, these days sporting dyed black eyebrows and tinted auburn hair as if to bolster his courage, refers continually to the man he used to be - the fast-talking promoter who picked a show based on his gut feeling and called Bruce Springsteen a friend. Over the years he has gone head to head with a few local promoters, such as Melbourne-based Michael Coppel, who once described him as someone who portrays himself as a fool the better to take advantage of people. "Kevin portrays himself as a bumbling, loveable, -avuncular character who stumbles through life," he told The Australian. "But I think that's an act." A former long-serving employee describes him as mercurial, but someone who always treated the artists well: "Colin was behind the scenes. No one was ever sure what he did; he wasn't as charming as Kevin." Glatman says he respected Kevin so much that he let him share his offices in LA. "The only time Col was ever involved was when the concerts took place and he would come to introduce himself after the concert," Glatman claims. "I introduced Kevin to Barbra Streisand's manager. She performed four outdoor shows in Australia in 2000 - a remarkable feat for Barbra, and a great coup for Kevin." Family bust-ups are never straightforward, even less so when money and power are involved. The Jacobsen versus Jacobsen battle, which has culminated in a plethora of legal challenges, is certainly no exception. Colin and his daughter, 37-year-old Amber, have declined to make any comment to Good Weekend about Kevin's plight - or the part Kevin alleges they've played in reducing his circumstances so dramatically. The battle lines have been drawn and friends of both families have been forced to take sides. The Jacobsens' younger brother, Keith, 73, and sister, Carol, 68, are firmly in Colin's camp: Kevin says Carol and Col's wife, Dalys, have been friends since they were teenagers, and even had a double wedding in Fiji. Keith, he adds, was always closer to Col and played bass guitar in Col Joye and the Joy Boys but was never involved in the family business empire. Mutual friends, including former federal tourism minister in the Hawke era John Brown, have also had to pick sides. Meanwhile, at the heart of Kevin's camp are his wife, Billie, their son, Michael, who is 33, and Kevin's two children from his first marriage to Merris, who died in 1976: Vicki, 51, and 50-year-old David. To understand what went wrong requires a step back in time to when Kevin's son, Michael, and Colin's daughter, Amber, joined the family-run Jacobsen Group. Until this second generation had a part to play in a business that had been thriving for four decades, the brothers' relationship was viewed by many as one of the closest in showbiz. Amber, the older of the two, came on board in 1997 at the age of 23; Michael in 2002 when he, too, was 23. For Kevin, however, he was always the logical successor. "Michael was the one who accompanied me to the office in his school holidays from the time when he was a young boy," he says. The cousins clashed. Michael, a quiet man, disliked confrontation, while Amber has been described as assertive and ambitious. "It seems that whatever job Michael undertook, Amber would try to get involved," claims Kevin. "For example, Michael attended all the meetings we had in New Zealand during the initial negotiating period with the Auckland City Council for an entertainment centre in 2002, which included putting the development team together of project managers Lend Lease, Crawford Architects, international designers, etc. While Michael was on holiday, Amber abandoned the De La Guarda [a physical theatre troupe] show we were promoting in Sydney at the time, travelled to New Zealand and replaced Michael." Kevin also alleges that while Michael was the director of marketing for Dirty Dancing, Amber's interferences caused Michael to work out of the office of an advertising agency. "He never returned to the Jacobsen space," he recalls. Around the time that Michael joined the business, Kevin and Colin decided to create a new company, Jacobsen Entertainment, and list it on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). It was a decision shared by all members of the family, but it proved to be fateful. The empire was growing like Topsy, having expanded into entertainment venues, including the Sydney Entertainment Centre - which Kevin had convinced the government to build in the 1980s - Sydney's Capitol Theatre and the Brisbane Entertainment Centre. The company had also won its tender to develop the entertainment centre in Auckland at a cost of almost $90 million. But within weeks of the company listing on the ASX in 2002 at $1 a share, the share price tanked as a series of productions - notably The Witches of Eastwick, which, paradoxically, had enjoyed rave reviews - failed to perform at the box office. Nine months later, the shares were trading at two cents apiece and the company was drowning in a sea of red ink. By 2003 it was placed into voluntary administration. As executive chairman and the public face of the company, Kevin took the rap for the $6-million loss of investor money. He blamed the collapse on everything from the Iraq War to drought and bad publicity, none of which held sway with investors who believed he'd over-promised and under-delivered. Whatever the case, it became a watershed moment for family relations: Colin and Amber decided they wanted a bigger say in the remaining assets of the family empire. Kevin remembers Colin saying to him: "It's Amber's turn now. You've had your day in the sun." Kevin says he shrugged it off and went all out to try to revive the family fortunes. By 2004 he'd pulled off the deal of a lifetime: securing the worldwide rights to produce the Dirty Dancing stage show, structuring the rights through a company he set up called Time of My Life Pty Ltd. "This deal was my biggest coup," he says. "I thought it would make us all rich." Kevin owned a one-half share of Time of My Life Pty Ltd and Colin, through companies controlled by him, the remaining half share. "I invested significant funds in this venture," says Kevin. "I recall that I cashed in my superannuation and life insurance entitlements and invested them ... I put in money through my credit card and Billie and Michael injected money into the company in its early stages." Dirty dancing opened in november 2004 at Sydney's Theatre Royal and was a smash hit. Two years later, it went gangbusters in London, ultimately grossing $500 million at the box office. But although the Jacobsens had never before scaled such box-office heights, relations between the two arms of the family continued to deteriorate. While Kevin spent more and more time stitching up new deals in the US and Europe for Dirty Dancing, Colin and Amber wanted an increasing say in what was going on back home, particularly after the sudden elevation in 2005 of Michael, at the age of 26, to become the managing director of key Jacobsen Group company Arena Management, which ran the Sydney Entertainment Centre. In 2007, they apparently attempted to topple him. Kevin claims that he was furious when he found out they had tried to persuade the board to sack his son. "I couldn't believe Colin would do this to Michael," he says. "I remember telling him if he wasn't family I'd have decked him." Behind the happy-families facade erected for the public, the relationship between the two clans daily grew more toxic. In October 2007, the game was almost up when media reports emerged that police had been called into the Jacobsen Group offices after Kevin had arrived for work one morning to discover that all the locks had been changed. Neither camp made public comment but, by the end of 2007, Colin and Amber had instigated legal proceedings in Australia and Britain over the jewel in the family crown, Dirty Dancing. An affidavit stated that Amber no longer had confidence in her uncle's ability to act in the best interests of the family. Kevin says it was a case of Amber believing he was misappropriating funds for his own benefit. "It was simply untrue," he says. It became an unworkable situation, according to John Brown, who joined the board of Time of My Life in 2008, along with James Vernon, a film producer and fundraiser, to try to introduce some impartiality. The board comprised Kevin and Billie Jacobsen, representing Kevin Jacobsen Pty Ltd; Amber and Colin Jacobsen, representing Colin's family company, Zoulos Pty Ltd; and Brown and Vernon. Chaos reigned from the get-go with meetings quickly degenerating into slanging matches. Accusations of mismanagement were hurled from both sides; longstanding executives left and Brown and Vernon resigned. "My presence just created tensions and angst," says Brown. "Amber was overseas at the time and would phone in for the board meetings." According to Brown, she would scream and yell that he should get off the board. "I could see where it was all going, so I quit," Brown recalls. As time of our life continued to rake in the cash, Arena Management, headed by Michael, was in major financial difficulty. Michael resigned from the board in March 2009 and, three months later, it collapsed. He turned to his Pentecostal church, Hillsong, for answers. In a letter to the company's administrators, he attracted headlines with his suggested solution. "I have consulted God on this matter in recent days and it is His wish that I propose a deed of company arrangement [an agreement between a company and its creditors that govern how a company's affairs will be dealt with when it collapses] and resolve this situation. There is a need to reach out and meet the needs of others." In a letter to the administrator of the company, Randall Joubert, that he sent from London in September 2009, Michael wrote that the Sydney Entertainment Centre had been "cursed for some years". The collapse of Arena Management was also a curtain call for the two families and the Jacobsen Group, as the umbrella company for Kevin's Kevin Jacobsen Pty Ltd and Colin's Zoulos Pty Ltd. In June 2009, in a document called the Kemp Strang Agreement, they decided to part ways and split the business 50:50. The news of the split came as a shock to the outside world, but Kevin, too, was struggling with the reality of his new situation. "I couldn't believe that my own brother - whose shirts I had ironed - had become so spiteful towards me and my family," he recalls. "My parents would never have believed it possible." Looking back, Kevin says the idea to split the business was a good one, but not the circumstances in which he recalls signing the agreement.It ran to 1400 pages, and he claims it was signed under duress. "I remember waiting in an office, then seeing this female solicitor walk in with a pile of documents and I was horrified; I started swearing," he recalls. "I said, 'What's this bullshit about? Do you have the summary before I sign?' She said, 'There is no summary.' I said to Michael, 'Michael, this is a load of bullshit. What's it all about?' " Kevin alleges a telephone call had come through from a private Sydney company called Allind. The message was that if he didn't sign the agreement in front of him, his company, Kevin Jacobsen Pty Ltd, would be placed into receivership. (Allind is the family company of former Jacobsen ally John David, who used to own David Holdings, a wholesale supermarket chain. Allind was calling in a $4 million debt. In a press statement in 2009, lawyers for John David said the decision to reclaim the $4 million "reflects the extreme frustration felt by Mr John David after his family provided substantial financial support to the Jacobsen family by way of loans in 2003. These were repayable at the expiration of two years, and by selling shares in a key Jacobsen company in March 2008. Despite patient negotiations and extensions of time for the repayment, no funds have been repaid since June 2008, leaving Mr David with no option but to pursue the matter through the courts." Kevin claims the money was used for the benefit of the umbrella company but he was the target because he had gone personal guarantor.) With pressure building intolerably, Kevin says, he signed the agreement. (Michael, who'd become ill through stress, left the country as soon as the Kemp Strang Agreement was signed and now lives in London with his wife, Romy, and their two children. He continues to struggle financially and healthwise and his relationship with his parents is strained.) It was agreed that proceeds from the sale of the Auckland entertainment centre would be used to repay the Allind debt, but by February 2010 it still hadn't been sold. Consequently, Kevin's private company, Kevin Jacobsen Pty Ltd, was placed into receivership. Receiver John Lord was appointed to Kevin Jacobsen Pty Ltd to sell assets to repay the debt. And it is from this point onwards that matters become very murky indeed. In an affidavit filed in the NSW Federal Court on March 17, 2011, Lord states that on or before October 2010, Allind took possession of Kevin's shares in a number of family businesses, including Jacobsen Venue Management, Time of My Life Pty Ltd (which holds the global rights to Dirty Dancing) and the Dirty Dancing United Kingdom Unit Trust. Lord states that he "now understands" Allind then sold Kevin's half share in both Jacobsen Venue Management and Time of My Life Pty Ltd to Zoulos, Colin Jacobsen's family company, for $1 each. Kevin argues that the half share in both Jacobsen Venue Management and Time of My Life Pty Ltd were worth a significant amount more than the $1 each price tag his brother's company appears to have paid for them. He cites an information memorandum that had valued the global rights to Dirty Dancing in mid-2010 at approximately $12.2 million. Colin and Amber have maintained a steadfast silence on the issue. A letter from their lawyer sent to Good Weekend says simply: "My clients have avoided commenting to the media on any disputes with Kevin Jacobsen, and maintain this approach." Calls to Allind have also gone unanswered. Liquidators Sheahan Lock Partners are currently investigating the sale of the shares. Says Ian Lock: "Prima facie they are worth many millions of dollars, but they have passed out of the control of Kevin for what appears to be a very small amount." Under the Corporations Act, a liquidator can seek to overturn any transaction where assets are sold at less than their market value. In Kevin's case, if the assets that were sold are proved to be worth those "many millions of dollars", the entire transaction could be overturned and the half shares, and assets, returned to him. Good Weekend can also reveal that Kevin called the Australian Tax Office in March 2009, just before he and his brother split the business, raising concerns about the tax structure of the UK Dirty Dancing business that he and Colin shared, which he was concerned might not have been paying enough tax. The ATO referred Kevin's concerns to Project Wickenby, the tax agency that was set up in 2006 to fight tax havens, particularly those used in the entertainment industry. In 2007 it convicted music entrepreneur Glenn Wheatley of tax fraud and more recently Paul Hogan settled an eight-year dispute. The UK Dirty Dancing investigation is ongoing. it is an awkward situation when brother fights brother, but the enmity in this fight is breathtaking, according to friends. This has been nowhere more clearly demonstrated than when Billie, who has a pacemaker and is ill with peripheral neuropathy, which she believes has been brought on by stress, received a sheriff's eviction notice late last year on the family home in Hunters Hill. With money in short supply, Kevin's elder son, David, and daughter, Vicki, contacted Colin and his wife, Dalys, asking for help. "[Dalys] wrote back saying, 'We've done nothing wrong,' " says David. Vicki went to her uncle's house in Woolwich, the suburb adjoining Hunters Hill, where she handed her purse to Dalys. "She said, 'What's this for?' " recalls Vicki. "I said, 'There's $10 in it. You've got everything else. You may as well have that.' " According to Vicki, there aren't words to describe the "bad fairy tale" in which the family now finds itself. "I could never treat anyone as poorly as Colin and his family have treated my father," she says. "I find it bewildering that all of his siblings have disowned us. Uncle Keith is like Kevin, creative and intelligent, and yet he has chosen not to speak with him to learn anything about what's occurred. It makes me feel that the two families were only ever held together by money." With the house now sold and the bank paid, Kevin and Billie are fighting to find their way out of the financial abyss. "Yesterday, when I got home, Billie was sobbing," says Kevin. "She does that a lot these days. She is pretty tough - we both are - but this would test the toughest." Despite the family shenanigans, the stage show Dirty Dancing is still going strong, recently concluding a five-year season in London, where it grossed $500 million. It is now touring the UK for two years and playing in Germany; Kevin believes it is on track to gross $2 billion. He's not likely to see any of that money, though. "When I reflect back, every cent I earned went into the family business," he says. "I remember being very hurt and disappointed when I found out [in the 1980s] that Colin had 50 per cent of a pub on the [NSW] Central Coast and never told me. When I found out, I said, 'Colin, how come? Is this a company thing or just you?' He said, 'Just me.' I said, 'Wait a minute. I started a pub called Sheila's in North Sydney and it went into the business.' " The battle has certainly taken its toll on Billie, Kevin's wife of 34 years. Now under constant medical care, she says, "They [Col and his family] now have Dirty Dancing with its potential worldwide gross revenue of $2 billion; they have the entertainment centre [Vector Arena] in Auckland, which Kevin sought and negotiated for the family business - a 40-year ownership, and the revenues that Kevin is entitled to. They have a beautiful old stone house in Woolwich, and we understand that Amber has now invested in an Australian coffee franchise in New York. We have lost everything ... Our income and lifestyle have been reduced to zero." John Brown is also deeply saddened by the dispute. He had been friends with both brothers for more than 40 years before the falling out. "I hate the fact that I have fallen out with Colin - he was a nice fellow - but there was no choice. We all had to take sides," he says. In Brown's opinion, Kevin was the majordomo, the centre of the circle. "Everyone and everything revolved around him," Brown claims. "He was the breadwinner and kept it all going while Colin was singing songs like Bye Bye Baby." Other friends and business associates of the brothers contacted by Good Weekend to comment on the rift - among them Eleanor Bergstein, who wrote the original Dirty Dancing movie - are unwilling to talk. To Kevin, it is a heartbreaking end to a family business that he started as a small talent agency and then built into one of the biggest entertainment businesses in the country. "I used to do all the bookings of the tours for the band [Col Joye and the Joy Boys] by myself," he says. "I realised there was a business doing this sort of thing, so I started doing it for other people like Olivia Newton-John and Peter Allen," he says. "I wanted to make my family rich." Kevin's game plan is to claw back up to $100 million he believes belongs to his immediate family. "A new Jacobsen company headed by David has been formed," he says. "As a family we are looking forward to new beginnings." Says David: "While we've endured great emotional suffering and debilitating physical health caused by the unbelievable barrage of wrongdoings against us over the past three years, the circumstances have also been a catalyst for us to relentlessly seek a fair and just outcome, irrespective of what that might take. I am happy to say as the CEO of Jacobsen International that we have a number of exciting international projects that have been in development for quite a while." Meanwhile, Kevin has enlisted a private investigator to help him recover what he believes belongs to him. He, Billie, David and the private investigator, Ian James, meet each week and have mapped out a strategy. James has been working on the case for nine months and has pieced together the evidentiary trail necessary to present a brief to a lawyer. This covers the company structure before Kevin's split with his brother, the various financial transactions that have taken place in the past few years and dissection of the Kemp Strang Agreement. James has prepared a 1400-page brief, identifying 21 issues that are capable of recovering more than $50 million. He is also trying to secure a litigation funder to bankroll the legal action that will ensue. James works on the promise of receiving a decent commission if he can recover what Jacobsen believes is his. The ever-optimistic Kevin believes there's still a place for him in the industry. Under the company headed by David, he's working as a consultant to help bring out to Australia an international act in February next year. "My mother, Minnie, always told me, 'Treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself', while my grandfather used to say, 'Treat everyone as a rogue until you find otherwise,' " says Kevin. "While I have tried to live my life according to Minnie's maxim, perhaps at times I should have paid more attention to old Pop Jaco's advice."

Friday, 21 June 2013

Removal of Bankruptcy trustees / corrupt conduct at ITSA/ Adam Toma / Veronique Ingram/
Adam Toma and Veronique Ingram have been protecting corrupt trustee's for years.
In particular ITSA received numerous complaints regarding the 4 Insolvency Practitioners who were terminated.
The corrupt trustee Paul Pattison , who was eventually made a bankrupt himself was protected for a considerable amount of time by the Shonkey Enforcement Manager Adam Toma


by Michael Murray | May 31, 2013
ITSA has terminated or ‘negotiated the resignation of' four personal insolvency practitioners, who ITSA found have not been satisfactorily performing their duties.
ITSA says that their estate files being transferred to either registered trustees or to the Official Trustee.
As a result of its investigations, ITSA identified various breaches of the Bankruptcy Act and of fiduciary duties of the trustees concerned, including:
  • taking remuneration in excess of that fixed by creditors
  • failing to adequately communicate and keep creditors, debtors and bankrupts informed of material developments
  • inadequately investigating property, assets and income
  • failing to maintain adequate books, records and documentation in relation to decisions made.
There a re well over 200 registered bankruptcy trustees in Australia.

ITSA says it is unable to release any additional or case specific information at this time. ITSA does not say whether the practitioners concerned are registered liquidators under the authority of ASIC.
FOI Responses/ OAIC FOI/ Attorney General disclosure log/ Mark Dreyfus
What the Shit????
A new chapter has been reached in Freedom of Information requests or lack of!!!
It now appears the Office of OAIC has a NEW policy that instead of them contacting the relevant Government Agency, the Commissioner John Mcmillan has decided that a non FOI response is the decision made by the agency not to release any information. Therefore, a non response is actually a response!!!
So I am wondering if this is actually the case that a non response is actually a response, is the failure pf the FOI request made to the Attorney General Mark Dreyfus actually telling me in a non verbal way that he would like me to FUCK OFF!!!
To attempt to obtain the relevant FOI it is required to lodge an IC Merits Review form.
With systemic corrupt conduct at a high and Prime Minister who speaks like a Warfie this is a clear attempt by government agencies to protect sensitive information.
Mark Dreyfus is the latest in a line Shonkey Labor Party Attorney Generals who obviously is protecting corruption in this portfolio. Unfortunately just the appearance of this obviously grossly inefficient individual shows the lack of talent in the Australian Labor party!!