Today in Court/ S474.17 Criminal Code

So again we had a day in court!!!

Clearly the magistrate had no idea why I had been charged under S 474.17 and looked baffled!!!

So considering that the test of the reasonable person is objective I asked the court if it considered the reasonable person had an obligation to disclose   fraud and systemic corrupt conduct Government Departments.

So the magistrate asked for a copy of some of the blogs AFSA and shonky Veronique Ingram finds so offensive. Clearly it took the magistrate considerable amount of time to digest  that  there clearly was no case to answer.

The Government Solicitor , aware  of the reasonable persons test  and also taking into consideration the High Court decisions concerning S474.17 appeared  embarrassed because he was  also aware there was no case to answer .

As usual the CDPP had no comment  because they also fucking knew there was no case to answer!!!!

Reasonable person's test/ Taking things out of context
TFrom: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
CC: nuckhley.succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:08:04 +1100

Hi Stephen,

Please make sure McCosker is made available for me.

You already have a list of those I want to cross examine.

You should take into careful consideration that the reasonable person test requires that you are unable to take extracts of my blogs  and attempt to prosecute me on this only.

Please advise me how have I actually offended these people according to the reasonable persons test?

Cheers 

Fiona Brown

---

From: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
CC: Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:14:20 +0000

Sensitive: Legal

Dear Ms Brown,

Please find attached by way of service the following additional witness statements which the Crown proposes to rely on at the hearing:

·         Supplementary statement of Ms Pearce dated 13.3.14

·         Statement of Mr Wong dated 13.3.14.

Keeping in mind the witnesses you require for cross examination, I propose to call the following witnesses:

1.       Pearce

2.       Succar

3.       Potter

4.       Rye

5.       Pleno

6.       Chang

7.       Dunkinson

8.       Toma

9.       Findlay

10.   Osborne

11.   Ingram

12.   Cullen

13.   Maher

14.   Wong

There is no statement from Mr McCosker. I do not propose to call him as I do not consider he can provide any relevant evidence. He has not been subpoenaed by the Crown.

Please advise whether you still require all of the above persons for cross examination.

With a view to narrowing the issues, please advise whether there will be any dispute that you uploaded the 7 relevant blog posts, as identified in my table headed “Fiona Brown matter – Blog Extracts” (emailed to you on 12.3.14).

Many thanks for your time and happy to discuss further on 9321 1111.

Stephen Grodzicki

A/ Principal Legal Officer | Prosecutions (3)

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sydney Office

T: 02 9321 1111 | F: 9321 1351 | E: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au

From: fiona brown [mailto:fionabrown01@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 13 March 2014 1:29 PM
To: Grodzicki Stephen
Cc: Succar, Nuckhley (Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au)
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]

Hi Stephen,
further to the amended charges  which you are attempting to intimidate me with  it is interesting you are trying to  fuck me over and try to charge me simply with using offensive words.
Clearly the Summary Offences  Act could only jail me for 3 months for offending someone so considering the Crimes Act has a penalty of 3 years  then I would consider that to offend the corrupt staff at  AFSA which  the Commonwealth Ombudsman are protecting requires a much higher level to anything I have posted.
I also refer to the additional statement which you are seeking leave to serve .
Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that Magistrate Buscombe told you to kiss his arse concerning them.
Cheers
Fiona

********************************************************************** The information contained in this message and in any attachments is privileged and confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. You should not read, copy, use or disclose this information without authorisation. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please e-mail the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorised dissemination, disclosure, copying or use of the contents of this message is prohibited and may result in legal action. **************************************he reasonable persons test is used extensively in law.
It also requires thing not be taken out of context.
For example if I said" fuck the dog" and went on to tell a story and then the Federal Police tried to charge me with " Fucking a dog" or bestiality  then the 'Reasonable Persons Test would apply!!!!!
It appears the shonks at AFSA or ITSA Federal Police and the CDPP are so desperate to protect corruption and systemic corrupt conduct at ITSA that they have lost sight of this test.!!

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
CC: nuckhley.succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:08:04 +1100

Hi Stephen,

Please make sure McCosker is made available for me.

You already have a list of those I want to cross examine.

You should take into careful consideration that the reasonable person test requires that you are unable to take extracts of my blogs  and attempt to prosecute me on this only.

Please advise me how have I actually offended these people according to the reasonable persons test?

Cheers 

Fiona Brown

---

From: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
CC: Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:14:20 +0000

Sensitive: Legal

Dear Ms Brown,

Please find attached by way of service the following additional witness statements which the Crown proposes to rely on at the hearing:

·         Supplementary statement of Ms Pearce dated 13.3.14

·         Statement of Mr Wong dated 13.3.14.

Keeping in mind the witnesses you require for cross examination, I propose to call the following witnesses:

1.       Pearce

2.       Succar

3.       Potter

4.       Rye

5.       Pleno

6.       Chang

7.       Dunkinson

8.       Toma

9.       Findlay

10.   Osborne

11.   Ingram

12.   Cullen

13.   Maher

14.   Wong

There is no statement from Mr McCosker. I do not propose to call him as I do not consider he can provide any relevant evidence. He has not been subpoenaed by the Crown.

Please advise whether you still require all of the above persons for cross examination.

With a view to narrowing the issues, please advise whether there will be any dispute that you uploaded the 7 relevant blog posts, as identified in my table headed “Fiona Brown matter – Blog Extracts” (emailed to you on 12.3.14).

Many thanks for your time and happy to discuss further on 9321 1111.

Stephen Grodzicki

A/ Principal Legal Officer | Prosecutions (3)

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sydney Office

T: 02 9321 1111 | F: 9321 1351 | E: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au

.

Chris Kenny v The Chaser - an update

A judge has ruled that Chris Kenny's defamation against the ABC can proceed to a jury.

And talking of disrepute ...

Let us turn to news of Chris Kenny, columnist at The Australian, who was famously portrayed as a "dogf***er" last year by the ABC’s The Hamster Decides.

We’re not going to show you the photoshopped image, but it was much like this one, which The Chaser team sent to Media Watch when we questioned whether their attack on Kenny was either funny or smart.

Last week, in the NSW Supreme Court, Kenny won the first round of his legal action against the ABC and Chaser team, which prompted this reaction from Ben Fordham on Sydney Radio


BEN FORDHAM: A judge has ruled, that the ABC was defamatory, against journalist Chris Kenny after it aired a skit, with him engaging in bestiality ...

— 2GB, Sydney Live, 6th March, 2014

In fact, the judge has merely ruled that the case can proceed to a jury.

And he threw out the most serious imputation that the skit suggested Kenny actually had sex with dogs.

But Justice Beech-Jones did call the Chaser’s attack ‘grossly disproportionate’ and he suggested it could cause people to conclude Kenny was a 'low, contemptible and disgusting person'.

That could be tough to defend.

But it will be up to a four-person jury to decide whether that meaning arose and whether Kenny was in fact defamed.

If Kenny were to win, damages of up to $355,000 could then be awarded by the judge, with costs on top.

But there’s far more than that at stake, not least because the Prime Minister has suggested the ABC should not fight the case.


TONY ABBOTT: Well, the point I make is that, government money should be spent sensibly. And defending the indefensible is not a very good way to spend government money and, next time the ABC comes to the government looking for more money, this is the kind of thing that we would want to ask them questions about.

— 2GB, Sydney Live, 6th March, 2014

Tony Abbott’s warning to the ABC ... and the Kenny court decision ... were covered at length in The Australian, with two news articles and a further comment piece all making the point that the ABC should say sorry and drop its defence.

The Oz also quoted Chris Kenny telling Channel 9 that the ABC’s refusal to say sorry had forced him to take action.

As Kenny told Media Watch:


CHRIS KENNY: The ABC had weeks to negotiate an apology but there was no attempt to deal with that, they dug their heels in from the start.

— Chris Kenny, Journalist, 7th March, 2014

Now, Chris Kenny is a journalist and a champion of free speech, so we can’t agree that he was forced to sue.

And it was not just an apology he was after. He also wanted money both for compensation and for legal costs.

But demanding the public broadcaster apologize is a popular theme with his employer, The Australian, and ABC managing director Mark Scott is one of their favourite targets.

YOUR COMMENTS

Offensive words/ 474.17

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
CC: nuckhley.succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:28:58 +1100

Hi Stephen,
further to the amended charges  which you are attempting to intimidate me with  it is interesting you are trying to  fuck me over and try to charge me simply with using offensive words.
Clearly the Summary Offences  Act could only jail me for 3 months for offending someone so considering the Crimes Act has a penalty of 3 years  then I would consider that to offend the corrupt staff at  AFSA which  the Commonwealth Ombudsman are protecting requires a much higher level to anything I have posted.
I also refer to the additional statement which you are seeking leave to serve .
Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that Magistrate Buscombe told you to kiss his arse concerning them.
Cheers

 Magistrate Buscome protects corruption
Today in Downing Centre a subpoena to produce documents was set aside by Magistrate Buscome.
This cock head magistrate ignored relied on S35 subsection 8 of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Act to protect the corruption being protected by the Commonwealth Ombudsman clearly ignoring all other subsections of S35. When challenged that he could not rely on one small section of the Act and disregarding that many other section that clearly allows the Commonwealth Ombudsman to give evidence and produce documentshe said..................."if you do not like my decisions take me to the the Supreme Court"
So my reply to you is...............
Clearly as he stated in court numerous times he is from a low court and can not make any significant decision.
I can conclude from this that he is from a low court only because he is a fuck head.
Buscombe... if you are offended by this then come charge me under S 474.17 crimes Act

alternatively he could go and see Nuchley Fuccar of the Federal Police who is also trying to protect corruption at AFSA

CDPP attempting to protect Fraud and Corruption
From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
CC: nuckhley.succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:03:34 +1100

Hi Stephen,
Clearly you wish to help me expose corruption at AFSA so please inform me that you will have all the requested witnesses I requested in court on the 24th March.
Also please supply me with a copy of all ammendments by tomorrow as discussed in court today. I require a copy of these to be sent by email and also by Express post.
Thanking you for your assistance in exposing corrupt practices in Government departments
Fiona Brown

Email to the  Commonwealth Director Public Prosecution/ protecting fraud

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:10:19 +1100

Hi Stephen,

I refer to your email  that you would be pleased to discuss further  statements to be served. However I find it amusing of  your continual intimidation.

Please also  have the statement ready from the shonky Gavin McCosker chief Operational Manager at AFSA.

I also confirm I you are to have all the AFSA Management present in Court for cross examination on the 24th -28th March 2014

These are

Veronique Ingram, Inspector General in Bankruptcy

Adam Toma, Enforcement Manager AFSA now at Victorian Commission Gaming and Liquor Regulation

Dave Maher, FOI  AFSA

Mathew Osborne Corrupt principal Legal Officer AFSA

Cheryl Cullen

Gavin McCosker Corrupt Chief Operational Officer AFSA

Mark Findlay corrupt Bankruptcy Regulations Manager.

Please  also inform them  that they should also bring their resignations to court when they appear.

I also thanking you also for helping me expose this conduct.

I also remind you it is a breach of the Australian Public Service Act to protect Fraud and corruption to which you are requires to comply with.

Fiona Brown

---

From: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
CC: Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 04:33:22 +0000

Sensitive: Legal

Dear Ms Brown and F/A Succar,

I confirm that the CDPP intends to proceed with the 7 charges. Please find attached copies of amended CANs which we propose to file tomorrow at court. I also advise that we will be seeking leave to serve additional statements by the end of Friday 14.3.14:

1.    Statement from ACMA (re carriage service)

2.    Supplementary statement from Pearce (better explaining how the relevant blog extracts were printed/copied)

3.    Supplementary statement from AFP computer forensics (detailing file, program and internet terms, and more information about the files found on the seized computer).

Many thanks and I would be pleased to discuss this matter further on 9321 1111.

Stephen Grodzicki

A/ Principal Legal Officer | Prosecutions (3)

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sydney Office

T: 02 9321 1111 | F: 9321 1351 | E: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au