|
Post by gordonc on Mar 12, 2012 15:37:32 GMT 7
Well as usual there is the law that the peasants have to obey, which the bureaucrats can ignore with impunity.
An FOI application was filed to find the correct name and address of Craig NumbNuts. A letter dated 8 Feb 2012 from Centrelink (signed for K. Terry) acknowledged receipt of the application on 6 Feb 2012 stating that the statutory period of 30 days began on 6 Feb 2012. It is now 12 March 2012 and no further correspondence has been received. ONCE AGAIN the ignorant bastards contravene Commonwealth legislation and don't even have the common decency to let you know what is going on.
So... its back to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to lodge a complaint.
It just galls me to see this level of cultural belligerence from the huge Centrelink bureaucracy that would blame their customers for bringing this country down, when they themselves suck the life out of it with their overpaid and unproductive inaptitude an cover-ups. The hindrance to getting to the truth could almost be described as perverting the course of justice, however getting a judge to agree is a tall mountain to climb.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Mar 12, 2012 17:28:56 GMT 7
I sympathise and can relate. Yes, it is criminal how they manage to avoid investigations and providing information which has been applied for legally, and which they legally have to provide.
You won't get much joy from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner either. They should change their name to the Office of Covering Up for Corrupt Public Servants. Except they would have to challenge the Ombudsman for that title, since they are also eligible to use it.
A friend was telling me how to take a politician to court, over abuses we suffer at the hands of Centrelink. It seems it is the Minister for Human Services we should be taking to court, when staff from his department act corruptly, inappropriately or ineffectively.
I will call up the online conversation we had, and post it later.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Mar 12, 2012 17:32:53 GMT 7
It seems it is the Minister for Human Services we should be taking to court, when staff from his department act corruptly, inappropriately or ineffectively. Hey, NOW you're talkin !!!
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Mar 12, 2012 19:37:52 GMT 7
These are some extracts from a conversation I had recently with a friend who is a bush laywer. He drives around without number plates, even though his car is registered, and argues with the police when they try to fine him for it. They loose. No, you don't begin by taking your dispute to court initially. The most effective method involves first putting pressure upon the relevant minister for unemployment/welfare. Write to him or her explaining your situation and asking for their assistance because that is what they are paid to do! There is an approx. 30 day turnaround period when you are communicating via written correspondence. Your first letter explains the circumstances and requests help. Your second letter reminds, reasserts and demands in stronger diplomatic terms your request for assitance. Your third letter becomes a legal notice of demand with a deadline. Your fourth letter is a final demand stating your intention to hold the relevant minister legally accountable for failing in their duty of care to serve you. It is a lengthy process but a logical one because what you are doing is demonstrating to the court that you have attempted to resolve your dispute, complaint or claim, but have failed to receive a satisfactory resolution, and now have the documentation as supporting evidence for your claim against the offending party. Spacey, political parties do not care because you are not singling out any specific person and holding them legally accountable. The trick is to determine who is the relevant minister in charge of a particular portfolio and bring legal pressure to bear upon him or her. For most politicians there is safety in numbers which is why they hide behind the facade of the party. But when they are individually targeted and held liable for any offence, harm, damage or loss their negligence or inaction may cause, that is a very different matter at law! lol, in my view most lawyers are over rated idiots who are afraid of losing their jobs if they go after politicians. I would prefer the satisfaction of going after them myself. I know of some MPs who quietly resigned because a few 'bush lawyers' like myself went after them after they failed in their legal duty of care to act when they were required to do so by their constituent. lol Always remember that every politician is an elected representative who has legally sworn an oath, or made an affirmation, to uphold the Comm. Constitution of Australia AND serve the people. If they breach their legal oath, then they are in contempt of the constitution AND the Australian people. And if you can prove that in court through your various legal letters, notices and documentation, then the court has no choice but to find the guilty pollie guilty! Edit by Banker for name change
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Mar 13, 2012 10:36:46 GMT 7
These are some extracts from a conversation I had recently with a friend who is a bush laywer. He drives around without number plates, even though his car is registered, and argues with the police when they try to fine him for it. They loose. No, you don't begin by taking your dispute to court initially. The most effective method involves first putting pressure upon the relevant minister for unemployment/welfare. Write to him or her explaining your situation and asking for their assistance because that is what they are paid to do! There is an approx. 30 day turnaround period when you are communicating via written correspondence. Your first letter explains the circumstances and requests help. Your second letter reminds, reasserts and demands in stronger diplomatic terms your request for assitance. Your third letter becomes a legal notice of demand with a deadline. Your fourth letter is a final demand stating your intention to hold the relevant minister legally accountable for failing in their duty of care to serve you. It is a lengthy process but a logical one because what you are doing is demonstrating to the court that you have attempted to resolve your dispute, complaint or claim, but have failed to receive a satisfactory resolution, and now have the documentation as supporting evidence for your claim against the offending party. Spacey, political parties do not care because you are not singling out any specific person and holding them legally accountable. The trick is to determine who is the relevant minister in charge of a particular portfolio and bring legal pressure to bear upon him or her. For most politicians there is safety in numbers which is why they hide behind the facade of the party. But when they are individually targeted and held liable for any offence, harm, damage or loss their negligence or inaction may cause, that is a very different matter at law! lol, in my view most lawyers are over rated idiots who are afraid of losing their jobs if they go after politicians. I would prefer the satisfaction of going after them myself. I know of some MPs who quietly resigned because a few 'bush lawyers' like myself went after them after they failed in their legal duty of care to act when they were required to do so by their constituent. lol Always remember that every politician is an elected representative who has legally sworn an oath, or made an affirmation, to uphold the Comm. Constitution of Australia AND serve the people. If they breach their legal oath, then they are in contempt of the constitution AND the Australian people. And if you can prove that in court through your various legal letters, notices and documentation, then the court has no choice but to find the guilty pollie guilty! Edit by Banker for name change These are some extracts from a conversation I had recently with a friend who is a bush laywer. He drives around without number plates, even though his car is registered, and argues with the police when they try to fine him for it. They loose. How do they loose Spacey? I would have thought it was an offence to not display licence plates.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Mar 13, 2012 10:45:35 GMT 7
It is only an offence according to the rules and regulations imposed on us. When one looks into those rules, with new eyes, it has been found that most laws don't hold up in court when challenged. He is part of a group that challenges the law in Victoria, and most often wins. There is another group in Northern NSW, the Freeman Society, who do the same thing. I had gone through my dilehma with Centrelink and legal matters without my friend's assistance. Centrelink have riled me up again so much lately, that I think I will have to ask him to assist me to obtain justice. Here is another group, fighting traffic tickets. We all know that the government lies and cheats but, Aussie Speeding Fines' e-book will expose to you just how MUCH they lie and cheat in respect to traffic fines (in particular, speeding fines) and, no matter how bad you thought they were before, our FACTS will SHOCK you. www.aussiespeedingfines.com/
|
|
|
Post by StringsAttached on Mar 13, 2012 21:16:00 GMT 7
Gordon, Have you thought about adding a 'donate' button to your website that you have linked here? Aside from allowing people to show their support with $, it could be interesting to see how C/L views your new 'venture'.
BTW, I've initiated a complaint that the C/L tag-line:" assists people to become self-sufficient and supports those in need" is misleading. One common example is C/L's inability to help people who still have assets 'on record' but have no access to them, usually due to lengthy court proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by gordonc on Mar 16, 2012 13:17:03 GMT 7
A letter received today 16/03/2012 from Centrelink (8 days after the FOI statutory period of 30 days had ended), essentially says that Centrelink has given itself an extended period of time to process the FOI request which is now 60 days instead of 30 days. The reason given it that Centrelink has to consult with its employee Craig NumbNuts to see if he objects to his name and address being released.
Oh yes.... you bet.... Centrelink needs all of the 60 days to do that!!![/b]
|
|
|
Post by gordonc on Mar 16, 2012 16:16:29 GMT 7
Gordon, Have you thought about adding a 'donate' button to your website that you have linked here Thanks StringsAttached, I don't need donations for this one as I am claiming damages and don't employ lawyer's expenses. I have tried that (donations) avenue at my tracking down a xxxxxx at, fair-trading.com/reports/ready-flowers.html . It is a public interest (not damages) matter for which I have no damages claim. Regarding this, I am the Applicant in Federal Magistrates Court proceedings against this relay florist xxxxx at, www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/BRG167/2009/actionsHowever, of the tens of hundreds of consumers and Australian florist that have been ripped off or despise this outfit, only one person has donated.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Mar 16, 2012 16:50:48 GMT 7
My disability employment provider kept doing that to me, when I was fighting denials of my FOI rights and certain documentation.
So, yes, they make you wait 90 days for anything they don't want you to see. The original 30 days of the FOI request, then the other side (centrelink), is suddenly given 60 days to fight it.
What I won was censored, based on the AVO the employment agency had taken out on me, 'to protect them from me'. I applied to see the rest of the censored parts, based on the fact that the AVO was fake, and sent all the evidence to support same.
While I was never given notice in writing that their legal team had also found it to be false, they did reissue the paperwork with more things uncensored.
However, for each appeal of that, they can again stretch it out for another 90 days, and they pass you onto to a different lawyer from Centrelink's legal team, so they can claim they don't know the full story.
|
|
|
Post by gordonc on Apr 11, 2012 15:42:29 GMT 7
Well well after 60 days of FOI bullshit... Mr. Craig Numbnuts must have decided that he objects to having his name and address being released to me, when as a Centrelink public servant he threatened me at Noosaville by uttering the following words into my face : • “I will fix you”; • “Believe me, I can and I will make it my business to fix you”The excuse provided by Department of Human Services FOI (Surfers Paradise Qld branch, AKA Centrelink), is that their employee would suffer a substantial adverse effect on his management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth. EDITORS NOTE of centrelinkgetssued.com : That's why the FOI was made... to reign in this prick!!It seems that Mr. Numbnuts doesn't actually have any balls at all... to go numb.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Apr 11, 2012 17:12:34 GMT 7
Nice work Gordon, we have a few interesting developments going on behind the scene ourselves. I'll get our operations manager to give you an email.
|
|
|
Post by zingzingzing on Apr 11, 2012 18:14:50 GMT 7
I hope my FOI Request doesn't take ages like you guys do
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Apr 11, 2012 21:36:37 GMT 7
Well well after 60 days of FOI bullshit... Mr. Craig Numbnuts must have decided that he objects to having his name and address being released to me, when as a Centrelink public servant he threatened me at Noosaville by uttering the following words into my face : • “I will fix you”; • “Believe me, I can and I will make it my business to fix you”The excuse provided by Department of Human Services FOI (Surfers Paradise Qld branch, AKA Centrelink), is that their employee would suffer a substantial adverse effect on his management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth. EDITORS NOTE of centrelinkgetssued.com : That's why the FOI was made... to reign in this prick!!It seems that Mr. Numbnuts doesn't actually have any balls at all... to go numb. Hi Gordon, I have had some very positive experience with FOI at a state level. I found that if the agency didn't respond withtin the statutory time frames (which they never do) then it was best to go straight to internal review, and again, if no response by that allocated time frame, then to go straight to external review, which in NSW was the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The best thing I found about FOI matters was that the agency can only delay up to a certain extent. It is the applicant that can get them into the ADT if they choose to ignore the FOI request of delay beyond the time allowed in the Act.
|
|
|
Post by zingzingzing on Apr 26, 2012 21:04:38 GMT 7
So far I haven't heard anything on my FOI Request - any idea who to complain to ?
Thanks.
|
|