Tuesday, July 15, 2014

U.S.REFERENDUM ON CONSTITUTION: THE TOASTER BILL

U.S.REFERENDUM ON CONSTITUTION: THE TOASTER BILL

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The word 'toaster' shall be inserted before the word 'militia'. The words 'and bear arms' shall be replaced by the word "toasters".

Support KINGSLEY FERDINANDS in the US Constitution Referendum.

Kingsley needs 52 great young teens who have experience in Miss USA and know how to organise events and fund raise.

To save lives Join Kingsley Today.

Help make better use of words and end the isolation of so many toasters from law.

Change the words "and bear arms" to "toaster", and save lives.

If a man can look after a toaster then he don't need a woman!!

KINGSLEY FERDINANDS SUPPORTS THE TOASTER BILL IN 52 STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Monday, July 14, 2014

NEGLIGENCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

Negligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Negligence (disambiguation).

Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress Transferred intent
Property torts
Trespass land chattels Conversion Detinue Replevin Trover
Defenses
Assumption of risk Comparative negligence Contributory negligence Consent Necessity Statute of limitations Self-defense Defense of others Defense of property Shopkeeper's privilege
Negligence
Duty of / standard of care Proximate cause Res ipsa loquitur Calculus of negligence Rescue doctrine Duty to rescue Negligent infliction of emotional distress Employment-related Entrustment Malpractice legal medical
Liability torts
Product liability Quasi-tort Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance Rylands v Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation Invasion of privacy False light Breach of confidence Abuse of process Malicious prosecution Alienation of affections Seduction
Economic torts
Fraud Tortious interference Conspiracy Restraint of trade
Liability and remedies
Last clear chance Eggshell skull Vicarious liability Volenti non fit injuria Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Neutral reportage Damages Injunction Torts and conflict of laws Joint and several liability Comparative responsibility Market share liability
Duty to visitors
Trespassers Licensees Invitees Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts Criminal law Evidence Property Wills, trusts, and estates
Law portal
v t e

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.^[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.
According to Jay M. Feinman of the Rutgers University School of Law;

"The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause harm to other people." ^[2]

"those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such a collision." Fletcher v Rylands ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265)

Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause their injury, they can recover damages to compensate for their harm. Proving a case for negligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Further, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proven in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of negligence cases.^{[citation needed]}

[hide]

Elements of negligence claims[edit]

Negligence suits have historically been analyzed in stages, called elements, similar to the analysis of crimes (see Element (criminal law)). An important concept related to elements is that if a plaintiff fails to prove any one element of his claim, he loses on the entire tort claim. For example, assume that a particular tort has five elements. Each element must be proven. If the plaintiff proves only four of the five elements, the plaintiff has not succeeded in making out his claim.^{[citation needed]}
Common law jurisdictions may differ slightly in the exact classification of the elements of negligence, but the elements that must be established in every negligence case are: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Each is defined and explained in greater detail in the paragraphs below. Negligence can be conceived of as having just three elements - conduct, causation and damages. More often, it is said to have four (duty, breach, causation and pecuniary damages) or five (duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages). Each would be correct, depending on how much specificity someone is seeking. "The broad agreement on the conceptual model", writes Professor Robertson of the University of Texas at Austin, "entails recognition that the five elements are best defined with care and kept separate. But in practice", he goes on to warn, "several varieties of confusion or conceptual mistakes have sometimes occurred."^[3]

Duty of care[edit]

Main article: Duty of care

A decomposed snail in Scotland was the humble beginning of the modern English law of negligence

The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson^[4] [1932] illustrates the law of negligence, laying the foundations of the fault principle around the Commonwealth. The Pursuer, May Donoghue, drank ginger beer given to her by a friend, who bought it from a shop. The beer was supplied by a manufacturer, a certain David Stevenson in Scotland. While drinking the drink, Donoghue discovered the remains of an allegedly decomposed slug. She then sued Stevenson, though there was no relationship of contract, as the friend had made the payment. As there was no contract the doctrine of privity prevented a direct action against Stevenson.
In his ruling, justice Lord MacMillan defined a new category of delict (the Scots law nearest equivalent of tort), (which is really not based on negligence but on what is now known as the "implied warranty of fitness of a product" in a completely different category of tort--"products liability") because it was analogous to previous cases about people hurting each other. Lord Atkin interpreted the biblical passages to 'love thy neighbour,' as the legal requirement to 'not harm thy neighbour.' He then went on to define neighbour as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question." Reasonably foreseeable harm must be compensated. This is the first principle of negligence.
In England the more recent case of Caparo v. Dickman [1990] introduced a 'threefold test' for a duty of care. Harm must be (1) reasonably foreseeable (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose liability. However, these act as guidelines for the courts in establishing a duty of care; much of the principle is still at the discretion of judges.
It Australia, this test was applied by Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ in the case of "Perre v Apand" [1999].^[5]

Breach of duty[edit]

Factual causation (Direct Cause)[edit]

Main article: Causation (law)

For a defendant to be held liable, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained. Although the notion sounds simple, the causation between one's breach of duty and the harm that results to another can at times be very complicated. The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred but for, or without, the accused party's breach of the duty owed to the injured party. Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused.
Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation. Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on insurance bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business.

Legal causation or remoteness[edit]

Negligence can lead to this sort of collision - a train wreck at Gare Montparnasse in 1895.

Sometimes factual causation is distinguished from 'legal causation' to avert the danger of defendants being exposed to, in the words of Cardozo, J., "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."^[10] It is said a new question arises of how remote a consequence a person's harm is from another's negligence. We say that one's negligence is 'too remote' (in England) or not a 'proximate cause' (in the U.S.) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening. Note that a 'proximate cause' in U.S. terminology (to do with the chain of events between the action and the injury) should not be confused with the 'proximity test' under the English duty of care (to do with closeness of relationship). The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? For instance, in Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.^[11] the judge decided that the defendant, a railway, was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander. The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by scales that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. The scales fell because of a far-away commotion. A train conductor had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor mishandled the passenger or his package, causing the package to fall. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves to travel through the platform. As a consequence, the scales fell.^[12] Because Palsgraf was hurt by the falling scales, she sued the train company who employed the conductor for negligence.^[13]
The defendant train company argued it should not be liable as a matter of law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the majority of the court agreed, with four judges adopting the reasons, written by Judge Cardozo, that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, because a duty was owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Three judges dissented, arguing, as written by Judge Andrews, that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, regardless of foreseeability, because all men owe one another a duty not to act negligently.
Such disparity of views on the element of remoteness continues to trouble the judiciary. Courts that follow Cardozo's view have greater control in negligence cases. If the court can find that, as a matter of law, the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will lose his case for negligence before having a chance to present to the jury. Cardozo's view is the majority view. However, some courts follow the position put forth by Judge Andrews. In jurisdictions following the minority rule, defendants must phrase their remoteness arguments in terms of proximate cause if they wish the court to take the case away from the jury.
Remoteness takes another form, seen in The Wagon Mound (No. 1).^[14] The Wagon Mound was a ship in Sydney harbour. The ship leaked oil creating a slick in part of the harbour. The wharf owner asked the ship owner about the danger and was told he could continue his work because the slick would not burn. The wharf owner allowed work to continue on the wharf, which sent sparks onto a rag in the water which ignited and created a fire which burnt down the wharf. The UK House of Lords determined that the wharf owner 'intervened' in the causal chain, creating a responsibility for the fire which canceled out the liability of the ship owner.
In Australia the concept of remoteness, or proximity, was tested with the case of Jaensch v. Coffey.^[15] The wife of a policeman, Mrs Coffey suffered a nervous shock injury from the aftermath of a motor vehicle collision although she was not actually at the scene at the time of the collision. The court upheld that, in addition to it being reasonably foreseeable that his wife might suffer such an injury, it required that there be sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant who caused the collision. Here there was sufficient causal proximity. Also see the case of Kavanagh v Akhtar ^[16]

Harm[edit]

Even though there is breach of duty, and the cause of some injury to the defendant, a plaintiff may not recover unless he can prove that the defendant's breach caused a pecuniary injury. This should not be mistaken with the requirements that a plaintiff prove harm to recover. As a general rule, a plaintiff can only rely on a legal remedy to the point that he proves that he suffered a loss. It means something more than pecuniary loss is a necessary element of the plaintiff's case in negligence. When damages are not a necessary element, a plaintiff can win his case without showing that he suffered any loss; he would be entitled to nominal damages and any other damages according to proof. (See Constantine v Imperial Hotels [1944] KB).^{[citation needed]}
Negligence is different in that the plaintiff must prove his loss, and a particular kind of loss, to recover. In some cases, a defendant may not dispute the loss, but the requirement is significant in cases where a defendant cannot deny his negligence, but the plaintiff suffered no loss as a result. If the plaintiff can prove pecuniary loss, then he can also obtain damages for non-pecuniary injuries, such as emotional distress.
The requirement of pecuniary loss can be shown in a number of ways. A plaintiff who is physically injured by allegedly negligent conduct may show that he had to pay a medical bill. If his property is damaged, he could show the income lost because he could not use it, the cost to repair it, although he could only recover for one of these things.
The damage may be physical, purely economic, both physical and economic (loss of earnings following a personal injury), or reputational (in a defamation case).
In English law, the right to claim for purely economic loss is limited to a number of 'special' and clearly defined circumstances, often related to the nature of the duty to the plaintiff as between clients and lawyers, financial advisers, and other professions where money is central to the consultative services.
Emotional distress has been recognized as an actionable tort. Generally, emotional distress damages had to be parasitic. That is, the plaintiff could recover for emotional distress caused by injury, but only if it accompanied a physical or pecuniary injury.
A claimant who has suffered only emotional distress and no pecuniary loss would not recover for negligence. However, courts have recently allowed recovery for a plaintiff to recover for purely emotional distress under certain circumstances. The state courts of California allowed recovery for emotional distress alone – even in the absence of any physical injury, when the defendant physically injures a relative of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff witnesses it.^[17]

Damages[edit]

Main article: Damages

Damages place a monetary value on the harm done, following the principle of restitutio in integrum (Latin for "restoration to the original condition"). Thus, for most purposes connected with the quantification of damages, the degree of culpability in the breach of the duty of care is irrelevant. Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement is to compensate the victim.
One of the main tests that is posed when deliberating whether a claimant is entitled to compensation for a tort, is the "reasonable person". The test is self-explanatory: would a reasonable person (as determined by a judge or jury) be damaged by the breach of duty. Simple as the "reasonable person" test sounds, it is very complicated. It is a risky test because it involves the opinion of either the judge or the jury that can be based on limited facts. However, as vague as the "reasonable person" test seems, it is extremely important in deciding whether or not a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for a negligence tort.
Damages are compensatory in nature. Compensatory damages addresses a plaintiff/claimant's losses (in cases involving physical or mental injury the amount awarded also compensates for pain and suffering). The award should make the plaintiff whole, sufficient to put the plaintiff back in the position he or she was before Defendant's negligent act. Anything more would unlawfully permit a plaintiff to profit from the tort.

Types of damage

Special damages - quantifiable dollar losses suffered from the date of defendant's negligent act (the tort) up to a specified time (proven at trial). Special damage examples include lost wages, medical bills, and damage to property such as one's car.
General damages - these are damages that are not quantified in monetary terms (e.g., there's no invoice or receipt as there would be to prove special damages). A general damage example is an amount for the pain and suffering one experiences from a car collision. Lastly, where the plaintiff proves only minimal loss or damage, or the court or jury is unable to quantify the losses, the court or jury may award nominal damages.
Punitive damages - Punitive damages are to punish a defendant, rather than to compensate plaintiffs, in negligence cases. In most jurisdictions punitive damages are recoverable in a negligence action, but only if the plaintiff shows that the defendant’s conduct was more than ordinary negligence (i.e., wanton and willful or reckless).

Procedure in the United States[edit]

The plaintiff must prove each element to win his case. Therefore, if it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff can prove one of the elements, the defendant may request judicial resolution early on, to prevent the case from going to a jury. This can be by way of a demurrer, motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment. The ability to resolve a negligence case without trial is very important to defendants. Without the specific limits provided by the four elements, any plaintiff could claim any defendant was responsible for any loss, and subject him to a costly trial.^[18]
The elements allow a defendant to test a plaintiff's accusations before trial, as well as providing a guide to the "finder of fact" (jury) to decide whether the defendant is or is not liable, after the trial. Whether the case is resolved with or without trial again depends heavily on the particular facts of the case, and the ability of the parties to frame the issues to the court. The duty and causation elements in particular give the court the greatest opportunity to take the case from the jury, because they directly involve questions of policy. The court can find that regardless of the disputed facts, if any, the case can be resolved as a matter of law from undisputed facts, because two people in the position of the plaintiff and defendant simply cannot be legally responsible to one another for negligent injury.
On appeal, the court reviewing a decision in a negligence case will analyze in terms of at least one of these elements, depending on the disposition of the case and the question on appeal. For example, if it is an appeal from a final judgment after a jury verdict, the reviewing court will look to see that the jury was properly instructed on each contested element, and that the record shows sufficient evidence for the jury's findings. On an appeal from a dismissal or judgment against the plaintiff without trial, the court will review de novo whether the court below properly found that the plaintiff could not prove any or all of his case.

Footnotes[edit]

Jump up ^ "Negligence". Encyclopædia Britannica. Meriam Webster. Retrieved 6/12/2011.
Jump up ^ Feinman, Jay (2010). Law 101. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-539513-6.
Jump up ^ Deakin, Tort Law, 218
Jump up ^ Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 532
Jump up ^ Perre v. Apand [1999] HCA 36 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/36.html
Jump up ^ Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40
Jump up ^ Doubleday & v Kelly [2005] NSWCA 151 AustLii
Jump up ^ Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. 850 see also Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42
Jump up ^ Roe v Minister of Health (1954) 2 AER 131
Jump up ^ Ultramares Corp. v. Touche(1931) 255 N.Y. 170, 174 N.E. 441
Jump up ^ Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. (1928) 162 N.E. 99
Jump up ^ Interestingly, the plaintiff's physical injuries were minor and more likely caused by a stampede of travelers on the platform rather than the concussion of the exploding fireworks. These details have not, however, stopped the case from becoming the source of extensive debate in American tort law.
Jump up ^ She could have sued the man or the conductor himself, but they did not have as much money as the company. Often, in litigation, where two defendants are equally liable but one is more able to satisfy a judgment, he will be the preferred defendant and is referred to as the "deep pocket."
Jump up ^ Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty [1966] 2 All E.R. 709
Jump up ^ Jaensch v. Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 578
Jump up ^ Kavanagh v Akhtar [1998] 40492/97 NSWSC 779 Austlii
Jump up ^ See Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968) and Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980).
Jump up ^ The breadth of negligence is often associated with an "in terrorem effect"

References[edit]

Deakin, Simon; Angus Johnston; Basil Markesinis (2003). Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-925711-6. Cite uses deprecated parameters (help)789018279[0009]AB001

Fatal Negligence and Mortal Incompetence - PART V - TONY ABBOTT MP - THE PRIME MINISTER

Friday, ANZAC Day 2014

Prime Minister of Australia

Hon Tony Abbott MP

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Tony

Re: Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands – Ferdinands v Chief of Army – Judgment of the Defence Force Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal, Federal Court of Australia and High Court of Australia.

I advise you that the Australian infantry lack experienced men and that in fact I am the most experienced infantry soldier in a small group of experienced soldiers that have stayed with the Australian Army since early 1980’s. Most critically I am acutely aware of Army Legal Corp and the way it operates. I am also aware of Director of Military Prosecutions and how the Director operates and I am aware of Chief of Army and his tactics in court rooms across Australia.

This may be the last strategic letter for you as prime minister to get your act together and get your house in order. The letters I have sent since your election are not love letters but they are warnings. I speak for all soldiers. Chief of Army and Gary Hevey have committed offences by misleading and misinforming the court. It is clear to all that you have adopted the same tactics as Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and not called Chief of Army to produce all materials, evidence and fresh information in the case of Ferdinands v Chief of Army to the High Court of Australia. This is inexperience in senior management corruption on your behalf. It is clear you have supported the abuse of the court’s process and process corruption in the malicious prosecution of a soldier doing his duty and minding his own business. The courts are now impassable and I have stated that fraud has a deep hold on the courts.

I refer to my letter 10 March 2014:

“Initially the damages attracted eight thousand ($8,000.00) dollars per day in accordance with Ms Cornelia Rau’s judgment and out-of-court settlement for Crown employees that act with incompetence, negligence or carelessness. But that matter of damages has been added to since the case of Ferdinands v Chief of Army passed through and under the very noses of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia and the President of the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Tribunal and they kept silent on the racism and fraud. The damages caused by an ineffectual superior appellate court system is sixteen hundred (1,600,000,000.00) million dollars’.

In that letter you were offered a real and genuine chance to separate yourself from Australian Labor Party and the corruption of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. But you failed to respond and refused to divorce yourself of Labor Party corruption in the superior appellate court. There has been no independent judicial inquiry to save the military justice system. The cost of that massive incompetence by you was $1.6 billion dollars.

Further, I refer to my letter 7 April 2014:

“As prime minister you must take responsibility for the actions of the Chief of Army in misinforming and misleading the courts. As prime minister you must take responsibility for the actions of the Australian Government Solicitor in misinforming and misleading the courts. As prime minister you must take responsibility for the actions of the superior appellate courts for lack of discovery and disclosure and abuse of the rules of the courts. As prime minister you must take responsibility for the actions of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police for refusing to and failing to set the face of the public record straight and commencing investigations and prosecutions for misconduct and criminal acts”.

Again you have refused to take responsibility and displayed a gross immature attitude to the impending dissolution of the Commonwealth of Australia. I reaffirm that there is lack of impartiality in the Constitution and there is a deep, deep criminal network in law. No person should live under racial hatred in the superior appellate court system unless the system is corrupt. As prime minister you have chosen to ignore the truth and settled with the racist and their racial prejudiced views of minority groups and blacks in military service.

As a gesture of good faith I did provide my personal email address hoping that you would have drafted terms of reference by a UK Justice and rushed those documents to me, but also you are still sitting on your lazy backside doing nothing; something you are famous for across the world of politics.

Again, in the interest of the new empire and the old nation, I provide you my personal email address to now discuss what can be done:

kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com

As I stated previously a serious step has taken place which is now irreversible and unalterable;

“The impartiality of the Constitution has been dissolved. Thus, the Constitution itself is a worthless document and no longer relevant”.

As prime minister you must be civil and humane. It is a shame Rudd and Gillard did nothing. They were hopeless in government and are probably doubly-hopeless outside of government.

Indeed, the superior appellate court has let down the community and we now all stare into the abyss with their hollow words. Indeed, every year we are told that judicial salaries are not enough and the best talent has been kept away from the judiciary because of law pay. Today we now that that reasoning is false. Today we know that we have done everything humanly possible to make legal practitioners everything other than the snake in the grass but still they yearn for deceit and sham proceedings – are they all really that hard up for money and food!!!!

As prime minister I think we can all agree you are doing a fine job but doing a fine job in these matters means independent UK judicial inquiry. If no independent UK judicial inquiry then clearly the monies are now due. As prime minister you have failed to act. Please give a ministerial direction to Hon Joe Hockey MP Treasurer (25 April 2014) to transfer electronically sixteen hundred (1,600,000,000.00) million dollars into my personal bank account.

The world expects better of elected members of parliament. The days of old miscarriages of justice are over because there are new ways, laws and methods of tackling judicial corruption. No person should be in prison or wrongfully convicted in the modern era. I have alerted you to a serious miscarriage of justice. You have refused to act and show your civility and humanity. But justice must go on and justice must be served.

Indeed the Chief Justice has been dishonourable and continues to uphold the lie against minority groups and blacks. He is a Chief justice for a Prime Minister and not a Chief Justice for the people. There is real corruption in the military justice system and this system rewards incompetence, negligence and racism. I urge you not to neglect these matters.

It shall be well documented by history that you are no different to Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard and that in fact, when told of racism, fraud, dishonesty and corruption executed by Chief of Army and Army prosecutor Gary Hevey you chose to side with, aid and abet the judicial officers of the commonwealth and failed to object to their corruption by appointing an independent judicial inquiry headed by a UK Justice.

The office of Prime Minister has been discredited. It now appears to be a fool’s playground of gross incompetence and negligence where stealing from the public purse is ignored. I am seeking the dismissal forthwith of the judicial officers involved in Ferdinands v Chief of Army. These men cannot be trusted in judicial office. Australians feel personal misgivings with regards to allowing dishonesty and corruption in the courts. Both legal practitioners and judges who are seen to be dishonest need to be removed far easier than has been shown in Ferdinands v Chief of Army. A new system of discipline and termination must be prepared and put in place.

The matters now moves to order to Show Cause in the High Court of Australia and I shall file such order on Wednesday 25 June 2014 if you have not made a lawful and proper approach to settle this matter by independent judicial inquiry by a UK Justice: there is no other way. If you are weak because of criminals in the judiciary it is because they all know you are weak along with the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and Chief of Army.

I urge you as prime minister, just for one moment, to stop thinking about yourself and all your greedy mannerisms and give a thought for the soldier. Since coming to power, it has been your practice and that of the Office of prime Minister to avoid matters of racism, fraud, dishonesty and corruption but more, turn a blind eye to seriously corrupt judicial officers in the superior appellate courts especially the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia. I urge you as prime minister, just for one moment, to stop thinking about yourself and sho some determination in your fight to end all serious miscarriages of justice created by dishonest legal practitioners who do deals together as prosecutor and defence counsel and cook-up stories without any evidence at all.

These are serious times for your leadership. As prime minister you have shown blind loyalty to the corrupted justice system as did Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. It is fair to say you have more brains than both of them put together, thus I ask you for the last time to announce independent inquiry into Ferdinands v Chief of Army and suspend all judicial officers involved in the fraud from public office.

Are you able to answer the following questions truthfully by 25 June 2014, namely: a. Do you have full trust and confidence in a Chief Justice that uses process corruption to secure a conviction by fraud? b. Do you have full trust and confidence in a Chief Justice that has cost the nation its impartiality in its Constitution? c. Do you have full trust and confidence in a Chief Justice that has created punitive damages of $1.6 billion dollars against the Commonwealth of Australia and allowed a fraud to go unchecked for 14 years?

I urge you to show competence and experience and end these matters soon.

The sole issue in these matters now is to determine whether Ferdinands v Chief of Army was a vast array of professional misconduct by both legal practitioners, defence force personnel and superior appellate court judges, or is Ferdinands v Chief of Army the correct decision in accordance with law. The facts remain that in 1999 I had nothing to do with the alleged victim. I never saw the alleged victim daily, and I was never in the alleged victim’s command and control and there were no reporting familiarities, and we were in different corps meaning we did different duties and tasks and it was near impossible for any person to say that there was any conduct let alone misconduct between the two of us.

If there is vast professional misconduct then as prime minister you must think things over. That is why I have given you until Wednesday 25 June 2014 to sit down and consider all the facts and all the letters and read all the judgments. I am a soldier sitting in my office thinking the Australia army is free of racism and prejudice. I have said I did not leave my post. I have said I have 4 sets of documents and 11 key witnesses to clear my name. Yet as prime minister you seem to be as uninterested as Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. If you want to be branded, tarred and feathered with the same brush as Rudd and Gillard for laziness and incompetence in federal government then all you need do is sit back and do very little.

On 25 June 2014 these matters will proceed to the High Court of Australia with judicial orders to declare fraud, seek compensation, force inquiry and declare you and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police unfit for public office. The High Court of Australia will be asked to remove you both to protect the public and protect the morale in the army. Only a UK English Justice serving or retired can make a judgment on the Chief Justice and determine whether he has been professional or unprofessional. But I say this, he has failed to and refused to apply his own standards and principles in his own court house and refused to uphold the rules of the court with regards to discovery and disclosure. Surely, this is corruption.

I trust between now and then you can put pen to paper and outline your plan and your feelings as to judicial corruption and racism in the Australian army.

Yours faithfully

T.K. FERDINANDS

592 Brighton Road

BRIGHTON S.A. 5048.

Fatal Negligence and Mortal Incompetence - PART IV - MICHAEL KEENAN MP - MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

Monday, 12 May 2014

Minister for Justice

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Re: Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands – Ministerial request from Minister to Commissioner of Police of Australian Federal Police – Complete up-date of complaint of judicial misconduct and military corruption in the military justice system – Corruption in the Adelaide office of the Australian Government Solicitor – Fraudulent bankruptcy notice issued in the Federal Court of Australia Bankruptcy Court by Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and Australian Government Solicitor – Conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth by Army Legal Corp and other legal practitioners

Congratulations on your election victory and appointment to the Abbott Ministry as Minister for Justice. I think justice is one of those departments that do not seem to have enough meat on the bone and there seems to be a bigger punch in law enforcement in areas such as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth and even Australian Federal Police (AFP) than the entire justice department.

I feel justice should be isolated in government; a fighting force of anti-corruption and racism. If one examines the Ministry of Justice across the states and territories one sees that they are a toothless tiger and a classic example of waste in duplication. In the state and territory arena the Ministry for Justice has no role with law enforcement and no role in the courts. It seems the states and territories have chosen to place all power in the Attorney-General and the local law enforcement agency and police service.

A sort of federal anti-corruption authority that oversees all areas of government including National Security, judicial appointments, police appointments and federal employees involved in racism, fraud, dishonesty and corruption. I hope from these few words you can travel to the United States of America and see exactly who the Federal Bureau of Investigation differs from the Central Intelligence Agency, Homeland Security and state law enforcement and gather information for creating a new law enforcement agency that oversees all other law enforcement agencies. The Australian Crime Commission (ACC) is like the AFP and lacks fighting power and prowess.

I really do hope you enjoy your stay as the Justice Minister and make substantial changes in anti-corruption and your portfolio.

Today I have to report to you that for the past few years I have written to the OMC Coordinator of the AFP and the Commissioner of the AFP with regards to the Gary Hevey Conspiracy. Both have declined to respond and have failed to respond to my complaint.

My matters deal with major and complex fraud and judicial corruption. They involve the abuse and fraud of the Bankruptcy Court by dishonourable and devious persons of the court. I have sought the arrest and imprisonment of a certain gang of legal and judicial officers whom believe they are above the law. No arrests have been made by the AFP.

I am now seeking a Ministerial direction from you to the Commissioner of the AFP for full and complete up-dates to what is happening with that official complaint and whether an investigation has commenced and when will the investigation is completed.

I am seeking copies of all those materials, reports, letters and other documents held by AFP in relation to this matter. This matter I speak of is a 1999 Defence Force magistrate’s (DFM) trial at Keswick barracks, Adelaide, South Australia undertaken by the Australian Army. The trial was a sham. The trial was based on racism and racial hatred. The evidence for trial was withheld and suppressed by some legal practitioner’s and Chief of Army. The obvious conclusion is a conviction, albeit a wrongful conviction.

A Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth has taken place from 1999 to 2014.

The following persons have engaged in a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, and you shall investigate them and charge them forthwith:

Chief of Army;
Army prosecutor Lieutenant Colonel Gary Hevey;
Army defence counsel Wing Commander David McLeod;
Defence Force Magistrate Neville Morecombe QC, and;
Warrant Officer Michael Heseltine.
Tracey J, President Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal;
Justice White JA, President Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal;
Cowdroy J, President Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal;
Allsop CJ, Justice of the Federal Court of Australia;
North J, Justice of the Federal Court of Australia;
Bennett J, Justice of the Federal Court of Australia;
Siopis J, Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, and;
Logan J, Justice of the Federal Court of Australia.
Chief Justice French of the High Court
Justice Hayne of the High Court; and,
Justice Crennan of the High Court.

The men listed (f) to (p) had the power to exposed the fraud and conspiracy by demanding documents of the Crown but all sat quiet. This is because they are in fear of the Crown, in fear of the Prime Minister and in fear of their salaries and perks. The men listed (f) to (p) did not want to upset the apple-cart.

The men listed (f) to (p) are unfit for any role in the judiciary of public life They are fakes, charlatans and imposters who have betrayed Her Majesty’s confidence for 30 pieces of silver.

The following persons have engaged in a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, in the Bankruptcy Court of the Federal Court of Australia and you shall investigate them and charge them forthwith:

a. Christopher G Mosele;

b. Registrar Bochner;

c. Mr Roger Prince, and;

d. Mr Paul d’Assumpcao

These matters are best handled by a retired or serving member of the Royal Courts of Justice and only a UK Justice will be able to deliver the truth. The Australian law courts have had their chance. Today, there are no more second chances. Toda, there must be investigations and prosecutions other English law is a farce and a mockery and the persons named above have desired to make it valueless, insignificant, irrelevant and farcical.

I now ask you to step up and make a speech in the House of Representatives as the Minister for Justice and inform the House that there are serious problems with the impartiality of the Constitution amongst many judicial officers in the superior appellate courts especially the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal, the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia.

Racism, fraud, dishonesty and corruption have been appeased by the Federal Court judges, High Court judges and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth has refused to respond to requests and letters and commence a broad-ranging independent investigation into these matters. He has failed to announce Royal Commission and failed to appoint a United Kingdom (UK) Justice to head that inquiry. The simple reason why a UK Justice is required is because the rule of law has completely and irretrievably broken down. This means justice dos not operate in the Australian law courts and what is happening on a daily basis is dishonest and corrupt barristers have made their way to appointments on the bench and are now perverting the law in malice ad ill-will to suit their own needs.

As an inquiring mind, you may ask, “What about the rules of the court; surely the rules of the court have been applied with fairness and reasonableness? But alas, the answer is no. There has been no discovery and disclosure from the Crown including the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) from 1999 to 2014 and no orders made, after repeated requests for discovery and disclosure, from Federal Court or High Court judges. Thus, the nation of the Commonwealth of Australia shall dissolve and there shall be a new nation that treats the rule of law with respect and dignity.

If during these proceedings you discover or you believe the Commissioner of the AFP has acted dishonourably or corruptly then you shall sack him. If during these proceedings you believe the OMC Coordinator in Adelaide has acted dishonourably and corruptly you shall sack him. If you discover a close relationship between the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and any other key player including the Chief Justices of the Federal Court or High Court or the Commissioner of the AFP and their conduct constitutes misconduct then you shall notify the Prime Minister Tony Abbott MP to remove the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth for corruption in public office and aiding and abetting a Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth, and you shall also seek suspensions from office of the Commissioner of the AFP, and the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

Racism and corruption are not fully out-of-control under the Abbott Liberal government and this Attorney-General has played with deceit and danced with deceit for too long. Lack of impartiality there is no neutrality or independence in the courts and the Australian law courts are nothing but sham courts created and designed to insult and offend Her Majesty the Queen, Queen Elizabeth the Second with multiple layers of treachery and dishonesty.

If the documents can be sent in electronic copy only, but also if there are any electronic copies via PDF format then that would be so much better. Likewise, if any docs are in MS Word format then please send through to my email at:

kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com.

These are very serious times. These are very serious issues. These are very serious matters for the Minister for Justice. These mattes may see the end of the Commonwealth of Australia and it shall dissolve into nothingness due to lack of impartiality and independence in the Constitution by corrupt judges but equally dishonest and corrupt AFP Commissioner and an equally sly and devious Attorney-General of the Commonwealth who believes in racial hatred and the suppression of the legal rights of minority groups and blacks in the Australian law courts by some vulgar charade he calls due process and justice.

There is enormous hatred for blacks in Australia. A white supremacist element in law and politics cannot control themselves in the vile racism and deceit. The key players have been identified but there are more. Today you are asked to clarify whether Commissioner of the AFP and OMC Coordinator in Adelaide are racist and part of that extended circle of racism, fraud, dishonesty and corruption in government.

A Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth has taken place. That conspiracy started in 1999. It involves Army Legal Corp. It involves the military police. It involves the Federal Court of Australia. It involves the High Court of Australia. Again I say clearly, a Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth has taken place. These men have enriched themselves with appointments, bonuses and high salaries for utter and shameless deceit. It is your duty to clean up law when the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth is a liar and a racist. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth is such a heightened disgusting racist he cannot even put pen to paper and emit sympathy for the racial hatred I have suffered and the financial ruin caused by the racism of his officers.

Chief of Army has let us all down. He has lied to the parliament, then lied to the Australian people and finally, lied to the Ferdinands family. His aim is to discredit the most senior and valued soldiers in the army so that he can proclaim to be a clean skin and the wise soldier of all. His approach is false. His intentions are misleading. He has deliberately misinformed the Australian law courts from 1999 to 2014.

His aim was to cause me great humiliations and suffering in my secondary employment as a soldier in the Australian Army Reserve, and my primary employment as a sworn police officer in the South Australia Police dedicated to fighting the evil of the wicked mind.

Only a UK Justice with wide powers to gather documents, speak to witnesses and investigate all aspects of this case and imprison all police officers, judicial officers and legal practitioners is now the final solution to saving the face of the public record and ending the corruption in the judiciary and military justice system once and for all.

There are real undesirable characters in the Federal Court of Australia and High Court of Australia and they must be removed for Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice. These men knew the stakes were very high but shielded and protected Chief of Army and all his deceit.

The facts of the case are on Friday, 15 January 1999 I was at my post all day and all night. I was ordered to be there by Warrant Officer Michael Heseltine. I had to pack the orderly room as I was the company clerk. That night there was a video and drinks party. It was illegal. I did not attend. It was alleged there was a sexual attraction by me towards a soldier. This is false and nothing could be further from the truth. The facts of my work and all I did were never put to the court. The defence counsel and army prosecutor withheld 4 sets of key documents and suppressed testimony from 11 crucial witnesses. If this had been a fair trial I would have been found not guilty. But Chief of Army and a whole host of others plotted, and plotted and plotted to secure a conviction by fraud. Thus, this is now major fraud.

The facts are every day I have tried to go to the Federal Court of Australia to access materials and information I have been refused. This act by judicial officers now constitutes a Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth.

The facts are that the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal, the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia are dishonest and racist courthouses who have upheld a fake summons and a fraudulent summons issued by Chief of Army for 780 weeks (52 weeks per year x 15 years). Fraud attracts damages of eight thousand ($8,000.00) dollars per day.

I am seeking general damages for fraud in the sum of ($8,000.00 x 7 days per week x 780 weeks) forty three million six hundred and eighty thousand ($43,680,000.00) dollars.

I am also seeking punitive damages for the wilful and intentional destruction of my life by utter fraud and gutter racism in the sum of sixteen hundred million ($16,000,000,000.00) dollars.

If the Commonwealth of Australia and the Abbott government refuse to meet these payments after UK independent inquiry then I shall seek this sum from the international community by sanctions upon Australia and international arrest warrants of all key players from 1999 to 2014 including Labor and Liberal members of parliament who had a duty of care and responsibility.

The matters have been before the High Court of Australia. The High Court of Australia has sided with corruption but much more it has upheld a sham prosecution. Slowly you are starting to see the deep hatred and divisions in the judicial officers of the Commonwealth and many are just simply impure and filth who are unfit for any role in the judiciary; assuming of course the judiciary is made up of trusted and honourable men of decency and decorum. Slowly you are beginning to learn that only a

Justice can be the salvation of Ferdinands v Chief of Army but also the Commonwealth of Australia as a nation.

If there is no Constitution then there is no Australia and people who think they have big brass balls like Chief of Army and many other key players need to cool their heels in prison for a considerable time. Otherwise, people will take the law into their own hands and kill police officers, kill legal practitioners, kill judicial officers and kill elected members of parliament. The Constitution guarantees independence in law and when mates of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia get into misfortune and anxiety due to their corruption in the court rooms, then these mates are shielded and protected by dishonest judicial officers.

This is not law anywhere in the world.

As Minister of Justice you need to clean up law and law enforcement. You do this because the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth is unreliable.

I wish to advise you that should you elect to involve the ACC and that Commission then arrests the Commissioner of the AFP for serious misconduct and fraud in public office and aiding and abetting a Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth then I am a nomination for the vacancy of Commissioner of the AFP. I advise you that my first job shall be to move on mass and in large taskforce numbers to arrest and remove the Commissioner of Police Gary Burns in South Australia, Commissioner of Police Western Australia, Commissioner of Police New South wales, Commissioner of Police Victoria and Commissioner of Police Queensland for corruption. The sooner this criminal network is identified in law, broken up and exposed the better for all Australians. Racism has no part to play in Australian society and the scum who think their big brass balls shine brighter than the rest can go and sit and cool their heels in prison for their corruption.

The most important resource in this world is people (Black, yellow, green, etc.); not money.

The judicial officers of Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal, the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia are untrustworthy and have betrayed justice and the rule of law. They must be removed forthwith.

Australia

has turned a blind eye to corruption against blacks and Australia thinks it can use the government to kill blacks, destroy their livelihoods and business and walk-away free. This is wrong in law and very wrong in practice. The black man will fight back in an independent court room and will secure these lawful and rightful entitlements against the vile and wicked racists in federal government.

Mental assessment of Key Players

As Minister for Justice you have the right to inquire into the misconduct of judicial officers when you have been made aware and alerted to their misconduct.

I have made you aware of systemic racism and fraud in the superior appellate courts. Part of the process of suspension from office is also seeking mental assessments upon all judicial officers as to why they engaged in corruption and thought they could deceive me, the Australian taxpayer and the parliament.

I am seeking a Ministerial direction from you to the Solicitor–General of the Commonwealth to inquire into whether you have the power to request mental assessments of judicial officers and whether you have the power to suspend from office judicial officers involved in Ferdinands v Chief of Army from 1999 to 2014.

Unless this legal process is done properly then criminals in law will escape punishment for dishonesty in public office and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

The Commissioner of the AFP is weak. He dithers day after day and allows the criminals to escape. He has no leadership qualities whatsoever and he is a bumbling fool who stumbles upon crime scenes after events. This type of leadership is called the follower. Thus, for 780 weeks he sat back on his lazy backside and did nothing. And, when alerted to serious corruption in judicial office and members of the parliament he refused to act and failed to act because his weekly salary was more important than investigating the lack of impartiality in the Constitution. He wanted black people to die. He wanted black people to go away. He wants a life of irrelevance and not bothers about ever putting pen to paper and expressing his deep sadness or sympathies about a corrupt Labor Party working in alliance with a corrupt judiciary to pervert the course of justice.

There has been a serious miscarriage of justice and the AFP collectively is still at the football and the races drinking. It would be advantageous in the long process of dissolving the Commonwealth of Australia that you acted with maturity, honesty and integrity and rounded up this gang of criminals and their mates and put all to UK independent inquiry.

Racism kills. Racism kills innocent people. Racism kills honest families. Racism kills enterprising businesses. Racism wipes out life and nations. I urge you to get on top of these matters and if you come across any person who has made disparaging remarks about me then I ask you to suspend them from office and charge them with Conspiracy to pervert the Course of Justice.

Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd MP was a racist. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard MP was a racist. The former Prime Ministers were told repeatedly of these matters and could not give damn. The reason they could not give a damn is they are selfish, egotistical maniacs who played out their mental diseases of fighting for a job on national television, the internet and world media.

These two persons did not want to work and did not want to lead the country; rather they wanted to steal and rip-off from the coffers and the sweat of the hard farmer, miner and worker. They came to parliament to feather their own nest like so many from Labor Party side of politics.

The Australian Labor Party would love it if all the battlers simply died or applied for asylum on Manus Island or just won cross lotto and became millionaires then they would not have to deal with the misery of the beggars of their constituency.

Former Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd MP and Julia Gillard MP are shameless degrading individuals. Interestingly today, neither have that job that they both fought tooth and nail for and neither of them wants to be known by decent sane Australian families or individuals in Australian society because both are plain feral, self-serving individuals.

The Liberal Party must now rally and get rid of the filth that Labor Party put up with and nosed for 780 weeks. Only the Liberal Party can govern and fight corruption. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth is lazy, neglectful and inept and has sided with corruption: he has let down the Liberal Party; this is only one Liberal in a fine party of many Liberals and he should be removed immediately by Tony Abbott MP and let someone other person combat the hatred by legal practitioners and judicial officers towards blacks. These matters are brought in the public interest.

The Liberal Party must fight the good fight. That starts by weeding out the racist who have sought pre-selection for Liberal party seats and others who have already been elected. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking and time seems to slip by very easily. I have sat and waited or 15 years for an ones man in the judiciary to come along but all seem to be utterly dishonest and want to keep deep, dark secrets. If men like this exist in the new empire then it shall be very easy to get away with murder, rape, kidnapping, arson and fraud. If men like this exist in the new empire then the new empire shall collapse just as surely the Commonwealth of Australia will dissolve as a nation and a new empire shall be created to replace it.

I now urge you to act in the public interest.

There cannot be two Australia’s – one white and one black. If there are two Australia’s then the chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has created two Australia’s and he allow his little white mates to escape justice all because he is in charge of justice. If that is the case then the Chief Justice has no integrity and why should any man with no integrity be dealing with the private and legal affairs of individuals, families, business, organisations, departments and corporations?

The two Australia’s policy is something the Australian law courts have created not the people.

The credibility of the rule of law has been tarnished and is beyond repair by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia and Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. These two men have chosen to bring their own brand of racism, hatred, malice and ill-will to the workplace and expect victims of crime to bow to them. Unfortunately I do not bow to deceit.

I advise you the Australian taxpayer does not owe a duty of care and high-priced living to dishonest judges, politicians, police officers or public servants and that group will be sounded out for disciplinary hearings if they have acted dishonesty or corruptly. Finally, I advise you that these are not public affairs but abuse of the court’s process and taxpayer funded positions by dishonest men in the army and the Australian Government Solicitor’s office. Thus, the public affairs argument is nonsense as these men perverted the law in a malicious prosecution to secure a conviction by fraud. They have been helped in upholding that position by undesirable men in the Federal Court of Australia and other superior appellate jurisdictions.

I urge you to take command.

I urge you to take control.

I urge you to show leadership.

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION (Cth)

As Minister for Justice I believe that you must introduce into the parliament within 7 days new federal Independent Against Corruption legislation. This legislation is specific. It deals exclusively with all federal appointments and employees, and federal contracts and negotiations. The reason this is done is to subject federal appointments and employees to proer misconduct and criminal charges as opposed to disciplinary charges.

The best legislation in the world is Hong Kong anti-corruption legislation.

The worst legislation in the world is off course in South Australia. Here in South Australia, the Attorney-General of South Australia John Rau MP and Premier Jay Weatherill MP want the people kept in the dark and thus there is to be no reporting whatsoever of corruption. The people have voted with their feet. No one actually reports corruption in South Australia because they know behind closed doors and without proper media scrutinise there will only be cover-ups and concealments. Issues such as bogus consultancies, jobs for the boys and large cash bonus payments will not be reported and will be over looked. There are many political candidates in South Australia who have received donations outside of the law but there can be no reporting because the reporting is a trigger mechanism to attack the whistleblower, persecute and harass the whistleblower and send the whistleblower into financial ruin. Thus, your new federal ICAC legislation must have fines of up to $5 million ($5,000,000.00) dollars against federal appointments and employees. The tricky side of this is judicial officers under their own acts of parliament are excused for misconduct but in law they are not excused for Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice. When you sit back and read my letters and workings you shall prioritise the work in the criminal model and as a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice first, and then a Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth second.

I believe the development of anti-corruption legislation has been delayed because of the key players mentioned in this letter from top to bottom have highlighted one thing and that is don’t worry about federal government corruption because it does not exist. Yet, when you see the damages you gather quickly that it does exist and Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands is going to smash it harder than any hammer on a walnut or any atomic bomb on a city.

If you develop anti-corruption legislation ensure that there are public hearings and public submissions and all whistleblowers are protected from losing their jobs and incomes.

I made public interest disclosures. I lost my career, my health and my income but I did not lose my mind.

I hope to hear from you by Monday 26 May 2014 after you have consulted fully with the Commissioner of the AFP, with all materials, reports and documents as to exactly what is going on with the AFP investigation, if anything.

These matters are brought in the public interest.