Seriously disabled vet with chronic mental & physical war-caused injuries, exposes horrific Commonwealth government abuses and EMAIL FRAUD - leading to suicide attempts
The Commonwealth already has "BLOOD on its HANDS"
Please contact me if you wish


1.    Documents listed in Home Page section of website, but particularly......

2.    Whistleblower Mr Paul Evans supplementary report 7 November 2011 on Mr Lamond's questionable and flawed external review, which refers to serious corruption as revealed to DVA for no action by DVA's Deputy President in 2005 in Mr Kirkman's letter - see below.

3.    Mr Harry Kirkman's letter to Deputy President DVA for no action in 2005.

4.    Coercikon as contained in my letters 6 June 2004 and 18 October 2009 (contained in this website) to President of the AAT for no action.

5.    Subversion within DVA's infrastructure as complained of to the Ombudsman in June 2008 for no action - this subversion also includes matters involving DVA accredited, trained, paid and elevated convicted felon Mr Barry Billing now on 38 charges of defrauding DVA, which has consistently protected Mr Billing and senior bureaucrats at my expense as Mr Evans exposes.

6.    Public outburst by Minister Alan Griffin in September 2010 breaching my privacy, with comparison with jailed fraudster and with threat I be sued for fraud as contained in Anderson family report to external reviewer Mr Lamond, who failed to consider or include the report in his report to DVA, which paid for and set the terms of reference for the review.

7.    Blatant refusal of DVA to alter terms of external review to include all my complaints and those listed in my 2 March 2011 letter with some 250 pages of supporting evidence Department.

8.    Transcript of  senior bureaucrats plotting further demise of a veteran as porvided by veteran Mr Ron Francis.






Sent:                               Wednesday, 27 July 2011 9:50 AM

To:                                   John Atkins

Cc:                                   Jeff Lamond; <>; <>; <>; <>; <>; <>

Subject:                          Re: AAT Application - Jusrisdiction hearing  - 17 August 2011


Dear Mr Lamond,


My husband Charles David Anderson and I are indeed the family, John Atkins is referring to at point 9. I am writing to confirm to you that this was what happened at the meeting we had with the then Minister Mr Alan Griffin in the presence of Mr Shane Carmody. These words were from Minister Griffin's mouth. There was no issue with Minister Griffin or Shane Carmody speaking freely to us about Lt Commander (rtd) Atkins as we took with us a letter from John allowing for the Minister and Mr Carmody, to discuss his case with us. The issue is that within these discussions a further denunciation of Lt Commander Atkins occured with no validation. In fact  Lt Commander Atkins was discussed along with convicted criminal Rex Crane, somewhat implying that Lt Commander Atkins was of a similar character.

By way of background, we too became victims of DVA's practice of trying to paint my husband as a serial litigant, which was fabricated, by the department. This transpired after DVA made a simple mistake back in 2007, but rather than fix it, they tried to cover it up. They then set about knocking back everything using a DMO, who wrote a series of medical opinions which were laughable, however they used them anyway to support their position. We approached the ombudsman whom got DVA to stop using this "doctor" To write opinions and could only use independent specialists for opinions and we were relieved, however this was when DVA got nasty.

It was our first medico legal appointment with a medical specialist, after the ombudsman's intervention that alerted us to DVA's new tact. He was asked to provide a medical report on my husband's condition. He was so horrified by the letter he was sent by DVA, that he read it to us. What it stated was that my husband had made numerous claims against the department and the department does not accept liabilty for my husband shoulder ( at the time of writing this to the specialist, my husband was on a 70% diability pension under VEA and had been given a lump sum compensation payment for permanent impairment from Military Comp for this same shoulder) they then went on to protest at our complaints about the DMO and futher wrote a 6 page directive of what he should include in his report....basically telling him how to write his opinion. Needless to say we complained to the department and demanded copies of the letters they had sent to 3 other specialists that they also wanted Charlie to see, they all were of a similar vain. In fact worse.

These letters became part of a breach of privacy investigation, the outcome was an apology for DVA's behaviour, for providing misleading information and having the "deign" to tell a specialist what to write in their reports. A further breach of privacy occurred during this time when the investigating officer in possession of my husband's medical files and they were "left in a taxi in Syndey" and never recovered.

My point is that DVA is in a position to paint a picture of a veteran in any manner they choose and if luck falls their way...get away with it. With regards to the medical opinions provided by the DMO's which allowed DVA to reject all the claims from 2007-2009, they were subject to a FOI request to ammend and correct the nonfactual information he used to base his opinions on, corrected to reflect the actual facts. 26 ammendments were made! Futher all the claims which were originally rejected using these "opinions" subsequently have been accepted by the department.

I am more than happy to forward to you copies of 5 apologies, the breach of privacy investigations and FOI ammendments from DVA confirming the above, if you have any doubts this occurred. I have given you an insight from us merely as confirmation of the lengths DVA will go to "to win at any cost"

I trust that this confirmation from me that Minister Griffin's opinion that John Atkins was "lucky he was not charged with fraud," did occur. The meeting occurred in Mebourne in September 2010.


Julie Anderson



SO, unquestionably not only has DVA got blood on its hands, but it is deeply involved in conspiracies of silence and conspiracies to pervert the course of justice in numerous instances summarised on this and other websites, particularly in website:


Following 16 November email was sent to members of my team:

Big question is - how to tip all of this “over the edge” as it were including with all of the supporting collaborative evidence and recent reports which we hold ?


In other words OK, what to do about it all and what evidence do we have see below and in attachments for outline.


1.       Marc Aussie-Stone, former Navy colleague who leads a team in my support, who helped bring "whistleblower" Paul Evans into my team and who helped keep the late Jeff Shaw QC in my team has a practical suggestion - on my case alone, yet it may equally apply to the overall.   

Marc is a tourism luminary and accustomed to major events and while recognising Supreme Court action Jeff Shaw proposed, but with caution. May not be possible, as my lawyer Craig Stewart confirms, he does have an action plan.    BTW, the late Jeff Shaw QC, former reformist NSW Attorney General, persuaded me to withdraw my resignation of citizenship - done is disgust of "the system" - and to recommence my case after Thomas Jordon (former adviser to AG Ruddock) advised continuing my case placed my life at risk

Marc's plan is to place a National Advert, based upon my 18-month case update - see attached MARC suggestions

Marc is also cognisant of Paul Evans reports and particularly his supplementary report to DVA following Lamond external review on small part only of my case – see attached email by Paul


Bloody bastards, Marc’s is a practical suggestion BUT - I really do not know how to tip all of this "over the edge" and neither does Craig Stewart my supportive lawyer, but the longevity of vets problems with DVA is quite startling and deserves better attention


Accordingly and as known to me and from memory are the following:


1.       Lawyer Greg Isolani's several papers on major problems vets have, with references

Barrister Alan Anforth's books and writings on specific SRCA, VRB and DFRB issues

Reporter Nick McKenzie's writings

Reporter Ian McPhedran's writings

ABC series on TV and radio during 2004 and subsequently

Victorian vet Maryann Martinek's experiences in her own and in many 100's of other cases

Queensland father Peter Pascoe's major problems and documenting of 1000's of other cases

Kevin Rudd's brother's case

Harry Kirkman and horrendous Billing fraud problems incl. in 2005 detailing corruption which DVA failed to act upon and to which Paul Evans refers most critically in pointing to not only DVA’s breach of PSA rules but also of criminality !

Paul Evans' many exposé's on absolute corruption, with most serious and even criminal breaches of my privacy, with also advocate Billing’s serious fraud of DVA thru VVAA which is Harry Kirkman's case on which DVA Deputy Sec and head of Business Integrity failed to act !!!

Paul Dignon's case run by Terry Fogarty

Gary McColley case - he suicided and is referred to on my website

Several other suicide cases caused thru DVA's actions including those resulting in reviews and alleged system improvements – much as Mr Lamond reports in my case in his external review just completed !!

Listing of acceptance and/or knowledge of serious DVA problems as in my 4 & 15 April 2008 papers on which Ms Gillard acted and which correctly allege DVA fraud !    These papers contain numerous references, some of which are mentioned above.    These documents name names within DVA in corrupt and untoward activities to destroy me !

The interesting supporting and collaborative website:

My website:

Dr Kristy Muir's anecdotal evidence in several published works and also in various unpublished papers I hold

Graham MacLeod's many years of research as outlined on Terry Fogarty's website - see webpage:

Terry Fogarty's records on same website and his experiences

Professor David Dunt's exposé's on contradictions and cross-over problems within the various entitlement Act, with other difficultie

Victorian Anderson family problems with DVA – they reported Minister Griffin’s public outburst, serious breach of my privacy and threat last September – see attachment:

SA vet Noel Muller's problems with DVA and "the system"

My own case which is symptomatic of much wider issues – as outlined in Paul evans report attached - a number of which I have sought to expose over time in my various still un-investigated complaints.    I made more than 20 official complaints, including those of 2 March 2011 which DVA feigned were included in the Lamond review, but which were excluded despite the some 250 pages of evidence and long battle to have Lamond review scope altered to include them thru Lamond himself, DVA, the Ombudsman, the AAT and thru PM & C, whilst in addition the Privacy Commission in its Merit Review role thought it could have had a role - discussed only yesterday with that agency !!!   Too bloody late !!

Ron Francis case

Don Tate case


No doubt you guyz will have other cases and you may also be able to identify other LINKAGES which were contained, in my case, in my 13 February 2010 paper to DVA's Francis and which went to Secretary DVA for white-wash in The April 2010 report of review signed by Shane Carmody - prior to Paul Evans' reports which proved how false that April review and all other reviews of my case as allegedly performed by DVA as advised by Minister Griffin and his Adviser Jim Dalton actually were !


You may also have evidence of DVA perverting the course of justice in abuses of power and misrepresenting denunciations like those to which Paul Evans refers in my case and which deflected all enquiries by PM Howard, Julia Gillard, Phillip Ruddock and many more; also the Ombudsman, Privacy Commissioner, the AAT and federal Magistrates Court in my case !!


NOW, not anyone gets anywhere, largely, it seems to me, because most insist on working on their own and not sharing experiences and info, also because none has the finances or funding - we are all broke thru disabilities and/or fighting the system - in my case my fight to wrongly defend myself in a reversal of legislated regulations requiring Billing/VVAA and DVA, also Ombudsman and Privacy Commission to TEST harmful decisions and allegations AND to provide HEARING - before the decision is made JUST WAS NOT DONE.   


As a result Lamond says "Mr Atkins had no way of proving his innocence", or words to that effect. Lamond also records how DVA's actions were totally wrong and how DVA failed to test the allegations it illegally used against me in evidence - as DVA was advised to do by CDPP.    


DVA blatantly breached my privacy 100's of times and showed contempt for me as Paul points out, but in so doing and illegally using the allegations in evidence 2002 thru 2010; while also manufacturing other false fraud and other false criminal allegations against me to frighten me off, it breached many rules.    These include PSA and Privacy Act rules (also breached by the way by Billing and VVAA); in addition, it breached  Good decision-making, "model litigant" and other rules under The rule of law, which all enable the Australian Constitution 275(v),    BUT DVA's breaches went further, including in 100's of denunciations wrongly branding me a criminal, but also in evidence 2002 thru 2010 !!!


Cost to me financially alone has been somewhat in excess of $90,000 to wrongly need to defend myself and try to prove my innocence - is this fair ?


Soooooooooooo, how to push it all over the edge when, it seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence to press for serious independent investigation and change – but thru who, or which agency - when and how are the questions ?


Corruption is rife and unbridled in DVA while also gathering momentum and this is abhorrent !


Remember my friend Jim Neale's recent words thru the following quotation: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke


Please let me know your thoughts ?




John Atkins

LCDR RAN ret’d


The Commonwealth already has "BLOOD on its HANDS" as outlined on the Homepage and its determination to pursue adverse actions to evade liability, despite changes advised by the Minister DVA as a result of Vietnam veteran Gary McColley's self-immolation, is outlined in a number of letters contained in the Bizarre claim problems and Follow-Up documents sections to this website:

NOW, before presenting an example of the extreme and coercisve tactics used by DVA in my case, in letters of 7 & 24 December 2009, I wish to share the experiences of others thru the eyes of jurisdiction lawyer Greg Isolani of Melbourne.    The following is one of his papers, the second being "The cost of making and keeping the peace":

"Trial by ordeal":

ABN 35 490 214 100



Michael A Carbonaro B.A., LL.B.

Greg Isolani B.A., LL.B.


Melbourne : Principle Office

Level 3 –

405 Little Bourke Street

Melbourne, Vic 3001

GPO Box 4630 Melbourne 3001

Ph: 03 9614 5866

Fax: 03 9614 5877


8 Mary Street

Granville, NSW 2142

GPO Box 170 Granville NSW 2142






In the Middle (Dark) ages, there was a practice to determine the guilt or otherwise of an accused by subjecting them to a tortuous process to see if they survived. For example, binding someone up and throwing them into a river. If they sank this confirmed they were guilty of the offence or if they floated, then they must, by implication have been innocent.
I often use the analogy of the ‘trial by ordeal’ to describe the legal process to some Veterans whereby if they can be patient, persevere and survive the ordeal of working within the legal system, repeating and redescribing the same events, same traumas and same circumstances, then finally we may be able to achieve a just and equitable outcome.

For Michael Sinclair, a Vietnam Veteran, he had to endure the ‘ordeal’ that resulted in him achieving the retrospective recognition and back payment of a Comsuper pension at the highest level from the date when it should have been paid - January 1970.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision of SINCLAIR –v- DFRDBA [2005] AATA 334 records the ordeals that we experienced before he achieved such an equitable outcome.


            The Facts.

Mr Sinclair grew up and lived in Beechworth in North Eastern Victoria where his parents owned a small supermarket. He left school and commenced training as a pilot which he intended as his future vocation whilst working in his parents’ supermarket to earn money to meet the costs of flight training and classes that were completed by correspondence and practical flying at the Albury Flying Club and at the Wangaratta Flying Club. 

In 1967 two significant things happened to Mr Sinclair - He obtained a restricted pilot’s licence and he was conscripted into the Army. On the 22 May 1968, Mr Sinclair was posted for service in Vietnam.

On 8 October 1968, Mr Sinclair suffered extensive injuries when he was blown up by a Claymore mine when on patrol in Vietnam and members of his party were then ambushed.  The incident resulted in multiple deaths and others sustaining serious injuries. He sustained extensive bodily injuries to his right heel, right elbow, scalp, back, back of right lower leg.  Emergency surgery was performed and a number of metal fragments were surgically removed including the removal of two large metal fragments from the abdomen.

Whilst Mr Sinclair remained in Vietnam his wounds were reopened with further debridement of his right foot, right leg and lower back and again on 14th and 17th October 1968. His right foot and heel was found to be swollen and fractured and a plaster of paris cast was applied.

After being medi-evaced on 25 October 1968 and admitted to the RGH in Melbourne via Butterworth in Malaysia the diagnosis of “multiple injuries” was made given extensive shrapnel wounds to his abdomen, back and right heel together with a fracture of his lower right femur. On 24 December 1968, Mr Sinclair was discharged from hospital against his wishes because of a prevailing policy to return patients home at Christmas notwithstanding that he had weeping infected wounds. Nevertheless he was returned to Beechworth in a departmental car lying in the back seat. 

He returned to the RGH shortly after Christmas for further surgery and nerve grafts and eventually discharged from the RGH on 11 December 1969 after more than 300 days of inpatient treatment.  Eventually Mr Sinclair was directed to attend for final Medical Board assessment at the Watsonia Barracks in Melbourne when, amongst other things he was granted pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act at 100 per cent of the general rate although he did not recall making an application.

The medical examination by a “young doctor” assessed him as being eligible for total and permanent incapacity (“TPI”) benefits but upon examination by a senior doctor, it was decided that by reason of his age and because he had a sympathetic employer (his parents), the TPI recommendation was declined by the senior doctor.

On 23 December 1969, 6 days after “Weary’ Dunlop had taken a detailed history of Mr Sinclair’s injuries , he was again examined by a doctor and despite the long medical history, the only diagnosis recorded was “shrapnel wounds R foot” and the degree of incapacity was recorded at 33⅓ per cent. This haphazard and shabby assessment of the significant injuries sustained and the extent of the disabilities arising from the injuries was the start of his ‘ordeal’ for recognition and payment of benefits that accorded with the real state of his physical and subsequent mental health arising from Vietnam.

After discharge from the Army in January 1970, Mr Sinclair continued to receive medical treatment due to recurring abscesses on his back and pelvis because of the continual discharge of shrapnel. In between treatment he did “work” in his parents’ supermarket performing storeroom work which required him to stack shelves, serve customers and so on although not full time because of continuous pain and discomfort.  Although paid a full time wage, he was frequently absent from work or worked reduced hours.

Mr Sinclair’s major injury can be ‘simply’ described as having an absent right heel that meant he is unable to walk properly because of the deformity in his right foot and attempts to walk by gripping his toes to the sole of his shoes. The tendon damage in his foot causes instability on his feet and his foot moves within his shoe. Consequently, he frequently has skin missing from his foot and toes because of rubbing and his foot often swell and sweat. The ache at the back of his right foot and in his lower back becomes “chronic” after periods of standing resulting in many occasions when he was forced to leave work early or not attend at all.

However he was fortunate to be employed by his parents as he could come and go subject to the extent of pain, take extended lunch breaks to rest during the day and given the opportunity to work frequently in an office in a seated position where on many occasions his foot would be inserted into a bucket of warm salty water. Whilst this would assist in drying recurring infections and reduce swelling, sitting for extended periods would increase back pain.

Before the AAT, Mr Sinclair’s evidence was that he did not regard himself as having “worked” rather he “turned up” for work doing about 30 hours a week compared to other employees that represented about 50 per cent of normal weekly work. 

Whilst the years passed by the right foot and ankle pain and swelling together with chronic low back pain nor the memories of the trauma left behind as he suffered recurring discomfort in his stomach because of discharging shrapnel from his abdomen and pelvis with associated frequent severe infections and fevers. In 1980 – 12 years after he was injured in Vietnam – shrapnel continued to be discharged from his abdomen and as at the time of the AAT hearing, bone fragments continued to discharged from his right foot.

After Mr Sinclair’s parents sold their supermarket in 1986, depression then anxiety set in after a “physical and mental breakdown” and at that time was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and eventually granted special rate pension under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act.

            The Ordeal

In March 2001, Mr Sinclair received some advice from a fellow veteran to seek a change of discharge from administrative to medical and accordingly he wrote to General Cosgrove who in turn referred his request to the Defence Personnel Executive when he reiterated that at discharge he was “still chronically effected by explosive injuries with fracture to the right foot, shrapnel wounds to the abdomen, sacrum, scalp and right humerus”.

The Defence Personnel Executive made a request on behalf of Mr Sinclair for consideration under s51(6) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1948 (DFRDBA - “the 1948 Act”) to regard Mr Sinclair as having been discharged on the grounds of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties.

On 16 July 2002, more than two years from Mr Sinclair’s request for a medical discharge and with significant volumes of medical material held by Defence and DVA, Mr Sinclair was accepted as having retired on grounds of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties and he became entitled to an invalidity benefit. The ‘ordeal’ was partially relieved although in many ways compounded by the findings that the cause of the invalidity or incapacity by reason of which he had been retired had diminished his capacity in relation to civil employment at discharge at 30%. Therefore Mr Sinclair was entitled to a disability pension at the Class B rate with effect from 14 Jan 1970 for what was considered a ‘moderate degree of incapacity to undertake a range of civil employment’ on and from that date and continuing even after DVA had granted him a TPI pension from 1986.

Mr Sinclair sought a review of that decision to the AAT on 14 February 2003 in order that he receive recognition that his medical condition had more than a ‘moderate’ impact on his ability to work and was a significant impediment. This finding by DFRDB would entitle Mr Sinclair to the Class A pension calculated at approximately 75% of his final average salary.

Mr Sinclair engaged me to assist him with had clearly become a major’ ordeal’ and together with Mr Eugene White, barrister we prepared his case that spaned two days and 300 hundred kilometres as the AAT hearing commenced in May 2004 in Wangaratta and then resumed in Melbourne in July 2004.

The AAT case involved a forensic like investigation of Mr Sinclair’s medical history following the mine explosion, the painstaking details of difficulties within his employment, the intimate details of the effects of the injuries both physically and psychologically as well as pouring over hundreds of pages of medical reports, examinations, and subpoenaed medical records. Whilst the legal representatives for the DFRDB did not deny the existence of the injuries, they refused to accept the extent of the injuries upon Mr Sinclair’s ability to obtain and maintain employment to a level that was more than a ‘moderate’ degree.

The Outcome

On the 15th of April 2005, four years after Mr Sinclair made the request for a medical retirement and a pension at the rate which best reflected the level of invalidity to undertake employment being to a significant degree, the AAT handed down it’s decision whereby they found that in general terms, Mr Sinclair’s qualification to a Class A pension does not require a finding of total invalidity but only of incapacity of 60 per cent or over.

The AAT had little doubt that from the date of his discharge from service he had been incapacitated by 60 per cent or over. Therefore from the date of his retirement from service Mr Sinclair should have been assessed at Class A and that degree of incapacity continued. The retirement impairment was constituted by injuries sustained to Mr Sinclair as not simply being ‘shrapnel wounds to the right foot’ but also to the abdomen, sacrum, scalp, right humerus and back.

Whilst the back payment of pension to Mr Sinclair has been of assistance it was by no means a substitute for, or true reflection of the physical and emotional difficulties that were compounded over the years by the refusal by a Commonwealth Authority to recognisee the nature and extent of his injuries and to pay a pension at the rate which best reflected the degree of incapacity resulting from the trauma.

Trying to pursue benefits against the Commonwealth can, as many Veterans’ have experienced, be an ordeal. If it seems like it’s becoming more than ordeal get advice, seek assistance, support and above all, persevere no matter how long ago the injustice occurred.

Greg Isolani



My long-running SRCA claims case commenced in November 1998 and included:

  • April 2001 DVA accepting liability from 3 September 1963 for an unclaimed lesser condition on which it later twice threatened to sue me for fraudulent claim for an unclaimed condition it inserted (forged) in my claim !
  • DVA accepted a lesser condition than claimed, but a pre-condition and family related condition - based on a non-psychiatrist DMO's part only reading (as he admitted) of my file and he discarding treating psychiatrist's clear diagnoses for PTSD, so contradicting SoP's, MERCK, DSMIV and medical practice.
  • Later, in the AAT, the DVA presented a contrived and untested "expert witness" report inferring I made fraudulent claim in the same application which document seriously questioned my ethics and veracity - we considered suing the witness.
  • Twice large $million settlements, in one case for an additional 28 years payout in compensation, as a minimum (in denying this DVA painted me a malingerer 21 August 2002) and, in another instance, an even larger settlement was withdrawn (26 February 2004) with DVA/AGS threat that should I not withdraw my claim I would be sued for fraudulent claim - for an unclaimed condition !!!    
  • This led to still un-investigated complaint #2 (deflected thru DVA's horrific denunciations branding me a criminal and vexatious claimant, using false conclusions and lies, which themnselves became two still un-investigated complaints # 4 & # 9 (also deflected by DVA's hostile denunciations of me - see whistleblower Paul Evans reports).
  • This claim was not considered for some 3.5 years after the DVA timescale set in its Service Charter, which formeds  part of my 7 May 2002 unanswered complaint..
  • Horrific events, involving subversion and coercion leading to a settlement in May 2005, following a number of DVA threats, including suing me for fraudulent claim for an unclaimed condition - DVA letter 30 May 2005.   
  • Events and coercion led to un-investigated compaint #2 and unanswered grievance to the AAT President 18 October 2009.
  • New January 2008 SRCA claim - for 18 separate conditions - has not even been acknowledged despite follow-up and complaint, including as contained in the above grievance letter sent also to DVA.   
  • Coincidentally, other claim and consequential applications have not been acknowledged, despite numerous follow-up; while another was found to be "frivolous & vexatious", before the AAT had rfeceived the material it had requested !























 Coercion in two letters sent 7 & 24 December 2009:

The following FINAL SETTLEMENT seeks to again close ALL ASPECTS of my case as presented in this website in an extraordinary move to BLOCK all claims and issues, if that had not already been done through:

1.    DVA, Ombudsman & the AAT's PATTERN of rejection and failures to reply; with
2.    Other matters contained in un-answered COMPLAINTS & GRIEVANCES; also
3.    The FPC untoward closure of EMAIL FRAUD investigation; with in addition
4.    AAT & Federal Magistrate's Court untoward rejections, including of EMAIL FRAUD
       and consequential issues & wrongly determining applications to be "frivolous &

This final settlement arises from use of selective and FALSE evidence, falsely denying AAT DIRECTIONS which were recorded; also following extreme DISCRIMINATIONS; IN ADDITION AAT BIAS, and the AGS failing to present KEY evidence in T documents; while also contradicting Commonwealth obligations as "model litigant" to assist the AAT to find the right decision (One reference -:Ian Govey Deputy Secretary at AAT/ACT Bar Association Seminar "The obligation to assist: model litigants in AAT Proceedings 26 August 2009")

DVA/AGS denied several precedents, including that of Stephen John Chaplin v MRC.

Is this fair and reasonable, particularly after the Commonwealth twice reneged on advised large $multi-M settlements in 2002 through 2005 where 5 July 2005 there was recorded COERCED and AAT ALTERED settlement (never investigated), when I was under a number of threats, including in no less than three FALSE FRAUD matters garnered together by the Commonwealth and with top level advice my life is at risk in pursuing my case ?

It seems that the threats by the State Advocate, his colleague and ex-service organisation to BLOCK my claims and case (15 November 2001 and 30 October 2002) have been successful.
Advice by former top DVA manager working for the then Federal Opposition in 2004 - that I had been "SIDELINED" and my claims BLOCKED, also seems to have been correct ! 


The following FINAL SETTLEMENT seeks to again close ALL ASPECTS of my case as presented in this website in an extraordinary move to BLOCK all claims and issues, if that had not already been done through:The following FINAL SETTLEMENT seeks to again close ALL ASPECTS of my case as presented in this website in an extraordinary move to BLOCK all claims and issues, if that had not already been done through:


It is also noteworthy that the Commonwealth seek to settle with wording similar to that used in accepting liability from 3 September 1963, BUT which wording and that in COERCED 5 July 2005 settlement, was designed to evade liability.   

Specifically this all embracing settlement uses the word  "contributed" to my diagnosed PTSD condition, which was in fact clearly CAUSED by a series of horrendous and some scandalous events with TORTURE, TERROR and EXTREME ABUSES from when I was a child aged 13 years in 1951 to 1968.    

Damage to me was then aggravated by dehumanising and hostile threats and denials of Natural Justice and Duty of Care in my claims process, which I sought to commence in the early 1980's but was BLOCKED by ex-service organisations.

As with the Commonwealth's extreme dishonouring actions and evasion of liability (FRAUD) the Commonwealth's wording of  acceptance of liability from 3 September 1963 [for aggravation to Bipolar an un-claimed condition AND also a PRE-EXITING CONDITION - see Dr Kristy Muir's papers] was extremely EVASIVE, enabling it to threaten to sue me for FALSE FRAUDULENT CLAIM (supported by FALSE "hired-gun" "expert witness" report) - for this Commonwealth inserted (forged) condition.   

The Commonwealth then acted as summarised in the "whistleblower" reports and papers, excerpts of which are on this site and as outlined in chronoligies available upon request.


RECOGNISING the extreme situation I faced from May 2002, all events have been carefully recorded and reported in correspondence to responsible bureaucrats and Ministers of the Crown. .

Letters to senior government Ministers requested the following, but nothing was achieved until "whistleblower" reports and letters were made available during first half of 2011.    I had requested:

1.    Top-level investigation in light of previous refusals to reply to requests that FALSE criminal 
        allegations used against Lt Cdr. Atkins by the Commonwealth be tested in court with his arrest & 
        trial along with OTHER ALLEGATIONS

2.    MEDIATION - in light of circumstances listed - AS PROPOSED BY MR JEFF SHAW
       QC & as  contained in Lt Cdr.  ATKINS' UNANSWERED "PROPOSED RESOLUTION" 



30 December 2009


Dear Senator McClelland


Jeff Shaw QC, whom you know well, was to speak with you about my case and horrific breaches of Commonwealth obligations.


The Liberals have now drawn a line in the sand and other lines can be drawn in other areas I am sure.


With your experience in parliament and also in life, including as a leading lawyer, you will appreciate the problems of ADF service and war caused chronic mental illness; also chronic serious ADF caused physical disabilities.    You will also be well aware of the effects on an individual who is wrongly accused of several false FRAUD; also FORGERY and other FALSE criminal allegations AND who has been combating most untoward Commonwealth (bureaucratic) use of such criminal allegations in claims to evade liability and in “fear mongering”; while being denied the right to a hearing; also to evidence and to knowing the case to answer – all major Natural Justice issues.


HOW WOULD YOU COPE & REACT, and what can you do please and who better than you with your legal and business experience and as a fighter for justice ?    I request that you and your staff take a close look at my case – I am happy to meet and provide further information, if you wish ?   


The case is really a LANDMARK case for many reasons and I am happy to explain this in detail.


You will be aware of some 50 veterans suiciding in recent years, allegedly caused by administrative process problems and, as in the case of Vietnam Veteran Gary McColley 5 July 2008 - one allegation of FRAUD caused this disaster.



In my case, I have attempted suicide several times and been suicidal on other occasions, including at Christmas, just days ago, when I desperately needed help AND when Veterans Affairs told me they (DVA’s Counselling Service) could NOT help me because of “conflict of interest” through my battle with the Commonwealth in claims and consequential issues – see my website



In my case, the bureaucracy is involved in no less than 4 major false FRAUD scenarios against me, one FORGERY; with two other false criminal allegations and threats to sue me; in addition threat of long-term imprisonment in totally untested FRAUDULENT allegations (embracing EMAIL FRAUD) all concocted by the bureaucracy and a Commonwealth paid advocate whose bribe demand I refused; ALSO allegations of LYING & EXAGGERATION in circumstances where, like illegal use of FRAUD & FORGERY allegations, the criminal allegations and circumstances have not been tested, as required by law under the Privacy and Public Service Acts, Good decision-making for government and UDHR adopted by Australia.


Fairly HEAVY stuff yes ?


I now refer you and your staff to my WEBSITE and particularly the first and last pages, BUT also the page titled Follow-up documents.


As Federal Attorney General, I ask for your assistance please to achieve fair hearing, top-level investigation of Commonwealth bureaucratic breaches of obligations, in mediation and resolution as unsuccessfully undertaken by the office of the Minister Defence Personnel in June 2009 (See website and in Follow-up documents section [E]), BUT which failed dismally, largely because the top-level bureaucrat to whom my representative and I were referred admitted to not having authority AFTER horrific constricted mediation and BIAS with DISCRIMINATION in the AAT, which has been involved in other untoward issues including SUBVERSION and COERCION.     


See also letter by former colleagues to Governor General and Minister DVA (website Follow-up documents section following section [E]), who advised due process must prevail, BUT this has failed to occur as is abundantly recorded.


Sadly that gets even heavier AND all the Federal Attorney General’s office  can do is refer me to Crime Stoppers AND that was WRONG !


Please spend a little time – for me AND for 10’s of thousands of ADF members; also our men & women in Afghanistan and in other war zones – and please consider how you would react AND what you can do to assist us ?


THE BUCK PASSING & APATHY HAS GOT TO STOP SOMEWHERE, before more veterans and ADF members take their own lives,  in addition, I note that there is an investigation into Military Compensation & Rehabilitation process, BUT to date my application to have my case and my WEBSITE data included in considerations has been denied…..maybe you can even assist here ?


Best wishes in your campaign AND I think that more lines need to be drawn in the sand, as done recently – the trouble is too few are prepared to stand and be counted in this wonderful pioneering country of ours.


Very sincerely


John Atkins

Lieutenant Commander RAN ret’d


To: Senator Robert McClelland Attorney General


Fm: John Atkins Lieutenant Commander RAN (ret’d)


Re: BREACHES of “model litigant”, “legitimate expectations”, Privacy & Public Service Acts with illegal use of EMAIL FRAUD & FORGED documents to destroy a respected veteran.


Dear Senator McClelland


In my letter of 7 August 2009 I alerted you to sad breaches of fairness, reasonableness and “model litigant” obligations of the Commonwealth.


Sadly the breaches, with BIAS & DISCRIMINATION continue as before.


Previous Attorney General administration became involved and passed by case to the former Prime Minister and former Minister DVA – for no resolution, BUT as a result CDPP advised me 12 December 2007 to place my case with the AFP, however I am very reluctant to pursue this course whilst dialogue continues and some progress to resolution is made.


May I refer you and your staff to my WEBSITE, which is under development, but which already provides a good and fair synopsis of my case and circumstances ?


I include in this communication my email of today to Chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston and also yesterday’s letter to Deputy Chief of Navy who holds the same position as Rear Admiral Hugh Stevenson did in 1968 when he took steps to resolve my dilemma and that of the Navy concerning me at that time - when I was an Assistant Director on the Naval Staff at Navy Headquarters Canberra.


As with the cases of Wing Commander Russell Vance and Air Commodore Garry Bates; also Defence contractor, Peter Goon, it seems appropriate to me that resolution through mediation, as proposed by Mr Jeff Shaw QC to Greg Combet, Minister Defence Personnel, whose office became involved and offered to co-ordinate resolution 24 June 2009, which failed to eventuate and ended in a constricted mediation on one of many DVA issues only - resolution/mediation on one of 18 conditions supposedly under review in the AAT - which was the subject of extreme bias and discrimination as separately recorded and testified to in Statutory Declaration and transcript of proceedings.


In fairness and observing reasonableness and Commonwealth obligations toward citizens, will you please consider high-level investigation into my case and also into breaches of Commonwealth obligations ?


Thank you for your time and may I wish you a Merry Christmas.


Yours sincerely


John Atkins


                                                                            Lieutenant Commander John Atkins     RAN ret’d

44 Second Avenue, Broadlands Estate

Green Point, NSW 2251

Tel: 02 4304 1207



6 December 2009


The Hon. Alan Griffin, MP

Minister for Veterans’ Affairs

Parliament House

Canberra, ACT 2600




Dear Mr Griffin


(Mishandling EMAIL FRAUD & forged medical documents; with DVA/MRC illegal use of criminal allegations to destroy me)


1.      DVA/MRC illegal use of false criminal allegations, to destroy my credibility (as in the case of Gary McColley who suicided 5 July 2008 – Australian 29 June 2009 - in order for government departments to evade liability; while garnering additional false evidence and making additional threats to sue me for false criminal allegations (incl. for an un-claimed condition inserted [forged] by DVA/MRC in accepting liability from 3 September 1963); while

2.      DVA/MRC denied me access to evidence to make responsible decisions, to protect & defend myself, or take appropriate action against the offending parties including your Department

3.      These matters are abundantly recorded and, as in the case of EMAIL FRAUD and FALSE CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS used by the Commonwealth against me, based on FORGED MEDICAL DOCUMENTS – my applications for review were found to be “Frivolous and vexatious” in the AAT and Federal Magistrates Court.

4.      Applications to the AAT have received no reply in almost two years !



I am most concerned to have received no reply to my letter of 5 October 2009 and accordingly I have advised the AAT that I am unable to proceed with my SRCA case reference 2008/0994 until your reply is received.


I also refer you to your remarks concerning Gary McColley’s case and your statement after his suicide from false fraud allegations and concerning administrative reforms, particularly involving cases of suspected or reported fraud, as in my case.   


But I also strongly point out that in Mr McColley’s case DVA/MRC was not involved in adding to the veterans’ dilemmas by threatening to sue for additional FALSE FRAUD, or using FALSE “hired-gun” “expert witness” reports of additional FALSE FRAUD and LYING, as in my case !


Additional information and grievance since my 5 October 2009 letter:

While on post operative recuperation holiday for my wife our family forwarded letter of 19 August 2009 by DVA’s Ted Harrison Director Advising & Public Law Legal Services, which contained two very important documents now included on my website to which I now refer you.   


The website includes other key unanswered requests, including my letter to you of 5 October 2009, in an apparent pattern of Commonwealth failure to respond as abundantly recorded:


1st Document - National Fraud Control Briefing Paper 10 November 2003 to DVA Branch Head for no action:

This document clearly shows that which I have always alleged concerning EMAIL FRAUD, illegal use of false criminal allegations against me and is specific as to the source – State Advocate, trained and paid by the Commonwealth, Mr Barry James Billing.   


This is at the heart of my consistent problems with the Commonwealth and remains unresolved in some 7 years – not unlike the false fraud problems experienced by Mr  Gary McColley.


The briefing was addressed to Ms Carol Bates DVA’s Branch Head Strategic Support who apparently did nothing.


You should also know that my letters to Ms Bates of 24 March, 13 & 14 April 2004 on these matters remain unanswered and concern FOI issues arising from the EMAIL FRAUD and FORGERY, also DVA’s refusal to provide me with evidence for responsible decision making, to enable me to protect and defend myself and preventing me taking action against others including your Department.   


Ms Bates also failed to respond to my request for Reasons for her Decisions to not act in these matters of 12 March 2007.   


On 27 March 2008 I applied to obtain reply through the AAT - as with other like unanswered letters to senior DVA Managers involved in my case, (including DVA Branch Manager Mark Johnson, who withheld information prepared by DVA FCU in November & December 2003; also Ms Karen Philpott, Ms Lyn Firth; Ms Liz Szabo; Mr D Holloway [DVA Minister’s office]; also Ms Jene Wu with requests for their Reasons for Decisions in these matters).


In what seems to be a further pattern of non reply the AAT has failed to acknowledge my applications.


2nd Document - Minute by DVA’s Ms Karen Philpott of 7 October 2003:

Ms Philpott and likely other senior DVA managers, including Ms Firth and Ms Szabo, also Stephen Oakes; in addition Mr Holloway and others in the then Minister for DVA’s office were greatly concerned by EMAIL FRAUD & FORGERY matters and Ms Philpott warned:



Yet, as in the case of Ms Bates in the 1st Document, nothing was done and it took me more than another 12 months to obtain any information from DVA, which in December 2002 (as admitted in DVA letter to FPC of 23 June 2004) commenced ILLEGALLY  using against me FALSE CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS from EMAIL FRAUD and FORGED medical documents.   


But it took DVA until early in 2009 to admit that it had not tested for accuracy the criminal allegations still being used against me – despite the October 2003 concerns of Ms Philpott and the briefing of the National Fraud Control Unit in November 2003.



1.      Please link this additional grievance information to replies I requested in my 5 October 2009 letter and particularly concerning your previous advice that “comprehensive investigations that have occurred into your (my) complaints”?

2.      In light of this information please provide Reasons for Decision to your office previously falsely advising me, including by DVA Adviser Mr Dalton ?

3.      Please advise how you now propose to resolve these matters quickly ?

4.      Your Department already has Blood on its Hands in a lesser case, but with parallels to my own - Please review the case of Gary McColley (whose case has many parallels with my own) and who committed suicide as result of false fraud allegations (Australian 29 June 2009); also consider the reforms you advised were then in train and provide me with your reasons for decision to not reply to my correspondence including horrific illegality by your Department; its evasion of liability and steadfast refusal to resolve wide-ranging issues which your colleague, Minister Defence Personnel, sought to resolve 5 May and 17 July 2009 in co-ordinating resolution, which proved a debacle including referral to Mr Ontong who did not have authority ? 

5.      Observing Gary McColley’s case and the cases of Wing Commander Russell Vance and Air Commodore Garry Bates; also Defence contractor, Peter Goon; as well as those of Steven John Chaplin and denials of PTSD despite departmental acceptance for treatment as in my case; also Air Vice Marshall Criss, Mr Paul Dignon, Major Allan Warren, also Mr Peter Covington-Thomas and others, including cases reviewed in “Living in a Citadel” by Dr Kristy Muir, it seems appropriate and reasonable to request resolution through mediation, as proposed by Mr Jeff Shaw QC to Greg Combet, Minister Defence Personnel, whose office became involved and had offered to co-ordinate resolution 24 June 2009, but which failed to eventuate and ended in a constricted mediation on only one of many DVA issues - this was the subject of extreme bias and discrimination as separately recorded and testified to in Statutory Declaration and transcript of proceedings ?

6.      In fairness and observing reasonableness and Commonwealth obligations toward citizens, will you please initiate high-level investigation into my case and also into breaches of Commonwealth “model litigant” and “legitimate expectations”; also “Good decision-making for government” obligations, much as set in train by the Federal Attorney General in several of the cases to which I refer ?


Please be advised that other action is planned for the New Year should resolution not be forthcoming.


For assistance in your reply, please refer to Mr Jeff Shaw QC’s letter of 7 July 2009 which was provided to you in my 5 October 2009 letter.   


Yours sincerely




John Atkins    

Lieutenant Commander RAN (ret’d)





Lieutenant Commander John Atkins     RAN ret'd

Please complete the fields below and I will try to respond as soon as I can.

First Name:
Last Name:
Address Street 1:
Address Street 2 & STATE:
Daytime Phone:
Evening Phone:

Website Builder