Seriously disabled vet with chronic mental & physical war-caused injuries, exposes horrific Commonwealth government abuses and EMAIL FRAUD - leading to suicide attempts
STRONG WARNING - Commonwealth breaches "model litigant"
rules & involved in coercion & untoward threats

Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) closure of case:
The new DVA Minister closed this case 13 November 2013, as had the new DVA Secretary shortly before him.

Further 13 December 2013 closure and BLOCKAGE followed through FOI, the only means to unearth corruption and bias as abundantly exposed by former DVA "insider" Mr Paul Evans from November 2010.    Excerpt from DVA's 13 December 2013 letter follows:

Thank you for your email of 5 December 2013. I am advised that a substantial number, if not all, of the matters raised in the letter attached to your recent email (dated 12 April 2012) have previously been raised with, and addressed by, DVA.

Specifically, I refer to a letter dated 20 April 2012, addressed to your legal representative Mr Craig Stewart of Whitelaw McDonald, and signed by Liz Cosson, First Assistant Secretary of Client and Commemorations. This letter addressed a number of issues that you had previously raised with DVA over a number of years, including the issues you raised in the 12 April 2012 letter.

Comment - Had many of the DVA issues I complained about "over a number of years" been fairly considered, including complaints about entitlement claims, I am sure that, as independent Mr Terry Fogarty states on his website. many senior DVA officers would now be in jail: http://amvif.com/philanthropist/ 

Comment by independent "whistle-blower" Paul Evans:

I am sorry, but there is nothing I can do or say to make this any better.  Take a look at what DVA has written.  They are not saying that you have a valid reason for any type of complaint, they have declared you a vexatious writer.  All that will happen from now on is that they will ignore you.
   
Look, it is only a matter of time before I cop the same.  Let's wait on what happens with the Spiers et al investigation - which you and I both know will be nothing.  Also wait on the OAIC.  Even if there is a result you know nothing will come from it.
 
Unconsidered Statement of claim initiating Court action:
As the Veterans' Review Board's Senior Member, Mr Humphreys said at 3 June 2013 hearing, the only way to resolve issues is Court action, BUT this was initiated in Statement of Claim lodged in the VRB.

However, in apparent government obsequiousness, the Statement of Claim was not considered, despite precedent and referral by Australian Public Service Commissioner, Mr Sedgwick, to the VRB for remedy on alleged intentional DVA frauds.

This still unconsidered Statement of Claim is part of evidence in the AAT hearing scheduled for 22 January 2014, after unusual earlier adjournment.

Unconsidered Commercial Invoice
As in the case of my 2010 Letter of Demand, DVA has similarly failed to address, or even acknowledge Commercial Invoice lodged 12 June 2012.
 
This is clear contempt for DVA's credo "Saluting their Service" and again shows blatant DVA  "failed process" as independent former "insider", Paul Evans exposé's show.    He also unveiled how this failed process  led to "institutional bias" and "protections" at my expense; with even a "round-robin" of funds to cover-up an advocate's serious fraud, he being a central figure in abuses in my case.    Mr Evans was twice threatened by DVA and also  identified hundreds of false DVA widely spread up to 25 page denunciations successfully perverting justice to deliberately harm me.   

In visible obsequiousness and travesty of justice, he was also questioned about his involvement in my case by his AFP employer.

All I ask is simply What Chance against the might and power of a government administration obsessed with proving me a fraudster and criminal to protect its own officers as independent Mr Terry Fogarty declares in his website: http://amvif.com/philanthropist/ 

 The case for fairness & review in the AAT:

  • Hearing scheduled for 22 January 2014.   

  • There are innumerable grounds for review by the AAT, including unconsidered Statement of Claim initiating Court action.

  • Yet we anticipate review and fairness to award Special Rate or TPI pension for which I qualify, including as accepted by the VRB 22 October 2001, will not occur.

  • Enclosure A shows examples of conduct DVA used to deny me TPI; these are continuing long after DVA assured change after Lamond external review report published August 2011, leading to DVA 20 April 2012 part apology. 

    (2 September 2011 DVA stated actions in the past could not now happen, but they continue  as shown in 13 December 2012 OAIC indictment of DVA and DVA Legal Head Ms Spiers )

     

    Unfortunately, I must make this tribunal aware of the degree of animosity and institutional bias within DVA’s legal team with regards to me.  It took ten years for DVA to even consider that I was mistreated due to its relationship with Mr Billing.  Just two years ago it was forced to apologise for its behaviour and promised that no veteran would experience that kind of treatment again.  I would ask you to note that its legal representation is directed by Ms Carolyn Spiers while you consider the following:

         

      1.    Mr Evans, in his review, found DVA’s handling of the investigation seriously flawed and should not have taken place.  He placed blame squarely with DVA’s management including its previous senior legal officer.

      2.    Mr Lamond, in his review, reached the same conclusion except that he believed the investigators acted independently of management.  Ms Spiers was closely involved in this review, meeting with Mr Lamond several times and providing considerable amounts of advice.

    3.    A subsequent FOI request by Mr Evans for the source documents available to Mr Lamond was totally refused by DVA’s legal team.  A complaint to the OAIC led to a damning indictment not just of DVA, but specifically Ms Spiers.  It found that submissions to its office by Ms Spiers failed to acknowledge or address their concerns.  Moreover, the OAIC found that a key document provided by Ms Spiers was either deliberately misleading, if not an outright lie. 
    4.    The OAIC wrote: 
                  

     ‘In a submission to this officer the DVA advised that a charges spread sheet was created on 13 February 2012 regarding this request.  However….I do not believe that this spreadsheet relates t Mr Evans’ FOI request.’

     5.    You may remember Mr Ted Harrison, number two to Ms Spiers and an officer who has acted as DVA’s Principal Legal Adviser, was criticised over his decision to appear at a previous AAT hearing in August 2011.                       

    • I lodged a complaint over Mr Harrison's behaviour which was referred to the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS).  The AGS acted quickly and DVA received their recommendations in early February 2012. 
    • Despite repeated requests, Ms Spiers both refused to confirm the investigation was complete, nor release any documents under FOI.
    • Eventually, six months after Ms Spiers received the AGS recommendations into one of her most senior officers, Ms Spiers belatedly confirmed the investigation was complete but refused to advise the outcome.  I understand Mr Harrison subsequently received a package with the support of Ms Spiers.

    6.    Mr Evans lodged a formal complaint over the behaviour of Ms Spiers, plus two other members of her team, over the results of the OAIC investigation and DVA’s handling of his two FOI requests.  These complaints were also referred to the AGS.                

    • It is Mr Evans’ understanding that the investigation by the AGS was finished around April of this year. 
    • Once again, more than six months later, DVA has refused to even confirm the investigation into Ms Spier’s behaviour is complete, let alone the results.                                    

    7.    As noted, the OAIC is also investigating the handling of Mr Evans’ second FOI request relating to DVA’s treatment of my concerns. 

    • He has been advised that the OAIC appears frustrated at the extensive delays and contradictory submissions made by Ms Spiers. 
    • I had hoped that the results of their investigation would be available for this hearing, but it did not prove possible. 
    • Note that this matter has been going for nearly two years, almost all of which caused by delays in DVA answering the most basic of questions.                                               

      8.    I would emphasise that DVA’s submissions to the AAT are directed by an officer who has had an integral part in my treatment by DVA. 

      • I would remind you Ms Spiers was castigated over her areas handling of FOI requests. 
      • She has directed, then protected from a code of conduct investigation and subsequently rewarded an officer (Mr Ted Harrison) whose name was listed on the very first fraud investigation log sheet that recommended no further action against me back in 2002. 
      • Ms Spiers is now subject to an incomplete Code of Conduct breach investigation over her behaviour towards me. 
      • Yet today, here and now, I am expected to believe that Ms Spiers will direct her legal team to act appropriately in Saluting my Service as in DVA's credo.  
      • In addition I am expected to believe DVA will not subject me to the same "failed process and institutional bias" that I experienced for over a decade before two independent reviews shed light on DVA’s behaviour. 

      9.    I do not accept that DVA’s legal team is acting in a fair and just manner, and I would ask that you remember the recent behaviour of DVA’s most senior legal officer, Ms Spiers, who leads that team, when listening to the submissions made by her legal team in this case.                                     


      Enclosure B - case  position summar
      1.    

      1.    The original determination by DVA was appealed within the time line.

      • The appeal process was tarnished by recorded failed process in conjunction with failures by Legal Aid and DVA advocates at the time, but primarily by Mr Billing.
      • Wrong decision by VRB after having false tarnished information, namely that I had generated a fraud by writing my own psychiatric report on a form with the psychiatrists letterhead.    
      • This meant that I was denied natural justice and in real terms

      2.    It has meant that I had to defend my name and prove this letter was not written by me, but I  suspect and know it was written by Mr Billing, my advocate at the time, who used email fraud.

      3.    The reason Mr Billing treated me this way was because I refused to pay him the bribe he demanded for his services, when he was a volunteer and as such he was not entitled to payment.                                                 

      • DVA advised that no payment should have been made because it was against their rules for voluntary advocates to receive payment for their service.

      4.    This meant I had to prove that I did not generate a fraud; this was impossible as external reviewer Mr Lamond agreed and for which he condemned DVA as did CDPP, however

      • In this process, DVA repeatedly harmed me as external reviewer Lamond recorded.

      5.    Mr Billing was charged with fraud against DVA in 2012 and previously in 1980 he was convicted by the Department of Defence for fraud and served time in gaol for this offence.

      6.    This was all exposed by very brave independent volunteer and former DVA "insider", Mr Paul Evans from 2010 to 2013

      • Everything only came to a head through Mr Evans exposé's, then through external reviewer Lamond; also through CDPP chastisement of DVA and in 2013 when the OAIC advised major changes to DVA process became available.                           

      7.    This latter indictment, of many on DVA's transgressions in this case, was after my complaints and followed OAIC most serious indictment of DVA 13 December 2013

      8.    All this only recently crystallised - when I received 10 June 2013 DFRDB confirmation and compensation payment 1 August 2013.

      9.    Compensation relates to Navy acceptance of liability for mental illnesses, each also accepted by DVA, yet DVA deny me TPI for which I qualify

      10.    DFRB confirmed |Navy had made a mistake.

      11.    This markedly affects my 1996 disability claim for psychiatric conditions where DFRDB Board confirmed I should have been medically discharged from the Navy due to mental illness.

      • Please note that DVA had the same evidence as Navy, yet has denied me TPI 

      12.    I submitted claim referencing the original 1996 determination back to the VRB even though I was out of the time frame for an appeal, as caused by events outlined in this letter.

                                                             

      13.    I believe VRB made a wrong decision due solely to tarnished evidence from Mr Billing, his lies to the VRB and refusal to argue my case or accept HMAS Duchess Ship Logs "stressors" evidence.                                                                              

      14.  Although the time line is well past I believe justice is best served if the AAT will list this appeal and hear my submission, if this is necessary because, I believe there should be automatic flow-on to award me TPI after Navy acceptance of liability as confirmed by DFRDB Boar, with compensation back-dated to time of discharge in 1968.                                                                                                                          

      15.    I cannot go back to step 1 re-lodging disability claim because I am over 65 years of age

      16.    I have not been able to hold any job and have not worked at all in some 21 years 1968-1997

      17.    This is due solely to what I believe and prove as injuries that are related to Navy service                                                                                           

      18.  I cannot satisfy 24(1) of the Act, but if the case was to proceed, I believe that, my mental health would have improved substantially, but was prevented by events, including:                                                                                         

        • Had I not been referred by DVA to "hired-gun" criminal with mental illness (c. 1980), Mr Billing (trained, paid and protected by DVA at my expense), and
        • Had the fraud not been promulgated by Mr Billing and then
        • Had that false email fraud not been wrongly used by DVA in evidence.

      19.    This would have given me opportunity to refute frauds which DVA staunchly believe I committed.

      20.    I ask that I be awarded TPI based on reasonable hypothesis; also

                                                                                 

       

      (a)    vital dates of "onset" as set and abundantly recorded by DVA's own medicos and as also confirmed in other professional medical diagnoses provided to DVA; in addition
      (b)    approximately 19 recorded war operational  service periods; with
      (c)    87 recorded serious incidents, recorded in HMAS Duchess Ship's Logs; each with
      (d)    more than one "stressor" for mental illnesses, each as claimed and each meeting Statement of Principles criteria for award of TPI                                                                            

      I would like top have my day in court please ? 

       NOW, please take a look at this unanswered letter on complaints

      UNANSWERED
      12 April 2012 letter presents wide-ranging unanswered complaints which are now BLOCKED by DVA's new Minister, Senator Ronaldson, through his 13 November 2013 letter, which follows similar BLOCKAGE by new DVA Secretary Lewis.

      More recently 13 December 2013, BLOCKED all FOI requests and follow-up to the 12 April 2012 complaint, BUT the case will not cease until fairness prevails and those whom independent Mr Terry Fogarty considers should be jailed through abuses in my case, are brought to justice.    Check Mr Fogarty's website: http://amvif.com/philanthropist/  

      The Minister & Secretary DVA; OLSC, Ms Trinca, Ms Cosson & DVA’s SVCM Team for ID & processing
      Re: Official complaints; with request for truly independent external review, incl. on decade long bias, protection, discrimination, denunciations, DVA rejection of Mediation arranged 2009 & privacy breaches in conjunction with call for Royal Commission into DVA

      (arising from unanswered complaints & unrequited reason for decision request)

      Dear Messrs Snowdon & Campbell

      • I am aware of considerations by OLSC in 15 March 2012 letter (notal).    I also note from Secretary DVA’s 27 January 2012 letter, DVA’s concern about complaints and their investigation as expanded on in the DVA website on ID, process and promptness of inquiry into complaints, see also independent Mr Paul Evans reference 3 April 2012 below.   

         

        Unfortunately, decade long DVA bias, protection, discrimination, denunciations; with defamations, rejection of Mediation arranged 2009; with denials of natural justice & privacy breaches remain unaddressed, yet form part of the basis for independent Mr Terry Fogarty’s call for Royal Commission into DVA or like ADR

         

        Only two of many complaints were considered in a decade; one led to a constricted fatally flawed Lamond review ordered by DVA, where 2 March 2011 complaints were excluded, after at least three Internal Reviews finding no basis for my complaints (Mr Evans 3 April 2012 letter below)..   

         

        Now, in light of the following and to assist focus in current discussions, I am lodging these official complaints observing importance of:

        1. Consideration by OLSC of my 11 November 2011 request for new external review; also
        2. OLSC consideration of: independent Mr Terry Fogarty’s call for Royal Commission into DVA, or similar ADR (OLSC 15 March 2012 letter).
        3. DVA’s failure to finalise the Lamond review
        4. DVA’s repeated rejection of FOI requests clearly identified from Lamond review for needed information to progress discussion and finalise the Lamond review - Attachment B refers
        5. DVA’s failure to reply to Messrs Whitelaw McDonald lawyers, or to independent Mr Paul Evans letters, or apologise, correct failures, or provide compensation.
        6. My clarification letter of 31 January 2012 to the Attorney General and OLSC, copy attached

         

        Background:

        Problems and my complaints about DVA began in 1996 and have escalated greatly in recent times:

        • Initially they concerned DVA’s handling and consideration of entitlement claims including:
          • Rejection of specialist diagnosed conditions by non-medical staff
          • Collapsing claims one into another denying SoP’s, DSMIV and medical practice
          • Visible use of criteria outside SoP’s (used to evaluate claims) particularly for PTSD which are denied by DVA trained ESO advocates and jurisdiction lawyers
          • Wrongful use of “pre-condition”/”aggravation” & “family related” determinations by DVA to evade liability – see Dr Kristy Muir’s “Living in a Citadel”
          • Use of threats to sue for fraudulent claim for unclaimed conditions inserted by DVA
        • 4 & 15 April, June 2008 and other complaints, incl. those in 2004 were never addressed.
        • Major complaints on claims delays of up to 3½ years beyond 120 day timeline

         

        Then followed loss of some 75 files’ at the same time 21 August 2002 horrendous unaddressed denunciation branding me a malingerer to evade 26 July 2002 advised 28 year increase in SRCA compensation and liability already accepted from 3 September 1963.

        I also experienced:

        • Extreme problems and threats from the Advocate I was referred to by DVA’s VVCS, a convicted felon with admitted mental illness (too evade jail 3 times) both c. 1980; who was accredited, trained, paid, elevated and then protected by DVA at my expense; while invited to DVA & Ministerial functions showing the extent of his influence within DVA
        • I refused to pay bribe and complained about false advice;
        • The problems then manifested in false forgery and fraud allegations which
        • DVA then, in breach of Onus of Proof, Privacy, PSA Code, Good decision-making for government and model litigant rules carried forward to destroy my credibility, honour and self-esteem to brand me a criminal for a decade in widely spread numerous denunciations.
        • DVA then, in fear mongering, manufactured other false fraud allegations and threatened to sue me for fraudulent claim for an unclaimed condition (30 May 2005); it also used similar allegations by an expert witness against me. (April 2009) and created other false allegations
        • These matters are at the heart of the present debacle and stalemate where DVA refuses to acknowledge, apologise and provide compensation, despite findings by three independent reviewers and also by CDPP
        • Confirmation of my complaints thru independent reviews by Messrs Evans, Lamond & Fogarty; also CDPP – for no correction or apology.
        • In addition, Mr Evans advises 3 April 2012 that at least three Internal DVA reviews had found no basis at all to Mr Atkins complaints, showing the toxicity and extent to which DVA is prepared to go in protection and cover-up as now exposed - at my expense.

         

                                                                                                                           

         

        Here are some interesting statistics – taken from independent Mr Paul Evans 3 April 2012 letter:

         

         

        Days since I lodged an FOI request to obtain documents in order to conduct a review of this matter.  This started the entire process of an independent review - 519 

        519

        Days since DVA received the Lamond report  - 236

        236

        Days since DVA's investigator's originally noted that 'no further investigation of this matter is warranted'  - 3,242

        3242

        The number of days after this notation it took for DVA’s investigators to lodge a brief with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP)  - 479

        479

        The number of days it took the CDPP to reply and seriously chastise DVA over this brief [i] - 14

        14

         


      • [i] Neither Mr Atkins nor I have seen this reply.  However, Mr Lamond summarises it as stating ‘…that there is no evidence in admissible form; criticises the Department for the approach it has made to the CDPP seeking advice rather than presenting a brief of evidence; chastises the Department for its dilatory approach; notes that the Department does not explore or explain the public interest issues for a prosecution; notes that while other matters are in progress any decision to move to prosecute could be seen as the Department applying pressure on Mr Atkins to settle those other matters; and finally notes that the purported forgery was never presented to any body/authority in support of a claim.’

         

         

        [1] Neither Mr Atkins nor I have seen this reply.  However, Mr Lamond summarises it as stating ‘…that there is no evidence in admissible form; criticises the Department for the approach it has made to the CDPP seeking advice rather than presenting a brief of evidence; chastises the Department for its dilatory approach; notes that the Department does not explore or explain the public interest issues for a prosecution; notes that while other matters are in progress any decision to move to prosecute could be seen as the Department applying pressure on Mr Atkins to settle those other matters; and finally notes that the purported forgery was never presented to any body/authority in support of a claim.’

         

         

         

        Nor has the treatment of Mr Atkins changed.  He lodged a complaint against Mr Ted Harrison on 07 November 2011.  The Secretary stated the matter is under investigation, but refused to provide further details as stated he must do in DVA’s own published complaint handling procedures[ii].  The relevant statistics are:

         

        Number of days since the complaint was lodged  - 148

        148

        DVA’s target, in days, for handling complaints  - 28

        28

        Average number of days DVA takes for handling complaints  - 15

        15


      • [i] Neither Mr Atkins nor I have seen this reply.  However, Mr Lamond summarises it as stating ‘…that there is no evidence in admissible form; criticises the Department for the approach it has made to the CDPP seeking advice rather than presenting a brief of evidence; chastises the Department for its dilatory approach; notes that the Department does not explore or explain the public interest issues for a prosecution; notes that while other matters are in progress any decision to move to prosecute could be seen as the Department applying pressure on Mr Atkins to settle those other matters; and finally notes that the purported forgery was never presented to any body/authority in support of a claim.’

         

        [ii] DVA’s complaint policy, as listed on its website, states: ‘If the matter is complex, it may take longer. If this is the case, DVA will ensure that complainants are given the contact details of the officer or area assigned to manage their complaint, and will keep them informed of progress and an expected resolution date.’

         

        Two months after the complaint was lodged, rather than being freely provided by DVA, Mr Atkins was forced to ask for this specific information.  The Secretary refused.

        [1] DVA’s complaint policy, as listed on its website, states: ‘If the matter is complex, it may take longer. If this is the case, DVA will ensure that complainants are given the contact details of the officer or area assigned to manage their complaint, and will keep them informed of progress and an expected resolution date.’

                                                                                                              

        Two months after the complaint was lodged, rather than being freely provided by DVA, Mr Atkins was forced to ask for this specific information.  The Secretary refused

        Here are some other interesting facts:

        Number of internal reviews by DVA (that I know of) that found no basis at all to Mr Atkins complaints

        3

        Number of independent reviews that established that the investigation was seriously flawed and should never have taken place

        2

        Number of independent reviews that confirmed a breach of Mr Atkins privacy

        2

        Number of independent reviews that agreed with the conclusions contained in all of DVA’s internal reviews on these matters

        0

        Number of times DVA has offered an apology for these events since receiving the Lamond review on 11 August 2011

        0

        Number of days it took DVA, after receiving the report, to recommend to the Minister that he should not respond to Mr Atkins over the issues contained in the report

        22

        Number of days the Minister considered the report before accepting DVA’s recommendations (This is a ‘trick’ statistic.  The Minister actually agreed to DVA’s recommendations before his office even received the report)

        N/A

         

         

         

         

         

        I do not propose to dwell on old complaints, but record recent unaddressed complaints; with fact that in protecting shown by Messrs Evans, Lamond, Fogarty & Kirkman; also in CDPP chastisement of DVA in its dealing with me (exposed by Mr Lamond), I maintain there has been decade long bias, perception of bias and discrimination against me; with many privacy breaches and defamations.

         

        It is clear that Mr Billing and others have been protected at my expense in serious abuses of power, unconscionable conduct and conspiracies..

         

        I note that the present Agency Head has been involved, except for a short period, throughout these problems from 2002 to the present.    I reminded DVA of responsibilities of Agency Heads and alleged DVA changes Mr Lamond stated, yet my team see only a worsening situation and obduracy Mr Evans presents; while DVA refuses key information identified from the Lamond report, using technicalities and falsely stating all relevant information has been provided previously.

         

         

        Accountability & Governance:

                                                                                                                                                 

        Quote:

        “Accountability is central to ensuring the Australian Government performs its functions effectively, efficiently, ethically and in the best interests of the Australian community. Various obligations apply to agency heads such as annual reporting, to ensure they are accountable to Ministers, the Parliament and the public for the way in which public money and resources are used and Government policies and services are delivered”.

         

        The Public Service Act 1999 provides a framework within which agency heads are accountable to Ministers. In particular:

        • one of the APS Values provides that the APS should be responsive to the Government providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the Government’s policies and programmes (section 10(1)(f) of the Public Service Act)
        • the Secretary of a department, under the agency Minister, is responsible for managing the department and must advise the Minister in matters relating to the department (section 57(1) of the Public Service Act). Section 66 contains equivalent obligations for heads of executive agencies (and, in turn:)

        Quote

        “[T]he courts are the only defence of the liberty of the subject against departmental aggression” – see references in Attachment C.

        Under the Australian system of responsible Government, Ministers are responsible to Parliament for the overall administration of their portfolios, both in terms of policy and management and also for carriage in the Parliament of their accountability obligations to that institution. Unquote    Other references to Ministerial and Departmental responsibilities are detailed separately.   

        Agency Heads are responsible for investigating complaints promptly and identifying officers involved; also for providing feedback to complainants, which has not been done.

         

         

        FOI rejections have become a very significant issue, particularly since DVA’s Ms Cosson’s 14 June 2011 advice FOI matters would not be dealt with until finalisation of the Lamond review, which is being held-up solely by DVA.   

         

        DVA has had the report some 240 days and had external legal advice it sought in order to respond to my lawyer’s 4 November 2011 letter - for more than 70 days.    DVA has also failed to respond to:

         

        • My Lawyer Messrs Whitelaw McDonald letter 11 November 2011 – including within the 30 days timeframe
        • Independent Mr Paul Evans 16 September & 7 November 2011 letters – Mr Evans holds authority to act on my behalf.

         

         

        These matters, complaints herein, longevity of DVA’s extreme and obdurate failures go to the heart of PSA Code and other government rules, including model litigant and Good decision-making for government rules including.

        :

        • DVA failing to communicate
        • Failing to correct failures in serous harmful false & untested criminal issues, or
        • Failing to provide information under FOI or in other requests; with
        • Exposé’s of extreme protection of individuals and conspiracies at my expense; also
        • Exposé’s of serious breaches of governance; with
        • Abuses of power and unconscionable conduct, all abundantly recorded.

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

        Request:

         

        1. Truly independent external review on uncorrected and unaddressed decade long bias, perception of bias, discrimination, privacy breaches & DVA’s many widely spread denunciations of me to evade enquiries.

         

         

         

        1. Truly independent review of the specific complaints herein, specifically including FOI, refusals to address complaints and reason for decision issues; also subversive sequences, false fraud and other criminal scenarios; as well as separate coercion scenes I have been forced to battle during the last decade (full details already provided and available on request).
        2. This to be linked with the independent review requested 11 November 2011, due to the flawed Lamond review; also the case presented by Mr Terry Fogarty for Royal Commission into DVA, or similar ADR (OLSC 15 March 2012 letter).   
        3. Action to recognise and consider Mediation set in place, but rejected by DVA in July 2009 (the late Mr Jeff Shaw QC’s letter to Minister Defence Personnel and DVA 7 July 2009 refers); also my paper “Proposed Resolution” 8 November 2004 to issues to that date.

         

        Yours sincerely

         

         

         

        John Atkins

         

        LCDR RAN ret’d

         

        Enclosure 1 – My unanswered 31 January 2012 clarification letter to the Attorney General and OLSC

         

        Enclosure 2 - Listing of unaddressed complaints - Complaints arising principally from & identified by the Lamond review documents

         

        Attachment A – copy of my unanswered 29 March 2012 complaint

         

        Attachment B – copy of unanswered 4 April 2012 complaint and DVA’s deemed rejections

        Attachment C – References as to Statutory Rights


      • [i] Neither Mr Atkins nor I have seen this reply.  However, Mr Lamond summarises it as stating ‘…that there is no evidence in admissible form; criticises the Department for the approach it has made to the CDPP seeking advice rather than presenting a brief of evidence; chastises the Department for its dilatory approach; notes that the Department does not explore or explain the public interest issues for a prosecution; notes that while other matters are in progress any decision to move to prosecute could be seen as the Department applying pressure on Mr Atkins to settle those other matters; and finally notes that the purported forgery was never presented to any body/authority in support of a claim.’

        [ii] DVA’s complaint policy, as listed on its website, states: ‘If the matter is complex, it may take longer. If this is the case, DVA will ensure that complainants are given the contact details of the officer or area assigned to manage their complaint, and will keep them informed of progress and an expected resolution date.’

         

        Two months after the complaint was lodged, rather than being freely provided by DVA, Mr Atkins was forced to ask for this specific information.  The Secretary refused.

         

         

         

       

       

       

       

       






       

       

       

       

       

      I refused to pay the bribe demanded by an ex-service organisation advocate trained and paid by DVA and this resulted - for no action by DVA, other than to mount extreme denunciations of me 6 & 16 April, 23 June & 7 July 2004, as known to me, yet there are likely many more, based upon events.

      These false denunciations were designed to destroy me, in falsely painting me a criminal and a vexatious litigant who makes repeated unreasonable complaints to all and sundry.
                                 
      Yet Minister Ronaldson will do nothing and DVA states I have no entitlement, BUT there are clear and abundant grounds for review, including:

      • abundant "relevant factors",
      • reasonable hypothesis and rules, including Good decision-making & "model litigant" rules; also
      • precedents and DVA instructions; as well as
      • fairness and integrity with equity in meeting VEA legislation, rules and DVA credo of "Saluting their Service".

        

       

      BUT, all of this and much more was well known to DVA, which denied me access to key evidence and my files (Natutal Justice issues) needed to protect and defend myself - from mid 2002, but particularly from EMAIL FRAUD in October 2002, until the present day.

      NOW PLEASE READ WARNING BY A SENIOR DVA MANAGER 7 OCT. 2003 "  ......   THIS CASE IS GOING TO BLOW SKY HIGH" :



      Ms Philpott's of 21 October 2003 memorandum (also obtained under FOI) is equally revealling and, with Minister DVA's letter of 12 December 2003, denying me access to evidence in criminal allegations illegally used against me by DVA (NATURAL JUSTICE ISSUE) from December 2002, clearly indicates "Cover-Up" as confirmed in the "whistleblower" reports and documents.    

      Because I discovered these actions and other untoward hostile actions and reported them, I have suffered at every stage in claims and applications to correct Commonwealth threats, bias and discrimination.

      More information is available upon request.



      UNANSWERED

      Grievances to the Hon. Justice Garry Downes AM


      John Atkins    

      44/2nd Ave. Broadlands Mobile Home Estate Green Point NSW 2251 Tel: 02 4304 1207 & 0439 197 846

       

      (Current - Rehab at Lightning Ridge NSW – c/- PO Lightning Ridge 2834)

       

      18 October 2009

       

      The Hon. Justice Garry Downes AM

      The President Administrative Appeals Tribunal

      GPO Box 9955 Sydney NSW 2001

       

      Cc        Registrar Administrative Appeals Tribunal GPO Box 9955 Sydney NSW 2001

       

       

       

      Dear Sir

      Re: Grievances

      (untoward decisions, abuse, bias & discrimination apparently from unresolved EMAIL FRAUD and Commonwealth illegal use of numerous false criminal allegations against me, including in forum open to the public; with other hostile acts)

       

      References - my letters to you, or copied to you and also to the AAT including:

      1. 6 June 2004 on untoward AAT events leading to un-investigated complaints;
      2. 14 January 2009 concerning abuses of the AAT 13 January 2009
      3. 19 January 2009 on letter to Governor General, fair resolution within the Constitution and Good decision-making for government; bias and discrimination and conduct of 13 January 2009 directions hearing.
      4. 19 February 2009 concerning camouflage, bias and discrimination with patterns of steps to “close me down”; also bias, non-investigation of complaints, untoward decision and failures to reply to requests;
      5. 13 March 2009 on confusion, leading to more bias and discrimination 20 March 2009.
      6. 3 September 2009 concerning coercion, forced settlement in the AAT 5 July 2005, Commonwealth evasion of liability (fraud), subversion and more.

       

      Introduction

      As a seriously disabled ex-serviceman and veteran unable to provide for myself and family, in the early 1980’s I sought advice on commencing entitlement claims for 18 medical conditions diagnosed as caused during ADF service.   

       

      I was forced to initiate my own claims in 1996 - this began a roller-coaster process embracing untoward claims rejections, wrongful collapsing of claims; also Commonwealth’s illegal use of EMAIL FRAUD issues, its wrongful threats of long-term jailing; followed by threats of suing me for a number of false allegations, including for fraudulent claim - for an un-claimed condition inserted (forged by the Commonwealth) in accepting liability from 3 September 1963.    The Commonwealth consistently and continually evaded liability and denied reply and access to evidence.

       

      Unfortunately the AAT has not performed well, or in accordance with criteria set by the Attorney General The Hon Robert McClelland in his speeches, or with rules as set in your speeches including on Good decision-making for government, fairness, and other statutory obligations.

       

      I am most disappointed

      I am disappointed in the claims process and consequential events, observing rules in “legitimate expectations”, “model litigant” and procedural fairness; with The Rule of Law which enables our Constitution as outlined in the following:

      1. “Section 75(v) of the Constitution [is] the means by which the Rule of Law is upheld throughout the Commonwealth”; which was expanded upon in ……
      2. Attorney-General, Robert McClelland’s speech, 21 August 2008; ALSO in 
      3. Good decision-making in relation to Natural Justice, Duty of Care, Fact Finding, Interpretation of Legislation - The Hon. Justice Garry Downes AM speech 7 March 2008; also
      4. Mr Jim Kennan S.C.*, Victorian Attorney General - “The rule of law must protect fundamental rights and “[T]he courts are the only defence of the liberty of the subject against departmental aggression”

       

      My AAT & Commonwealth problems

      These are covered in abundance from 1996, but particularly:

      1. From my SRCA case and denial of access to key evidence through Commonwealth failures to answer requests in 2004 - resulting in extreme coercion and untoward AAT decision of 5 July 2004; also
      2. The horrific events involving my fair and reasonable applications during 2007/2008, which were treated unfairly, rejected or remain unanswered; with some wrongly found “frivolous & vexatious” – mainly on EMAIL FRAUD and surrounding issues and claims which have not yet been resolved; then
      3. Well documented most serious breaches of fairness, with abuse, bias and discrimination in the AAT, including as result of AAT directions 21 October 2008; also directions hearings 13 January and 20 March and more recently the debacle in mediation 21 August 2009 as abundantly documented.

       

      To resolve the problems, I would appreciate you:

      1. Review all applications made to the AAT from 2 April 2007, including the following; with your assistance to correct errors and bring about fairness in Commonwealth’s considerations involving apparent evasion of liability; also serious breaches of Commonwealth requirements for fairness, reasonableness, “legitimate expectations” and “model litigant” obligations in:

      a)      DFRB application of 29Dec07 with follow-up 3 & 26 March & 11 November 2008 and additional follow-up on several occasions in 2009 - for no acknowledgment or reply by the AAT.

      b)      Application 2 April 2008 for review of wrong decisions in SRCA & VEA Act claims my 18 claims dated 2 October 2002 and 25 September 2002 respectively, with numerous follow-up including 11 November 2008 and in 2009 – for no acknowledgment or AAT reply.

      a)      Applications of 27 March 2008 with follow-up 26 May 2008 concerning a number of letters and deemed refusals to reply by senior Commonwealth managers’ involved in key EMAIL FRAUD and consequential events, including MRC Delegate’s 2002 advice compensation increase by extra 28 years in my SRCA case – for no acknowledgment or reply by the AAT.

      b)      AAT wrong decision, without receipt of information it requested from me in reference 2007/1147, which was based on EMAIL FRAUD, consequential issues and wrong decisions arising there from.

      1. Rectification of AAT’s failure to issue written directions for directions by Conference Registrar Desses 21 October 2008 and which were given on nine occasions as recorded and in Ms Desses Report obtained under FOI.
      2. Rectification of bias and discrimination preventing my team raising agenda items in 13 January and 20 March AAT directions hearings, based on AAT’s requirement I provide reasons for directions hearing, given 11 November 2008 - in “legitimate expectations” this should have formed agenda.
      3. Rectification of bias and discrimination in Senior Member presiding at 13 January and 20 March 2009 directions hearing whereby he:

      a)      Handed back written requests to Mr Jeff Shaw QC on 13 January 2009;

      b)      Wrongly refused Mr Jeff Shaw QC’s written requests 20 March 2009;

      c)      AGS being permitted to table directions, while

      d)     Accepted AGS advice my 15 January 2008 claim for reassessment of my November 1998 SRCA claim, which formed the basis of the directions hearing - was “not relevant” in bias and discrimination; also

      e)      AGS’s failure to provide full T documents of 15 January 2008 application and evidence, instead providing selective only documents.

      1. Correction of the constricted mediation on one only (PTSD) of 18 claimed medically diagnosed conditions in my November 1998 and 15 January 2008 applications, resulting in mediation debacle which has been adequately recorded and contradicts co-ordinated resolution advised 17 July 2009 by Minister Defence Personnel’s office and DOD A/Secretary Mr Bill Traynor advice to my representative Mr Jeff Shaw QC on behalf Minister Combet.
      2. Ratification and recording of settlement in mediation as confirmed by my representative Mr Jeff Shaw QC in his letter of 4 September 2009, which remains un-acknowledged - settlement was made on the only element included in mediation – PTSD ALONE – in the sum of $20,000.   
      3. Review of my SRCA and FOI request cases in 2004 resulting in untoward decisions from coercion and complaints which remain un-investigated.

       

      I have been a loyal citizen serving in some 15 war operations and other peacekeeping, whilst I have also made major contributions to Australia in other fields.   Problems have denied me TPI, extra 30 years SRCA compensation and finalisation of other major issues, which have severely affected me and led to suicide attempts.   

       

      My team and I seek resolution within terms of Mr Jeff Shaw QC’s letter of 7 July 2009; Commonwealth advices on increased SRCA compensation, my unanswered Proposed Resolution of 8 November 2004 provided the AAT 13 January 2009, with pain and suffering and cost components.

       

      Thank you for the time you spent reading this letter and I hope we can resolve these matters. I look forward to receiving an early reply with resolution to problems - I will wait until 31 October before seeking other help.

       

      Please contact me as above by telephone, or email; I am available when travelling and will be happy to meet if this can help ?

       

      Yours sincerely

       

       

       

      John Atkins    

      Lieutenant Commander (Ret’d)

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

          




       

      REFERENCES

      These references indicate sad truth in John's experiences and need for affirmative action:

      1.    Dr Kristy Muir's papers, including "Living in a Citadel"

      2.    Papers by Melbourne lawyer operating in the  Veterans' jurisdiction, Mr Greg
              Isolani, including:
                 (a) "The cost of making & keeping the peace"; also 
                 (b) "Trial by ordeal - the long road to Justice", both available upon request.

      3.    Daily Telegraph article 31 May 2004 on "Official torture of our heroes" available
             upon request; with ABC documentaries and commentary at that time.

      4.    January 2009 Study by Professor David Dunt for Minister DVA.

      5.    Major Allan Warren's story.

      6.    Wing Commander Russell Vance's story leading to high-level investigation of
             Commonwealth breaches of "model litigant" obligations; also the story of Air Vice
             Marshall Peter Criss.

      7.    Case of Peter Covington-Thomas in the NSW Supreme Court during which
             reference was also made to Commonwealth breaches of "model litigant"
             obligations.

      8.    Sydney Morning Herald reporter Nick McKenzie's 20 March 2008 article quoting
             48 suicides by ADF personnel 2001-2007, as stated by a Defence spokesman;
             with other references and quotes as recorded in my 19 March 2008 paper.

      Website Builder