Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts

Tuesday, 22 August 2017

In 1987 Australia the New South Wales state government exposed Donald J. Trump's "Mafia connections"



If the NSW Police Board in Australia knew of Donald J. Trump's "Mafia connections" (Confidential Minutes, p. 8,3. Police Board ii) in June 1987 it follows that so did the Atlanta Police Department, Georgia State Police, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and possibly Interpol - because NSW Police and/or the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would have likely approached one or all these sources when gathering intelligence. 

Monday, 14 August 2017

Digital Transformation Agency: of all the stupid ideas.....


Of all the stupid ideas this has to be one of the worst…….

The Courier Mail, 5 August 2017:

ONE super ID logon that will allow Australians to interact with Medicare, pay their car registration, help switch banks and buy groceries and clothes online is being developed by the Turnbull Government.

In a bid to stop identity fraud and increase competition, Digital Transformation Assistant Minister Angus Taylor revealed the blueprint centred on one user name and one password for government and private use.

Within five years, Australians may be able to order a pair of jeans online or update their address for Centrelink, their bank or energy providers by using the streamlining technology provided by the government.

The opt-in plan will give people the ability to have one logon and password, which will not be stored centrally to ensure security.

It will likely have a twostep verification process, including a text of a code being sent to a mobile phone.

He said the first step was a logon for all government agencies, which could happen reasonably quickly, and then expanding it to the private sector.

Mr Taylor said conversations were being held with states and territories and some significant private companies.

“It’s opt-in, that’s the crucial principle. Mistakes of the past were forcing people down a particular track,” he said, stressing that there would be no “number” given to Australians and it was not a version of dumped policy of an Australia Card.

He said the measure would also make it easier to change banks or open bank accounts because the Government logon would eventually be considered one of the best identification systems.

“If you update your address, you’ll only have to do it once (and it will go to all government agencies and online retailers).”

He called it the “tell us once” principle.

Yes indeed; one phishing email, re-direct hack, one malicious website or insecure mobile phone and in the space of five minutes your identity is not your own, money leaves your bank accounts or money is borrowed against your assets and your credit card notches up thousands of dollars in goods that someone else receives.

What a brill idea, Angus! Did Malcolm suggest it?

Thursday, 3 August 2017

Australian Human Rights Commission 2017, "Change The Course: National report on sexual assault and sexual harassment at Australian universities


Change The Course: National Report On Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment At Australian Univerities, 2017:
Executive summary
At the request of Australia’s 39 universities, the Australian Human Rights Commission has conducted a national, independent survey of university students to gain greater insight into the nature, prevalence and reporting of sexual assault and sexual harassment at Australian universities.
The National university student survey on sexual assault and sexual harassment (the National Survey) also examined the effectiveness of university services and policies that address sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus.
The request to conduct this survey follows decades of advocacy on the topic of sexual assault and sexual harassment at universities both within Australia and overseas.
The National Survey is the first of its kind and the first attempt to examine in detail the scale and the nature of the problem in Australia.
This work builds on the Commission’s extensive experience leading projects of this nature, including the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force and conducting national workplace sexual harassment surveys for the past 12 years.
The National Survey measured the experiences of over 30,000 students across all 39 universities and collected information about:
* prevalence of sexual assault and sexual harassment among Australian university students in 2015 and 2016
* characteristics of people who experienced sexual assault and sexual harassment
* characteristics of perpetrators of sexual assault and sexual harassment
* settings where students experienced sexual assault and sexual harassment at university
* reporting of sexual assault and sexual harassment, and
* students’ recommendations for change.
In addition to the quantitative data gathered via the National Survey, a vast amount of qualitative data was gathered through written submissions. The Commission accepted written submissions from 23 August 2016 to 2 December 2016 and received 1849 submissions in total.
This report outlines the findings of the National Survey, provides an analysis of the qualitative information received through the submissions, and makes recommendations for areas of action and reform.
Warning: This report contains detailed accounts of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including personal accounts from survivors, which some readers may find distressing.


Monday, 12 June 2017

Crime remains comparatively low in the NSW Northern Rivers region during the first quarter of 2017


As communities in the NSW Northern Rivers have come to expect our region is not the worst when it comes to instances of recorded crime but it is not the best either.

In the first quarter of 2017 in Coffs Harbour-Grafton and Richmond-Tweed statistical areas recorded incidents for domestic violence, non-domestic assault, sexual assault, indecent assault & other sexual offences all rose, while Richmond-Tweed saw the number of people murdered rise from one to four.

Tweed and Clarence Valley local government areas had the highest recorded incidents for domestic violence in the Northern Rivers at 312 and 213 instances respectively and, Lismore and Tweed local government areas had the highest recorded incidents for sexual assault at 77 and 56 instances respectively.

Indecent assault & other sexual offences were most prevalent in the Lismore local government area at 107 instances.

While the dubious honour of highest recorded incidents for non-domestic violence goes to Tweed (292), Lismore (281) and Clarence Valley (278) local government areas.

Sadly, it would appear that crimes against the person are our forte thus far in 2017.

SYDNEY, RURAL AND REGIONAL NSW - MARCH 2015 TO MARCH 2016
                                          

SYDNEY, RURAL AND REGIONAL NSW - MARCH 2016 TO MARCH 2017


SYDNEY, RURAL AND REGIONAL NSW – CRIME RATE MARCH 2016 TO MARCH 2017



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, media release, 8 June 2017:

Crime remains low: NSW Recorded Crime Statistics quarterly update March 2017

None of the major crime categories have increased in NSW over the last two years. In the 24 months to March 2017, four of the 17 major offences were trending downward and the remaining 13 were stable.

The offences trending down were:
1. robbery with a weapon not a firearm (down 10.9%);
2. break and enter dwelling (down 5.9%);
3. steal from person (down 15.2%);
4. fraud (down 4.3%).

However, parts of the Hunter and Western NSW have experienced significant increases in particular crimes over the two year period to March 2017.

Newcastle and Lake Macquarie experienced a significant increase in four of the 17 major offences:  non-domestic assault (up 6.9%), steal from retail store (up 19.6%), steal from dwelling (up 8.7%) and malicious damage to property (up 9.6%).

The New England and North West have experienced significant increases in three of the 17 major offences: non-domestic assault (up 4.1%), break and enter - dwelling (up 16.2%) and steal from dwelling (up 20.8%).

The Far West and Orana have experienced significant increases in three major property offences: break and enter - dwelling (up 18.8%), motor vehicle theft (up 28.1%) and steal from retail store (up 28.0%).

Commenting on the results the Deputy Director of the Bureau, Jackie Fitzgerald, said that while it was reassuring that no major offences were trending upwards at the State level it should not be overlooked that some pockets of NSW were experiencing crime problems. 

“The growth in crimes in the West and North West of NSW is particularly concerning because the crime rates in these areas are already more than twice, and in some cases more than three times the State average.”

Monday, 13 February 2017

The shocking truth about historic institutional child sexual abuse in Australia


A Child’s Morning Prayer
Lord, I awake and see your light,
For You have kept me through the night,
To You I lift my hands and pray,
Keep me from sin throughout this day,
And if I die before it's done,
Save me through Jesus Christ, Your Son.
Amen.

A Child’s Night Prayer
Angel of God, my Guardian dear,
to whom His love commits me here,
ever this night be at my side,
to light and guard,
to rule and guide.
Amen
Origin unknown

The Commonwealth of Australia Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse held its first public hearing in Sydney from Monday 16 to Thursday 19 September 2013. The Royal Commission's first public hearing into the Catholic Church in Australia and child sexual abuse began on Monday, 9 December 2013 and multiple hearings relating to Catholic institutions and specific clergy followed over the next four years. 

Excerpts from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Public Hearing into Catholic Church Authorities, Case Study 50, transcript, 6 February 2017:

1. This is the Royal Commission’s 50th public hearing…..

7. It was plain that hearings were needed to examine the responses of faith-based institutions, given that, as at the end of 2016, 60% of survivors attending a private session reported abuse in those institutions. Of those survivors, nearly two thirds reported abuse in Catholic institutions. While the percentage has varied over time, at present over 37% of all private session attendees reported sexual abuse in a Catholic institution. Consequently Catholic institutions were a key part of the Royal Commission’s public hearings. …….

26. Between January 1980 and February 2015, 4,444 people alleged incidents of child sexual abuse made to 93 Catholic Church authorities. These claims related to over 1000 separate institutions.

27. The claims survey sought information about the people who made claims of child sexual abuse. Where the gender of people making a claim was reported, 78% were male and 22% were female. Of those people who made claims of child sexual abuse received by religious orders with only religious brother members, 97% were male.

28. The average age of people who made claims of child sexual abuse, at the time of the alleged abuse, was 10.5 for girls and 11.6 for boys. The average time between the alleged abuse and the date a claim was made was 33 years.

29. The claims survey sought information about alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse. A total of 1,880 alleged perpetrators were identified in claims of child sexual abuse. Over 500 unknown people were identified as alleged perpetrators. It cannot be determined whether any of those people whose identities are unknown were identified by another claimant in a separate claim.

30. Of the 1,880 identified alleged perpetrators:

a. 597 or 32% were religious brothers
b. 572 or 30% were priests
c. 543 or 29% were lay people
d. 96 or 5% were religious sisters.

31. Of all alleged perpetrators, 90% were male and 10% were female.

32. The Royal Commission surveyed 75 Catholic Church authorities with priest members, including archdioceses, dioceses and religious orders about the number of their members who ministered in Australia between 1 January 1950 and 31 December 2010. Ten Catholic religious orders with religious brother or sister members provided the same information about their members.

33. This information, when analysed in conjunction with the claims data, enabled calculation of the proportion of priests and religious brother and sister members of these Catholic Church authorities who ministered in this period and who were alleged perpetrators.

34. Of priests from the 75 Catholic Church authorities with priest members surveyed, who ministered in Australia between 1950 and 2010, 7.9% of diocesan priests were alleged perpetrators and 5.7% of religious priests were alleged perpetrators. Overall, 7% of priests were alleged perpetrators.

35. The Archdiocese of Adelaide and the Dominican Friars had the lowest overall proportion of priests who ministered in the period 1950 to 2010 and were alleged perpetrators, at 2.4% and 2.1% respectively.

36. The following five archdioceses or dioceses with priest members which had the highest overall proportion of priests who ministered in the period 1950 to 2010 and who were alleged perpetrators:

a. 11.7% of priests from the Diocese of Wollongong were alleged perpetrators
b. 13.9% of priests from the Diocese of Lismore were alleged perpetrators
c. 14.1% of priests from the Diocese of Port Pirie were alleged perpetrators
d. 14.7% of priests from the Diocese of Sandhurst were alleged perpetrators
e. 15.1% of priests from the Diocese of Sale were alleged perpetrators.

37. The following five religious orders with priest members had the highest overall proportion of priests who ministered in the period 1950 to 2010 and who were alleged perpetrators:

a. 8.0% of priests from the Vincentians – The Congregation of the Mission were alleged perpetrators
b. 13.7% of priests from the Pallottines – Society of the Catholic Apostolate were alleged perpetrators
d. 17.2% of priests from the Salesians of Don Bosco were alleged perpetrators
e. 21.5% of priests from the Benedictine Community of New Norcia were alleged perpetrators.

38. In relation to religious orders with religious brother and sister members, the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart and the Sisters of Mercy (Brisbane) had the lowest overall proportions of members who were alleged perpetrators, at 0.6% and 0.3% respectively.

39. The following five religious orders with only religious brother members had the highest overall proportion of religious brothers who ministered in the period 1950 to 2010 and who were alleged perpetrators:

a. 13.8% of De La Salle Brothers were alleged perpetrators
b. 20.4% of Marist Brothers were alleged perpetrators
c. 21.9% of Salesians of Don Bosco brothers were alleged perpetrators
d. 22.0% of Christian Brothers were alleged perpetrators
e. 40.4% of St John of God Brothers were alleged perpetrators.
c. 13.9% of priests from the Marist Fathers – Society of Mary were alleged perpetrators, as distinct from the Marist Brothers.

NOTE:
The St. John of God Brothers were established in Australia in the 1940s by eight men, six of whom were believed to be paedophiles. Brothers Kilian Herbert and Laurence Hartley arrived in Sydney from Ireland on 11 August 1947 to head this small group.

Previous North Coast Voices posts on child sexual abuse can be found here.

News.com.au, 6 February 2017:

A brief of evidence concerning historical claims of sexual abuse at the hands of Cardinal George Pell has been delivered to prosecutors for consideration.

Victoria Police confirmed with AAP on Monday night that investigators had delivered the brief to the Office of Public Prosecutions.

It's a significant development in the case since three police travelled to Rome in October to speak with the former Ballarat priest and Melbourne archbishop.

Cardinal Pell now resides full-time at the Vatican. He cited ill-health as a reason he could not travel back to Australia to give evidence in last year's royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, appearing instead via video link.

Allegations emerged in 2015 from two men who said they were groped as children by Cardinal Pell when he was a priest in Ballarat during the 1970s.

Another man claimed he saw the priest expose himself to young boys in the late 1980s.

Cardinal Pell previously released a statement rejecting "all and every allegation of sexual abuse" and would continue co-operating with Victoria Police until the investigation was finalised.

The Northern Star, 7 February 2017:

WEDNESDAY 4.30pm: NEARLY 14% of Lismore's most experienced Catholic priests were accused of sexually abusing children by 2010 but the diocese's spokesman, the Most Reverend Geoffrey Jarrett, has reserved comment.

Between 52 and 64 priests have served in the Diocese of Lismore in each decade since 1950, with 129 priests having served in the area by 2010, detailed data presented to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has shown.

Some 18 of those priests, or 13.9%, have been accused of sexually abusing children throughout their careers, marking Lismore as one of the nation's top five worst dioceses for child sex accusations against the Church.

Too soon to comment: Diocese of Lismore

But Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese Bishop Jarrett, standing in while Bishop-elect Father Gregory Homeming prepares for his ordination, said it was too early to comment publicly on findings.

"My response is that we are in the early days of the Royal Commission's present three week hearing, and until it completes its investigation, it would be premature to comment on the first release of statistics," Bishop Jarrett said via email to The Northern Star.

"We would expect to have a fuller picture and a wider range of issues as time goes on and I will be available for comment at the end of the hearing."

Sunday, 20 November 2016

Powerless to rein in diplomats' excesses the Australian Government decides to name and shame


News media have been reporting on the flagrant disregard of Australian law by members of the diplomatic community for decades and finally in the Australian Capital Territory they are trying a new approach to traffic violations by diplomats.

ABC News, 17 November 2016:

Foreign diplomats who disregard Australian law will be named and shamed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade amid a crack-down on reckless driving.

The department has struck a deal with the ACT Government to ensure diplomats are no longer immune to having their licences suspended for serious offences that endanger the public.

Freedom of Information documents reveal the crack-down was prompted by concerns about a litany of offences on Canberra roads involving excessive speed and, on occasion, drink-driving.

One Saudi diplomat received a $1,811 fine after being caught travelling at 135 kilometres per hour near Parliament House at 2:00am on a Tuesday.

Another told police he had not had anything to drink despite returning a blood alcohol reading of 0.15, triple the legal limit.

DFAT's chief of protocol briefed 90 diplomats on the new rules in August and "strongly reiterated the message of compliance with Australia's laws".

Internal documents showed the department would no longer be redacting the names of diplomats who broke the law and refused to pay fines.

"[It is] DFAT's view the embassies/high commissions should face the reputational consequences if their officers disrespect the road rules or drive recklessly," the document said.

"This is a fundamental issue of safety. We expect diplomats not only to obey the law, but also to pay fines without delay."

The department has battled to get foreign diplomats to pay their fines for years causing frustration for staff, the police and the ACT Government…..

The documents revealed the department would not disclose a small number of offences because they "had the potential to damage Australia's international relations with some countries".

"In addition, the information released on this occasion includes advice on the new demerit point system for diplomats to be implemented in the ACT under which diplomats will no longer be immune from having their licenses subject to suspension for three months if they incur a total of 12 demerit points or more within a three-year period," one document said.

In the case of serious traffic infringements, DFAT's chief of protocol can request that ambassadors or high commissioners "express concern" to their diplomats or ultimately, cancel a diplomatic visa…..

BACKGROUND

The Canberra Times, 16 November 2016:

A Russian diplomat in Canberra has agreed to apologise over an incident where he allegedly went into a road rage against a young female motorist in the capital last month.

The apology comes after MP Gai Brodtmann alleged two Russian diplomats threatened and bullied the motorist after one of the embassy staffers drove his car into hers at the Coles supermarket car park in Manuka.

The Labor MP says "consular staff from the Russian Embassy allegedly flouting local laws and threatening residents are the latest shocking example of diplomats putting the safety of the Canberra community at risk."

The diplomat in question Edward Shakirov said he and his colleagues found Ms Brodtmann's allegations "surprising" but he would try to resolve the matter with an apology to the other motorist.

Russian diplomats in Canberra have a well established record for racking up speeding and other traffic offences on the city's roads and then refusing to pay the fines, citing diplomatic immunity.

At the last count, the Embassy had more than 250 fines for speeding, illegal parking, running red lights and other offences around Canberra with local authorities powerless to to anything but send "courtesy letters".

In the latest incident diplomat Sergei Letiagin​ is alleged to have driven into the car belonging to young public servant Erika Bacon in a minor car park bingle.

According to Ms Brodtmann's letter of complaint to the Russian Ambassador, Mr Letiagin was unable to speak to Ms Bacon in English, so he summoned a colleague, Edward Shakirov, from the nearby Embassy.

Ms Bacon's account, backed up by witnesses at the scene, is that the two Russians then tried to bully her into accepting liability for the damage to her car.

Ms Bacon, a former employee of Fairfax Media, called police after, she alleges, the Russians became aggressive and threatening to her and to the passers-by who tried to help.

Canberra police and federal agents arrived to calm the situation down…..

Sydney Criminal Lawyers, excerpt, 7 October 2016:

Get Out of Gaol Free

One foreign official was caught driving at 135km/h at 2am, triggering a high speed police chase when he failed to pull over. After eventually stopping, the man failed to produce a driver licence of any description and blamed the incident on forgetting to take his antibiotics. A driver would ordinarily be charged with 'police pursuit' – or 'Skye's law' – a serious offence which can lead to full time imprisonment. However, he could not be charged due to his status as a diplomat.

Other examples include a diplomat who drove with a high range blood alcohol concentration of 0.15, and a Mexican Embassy staffer who refused to comply with a breath test, telling police:
"I don't want to, so I don't have to. I'm here with my family … I'll complain If I hear anything about this".

In another case, a Saudi Arabian diplomat was caught speeding through an intersection at 107km/h in an 80km/h zone. He refused to stop for police sparking a chase, which police ultimately discontinued due to safety concerns. Again, he could not be charged.

Diplomatic Relations and Immunity

Diplomatic immunity arises from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which was adopted into Australian law by section 7 of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act of 1967.

The section essentially protects diplomatic agents from being criminally prosecuted in foreign states. That immunity extends to family members, servants, administrative and technical staff.

The section is intended to promote relations between nations, but has in some cases had the opposite effect. Importantly, the immunity is not absolute as it can be waived by the diplomat's home country.

Waiving Immunity

A waiver of diplomatic immunity normally occurs when the government of the country where the alleged offence took place asks the diplomat's country of origin to waive immunity, and the latter agrees.

Cases of waiver are relatively rare. In the United States, a former Republic of Georgia diplomat who lost control of a car while driving drunk and killed a person resulted in such a waiver.

The diplomat was charged with one count of involuntary manslaughter and four counts of aggravated assault, and ultimately convicted and sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

In a case which occurred in Canada, senior Russian diplomat Andrei Knyazev lost control of his car, killing one person and seriously injuring another. He denied being intoxicated but refused a sobriety or breath test. In that case, Russia declined to waive immunity, instead prosecuting Knyazev when he returned home.

So while diplomatic immunity can enhance relations between countries, it should be used responsibly rather than as a licence to commit offences with impunity – which can result in animosity between sovereign states.

Tuesday, 11 October 2016

On the basis of the Chilcot report an international law firm is attempting to sue former British prime minister Tony Blair for alleged war crimes & crimes against humanity


Despite the International Criminal Court (ICC) and at least one eminent silk reportedly ruling out the possibility of former British prime minister Tony Blair being prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the law firm Nasser Hashem and Partners is preparing a case to be lodged in both British and international courts.

Gulf News, 5 October 2016:

Dubai: A Dubai-based lawyer has started legal action against former British prime minister Tony Blair, seeking his prosecution for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Advocate Nasser Hashem and his partners in London will register the criminal case against Blair this month at the International Criminal Court and British courts for breaching human rights and committing war crimes that killed thousands of Iraqis.

Hashem and his partners in Cairo, Dubai and London decided to take legal action against the former prime minister after the publication of Chilcot's report on the Iraq war in July. Former British prime minister Gordon Brown announced an inquiry in 2009 and the inquiry's chairman Sir John Chilcot announced his findings in a public statement in July.

Speaking to Gulf News, advocate Hashem said: "Since the results of the inquiry were announced earlier this summer, my partners [in Cairo, Dubai and London] and I have decided to take Blair to court for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that were committed in Iraq. We are taking this legal procedure against Blair since he took the decision [in his capacity as the British prime minister then] to participate with the United States in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without the permission of the UK's House of Commons. He produced unreasonable, bogus and wrong information to the House of Commons, according to Chilcot report, and based on that information, the UK participated in that war."

Hashem said Blair falsely and unfoundedly told the House of Commons that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons before the war was launched against Iraq.

According to the Chilcot report, Saddam Hussain did not pose an urgent threat to British interests and that the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty. Also, the report said UK and the US had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council.

"Based on all the lies and allegations that Blair produced before the members of the House of Commons, the decision to go to war alongside with the US was taken. Thousands of Iraqis were killed, injured, displaced and/or shattered. Blair committed war crimes against the people of Iraq and violated human rights. He should be taken to court for the crimes he committed," said Hashem.

A media statement issued earlier by Hashem and his partners said: "Our office in London will take all the necessary legal procedures before the British courts to prove the violations and crimes against humanity that have been committed against human rights in Iraq and breaching the human rights that was settled by International Organisation for Human Rights and to prove the oppression of Blair against Iraq, that led to the destabilisation of the Arab countries, (and) for taking wilful decision and committing grave acts." Hashem and his legal team are expected to announce further details about their legal action against Blair soon.

Nasser Hashem & Partners, media release, 25 July 2016:

Submitting the British former Prime Minister for trial

In this respect, we are ensuring the achievement of the international justice and the enforcement of law. Accordingly, we held a press conference in Cairo in order to start taking legal procedures against the former British Prime Minister "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" before the international Criminal Court for committing War Crimes and crimes against humanity by taking this decision to participate with the United States of America in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without the permission of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by presenting unreasonable information to the House of Commons, According to Chilcot report in 2016 before the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

We emphasize that our office in London will take all the necessary legal procedures before the British courts to prove the violations and crimes against humanity that have been committed against human rights in Iraq and breaching the human rights that was settled by International Organization for Human Rights, to prove the oppression of the former British prime Minister "Anthony Blair" against Iraq, that led to the destabilization of the Arab Countries for taking wilful decision and committing grave acts. We will submit all the documents which prove the conviction of the former Prime Minister "Anthony Charles Blair" specifically after his recognition of taking all responsibility of his decision

Since Egypt joined the Security Council, it has the authority to submit the case by the Security Council before the International Criminal Court. We are making investigations with the Egyptian Minister of foreign Affairs because of our dissatisfaction for violating the rights of Arab nation without any right.

It is important to mention that the United Kingdom claims for human rights and world peace, at the same time violating the respect of humanity. We consider that this is contradicting and this major evidence that led to the division of Iraqis, murdering of innocent children, displacement of families and classifying the Arab countries as a source of terrorism. Consequently, we can consider that what happened in Iraq is not an invasion but it is breaching the sovereignty of state without any right for the purpose of hidden aims and accordingly the former British Prime Mister will be convicted

Update​ 1/10/2016
Nasser Hashem & Partners is preparing all the documents regarding "Anthony Blair" Case to be submitted to the International Criminal Court and British Courts for committing war crimes against Iraqi citizens as a prelude to submitting a compensation case against United Kingdom and the United States of America for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Citizens. We are currently preparing a team which will travel to the United Kingdom to proceed to take legal action and there will be a press conference before the flight to brief journalists on the actions that will be taken in the UK.

Wednesday, 31 August 2016

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption 'Operation Spicer': you saw the telemovie now read the book


The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigation named Operation Spicer ran for approximately five months and claimed a number of political scalps including that of the then NSW Coalition Premier Barry O'Farrell.

Operation Spicer hearings were a feature of nightly news reports and journalists' live tweeting during this period.

Given the number of legal challenges mounted against ICAC since those hearings ended the final inquiry report has only now been released to the general public. 

In its media release of 30 August 2016 ICAC states:

Operation Spicer investigation has exposed prohibited donations, fund channelling and non-disclosures in the NSW Liberal Party’s 2011 state election campaign.

The Commission’s report, Investigation into NSW Liberal Party electoral funding for the 2011 state election campaign and other matters, was made public today. The ICAC’s findings include that Raymond Carter, Andrew Cornwell, Garry Edwards, the Hon Michael Gallacher MLC, Nabil Gazal Jnr, Nicholas Gazal, Hilton Grugeon, Christopher Hartcher, Timothy Koelma, Jeffrey McCloy, Timothy Owen, Christopher Spence, Hugh Thomson and Darren Williams acted with the intention of evading laws under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (the election funding laws) relating to the disclosure of political donations and the ban on donations from property developers.

Messrs Grugeon, Hartcher, Koelma, McCloy, Owen, Thomson and Williams were also found to have acted with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to caps on political donations. The Commission also found that Craig Baumann, Nicholas Di Girolamo, Troy Palmer and Darren Webber acted with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the disclosure of political donations and that Bart Bassett knowingly solicited a political donation from a property developer.

The ICAC found that during November and December 2010 the Free Enterprise Foundation was used to channel donations to the NSW Liberal Party for its 2011 state election campaign so that the identity of the true donors was disguised. A substantial portion of the $693,000 provided by the foundation and used by the NSW Liberal Party in the campaign originated from donors who were property developers and, therefore, prohibited donors under the election funding laws.

Undisclosed political donations were also channelled through a business, Eightbyfive, to benefit Liberal Party 2011 state election campaigns on the Central Coast. These donations included donations from property developers and donations in excess of the applicable caps on donations.

The ICAC also found that there were payments made by property developers, who were prohibited donors, to help fund NSW Liberal Party candidates’ campaigns in the Hunter. The true nature of these payments was disguised, for example, as consultancy services or funnelled through another company with the intention of evading the election funding laws.

The above are findings of fact, not findings of corrupt conduct. As explained in the Foreword to the report, the ICAC cannot make corrupt conduct findings in cases of failure to comply with the requirements of the election funding laws where, although those failures could have affected the exercise of official functions of the then Election Funding Authority of NSW, officers of that authority were not involved in any wrongdoing.

The ICAC makes a finding of serious corrupt conduct against Joseph Tripodi for, sometime prior to 16 February 2011, misusing his position as a member of Parliament to improperly provide an advantage to Buildev by providing to Darren Williams of that company a copy of the confidential 4 February 2011 NSW Treasury report, Review of Proposed Uses of Mayfield and Intertrade Lands at Newcastle Port.

The Commission’s report notes that at the relevant time proceedings for an offence under the election funding laws had to be commenced within three years from the time the offence was committed. As the Operation Spicer public inquiry did not conclude until September 2014, and the matters canvassed in the report occurred mostly from 2009 to 2011, a prosecution for relevant offences is now statute barred.


 Excerpt One:

Chapter 34 of this report contains statements made pursuant to s 74A(2) of the ICAC Act that the Commission is of the opinion that consideration should be given to obtaining the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) with respect to the prosecution of the following persons:

* Samantha Brookes for two offences of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act • Andrew Cornwell for two offences of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [Wife of former Liberal MP for Charlestown Andrew Cornwell]

* Timothy Gunasinghe for an offence of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [GM /Director at Commercialhq]

* Christopher Hartcher for an offence of larceny [former Liberal MP for Terrigal & NSW Minister for State, Minister for Resources and Energy, Minister for Central Coast]

* Timothy Koelma for three offences of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [Proprietor, Eightbyfive]

* William Saddington for an offence of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [Director, PW Saddington & Sons Pty Ltd]

* Joseph Tripodi for the common law offence of misconduct in public office. [former Labor MP for Fairfield] 
Note: My red annotations

Excerpt Two:

Set out below are some of the principal factual findings made by the Commission.
* Sometime shortly prior to 16 March 2011, Nathan Tinkler offered to make a political donation to Jodi McKay’s election campaign. In making this offer, Mr Tinkler was attempting to induce Ms McKay to accept a donation from a person she knew to be a prohibited donor and which would be falsely disclosed to the Election Funding Authority as coming from private individuals. Mr Tinkler knew at the time he made the offer that he was a prohibited donor and was not able to make a political donation and that Ms McKay was not able to accept a political donation from him (chapter 11).
* Each of Mr Williams, David Sharpe and Ann Wills of Buildev played an active part in the “Stop Jodi’s Trucks” mailout campaign, which was designed to damage Ms McKay’s prospects of re-election. Given its inherent political nature, the expenditure on the leaflets amounted to “electoral communication expenditure”, as defined by the Election Funding Act. This expenditure was incurred in the period between 1 January 2011 and the end of the polling day for the 2011 NSW state election and was therefore incurred within the “capped expenditure period” as defined in s 95H of the Election Funding Act. As the electoral communication expenditure exceeded $2,000 in a capped expenditure period, Buildev was operating as a “third-party campaigner” as defined in s 4 of the Election Funding Act. Buildev failed to register as a third-party campaigner as required by s 96AA of the Election Funding Act and failed to disclose to the Election Funding Authority its electoral communication expenditure as required by s 88(1A)(a) of the Election Funding Act (chapter 11).
* Mr Tripodi played a central role in the Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign by nominating the printer for the mailout pamphlets and involving himself in the drafting and design process for the pamphlets (chapter 11).
* During November and December 2010, the Free Enterprise Foundation was used to channel donations to the NSW Liberal Party for its 2011 NSW state election campaign so that the identity of the true donors was disguised. A substantial portion of the $693,000 provided by the Free Enterprise Foundation and used by the NSW Liberal Party in its 2011 state election campaign originated from donors who were property developers and, therefore, prohibited under the Election Funding Act from making political donations (chapter 15).
* Each of Simon McInnes, Paul Nicolaou and Anthony Bandle knowingly used the Free Enterprise Foundation to channel political donations, including political donations from property developers, to the NSW Liberal Party to fund its 2011 state election campaign so that the identity of the true donors was disguised from the Election Funding Authority (chapter 15).
* Timothy Koelma used his business, Eightbyfive, to receive and channel political donations for the benefit of Christopher Hartcher, Christopher Spence, Darren Webber and the NSW Liberal Party for the 2011 Central Coast election campaign with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to disclosure of political donations, the ban on donations from property developers, which operated from 14 December 2009, and, in relation to payments made after 1 January 2011, the applicable cap on donations. The funds obtained and channelled in this way were used for the purposes of the NSW Liberal Party 2011 election campaigns in the seats of Terrigal, The Entrance and Wyong. Mr Koelma directly benefited from the donations through Eightbyfive, as he was able to draw from those funds to give himself a salary, thereby, enabling him to work for Mr Hartcher on the 2011 NSW state election campaign. Mr Koelma subsequently obtained full-time employment in Mr Hartcher’s ministerial office after the 2011 election (chapter 17).
* Mr Hartcher was involved in the establishment of Eightbyfive and took an active part in using Eightbyfive to channel political donations from Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd, Gazcorp Pty Ltd and Patinack Farm Pty Ltd for the benefit of the NSW Liberal Party, himself, Mr Spence and Mr Webber with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to disclosure of political donations, the ban on donations from property developers (in the case of Gazcorp) and, in relation to payments made after 1 January 2011, the applicable cap on donations. Mr Hartcher benefited from this arrangement because part of the funds channelled through Eightbyfive enabled Mr Koelma to work for him on the 2011 NSW state election campaign at no cost to Mr Hartcher, while other funds channelled through Eightbyfive ensured that Mr Hartcher’s likeminded political colleagues were funded to campaign for the Central Coast seats of Wyong and The Entrance (chapter 17).
* Mr Hartcher was a party to an arrangement with Nicholas Di Girolamo and Mr Koelma, whereby Mr Di Girolamo made regular payments through Australian Water Holdings to Eightbyfive. Under this arrangement, between April 2009 and May 2011, Eightbyfive received $183,342.50 from Australian Water Holdings. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Eightbyfive to Australian Water Holdings but were in fact political donations made to assist Mr Hartcher by providing funds to Mr Koelma so that Mr Koelma could work for Mr Hartcher in the lead up to the 2011 NSW state election. Mr Hartcher and the others involved in this arrangement intended to evade the election funding laws relating to the disclosure of political donations. The payments totalling $36,668.50, made after 1 January 2011, exceeded the applicable cap on political donations (chapter 18).
* Mr Hartcher, Nabil Gazal Junior, Nicholas Gazal, Mr Koelma and Mr Spence (the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of The Entrance) were parties to an arrangement whereby, between May 2010 and April 2011, Gazcorp made payments totalling $121,000 to Eightbyfive. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Eightbyfive to Gazcorp but were in fact political donations which were mainly used to help fund Mr Spence so that he could work on the Central Coast election campaign and on his campaign for the seat of The Entrance. Mr Hartcher, Nabil Gazal Jnr, Nicholas Gazal, Mr Koelma and Mr Spence intended by this arrangement to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act and the ban on the making and accepting of political donations from property developers. The payments totalling $33,000, made after 1 January 2011, exceeded the applicable cap on political donations (chapter 19).
* Mr Hartcher, Mr Koelma, the Hon Michael Gallacher MLC, Troy Palmer and Mr Williams were parties to an arrangement whereby, between July 2010 and March 2011, Patinack Farm made payments totalling $66,000 to Eightbyfive. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Eightbyfive to Patinack Farm but were in fact political donations to help fund the NSW Liberal Party 2011 Central Coast election campaign. The parties to this arrangement intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. The payments made after 1 January 2011, totalling $33,000, exceeded the applicable caps on political donations. Although the payments to Eightbyfive were made by Patinack Farm, the arrangement was organised through Buildev, a property developer (chapter 20).
* Mr Koelma and Mr Webber (the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Wyong) were parties to an arrangement whereby, between 2010 and 2011, Mr Koelma’s business, Eightbyfive, made payments totalling at least $34,650, and up to $49,500, to Mr Webber. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Mr Webber to Eightbyfive but were in fact political donations to help fund Mr Webber’s 2011 election campaign for the seat of Wyong. The parties to this arrangement intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. The payments made after 1 January 2011 exceeded the applicable caps on political donations (chapter 20).
* Raymond Carter used the Free Enterprise Foundation to channel political donations to the NSW Liberal Party for its 2011 NSW state election campaign so that the identity of the true donor was disguised from the Election Funding Authority. A portion of this money was from property developers (chapter 21).
* Mr Carter and Mr Koelma entered into an arrangement to use Mr Koelma’s business, Eightbyfive, to channel political donations to the NSW Liberal Party for the 2011 Central Coast election campaign with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to disclosure to the Election Funding Authority of political donations and the ban on accepting political donations from property developers. The political donations obtained by Mr Carter under this scheme included $5,000 from each of LA Commercial Pty Ltd, Yeramba Estates Pty Ltd and Brentwood Village Pty Ltd, and $2,200 from Crown Consortium Pty Ltd (chapter 21).
* In March 2011, Mr Carter used a business, Mickey Tech, with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to disclosure of political donations by disguising from the Election Funding Authority political donations of $2,000 from INE Pty Ltd and $2,000 from Maggiotto Building Pty Ltd. In each case, the money was sought and received by Mr Carter as a political donation for the 2011 NSW state election campaign. Although at the time Mr Carter received the money he intended to apply all the money for the purposes of the election campaign, he eventually only applied $2,400 for this purpose, the balance being applied to private use (chapter 21).
* In March 2011, Mr Hartcher received three bank cheques payable to the NSW Liberal Party totalling $4,000. They were received by Mr Hartcher for the benefit of the NSW Liberal Party for the March 2011 state election campaign. In November 2011, some eight months after the election, Mr Hartcher arranged for the cheques to be paid into the trust account of Hartcher Reid, a legal firm, and for that firm to draw a cheque for $4,000 in favour of Mickey Tech, a business owned by Mr Carter’s partner. After the $4,000 was deposited into that account, it was withdrawn in cash by Mr Carter and given to Mr Hartcher. These steps are inconsistent with an intention on the part of Mr Hartcher to apply the $4,000 for the benefit of the NSW Liberal Party (chapter 23).
* In about November 2010, Mr Gallacher sought a political donation from Mr Sharpe of Buildev by inviting him to attend a New Year’s Eve political fundraising function for which Mr Sharpe or Buildev would make a payment. Mr Gallacher knew that they were property developers, and he sought the political donation with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the ban on property developers making political donations (chapter 25).
* In late 2010, Mr Gallacher, Mr Hartcher and Mr Williams of Buildev were involved in an arrangement whereby two political donations totalling $53,000 were provided to the NSW Liberal Party for use in its 2011 election campaigns for the seats of Newcastle and Londonderry. To facilitate this arrangement, on 13 December 2010, Mr Palmer, a director of Boardwalk Resources Limited, a company of which Mr Tinkler was the major shareholder, drew two cheques totalling $53,000 payable to the Free Enterprise Foundation. These were provided to Mr Hartcher who arranged for them to be sent to Mr Nicolaou. Mr Nicolaou sent the cheques to the Free Enterprise Foundation. The Free Enterprise Foundation subsequently sent money to the NSW Liberal Party, which included the $53,000. Of the $53,000, some $35,000 was used to help fund Timothy Owen’s 2011 election campaign in the seat of Newcastle and $18,000 was used towards the purchase of a key seats package for Bart Bassett’s 2011 election campaign in the seat of Londonderry. Although the cheques for the donations were drawn on the account of Boardwalk Resources, they were made for Buildev, a property developer. Each of Mr Gallacher, Mr Hartcher and Mr Williams entered into this arrangement with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the accurate disclosure to the Election Funding Authority of political donations (chapter 26).
* In about February 2011, Jeffrey McCloy gave HughThomson $10,000 in cash as a political donation to fund Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign for the seat of Newcastle with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. In accepting the political donation, Mr Thompson intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not ensuring the donation was disclosed, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* In early 2011, Mr McCloy gave Mr Owen $10,000 in cash as a political donation to fund Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign. In making the payment, Mr McCloy intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. In accepting the political donation, Mr Owen intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not ensuring the donation was disclosed, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* In early 2011, Hilton Grugeon gave Mr Thomson $10,000 in cash as a political donation to fund Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign. In making the payment, Mr Grugeon intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. In accepting the political donation, Mr Thompson intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not ensuring the donation was disclosed, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Mezzanine Media Australia Pty Ltd for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for, in part, by a political donation of $5,000 made by Keith Stronach, a property developer. The payment evaded the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers. The political donation was not disclosed as required by the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware that Mr Stronach was a property developer and were aware that Mr Stronach paid money towards Mr Owen’s election campaign (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Mezzanine Media Australia for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for, in part, by a political donation of $14,190 organised by Mr Williams on behalf of Buildev, a property developer. In organising the payment, Mr  Williams intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware that Buildev was a property developer and that it had paid money towards Mr Owen’s election campaign (chapter 27).
* Mr Gallacher was responsible for proposing to Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon an arrangement whereby each of them would contribute to the payment of Luke Grant for his work on Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign. He did so with the intention that the Election Funding Act laws in relation to the prohibition on political donations from property developers and the requirements for the disclosure of political donations to the Election Funding Authority would be evaded (chapter 27).
* Mr Owen, Mr Thompson, Mr Grugeon and Mr McCloy were parties to an arrangement whereby payments totalling $19,875 made to Mr Grant for his work on Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were falsely attributed to services allegedly provided to companies operated by Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon. Those involved in this arrangement intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws in relation to the prohibition on political donations from property developers and the requirements for the disclosure of political donations to the Election Funding Authority. The payments were also in excess of the caps imposed on individual donors (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Joshua Hodges for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for, in part, by a political donation of $3,998.50 made by William Saddington of PW Saddington & Sons Pty Ltd. The payment was disguised as being for consultancy services provided to that company. The payment had the effect of evading the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware that Mr Saddington was contributing to Mr Owen’s election campaign expenses by paying Mr Hodges. They did not ensure that the donation was disclosed as required by the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Australian Decal Sales and Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for in August 2011 by a political donation of $3,198.80 organised by Mr Williams on behalf of Buildev, a property developer. By organising the payment, Mr Williams intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware this political donation had been made by a property developer and participated in this arrangement with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers. They did not ensure the donation was disclosed as required by the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* During the 2011 NSW state election campaign, a third-party campaign known as “FedUp” was conducted by Rolly De With, Neil Slater and Paul Murphy using the name of a local business association, the Newcastle Alliance. The purpose of the campaign was to assist in defeating the sitting member for the seat of Newcastle, Ms McKay, in the 2011 NSW state election. In March 2011, a payment of $50,000 was arranged by Mr Williams of Buildev and authorised by Mr Tinkler to fund the campaign. The payment was ostensibly made by Serene Lodge Racing Pty Ltd but was in fact money from Mr Tinkler and was made for Buildev, a property developer. The $50,000 payment was a political donation and was in excess of the $2,000 cap on political donations made for the benefit of a third-party campaigner. The political donation was not disclosed to the Election Funding Authority by Buildev, Serene Lodge Racing or Mr Tinkler (chapter 28).
* On 6 October 2010, Mr McCloy paid $10,000 in cash to Andrew Cornwell, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Charlestown, as a political donation for Andrew Cornwell’s 2011 election campaign. By making the donation, Mr McCloy intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on property developers making political donations and the requirement for the disclosure of political donations. By accepting the donation Andrew Cornwell intended to evade the Election Funding Act requirement relating to the ban on property developers making political donations and the requirement for the accurate disclosure of political donations (chapter 29).
* Andrew Cornwell, his wife, Samantha Brookes, and Mr Grugeon were parties to an arrangement involving the pretence that a payment of $10,120 made in early 2011 by Mr Grugeon, a property developer, was for a painting. The $10,120 was in fact a political donation made by Mr Grugeon to fund Andrew Cornwell’s 2011 NSW state election campaign. In participating in this arrangement, Mr Grugeon intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of donations by property developers and the requirement for disclosure of political donations. In participating in this arrangement, Andrew Cornwell intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers, and the requirement for accurate disclosure of political donations received. The payment exceeded the applicable cap on political donations (chapter 29).
* During the 2011 NSW state election campaign, Garry Edwards, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Swansea, received a political donation by way of a cash payment of about $1,500 from Mr McCloy, a property developer. Mr Edwards accepted the donation with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the requirements for disclosure of political donations. Mr McCloy knew he was making a political donation and that, as a property developer, he was prohibited from making such a donation (chapter 30).
* In 2007, Craig Baumann, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Port Stephens, entered into an arrangement with Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon to disguise from the Election Funding Authority the fact that companies associated with Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon had donated $79,684 towards Mr Baumann’s 2007 NSW election campaign. As part of this arrangement, a company associated with Mr McCloy made a political donation of $32,604 and a company associated with Mr Grugeon made a political donation of $47,080. These political donations were paid to Mr Baumann’s company, Mambare Pty Ltd, which, in turn, paid the money to the Medowie branch of the NSW Liberal Party to be used for Mr Baumann’s 2007 election campaign. Mr Baumann caused Mambare to lodge a declaration with the Election Funding Authority that falsely claimed that it had donated the money to the NSW Liberal Party. Mr Baumann did so with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the accurate disclosure of political donations (chapter 31).
* In about November 2010, Mr Baumann entered into an arrangement with Vincent Heufel with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the truthful disclosure of political donations. Under this arrangement, Mr Heufel made a donation of $100,000 for Mr Baumann’s election campaign and Mr Baumann reduced the amount his company, Mambare, charged for building Mr Heufel’s house by that amount. This was done so that Mr Heufel could falsely represent that he was responsible for making the political donation, rather than Mr Baumann’s company and so that Mambare could evade disclosing that it had made a political donation for Mr Baumann’s 2011 NSW state election campaign (chapter 31).
* In 2010, for the purposes of his 2011 NSW state election campaign, Mr Bassett, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Londonderry, solicited a political donation from Buildev, a property developer. This culminated in the drawing of a cheque, dated 13 December 2010, for $18,000 on the account of Boardwalk Resources, which was payable to the Free Enterprise Foundation. The Free Enterprise Foundation subsequently sent money to the NSW Liberal Party, which included the $18,000. The $18,000 was used towards the purchase of a key seats package for Mr Bassett’s 2011 election campaign in the seat of Londonderry. Although the cheque for $18,000 was drawn on the account of Boardwalk Resources, the donation was made for Buildev. Mr Bassett was aware at the time he solicited the political donation that Buildev was a property developer and knew it was not able to make a political donation and he was not able to accept a political donation from a property developer (chapter 32).

Full 172 page report here.