Sunday, April 13, 2008
[Note: Below are Dawn's responses to a letter from a former Minister of the Crown, who wrote while still in office. It is an excellent example of the warped material the bureaucrats have fed to politicians, and presumably will still do so with the current government. Rowland Croucher April 13, 2008]
A LETTER FROM MAL BROUGH – AN ANALYSIS
Brough’s letter (below) typifies the strategies routinely used by politicians to lie, obfuscate and totally distract the reader from the truth.
Brough’s letter demonstrates the ENTIRE history of this despicable abuse of Government power. Justice Debelle states in his 2002 judgement, when referring to the so-called ‘Independent Review Report’, that this Roberts review (see following **) consisted of OMISSIONS, MISLEADING STATEMENTS, HALF-TRUTHS, AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS.
Brough’s letter uses identical strategies to present an entirely untrue ‘summary’ of the whole twenty-two years of Government and legal abuses.
** THE ROBERTS “INDEPENDENT” REVIEW
Mrs Judith Roberts “AO” worked in close conjunction with Ms Wendy Heath, Acting Advisor on Women and Welfare (i.e. women’s advisor to the Minister, John Cornwall, who currently is employed training companion animals) who obsessively maintained a SECRET FILE on Dawn Rowan from 1981 to 1987(when Christie’s Beach Women’s Shelter was finally blown away).
This dossier contained repeated, baseless complaints from a half a dozen malcontents who each had a personal animosity to Dawn and who were ex-residents not eligible for some shelter services; ex-employees; and ex-management committee members. Heath repeated and repeated and repeated these baseless lies in various memos and reports held, in a Departmental file, without Dawn’s knowledge, from 1981 until 2001, when the trial was held, described by Justice Debelle as “… as shocking defamation…”
Justice Debelle’s judgement regarding Wendy Heath stated:
“She had assisted Ms Anderson in the preparation of a list of allegations against the Shelter. She had been present at a meeting with police and officers of the Corporate Affairs Commission on 2 June 1987 who had been appointed to investigate the staff of the Christies Beach Shelter and had then provided detailed information concerning the Christies Beach Shelter.”
The Crown Solicitor, Maria Panagiotidis, decided, during the trial, NOT to call Heath as a witness for the Government case. Justice Debelle states:
“Although Ms Heath was not a party, she was plainly an important witness. She had a particular knowledge of the allegations which had been made against the Christies Beach Shelter.”
And further states:
“I find that Ms Heath's evidence would not have assisted the case of the State (Government) defendants. In the absence of her evidence, I find that she and Ms Wighton were antagonistic towards the plaintiff.”
BROUGH’S OBFUSCATING LETTER
THE AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN, ON RECEIVING A LETTER WORDED LIKE BROUGH’S, WOULD BELIEVE IT TO BE THE TRUTH, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CAME FROM A GOVERNMENT MINISTER.
DAWN HAS HAD TO ENDURE THESE DISGRACEFUL STRATEGIES AT EVERY POINT IN THIS SAGA FROM THE RELEASE OF THE ROBERT’S REPORT (UNDER PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE) TILL THE PRESENT DAY … AND CONTINUING.
DAWN HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY OF THE BELOW ‘JUSTIFICATION’ FROM:
• BROUGH (Howard’s Minister responsible for women’s shelters),
• RUDDOCK (Howard’s Attorney General),
• MINCHIN (Howard’s Finance Minister) or
• Hunt (Howard’s Federal Member).
Brough, Ruddock and Minchin NEVER even had the decency to reply to the extensive, detailed letter sent by Dawn requesting justice and compassion. All Dawn ever received was a simplistic, party-line, one paragrapher from Ruddock handballing it to Brough, at precisely the same time as Brough handballed it to Ruddock who then, handballed it to Minchin.
Why such a deafening silence?!!!!
Because they were always fully aware that this entire wickedness was based on misleading half-truths and outright lies and they were therefore unable to reply directly to Dawn who could, in an instant, expose the COVER-UP.
Brough’s letter deliberately uses carefully chosen language to disguise the shocking abuses they had perpetrated on Dawn already, for twenty-one years to 2007. The strategy used below is to deny, minimise, trivialise and shift blame in regard to an horrific and continuing execution, by Government, of a person proven innocent.
The uninformed reader is enticed by deliberate, careful deceit into believing that the Government has acted reasonably and responsibly when, in fact, their actions – at all times – continue to defend the indefensible, and with taxpayers money.
Following Brough’s letter, Dawn has added comments and facts that were deliberately omitted in this letter.
02 Oct 2007
The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
Member for Flinders
P O Box 274
Hastings Vic 3915
Dear Mr Hunt (Hunt is crossed out and a hand written Greg is inserted)
Thank you for your letter of 14 August 2007 on behalf of Dr Tim Ealey of Coronet Bay about Dawn Rowan.
Ms Rowan's debt  to the Commonwealth arose as a result of her  taking legal action against a number of defendants , including the Commonwealth, alleging  that she was owed damages because of negligence, defamation, misfeasance and conspiracy. The allegations  were made in the context of a joint Commonwealth/State report on women's shelters in South Australia, the details of which were broadcast on television in August 1987 .
The matter was dealt with in the first instance by a single judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia . However, the Commonwealth (and other defendants) successfully appealed  this decision to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, who found that there was no legal basis  to support Ms. Rowan's allegations. The court made an in principle decision that costs be awarded against Ms. Rowan to compensate the Commonwealth (and other defendants) for reasonable expenses  involved in defending the matter .
Ms Rowan then applied for special leave to appeal that decision to the High Court of Australia. The High Court decided that leave should not be granted on the basis that Ms Rowan's case did not have reasonable prospects of success. The High Court emphasised that its role is to judge on untested general legal principles rather than to reverse a costs judgement in a particular case .
Generally, in circumstances where the Commonwealth considers that an applicant does not have reasonable prospects of success the Commonwealth can, in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2005, invite the applicant to discontinue the legal proceedings in return for the Commonwealth not seeking costs against the applicant. The Commonwealth does this in the interest of avoiding the inevitable cost to all parties that are associated with the continuance of unjustified litigation .
However, as you would understand, an applicant has a right to pursue legal avenues, notwithstanding any views the Commonwealth might offer and this is a decision for the applicant to take. Where an applicant refuses to discontinue legal proceedings , and rejects such an offer, the Commonwealth is left with no alternative but to pursue the recovery of costs .
The issue of costs was, in this case, determined by the Full Court  of the Supreme Court of South Australia, in a separate judgement, after Ms Rowan had exhausted her avenues of appeal. The court awarded the Commonwealth $380,00  in costs. In coming to its decision, the court stated:
"We think that there is sufficient information upon which the Court can
conclude that a figure of $380,00 is logical, fair and reasonable".
Under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, the Commonwealth is required  to pursue payment of debts that are due to it, including debts that arise under costs orders of court. In such circumstances, the Commonwealth must take what ever steps  are appropriate to ensure that moneys due to it are paid to the greatest extent possible and returned to the Consolidated Revenue. While the Commonwealth may explore a range of options to obtain payment of a debt, in some situations this can only be done through legal action .
I am aware that Ms Rowan has made a number of public statements, including on her website, in relation to the Commonwealth's handling of this matter. For privacy reasons , I am not able to discuss the particular aspects of Ms Rowan's case which are not on the public record. However, I can say that in dealing with any matter involving the recovery of a debt, the Commonwealth is required to comply with  a comprehensive legislative and policy framework, which is designed to treat debtors in a fair and reasonable manner.
In particular, the Commonwealth is required to comply with  the principles set out in the Legal Services Directions 2005, including the requirement to behave as a model litigant . In this particular case, the Commonwealth complied with those principles . In accordance with the Legal Services Directions, the Commonwealth will, where-ever possible and appropriate, endeavour to settle matters without the need for court proceedings. However, where satisfactory resolution cannot be achieved, it is sometimes necessary to seek the determination of the courts .
Once again, thank you for writing on Dr Ealey's behalf. I trust my comments are of assistance. ????
 This implies it was Dawn’s fault and she caused her own problems.
 This deliberately omits the word ‘unsubstantiated’ which these allegations were described as AT ALL TIMES, even in the Robert’s Report and in Hansard. The effect Brough intended was to convince the reader of there was substance in the allegations to be proved.
 This entire paragraph utterly omits the fourteen-year legal battle to get this case to trial, the enormity of the five-month trial, the complexity and extent of the legal charges.
 Thus, in one simplistic sentence, Brough:
• utterly disguises the five-month, landmark trial after fourteen years of constant legal action and court hearings;
• ignores Debelle’s strong judgement which was highly critical of Roberts, Cornwall, Wighton and Blake;
• ignores Debelle’s findings of liability against the Commonwealth;
• utterly trivialises a five-month, landmark legal action, with 5,000 pages of transcript, 1,500 documents admitted as evidence to the trial,
ignores the fact that Dawn represented herself against four powerful legal teams and WON on every substantive issue.
 The use of ‘a number of’ or ‘other defendants’ is vague and implies, to the casual reader, that all other defendants ‘successfully appealed’. This is utterly untrue as the State Government and ‘other defendants’ were found guilty.
 This is deliberately misleading because, at all times, a legal basis has been proved “to support Ms Rowan’s allegations”.
 This is a lie and completely omits the Court’s initial order for Dawn to pay $690,000.00 (see also  below)
 Brough omits the fact that Dawn Rowan took action against the three judges who heard this appeal for undisclosed bias, upon discovering the undisclosed association Judith Roberts had with:
(a) the Chief Judge of the South Australian Court (Doyle), who appointed these judges to hear the appeal, and
(b) two of these three judges.
The judgement of these three judges regarding their alleged undisclosed bias was that, their appeal judgement was not influenced by their personal knowledge of Roberts. They made the appeal judgement releasing the Commonwealth and the two television stations from liability.
Even more curiously, their judgement ordered Dawn Rowan, the INNOCENT PARTY, to pay the costs of the Commonwealth, the television stations and her own costs of her successful appeal. This decision is extraordinary given the normal legal process whereby the guilty party (namely the State of South Australia) pays the costs of the innocent party (Dawn Rowan) and all other parties legitimately joined in the action.
 Brough deliberately omits the extraordinary difficulty in getting the High Court to hear any application. The litigant is given twenty-minutes to present sufficient evidence to interest the High Court. Only one in eight cases ever succeeds in this David and Goliath task.
 This is deliberately misleading because Justice Debelle, the only judge to hear and see all witnesses and read all documents, found strongly that the Commonwealth were liable and thus that Dawn’s proceedings against the Commonwealth can, under no circumstances, be described as unjustified, i.e. Dawn’s decision to include the Commonwealth in this case was completely sanctioned by Justice Debelle’s findings of Commonwealth liability.
 This is misleading for reasons stated in point 10 (above), and implies that Dawn is a difficult or belligerent litigant.
 This is utterly untrue and totally misleading. The Commonwealth is NOT obliged, under ANY Legal Services Directions or Financial and Accountability Acts or requirements to behave as a “model litigant”, to pursue an innocent person to destruction. The Commonwealth has, at all times, the option and the power to settle decently with any litigant, under any circumstances SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.
 The Commonwealth has, at all times, refused to answer questions in Parliament and from the public regarding the actual spending by them on defending the indefensible. It can be confidently assumed their costs would be in the millions of dollars, defending this case in court since 1990.
Curiously, the figure of $380,000 is exactly Dawn’s equity in her home and not a cent more - A HUGE COINCIDENCE?
 This is a lie because there were no privacy restrictions and the Commonwealth were always fully aware that this entire wickedness was based on misleading half-truths and outright lies and Brough is therefore unable to reply directly to Dawn who could, in an instant, expose the COVER-UP.
 This can only be true if a ‘model litigant’ is required to threaten, bully, lie, obfuscate, cheat and do ‘whatever it takes’ to win at any cost.
 This statement contradicts the common knowledge of the fact that we have a ‘legal system’ which is irrelevant to justice and decency.
APRIL 12, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
THE Adelaide Chinese Whisper RUMOUR machine has been in full ugly swing. (What’s new?)
Dawn has NEVER been informed or had ANY knowledge of the UTTER LIES being deliberately circulated by the guilty, and then continued by the uninformed OR lazy OR gossip mongers.
*****'Dawn was offered a generous sum by the Commonwealth to cease all litigation on these matters, but she refused' *****
===>>> The Commonwealth Govt HAS NEVER OFFERED A CENT TO DAWN.
During formal Mediation, instigated by Dawn in 1998, with all parties over a period of 3 1/2 days, the Commonwealth REFUSED at all times to cooperate with the other 3 parties (SA Govt, ABC TV & Channel 10) who were trying to settle out of court at that time.
These parties were asking the Commonwealth to pay a paltry $20,000 as a small proportion of the whole offer – to get them on board. The QC representing the Commonwealth was on the phone to Canberra constantly, strongly advising them to agree. The Commonwealth belligerently refused.
During the five-month trial, the Commonwealth lawyers initiated an offer to Dawn that, if she released the Commonwealth from the action they would not pursue her for costs. IE. THEY HAVE NEVER OFFERED A CENT TO DAWN. Justice Debelle found the Commonwealth liable, so Dawn’s decision not to be blackmailed and threatened by the Commonwealth proved the correct thing to do at the time. Because of the strength of the judge’s findings, it was reasonable for Dawn to expect that any appeal would uphold this liability.
Three Supreme Court judges heard the appeal and overturned the liability of the Commonwealth and the 2 TV stations and, shockingly, ordered the INNOCENT PARTY, Dawn, to pay their costs. The legal precedent is that the GUILTY PARTY (Roberts, Cornwall, and the State of SA) pays the costs of the INJURED PARTY, AND THE COSTS OF ALL OTHER PARTIES LEGITIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE ACTION, ON EITHER SIDE.
Following this bewildering and unjust judgement, Dawn discovered that (a) two of the three judges had previous association with Judith Roberts (the Chair of the so-called “Independent Review”), who was found to be the “gross defamer”, and, (b) that the Chief Judge of the SA Supreme Court had sat on the Flinders University Council with Roberts since 1994 and so, in 2006, Dawn charged the judges with Undisclosed Bias but the judgement of these three judges was that they were not motivated by their previous contact with Roberts. Thus, their curious judgement on costs was upheld with the full knowledge that Dawn, an ordinary citizen, would be bankrupted and made homeless.
No other offer has ever been made by the Commonwealth.
8th April, 2008.