tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26196162032161882622024-03-05T08:17:55.448-08:00DAWN ROWAN DOCUMENTSRowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-65204430262110134952009-03-20T20:58:00.000-07:002009-03-20T21:01:04.046-07:00SUMMARY OF DAWN'S SITUATION: LETTER TO MAL BROUGH<span style="font-weight:bold;">Below is an important letter Dawn wrote to Federal minister Mal Brough two and a half years ago, which addresses many of the key issues from Dawn's perspective:<br /><br />*****<br /><br />Dawn Rowan<br />PO Box 60<br />St Andrews <br /><br />VIC 3761<br /><br />18 October 2006<br /><br />FOR THE URGENT ATTENTION OF:<br /><br />The Honourable Mal Brough MP<br />Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs<br />Box 7788<br />Canberra Mail Centre ACT 2610<br /><br /><br /><br />Dear Minister,<br />Re: Bankruptcy Proceedings Issued By The Australian Government Solicitor<br />I am writing to you in the hope that you will be able to assist me with respect to bankruptcy proceedings that have been instituted against me following sixteen years of litigation. Although I was successful in that litigation the outcome has had a catastrophic effect on me, my health and my career. It has now culminated with the Commonwealth serving me with a Bankruptcy Notice no doubt with the ultimate intention of forcing me into bankruptcy.<br />I am approaching you in the hope that you will intervene and bring an end to what has been a disastrous last fifteen years of my life.<br />In the briefest terms can I explain.<br />Background<br />I was born in 1946 and educated in Adelaide.<br />I chose to follow a career as a secondary school music teacher and did so for ten years.<br />Thereafter I was interested in directing my activities to counselling women and children who had been subject to domestic violence and cruelty. I undertook and completed a degree of Bachelor of Social Administration and applied for and was ultimately appointed the administrator of two women’s shelters in Adelaide.<br />The shelters were jointly funded by the Commonwealth and State Governments and from 1978 myself and a number of other workers devoted ourselves to counselling and assisting a large number of people who attended the shelters for assistance.<br /> <br />Joint Report – Defamation<br />On 11 August 1987 a report was published by a joint committee which had been set up by the State and Federal Governments. The report was from an independent review committee which had been commissioned to examine the management and operation of the women’s shelters.<br />The report was ultimately published and received extensive media coverage from television stations and the press. The report contained unwarranted and untruthful allegations of sexual and financial impropriety on the part of myself and others associated with the management of the shelters.<br />The impact of the report was devastating. I had devoted my career and life to counselling women and children and given up everything to pursue this career. I had considered it was a most worthwhile cause and I had intended to devote my life to that career.<br />As a consequence of the report, funding was withdrawn and the Christies Beach shelter closed.<br />The impact on my health was immediate and I remained on sickness benefits for two years.<br />I fled the State and relocated in Victoria, but my professional reputation, my ambitions and my health had been effectively destroyed.<br />I was left without means of income.<br />Although I obtained some employment in Victoria for approximately twelve months I ultimately had to resign from that position because of my health and political pressure.<br />Litigation<br />Because the allegations in the report were completely false and misleading, because my career had been ruined and I was without income I took legal advice and commenced defamation proceedings out of the Supreme Court in South Australia.<br />Whilst I had little in the way of funds, I obtained legal representation and proceedings were instituted on 26 June 1990.<br />The Defendants to the proceedings were the authors of the report (these being the State and Commonwealth employees, as well as the State and Federal Governments). I also sued the two television stations who had published the findings of the report.<br />The legal proceedings were extensive and protracted and the Defendants for the next ten years took numerous steps to have the proceedings defeated.<br />The trial eventually commenced in June 2001 and proceeded for sixty-seven days. For sixty of those days I was without legal representation and fought the case on my own.<br />The State, the Commonwealth and the television stations were all represented by Counsel, an army of solicitors and in some cases Queens Counsel.<br />In a judgment delivered on 21 June 2002 Justice Debelle, a senior and highly regarded member of the bench published his reasons. He described the allegations as a “shocking defamation”.<br />I was ultimately awarded the sum of approximately $585,000 in damages, together with the costs of the action.<br />In subsequent contribution proceedings the amount to which the Commonwealth was found liable to pay was $39,117.42.<br />Although the award of compensation was less than I had expected I felt that my action in bringing the litigation had been vindicated. Needless to say the years in preparing the case for trial, the trauma of fighting the case in court without legal representation and the associated affect on my health meant that I had been without income for virtually all of that period.<br />Appeals<br />Because of apparent unlimited resources the State, the Commonwealth and the two television stations all lodged appeals.<br />In order to defend the judgment I was forced to retain solicitors and barristers.<br />My health deteriorated, I was unable to work and spent a vast amount of time instructing lawyers to defend the appeals.<br />I was required to sell a property which had been left to me by my mother in order to pay legal costs associated with the appeal and the subsequent appeal to the High Court.<br />Eventually the Full Court allowed the appeal.<br />For reasons for which I am unable to understand the two television stations and the Commonwealth were exonerated. The damages awarded to me were reduced, but I retained the judgment against the State of South Australia.<br />Whilst I was awarded 75% of my costs against the State, I was ordered to pay the costs of the Commonwealth and the two television stations.<br />The total claims for costs of the Commonwealth and the two television stations exceeded $1 million and the liability to pay these sums would have meant that even though I had succeeded in the litigation overall, the result would have been my bankruptcy.<br />Faced with this I had no further alternative than to instruct my lawyers to appeal to the High Court.<br />Because the High Court considered that the matter was not of public interest and only involved legal costs my application for special leave to appeal was refused.<br /> <br />Subsequent Action by the Commonwealth<br />The end of the court processes left me in poor health and financially ruined as I faced costs orders of the television stations and the Commonwealth of over $1 million.<br />The two television stations have not pursued me for their legal costs. The Commonwealth, however, has been relentless.<br />Since the dismissal of the High Court proceedings the Australian Government Solicitor, on behalf of the Commonwealth, has:<br />• Made a demand for costs in excess of $600,000.<br />• Obtained an injunction against me, freezing my assets.<br />• Relentlessly pursued the claim for costs against me and eventually obtained an order for lump sum payment of costs of $380,000.<br />• Issued a Bankruptcy Notice against me with a view to obtaining a Bankruptcy Order.<br />As a consequence of this I have had funds from the sale of a house that I owned frozen and have had access to my bank accounts limited.<br />In September 2005, in the course of the injunction proceedings, I requested my solicitors to write to the AGS outlining my position. I requested that my situation be referred to the Minister with a view that the Australian Government Solicitor be instructed to refrain from pursuing its claim against me.<br />I enclose herewith a copy of the letter that my solicitors sent to the AGS, together with the medical report that was referred to in that letter.<br />I do not know what transpired as a result of that letter.<br />The Current Position<br />The Bankruptcy Notice issued by the Australian Government Solicitor demands payment of $380,000 by 17 October 2006. I presume that if that sum is not paid the Australian Government Solicitor will issue a petition against me with a view to having me declared bankrupt.<br />I do not know if the two television stations will join in those proceedings, but to date neither of them have made demands against me for costs. I believe that if the Commonwealth were to withdraw its demand the two television stations would not pursue me.<br />My current position is as follows:<br />• I have a house at St Andrews in Victoria. It is my home and a place where I am trying to re-establish my practice as a counsellor. The house is valued at about $500,000, but is subject to a mortgage of nearly $130,000.<br />• I previously had a holiday home at Coronet Bay in Victoria. This was sold in August 2005 for $190,000. Those funds were frozen by the Commonwealth as part of its court proceedings and are currently in a solicitor’s trust account in Melbourne.<br />• There is a balance of about $30,000 held by the State Crown being the balance of court costs due to me. The State, however, is claiming $17,000 of that sum.<br />• Overall I have spent over $380,000 in legal fees and have no money in the bank. All of my personal financial resources have gone into the litigation over the last fifteen years. I have less than $40,000 in a superannuation fund.<br />The Future<br />As a result of the last fifteen years I remain shattered and confused. I have ten years of my working life left, but with no realistic prospect of obtaining fulltime work or employment.<br />If the bankruptcy proceedings continue I will certainly lose my house and everything that I have worked for over the years.<br />With the limited finances that I have I would prefer to attempt to rebuild my career as a counsellor and attempt to retain my health and my dignity. I do not want to lose my home and become reliant on Centrelink payments.<br />Although the Commonwealth was excused from liability by the Full Court, there is no doubt that its officers were involved in the preparation of the report that ultimately was found to be grossly defamatory and which ruined my career. Although the television stations were involved in the defamatory conduct they have exercised clemency and have not to date pursued their claims for costs against me. It is only the Commonwealth that has adopted a relentless approach to have me ruined.<br />In the circumstances, therefore, I am again asking for clemency with the request that you intervene and instruct your department to refrain from pursuing its claim for legal costs.<br />I have forwarded a copy of this letter to the Australian Government Solicitor with the request that it take no further bankruptcy proceedings pending your consideration of my position.<br />I would be most appreciative of any assistance that you are able to afford.<br />I remain yours sincerely<br /><br />DAWN ROWAN<br /><br />Copy to: <br />The Hon Philip Ruddock MP<br />ATTORNEY-GENERAL<br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-82358712642823990892009-03-16T17:27:00.000-07:002009-03-16T17:32:38.007-07:00ARTICLE FOR THE VICTORIAN 'BAPTIST WITNESS' (April 2009)<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">'JUSTICE FOR DAWN ROWAN'</span><br /><br />Dawn Rowan – who attends our East Doncaster church - was once a national leader in the Women’s Refuge movement.<br /><br />The Commonwealth and SA Governments colluded to close down her Refuge. Dawn took them to court – and won! In an Appeal, a strange judgment affirmed Dawn’s innocence, but awarded costs against her! <br /><br />Canberra bankrupted her, and any time now her St Andrews home could be seized – legally! How much has she spent and lost? At least $1.5 million. How many taxpayers’ dollars were wasted – over 24 years - destroying her? An eight-figure sum (they won’t tell us). In ‘fair and just’ Australia! In our time!<br /><br />Last May Jenny Macklin recommended waiving Dawn’s debt to the Commonwealth. The final judgment lies with Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner. <br /><br />To encourage Mr Tanner to act soon, Dawn’s supporters are planning a <span style="font-weight:bold;">Maundy Thursday 24-hour vigil (April 9)</span> outside his Melbourne office (King and Little Lonsdale Streets). <br /><br />See http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/ for more (including the hope that the Vigil will be called off if Mr. Tanner makes a satisfactory judgment). Write to the PM - http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm and/or Mr Tanner (Lindsay.Tanner.MP@aph.gov.au). <br /><br />And please pray for Dawn: she’s understandably very tired/depressed.<br /><br />(Rev. Dr.) Rowland Croucher <br /><br />http://jmm.aaa.net.au <br /><br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-76345338355845457222009-03-13T14:40:00.000-07:002009-03-13T14:44:38.905-07:00AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S 'Increase the Budget and decrease the violence against women' appeal.<span style="font-weight:bold;">Amnesty International is lobbying for the Government to 'increase the budget and decrease the violence' against women.<br /><br />This is exactly what Dawn Rowan has been working for, so we are putting her case in their hands.<br /><br />I will be sending Amnesty International a copy of her lecture notes in which she coined the phrase 'battered women syndrome' dating back to 1985, in a paper presented to the First National Conference on Domestic Violence in Canberra.<br /><br />Included also will be a three-day skills development workshop for Health , Education, Legal and Welfare Workers, designed and presented by Dawn. She still lectures in this area at TAFEs. <br /><br />Jan Croucher<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">PS. Everyone: Keep Maundy Thursday (April 9, 2009) free to join many others at a 24-hour vigil outside Lindsay Tanner's Melbourne office.</span> </span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-84538605110259844852009-03-11T17:27:00.001-07:002009-03-11T17:31:38.640-07:0066 QUESTIONS TO QandA - AND NOT A MENTION!<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT THE ABC AND THE DAWN ROWAN SAGA?</span><br /><br />HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS: THANKS EVERYONE!<br /><br />Q&A<br />ABC TV<br />QUESTIONS RE DAWN ROWAN<br /><br />1 <br />Dear Mr Tanner:<br />Are you continuing to persecute DAWN ROWAN because she set legal precedents in the Westminster system by winning the tort of Misfeasance (abuse of public office) against the Minister for Health in the SA Government in 1987?<br /><br />The SA Minister was found guilty of Misfeasance because he knowingly released a report containing shocking defamation and false allegations and thereby abused his public position.<br />(Rev.) JAN CROUCHER<br /><br />*********<br /><br />2<br />Minister Tanner,<br />I believe that you had the final decision regarding the case of Dawn Rowan and her legal fees. This is a woman who has been proven innocent by the courts of any wrong doing in her management of her women refuge yet is still suffering immensely with the injustice of government. Will you do what is right and waive her legal fees? Isn’t 20+ years of suffering as a result of government mistakes enough?<br />Beth Cooper<br /><br />*********<br /><br />3<br />Lindsay Tanner,<br />Dawn Rowan is a true Aussie Hero, standing up for battered women and abused children back in the 1980's, in a time that was very brave and dangerous for Dawn. Do we not owe Dawn that very same true Aussie compassion and end her persecution? Jenny Macklin's recommendation is a start of showing our Politicians have compassion and believe in justice. Justice must be carried out for Dawn Rowan, an innocent citizen of Australia!<br />Kyle Myrtus, Newcastle<br /><br />*********<br /><br />4<br />Lindsay Tanner, <br />After 20 year of fighting Dawn Rowan is has been proven innocent of any wrong doing yet she is forced to pay millions of dollars of costs to the government. What gives? How is this possibly fair?<br />Catherine Deveny<br /><br />*********<br /><br />5<br />There has been a 15-year legal campaign waged by the Federal Government and the South Australian Government, to defend themselves against charges of misfeasance (abuse of public office), defamation, negligence and conspiracy in regard to the Dawn Rowan case. What positive steps will the Minister, Lindsay Tanner, be taking to absolve this woman from all blame and give her the justice that she deserves?<br />Peter Wright<br /><br />*********<br /> <br />6<br />Dear Mr Tanner<br />I do not know Dawn Rowan personally but I have taken an interest in her story because I believe she has suffered terribly at the hands of government, and only your government can now make things right for her. One came to expect cruelty and injustice from the previous administration, but we expect better of a government led by someone whose hero is Dietrich Bonhoeffer.<br />David Bell<br /><br />*********<br /><br />7<br />Minister,<br />Jenny Macklin has formally recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth. Has the Commonwealth's decision to pursue her to bankruptcy, which will take her home and finish her already crippled livelihood as a counsellor, been made to conceal the fact that the precedents she successfully set as a self-represented litigant mean that politicians no longer have protection against deformation under parliamentary privilege?<br />Manninder Sekhon<br /><br />*********<br /><br />8<br />Lindsay Tanner,<br />It is your responsibility to make a final decision on the Dawn Rowan case. Will you accept the recommendation of Jenny Macklin thus exercising both compassion and justice? What possible justifiable reason could there be for sustaining this miscarriage of justice? <br />Newton Daddow<br /><br />*********<br /><br />9<br />To Lindsay Tanner,<br />I believe that you will shortly make a decision in the 24-year-old Dawn Rowan case as to whether the Commonwealth will waive the unjust legal costs debt imposed by a previous government. As you well she has been declared innocent by the courts of any wrong doing in her management of the Women's Refuge she used to run. Why is not justice being carried out for this innocent Australian citizen?<br />David Hardy<br /><br />*********<br /><br />10<br />To Lindsay Tanner,<br />Can you resolve once and for all, to waive the debt for Dawn Rowan? She has been through 20 + years of very bad treatment.<br /><br />Enough is enough!<br /><br />Please waive her debt.<br />Jim Owens<br /><br />*********<br /><br /><br /> <br />11<br />Lindsay Tanner,<br />When are you going to waive Dawn Rowan's debt? Minister Fitzgibbon has confronted the "Sir Humphreys" of his Department, when will do the same?<br /><br />Ministers of the previous & current government accept the accuracy of our campaign's listing of what has happened (I haven't inserted the link because Q & A won't accept it), and note that Dawn is the innocent party, a victim of both government & others. Eminent jurists find the government's behaviour "shabby".<br />Cedric-Wyndham<br /><br />*********<br /><br />12<br />Yet another question for Mr Tanner,<br />If he won't reply to questions put to his office about the Dawn Rowan issue PLEASE ABC, Please Q&A put him on the spotlight about this... Where is a fair go for a person who simply wanted to clear her name from a horrendous South Australian Liberal government libel?<br />Luke Whiteside<br /><br />*********<br /><br />13<br />Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth. As you know she's innocent, but the Commonwealth is pursuing her for legal costs leading to her becoming bankrupt. Dawn Rowan ran a Women's Refuge in Adelaide, which was shut down after false allegations were levelled against her. Why has it taken 24 years for justice to be done in her case? <br />Ian L Perry<br /><br />*********<br /><br />14<br />In the case of Dawn Rowan, she has been found innocent of the charges laid against her many years ago. Yet the Commonwealth is pursuing her for payment of legal; costs which will bankrupt her. Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended you waive this debt. I respectfully ask that this be resolved in Dawn Rowan's favour to allow her to re-establish her life, which has been disrupted for many years.<br />Greg Smith<br /><br />*********<br /><br />15<br />Good Morning<br />I write a simple question, and it is - Why has the Dawn Rowan Saga been dragged out for so many years!!?? It is very clear there has been a miscarriage of justice done to this woman, which has been proven in court. It is now time for fellow MP's to swallow their pride, think about how they would feel if this situation had happened to them, and let the whole thing go! Surely it is now time for an 'Act of Grace' to be granted and for Dawn's supposed 'debt' to the commonwealth to be wiped! It is also time for an apology to be given to her for the personal hardship that she has been put through because of someone’s own personal agenda, stubbornness and clash of personalities!<br />Colleen Ellis<br /><br />*********<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />16<br />Why has the matter of the injustice meted out to Dawn Rowan not yet been addressed by the government?<br />John Fielder,<br /><br />*********<br /><br />17<br />Lindsay Tanner: <br />Given that it is within your power to see some moral justice done in the case of Dawn Rowan, what could you possibly have to lose from deciding not to push her into bankruptcy? Will you halt the proceedings against her?<br />Ben Williamson<br /><br />*********<br /><br />18<br />To Mr Tanner: <br />Advocate for abused women, Dawn Rowan, was pursued for years in legal proceedings by the SA and Federal Governments. Dawn has been cleared of all charges. But instead of awarding her compensation for over 15 years of trauma, the previous Federal Government demanded fees from Dawn which amount to the value of her home and which will bankrupt her. Has the current Finance Minister met with Dawn to hear her story, and what will it take for him to waive these fees?<br />Janice Anne Newham<br /><br />*********<br /><br />19<br />Dear Mr Tanner:<br />Are you continuing to persecute DAWN ROWAN because she set legal precedents in the Westminster system by winning the tort of Misfeasance (abuse of public office) against the Minister for Health in the SA Government in 1987?<br /><br />(You do not come across as a vengeful type of person unlike some of your fellow politicians).<br /><br />The SA Minister was found guilty of Misfeasance because he knowingly released a report containing shocking defamation and false allegations and thereby abused his public position.<br /><br />THIS LEGAL DECISION HAS DESTROYED POLITICANS' UNBRIDLED ROTECTION TO ABUSE PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.<br /><br />(See Constitutional Law Update 2002).<br /><br />(Rev.) JAN CROUCHER<br /><br />*********<br /><br />20<br />Mr. Tanner I note on the ALP website under "objectives" the following: We value compassion and dedicate ourselves to social justice. We believe that it is the Australian way to work together to help alleviate suffering and disadvantage when we can. I would like to ask when this will occur for Dawn Rowan.<br />Craig Semple<br /><br />*********<br /><br /> <br />21<br />Question for Mr. Tanner<br />I'm the DAWN ROWAN you're reading about here. For 24 years my life has suffered intolerable cruelty, injustice and humiliation because of malicious lies, which, as you are aware, were a 'shocking defamation', designed to destroy my personal and professional reputation in Cowards' Castle, ie. the South Australian parliament. The defamation was perpetrated in collusion with the Commonwealth Government.<br /><br />I'm completely innocent as established by all the court judgments.<br /><br />The Commonwealth has spent millions of taxpayers' dollars paying lawyers and bureaucrats to continue this infamy.<br /><br />Mr. Tanner: I am asking you for justice and restitution.<br /><br />Dawn Rowan, St Andrews (Victoria)<br /><br />*********<br /><br />22<br />Why has it taken so long for Dawn Rowan's case to be even considered for the compensation she so obviously deserves? Over twenty years is another injustice to her.<br />Ray Zimmer, Burwood 3125<br /><br />*********<br /><br />23<br />Lindsay Tanner: <br />Why has Dawn Rowan's case, where the eminent civil rights lawyer Julian Burnside describes the Commonwealth's actions against Dawn Rowan as 'shabby' not been dealt with after 24 years? Are <br />you willing to right a miscarriage of government power against a good Australian woman and help her salvage the remnants of an extraordinary life?<br />Iain Watt<br /><br />*********<br /><br />24<br />For Hon Lindsay Tanner:<br />"Justice delayed is no justice". An opportunity exists to waive massive legal costs charged against Dawn Rowan of St Andrews. When will this long awaited act of justice take place?<br />Peggy Jones<br /><br />*********<br /><br />25<br />How is it that defending yourself against false allegations can lead to bankruptcy? Will you (Lindsay Tanner) agree to release Dawn Rowan from her legal fees as Jenny Macklin, amongst many others, has recommended?<br />Keith Dyer<br /><br />*********<br /><br /> <br />26<br />I'm curious to hear Lindsay Tanner's take on the plight of Dawn Rowan, a pioneer in the Women's Refuge movement. He has not responded to community requests to resolve this outrageous twenty-four year legal saga. Why is it that the minister has waived a taxation debt of a former Governor-General, yet has not waived the debt of Dawn Rowan, whose debt emerges from a successful fight to clear her name - muddied by unfounded allegations in a government report? When will he act?<br />Rudy Monaco<br /><br />*********<br /><br />27<br />Lindsay Tanner, <br />Does the Minister realize that the Dawn Rowan saga has continued for over 20 years. Could the Minister please say when he will make a judgement on this case.<br />Anne Page, East Doncaster<br /><br />*********<br /><br />28<br />Dawn Rowan was exonerated from any wrongdoing in 2002. Why did she have to pay the costs for clearing her name? Why have the debts the government claims she owes not been waived yet?<br />Diana Dow, Melbourne<br /><br />*********<br /> <br />29<br />To Lindsay Tanner: <br />The previous Government took a hard line on Dawn Rowan, a person who has been pursued through the courts for years to pay the Federal Government's costs after being found by a South Australian <br />judge to have been wronged by unsubstantiated allegations. You can right a wrong, perpetuated by your Government since its election, by waiving her costs. What is stopping you from doing this?<br />ref: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4728.htm<br />Peter Page, ACT<br /><br />*********<br /><br />30<br />To Lindsay Tanner:<br />I understand you are familiar with the case of Dawn Rowan, who was the victim of false allegations in her work assisting battered women yet in the process of successful quest to prove her innocence was somehow saddled with the debt of the Commonwealth's unsuccessful defence. How has such a travesty of justice been allowed to be perpetuated in this country for 24 years, and what are you intending to do about it now?<br />Simon, Brunswick<br /><br />*********<br /><br />31<br />Lindsay, <br />You've just recently written off the debt of a previous GG who made a mistake with his tax. I can't understand why its so difficult to forgive the debt of someone like Dawn Rowan who has consistently been vindicated in the courts and is the victim of government bureaucrats maligning her based on false evidence. Can you please explain the justice of this situation to us?<br />Rob Kilpatrick<br /><br />*********<br /><br />32<br />The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, has recommended to you that you waive the debt that Dawn Rowan has to the Commonwealth. You know that she is innocent but if the Commonwealth pursuing her for legal costs will lead her to becoming bankrupt.24 years ago Dawn Rowan ran a women's Refuge in Adelaide which, because of false allegations made against her, was shut down. In her blog (http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com) the Commonwealth's actions against Dawn Rowan are described as 'shabby' by the eminent civil rights lawyer Julian Burnside. When will justice to be done in her case and why has it taken 24 years?<br />Jim Langdon, Ringwood Vic<br /><br />********* <br /><br />33<br />What are you going to do about the appalling Dawn Rowan case?<br />David Morland<br /><br />*********<br /><br />34<br />To Mr Tanner, <br />I thought that in Australia, if a person was declared innocent, then they were not held liable for court costs. How come The Australian government is pursuing court costs against Dawn Rowan? How come she has continually been denied full Justice in Australia for over 24 years?<br />Rev'd Richard Minol<br /><br />*********<br /><br />35<br />Dear Lindsay Tanner,<br />Are you going to waive court costs against Dawn Rowan as she has been judged innocent by the courts? Why has it taken so many years for this matter to be finalized? Julian Burnside has supported her case - why is the government not content to drop the matter which would seem to be a just outcome?<br />Paul Gormann, Melbourne <br /><br />*********<br /><br />36<br />To Lindsay Tanner<br />Why is it that the minister has not waived the debt of Dawn Rowan, a pioneer in the Women's Refuge movement, whose debt emerges from a successful fight to clear her name, which was muddied by unfounded allegations in a government report? She has waited for justice for 24 years. Minister Jenny Macklin has recommended this action... why the wait?<br />Bill Brown<br /><br />*********<br /><br /> <br />37<br />To: Lindsay Tanner:<br />Through a FaceBook group, I have learned of the extraordinary wrong that you can correct by waiving Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth. As you know she's innocent, but the Commonwealth is pursuing her for legal costs - leading to her becoming bankrupt. Dawn Rowan ran a Women's Refuge in Adelaide, which was shut down after false allegations were levelled against her. Why has it taken 24 years for justice to be done in her case? <br />Roger Hooker<br /><br />*********<br /><br />38<br />Sighting the ongoing injustice against Dawn ROWAN that has waged on for 24 long years. Other than overturning the unjust debt placed upon her by the Government appointed court: are measures being undertaken by the current Government to ensure future travesties of justice are not meted out on other unsuspecting innocent Australians?<br />Joshua Hudson<br /><br />*********<br /><br />39<br />Dear Lindsay Tanner,<br />I have been trying to understand the case of Dawn Rowan and see that you are the one who could help her out of her misery. Could you please show her some favour?<br />Kind regards,<br />Mrs Vani Houghton <br /><br />*********<br /><br />40<br />To Lindsay Tanner:<br />When will you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth?<br />Dorothy Hatch, Strathmore<br /><br />*********<br /><br />41<br />To Lindsay Tanner,<br />Should Australian taxpayers have to foot the bill -millions of dollars - for a travesty of justice in the case of the Commonwealth against Dawn Rowan. Is Justice being done? Dawn is innocent of any wrongdoing: she's the victim of untrue, trumped-up allegations. At every stage in the Court proceedings she has been vindicated.<br /><br />It is strange - to use the mildest word - that the innocent party has to pay any costs. It ought to be highly unusual that the guilty parties - particularly the two key individuals involved (Dr. Cornwall and Ms Judith Roberts) - can put together a bevy of lies, and not be liable for one cent! Similarly with people responsible for the five SA and Federal Governments' departments 'mislaying' a whole cohort of documents relating to the case!<br />Will Spann<br /><br />*********<br /><br /> <br />42<br />ADDRESSED TO LINDSAY TANNER:<br />One of the founding myths of the modern so-called democratic state is the equality of all before the majesty (sic) of the law. How can one reconcile the treatment meted out to Dawn Rowan - who, after many years of legal battling, obtained a totally justified compensation judgment in her favour against the government, only to have it appealed by the government, and overturned - with the astonishingly quick award of $250,000 EACH to Abbott and Costello, for a one-line asserted slur on the character of Tanya Costello, in a book by Bob Ellis with a limited readership and no particular social significance at all.<br /><br />[When the democratic political representatives of the people assume the mantle of rulers, maybe they should remember what Robespierre instigated.]<br /><br />[A subsidiary derivative question, that can be ignored in the interest of the media's need for clear, direct and finite questions: With the huge number of scandals associated with the legal system, is it time to scrap the entire operation, and start over - maybe with small councils of ten elders or some such? (We could begin by compiling a dossier of complaints, and manifest injustices, and go from there.)<br />Glynne Sutcliffe<br /><br />*********<br /><br />43<br />Wouldn't you agree that 24 years is way too long for someone to wait for justice, in this wonderful country of Australia? The right thing to do is to waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth. This woman has suffered long enough because of FALSE allegations levelled against her. <br />Mrs.Nancy Moyle<br /><br />*********<br /><br />44<br />Why is it that the minister has waived a taxation debt of a (well-resourced) former Governor-General, yet has not waived the debt of Dawn Rowan, a pioneer in the Women's Refuge movement, whose debt emerges from a successful fight to clear her name which was muddied by unfounded allegations in a government report? She has waited for justice for 24 years. Minister Jenny Macklin has recommended this action... why the wait?<br />Gary Heard, West Melbourne<br /><br />*********<br /><br />45<br />To Lindsay Tanner:<br />Dawn Rowan is innocent and was proven so in court, but the Commonwealth continues to pursue her for legal costs.<br /><br />See Channel 7's Today Tonight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdJYo3iMJoA<br /><br />Payment of these 'costs' would render her bankrupt, homeless and unable to earn her living (something she can barely do now with this agonising injustice hanging over her head).<br /><br />Jenny Macklin has recommended that you waive this 'debt'.<br /><br />Dawn Rowan has been attempting to clear her name for 24 years. Justice Debelle stated that those levelling allegations against her "...were guilty of malice..." and guilty of, "...shocking defamation...".<br /><br />Civil rights lawyer Julian Burnside describes the Commonwealth's actions against Dawn Rowan as "shabby".<br /><br />Why is it that here, in my home country of Australia, certain individual members of our government (when proved guilty in court) can hide behind the power and resources available to them and be 'let off'? leaving the innocent party (Dawn Rowan) to carry the can - to the point of homelessness and 24 years of psychological torture? <br />Rasili O'Connor<br /><br />*********<br /><br />46<br />To Lindsay Tanner,<br />You are aware that the case of Dawn Rowan has been around for some 24 years and that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice in her case. If you do not intervene, as has been recommended by Jenny Macklin, she will be bankrupt, despite top legal advice that the Commonwealth has acted shabbily in her case. Will you save this poor woman after all these years, whose only motive was to help save others?<br />Bruce Morey<br /><br />*********<br /><br />47<br />To Lindsay Tanner: <br />Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth. As you know she's innocent, but the Commonwealth is pursuing her for legal costs - leading to her becoming bankrupt. Dawn Rowan ran a Women's Refuge in Adelaide, which was shut down after false allegations were levelled against her. Why has it taken 24 years for justice to be done in her case?<br />Bob Garbett, Nth Ringwood Vic<br /><br />*********<br /><br />48<br />To Lindsay Tanner:<br />Please waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth, just as your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended. You know she's innocent and yet, the Commonwealth is still pursuing her for legal costs. Why should Dawn Rowan become bankrupt through such a travesty of justice? Dawn is the one who ran a Women's Refuge in Adelaide, which was shut down after false allegations were levelled against her. Why has it taken 24 years for justice to be done in her case? One only has to see her Blog - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/ to see how, and as one civil rights lawyer Julian Burnside describes it, the Commonwealth's action's against Dawn Rowan is 'shabby'. For Australia's sake, Justice must prevail!<br />Peter J. Coburn<br /><br />*********<br /><br />49<br />Dawn Rowan - a women's shelter manager - was badmouthed in Parliament and the shelter was closed down. She won justice against the government in court. But costs were awarded against her. A first mystery. This didn't happen under your watch, but the case was put to you early in this government's term. Surely the injustice is clear. Why the delay, especially when Jenny Macklin has already recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth? <br />David Powell<br /><br />*********<br /><br /><br /> <br />50<br />To Lindsay Tanner:<br />Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan\'s debt to the Commonwealth. As you know she's innocent, but the Commonwealth is pursuing her for legal costs - leading to her becoming bankrupt. Dawn Rowan ran a Women's Refuge in Adelaide, which was shut <br />down after false allegations were levelled against her. Why has it taken 24 years for justice to be done in her case? See her Blog - http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com%2F where the eminent civil rights lawyer Julian Burnside describes the Commonwealth's action's against Dawn Rowan as 'shabby'.<br />Mary Barker<br /><br />*********<br /><br />51<br />Mr Lindsay Tanner:<br />Are you aware of the case of Dawn Rowan who has been pursued by successive Federal Governments for legal costs in relation to a court case in which false allegations were levelled against her? Dawn ran a Women’s Refuge in Adelaide. At every court appearance she has been vindicated of the charges brought against her. Why is Dawn still waiting for justice 24 years later? Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended you waive Dawn's debt to the Commonwealth. Will you?<br />Mark Francis<br /><br />*********<br /><br />52<br />To Lindsay Tanner: <br />Why won’t you give justice to Dawn Rowan? Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended you waiver the debt that has been hanging over her head for over 20 years. Why have you not done so? <br />She worked with battered women when it was very un-trendy to do so. She was slandered horribly. She took it to court, won, and then the judge awarded costs against her! She has been fighting it for 2 decades and faces losing her house now to pay it. You can waiver the debt. The eminent civil rights lawyer Julian Burnside describes the Commonwealth's actions against Dawn Rowan as 'shabby'. I can understand the previous Liberal government not helping a woman who worked with abused women. But I expected better from the current Labor Party. Jenny Macklin has recommended the waiver. Why <br />haven't you acted? <br />Jim Reiher, Springvale, Victoria<br /><br />********* <br /><br />53<br />To Minister Lindsay Tanner: <br />Minister, why is it that Ms Dawn Rowan can win a court case against the government, i.e. be declared innocent, but still have to pay the governments costs resulting in her becoming bankrupt and loosing her house?<br />Robin Perkins<br /><br />*********<br /><br />54<br />From Cape Town. <br />Ms. Dawn Rowan is the social worker who famously took on the government of South Australia, then the Commonwealth -- and won. Yet she faced financial and professional ruin when ordered to pay the <br />government's costs. The Hon. Minister Tanner has kindly devoted his personal attention to this matter. Does he foresee a benevolent outcome? <br />Rev. Thomas Scarborough<br /><br />*********<br /><br />55<br />Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth. As you know she's innocent, but the Commonwealth is pursuing her for legal costs - causing her much suffering and financial hardship. Dawn Rowan ran a Women's Refuge in Adelaide, which was shut down after false allegations were levelled against her. Why has it taken 24 years for justice to be done in her case?<br />Ninure Saunders<br /><br />*********<br /><br />56<br />To Lindsay Tanner<br />Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth. She has been found innocent, but the Commonwealth is pursuing her for legal costs - leading to her becoming bankrupt. Dawn Rowan ran a Women's Refuge in Adelaide, which was shut <br />down after false allegations were levelled against her. Why has it taken 24 years for justice to be done in her case? Eminent civil rights lawyer Julian Burnside describes the Commonwealth's actions against Dawn Rowan as 'shabby'.<br />Phil Heuzenroeder, Melbourne. <br /><br />*********<br /><br />57<br />Dear Mr Tanner,<br />How can any Australian have confidence in our system and its politicians when Dawn Rowan, declared innocent by the court, stands to be made bankrupt by the Commonwealth Govt? It really smacks of a despotic system, totally UNAustralian and as an ordinary citizen I am scared. It could happen to anyone. Reassure me.<br />Hilary Cook<br /><br />*********<br /><br />58<br />Dear Mr Tanner, <br />You currently hold sway over the fate of Melbourne woman Dawn Rowan who won legal cases against the South Australian and Federal governments. How can it be legal that she has never been paid the $500,000 ordered by the courts years ago? What is the procedure to make our government pay this outstanding debt, or is our government immune from Supreme Court and High Court ordered debts to citizens? Also, how can it be legal that she has now been instructed to pay the Government's <br />legal costs?<br />Bonnie Donehue<br /><br />*********<br /><br />59<br />Greetings Lindsay Tanner from America.<br /><br />Your handling of the Dawn Rowan case is being watched by international observers.<br /><br />Why has it taken so long (24 years) for the Australian government to make a judgement?<br /><br />Jenny Macklin has recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth but still your government is pursuing her for legal costs.<br /><br />Dr Geoff Pound,<br />Jefferson City, Tennessee. <br /><br />*********<br /><br />60<br />Mr Tanner, <br />Why has it taken so long for justice to be given to Dawn Rowan? What do you intend doing about what Julian Burnside has described as "shabby" regarding the Commonwealths actions towards Dawn Rowan? <br />Craig Semple, Phillip Island<br /><br />*********<br /><br />61<br />Mr Tanner,<br />Jenny Macklin has recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth that arose from defending the vexatious claims made against her, When are you going to finalise the issue and waive her "debt" to the Commonwealth?<br />John Alchin<br /><br />*********<br /><br />62<br />Tradition prevents the Crown from stooping to the level of recovering legal costs from an individual citizen; the Queen would never do it. Why is the Governor General hounding Dawn Rowan? Is Australia broke?<br />John Robertson, Clacton-on-Sea, England. <br /><br />*********<br /><br />63<br />To Lindsay Tanner:<br />In relation to Dawn Rowan - You are aware of her situation and the injustice and mistreatment done to her by the state and federal government. Why has it taken 24 years for her to get justice? All the <br />courts say she is innocent yet she is harassed and pursued for legal costs. Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended to you that you waive her (unjust) debt to the commonwealth - will you pardon her debt? Please have the courage to see justice get done in this situation.<br />Jarrod<br /><br />*********<br /><br />64<br />A question for Lindsay Tanner.<br />Dawn Rowan ran a Women's Refuge in Adelaide, which was shut down after false allegations were levelled against her. It has been 24 years and justice is STILL yet to be delivered to her. Eminent civil rights lawyer Julian Burnside is on record as describing the Commonwealth's actions against Dawn Rowan as shabby. I myself am offended by what she has undergone at the hands of the Commonwealth.<br /><br />Jenny Macklin recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth. As you know, Dawn has repeatedly been found innocent in the courts of any wrongdoing, but the Commonwealth is intent on ruining her further by demanding that she pay legal costs that will make her bankrupt. The Commonwealth does not NEED her to pay legal costs, nor is it morally acceptable that she should, when they brought her into such unfounded disrepute so unfairly. It's disgusting.<br /><br />Will you do the moral and Australian thing by finally bringing justice to Dawn Rowan? It is in your power to do so, and you are the only one who can now return her life to her which was so shamefully taken from her so unjustly.<br />Matthew J Bevis, Melbourne <br /><br />*********<br /><br />65<br />To Lindsay Tanner:<br />Your colleague Jenny Macklin has recommended that you waive Dawn Rowan's debt to the Commonwealth. As you know she's innocent, but the Commonwealth is pursuing her for legal costs - leading to her becoming bankrupt. Dawn Rowan ran a Women's Refuge in Adelaide, which was shut <br />down after false allegations were levelled against her. Why has it taken 24 years for justice to be done in her case? See her Blog - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/ where the eminent civil rights lawyer <br />Julian Burnside describes the Commonwealth's actions against Dawn Rowan as 'shabby'.<br />Rev. Dr. Rowland Croucher, Melbourne<br /><br />*********<br /><br />66<br />I would be interested in hearing Mr Tanner's comments on the Dawn Rowan Saga. Surely someone who has been vindicated should not pay the losing party's costs, especially where the losing party's conduct has been called into question? When will a decision be made?<br />M D<br /><br />*********<br /><br /><br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-25220281699149002072008-10-02T23:43:00.000-07:002008-10-02T23:47:24.239-07:00INDEPENDENT WEEKLY ARTICLE<span style="font-weight:bold;">The excellent article by graham Archer:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/3jjjzb<br /><br />May 30th 2008</span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-39835319143924019252008-04-13T02:31:00.000-07:002008-04-13T02:55:09.477-07:00A LETTER FROM MAL BROUGH<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />[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]</span><br /><br />*****<br /><br />A LETTER FROM MAL BROUGH – AN ANALYSIS <br /><br />Brough’s letter (below) typifies the strategies routinely used by politicians to lie, obfuscate and totally distract the reader from the truth.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Brough’s letter uses identical strategies to present an entirely untrue ‘summary’ of the whole twenty-two years of Government and legal abuses.<br /><br />** THE ROBERTS “INDEPENDENT” REVIEW<br /><br />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). <br /><br />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…”<br /><br />Justice Debelle’s judgement regarding Wendy Heath stated:<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />The Crown Solicitor, Maria Panagiotidis, decided, during the trial, NOT to call Heath as a witness for the Government case. Justice Debelle states:<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />And further states:<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br /><br />BROUGH’S OBFUSCATING LETTER<br /><br />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. <br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />DAWN HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY OF THE BELOW ‘JUSTIFICATION’ FROM:<br /><br />• BROUGH (Howard’s Minister responsible for women’s shelters), <br />• RUDDOCK (Howard’s Attorney General), <br />• MINCHIN (Howard’s Finance Minister) or<br />• Hunt (Howard’s Federal Member). <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Why such a deafening silence?!!!! <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br />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.<br /><br />Following Brough’s letter, Dawn has added comments and facts that were deliberately omitted in this letter.<br /><br />*****<br /><br />02 Oct 2007<br /> <br />The Hon Greg Hunt MP<br />Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs<br />Member for Flinders<br />P O Box 274<br />Hastings Vic 3915<br /> <br />Dear Mr Hunt (Hunt is crossed out and a hand written Greg is inserted)<br /> <br />Thank you for your letter of 14 August 2007 on behalf of Dr Tim Ealey of Coronet Bay about Dawn Rowan.<br /> <br />Ms Rowan's debt [1] to the Commonwealth arose as a result of her [1] taking legal action against a number of defendants [5], including the Commonwealth, alleging [2] that she was owed damages because of negligence, defamation, misfeasance and conspiracy. The allegations [2] 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 [3]. <br /><br />The matter was dealt with in the first instance by a single judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia [4]. However, the Commonwealth (and other defendants) successfully appealed [5] this decision to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, who found that there was no legal basis [6] 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 [7] involved in defending the matter [8]. <br /> <br />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 [9].<br /> <br />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 [10]. <br /><br />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 [11], and rejects such an offer, the Commonwealth is left with no alternative but to pursue the recovery of costs [12].<br /> <br />The issue of costs was, in this case, determined by the Full Court [8] 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 [13] in costs. In coming to its decision, the court stated:<br /> <br />"We think that there is sufficient information upon which the Court can <br /> conclude that a figure of $380,00 is logical, fair and reasonable".<br /> <br />Under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, the Commonwealth is required [12] 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 [12] 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 [12].<br /> <br />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 [14], 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 [12] a comprehensive legislative and policy framework, which is designed to treat debtors in a fair and reasonable manner.<br /> <br />In particular, the Commonwealth is required to comply with [12] the principles set out in the Legal Services Directions 2005, including the requirement to behave as a model litigant [15]. In this particular case, the Commonwealth complied with those principles [15]. 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 [16].<br /> <br />Once again, thank you for writing on Dr Ealey's behalf. I trust my comments are of assistance. ????<br /> <br />Yours sincerely,<br /><br />*****<br /><br />[1] This implies it was Dawn’s fault and she caused her own problems.<br /><br />[2] 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.<br /><br />[3] 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.<br /><br />[4] Thus, in one simplistic sentence, Brough:<br />• utterly disguises the five-month, landmark trial after fourteen years of constant legal action and court hearings;<br />• ignores Debelle’s strong judgement which was highly critical of Roberts, Cornwall, Wighton and Blake;<br />• ignores Debelle’s findings of liability against the Commonwealth;<br />• utterly trivialises a five-month, landmark legal action, with 5,000 pages of transcript, 1,500 documents admitted as evidence to the trial, <br />ignores the fact that Dawn represented herself against four powerful legal teams and WON on every substantive issue.<br /><br />[5] 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.<br /> <br />[6] This is deliberately misleading because, at all times, a legal basis has been proved “to support Ms Rowan’s allegations”.<br /><br />[7] This is a lie and completely omits the Court’s initial order for Dawn to pay $690,000.00 (see also [13] below)<br /><br />[8] 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:<br /><br />(a) the Chief Judge of the South Australian Court (Doyle), who appointed these judges to hear the appeal, and <br /><br />(b) two of these three judges.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />[9] 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.<br /><br />[10] 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.<br /><br />[11] This is misleading for reasons stated in point 10 (above), and implies that Dawn is a difficult or belligerent litigant.<br /><br />[12] 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.<br /><br />[13] 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. <br /><br />Curiously, the figure of $380,000 is exactly Dawn’s equity in her home and not a cent more - A HUGE COINCIDENCE?<br /><br />[14] 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.<br /><br />[15] 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.<br /><br />[16] This statement contradicts the common knowledge of the fact that we have a ‘legal system’ which is irrelevant to justice and decency.<br /><br /><br />DAWN ROWAN<br /><br />APRIL 12, 2008<br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-62537636681169055212008-04-07T23:10:00.000-07:002008-04-07T23:14:00.664-07:00RUMOUR ABOUT DAWN AND THE COMMONWEALTH 'OFFER'<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">THE Adelaide Chinese Whisper RUMOUR machine has been in full ugly swing. (What’s new?)<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />The RUMOUR: <br /><br />*****'Dawn was offered a generous sum by the Commonwealth to cease all litigation on these matters, but she refused' *****<br /><br />DAWN'S RESPONSE:<br /><br />===>>> The Commonwealth Govt HAS NEVER OFFERED A CENT TO DAWN.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />FURTHER<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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.<br /><br />No other offer has ever been made by the Commonwealth. <br /><br />Dawn Rowan <br /><br />8th April, 2008.</span><br /></span></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-88495329672689604102008-03-10T03:34:00.000-07:002008-04-07T23:17:55.545-07:00INTERVIEW WITH DAWN<span style="font-weight:bold;">Preamble: 'The Galbally (1978) and Fitzgerald (1988) reports on the immigration system struck a balance between a rules-based structure which had enough compassionate flexibility to accommodate discretion in exceptional circumstances... The full extent of human devastation cannot always be captured within the black letter of the law. Unlike bureaucracies' apparatuses, [Government] ministers have a mandate for empathy while weighing often unique circumstances that were not anticipated when sections of the act were drafted.' ('Yes Minister, the buck does stop with you' by Mary Aldred, the Age, March 3, 2008). Update: Cornelia Rau, the German-born woman wrongly held in detention for 10 months, has accepted a compensation offer from the Federal Government for a reported $2.4 million. Note: A Government Department made a mistake, and paid compensation.
<br />
<br />Dawn, what are you asking the Federal Government to do?
<br />
<br />My needs, which I would like the Government to address are:
<br />
<br />* Bankruptcy REMOVED from ALL MY RECORDS in the public & private arenas
<br />
<br />* Commonwealth Government to deal with SA government, ABC & Channel 10 to get rid of ANY further action they might take
<br />
<br />* FULL payment of my ACTUAL legal costs from the beginning of this disgusting saga. NOT what the COURT allows, which is 60% of 75% of nothing etc, etc. i.e. NOT the court / legal formulas for "taxation of costs", but the truth of the financial cost to me.
<br />
<br />* Full payment of all my personal losses: income over 20 years, interest on line of credit ($40,000), superannuation, potential investment losses which would have been made for responsible quality of retirement life. I'll add more to this later...
<br />
<br />* DECENT & HUMANE compensation for personal injury & suffering, making an HONEST assessment of what they would expect if this had been PERPETRATED on them.
<br />
<br />* RECALL OF ALL COPIES OF "SHELTERS IN THE STORM" REPORT, by state & Federal Government, any records of this report in Government departments to be annotated with Justice Debelle's findings on the malicious lies deliberately included in it by Cornwall, Roberts, Whighton & Blake. Also annotated with a full apology to me for the brutal treatment meted out to me by State & Federal Governments for 21 years. (extracts of Debelle's judgement to be identified by me)
<br />
<br />* Appointment to varies Government committees responsible for development of
<br />appropriate services / responses to Family & Community Violence, including Child Abuse & Exploitation.
<br />
<br />I regard the above list of actions necessary for me to be restored to some quality if life. However, it can NEVER compensate me for the torture imposed by evil doers in Government & their whores & the LOST years of my life.
<br />
<br />I want to meet Jenny Macklin personally to explain the whole saga. Why won't she meet me? Getting a bureaucratic line won't necessarily represent the truth.
<br />
<br />Dawn Rowan
<br />
<br />13th March 2008.
<br />
<br />Friends: You can email/write to Jenny Macklin. See <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5gymaa">here.</a> </a></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-73440054901301270832008-03-06T22:15:00.000-08:002008-03-06T22:18:15.935-08:00SAMPLE LETTER TO JENNY MACKLIN 7 March 2008<span style="font-weight:bold;">The Hon. Jennifer Macklin<br />Minister for Families, Housing, <br />Community services and Indigenous affairs<br />PO Box 316<br />Heidelberg 3084<br />27th February 2008<br /><br />Re Dawn Rowan<br /><br />I write to request your intervention on compassionate grounds in the case of Dawn Rowan of St Andrews. I consider Dawn's story to be one of the worst injustices I have heard of.<br /><br />Dawn has been a kind and caring women’s advocate who while working unselfishly to support abused women and children was defamed in the course of her work. She heroically succeeded in clearing her good name only to find justice denied to her when costs were awarded against her including the costs of the guilty parties. I fail to understand in a democratic Australia how this can occur. Dawn always was and still is blameless.<br /><br />Dawn is a counsellor and works from her home, a modest log cabin in St Andrews. <br />I have known Dawn for over 10 years during which time I participated in a support group she founded for a distressed family with a severely disabled child. My gratitude to Dawn for her help with my own family is immense and I would be happy to provide further information should you require, or attend your offices at any time to suit you.<br /><br />There has been strong support for Dawn in our local community and I believe your Government has an opportunity to show common sense, compassion and right a terrible wrong. <br /><br />I ask for your intervention to ensure her home which is also her livelihood will not be taken from her. <br /><br />Yours Sincerely<br /><br />Mary McDonald<br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-81676153105384584032008-02-25T01:59:00.000-08:002008-03-12T22:29:49.468-07:00AUSTRALIA - DIRTY POLITICS, DIRTY LAW<span style="font-weight:bold;"> <br />By Dawn Rowan (February 25, 2008)<br /><br />Understand this! <br />'How the legal/political system REALLY operates'. <br /><br />Politicians (the government) APPOINT all judges. Party political ideology dictates WHO the appointed judges will be. That is, the Government appoints the individuals they want to perpetuate their political ideology. The higher the court, the more political the appointments.<br /><br />[For example: John Howard's appointments to the Australian High Court and Federal Court; State Government appointments to the various State Courts; President Bush's highly controversial politically-motivated appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court). <br /><br />Courts throughout the so-called 'Western democracies' are stacked with POLITICAL appointments for POLITICAL purposes. <br /><br />The SEPARATION OF POWERS (the notion that judges are independent of politics) DOES NOT EXIST. <br /><br />You are being kept in the dark about this, intentionally.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Question</span>: What therefore happens when a Government commits a crime against an innocent citizen? The TAXPAYER FUNDED Government Attorney-Generals' Departments, State and Federal, pour our taxes into DEFENDING THEMSELVES for party political purposes. <span style="font-style:italic;">AND</span> they represent THEMSELVES with tax-funded Government solicitors - spraying millions of dollars not only up the wall but over the roof, until the innocent victims of Government-controlled atrocities collapse or die from years/decades of State-funded brutality, torture and injustice. <br /><br />For example: <br /><br />* 34 years to begin to pay pathetic compensation to the Voyager disaster naval personnel. Most have conveniently died by now anyway <br /><br />* Vietnam vets long-term health and welfare ignored <br /><br />* Refugees from countries where the Australian army is helping to blast their homes away<br /><br />* Etc. etc.<br /><br />The obscenity of this CONFLICT OF INTEREST of Government-appointed judges judging the wickednesses of Government is COMPLETELY IGNORED by our 'robust democracy' - including most of the media most of the time. <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">WHY?</span> Because when Government commits a crime, they are represented by CROWN SOLICITORS and JUDGED BY THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES/STAFF!<br /><br />::::::::::: ROWAN VS. CORNWALL :::::::::::<br /><br />The SA Government and Federal Government appointed a so-called 'Independent Review' to utterly destroy Dawn Rowan. <br /><br />Gross offences were committed intentionally by Government Ministers and their sycophants (the 'Review Committee'). AN INNOCENT WOMAN'S LIFE IS DESTROYED.<br /><br />The State and Federal Governments plunder our taxes to prevent ALL EFFORTS by Dawn Rowan to get justice. <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">FACT</span>: JUSTICE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE EXECUTION/OPERATION OF THE LAW. Their mantra: 'It's a legal system, not a justice system.' <br /><br />EXECUTION IN AUSTRALIA IS PERPETRATED THESE DAYS MAINLY BY CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">IF YOU DON'T START THINKING ABOUT ALL THIS YOU'RE A BLOODY IDIOT.</span><br /><br />Regards, <br /><br />Dawn Rowan<br /><br />27/2/2008<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-32102055814839008672008-01-04T03:39:00.000-08:002008-01-04T03:46:30.821-08:00<span style="font-weight:bold;">Summary of the Dawn Rowan Saga:<br /><br />1981: Dawn appointed manager of Christies Beach Women's Shelter, Adelaide<br /><br />1983: A behind-the-scenes sabotage of Dawn and the Shelter begins<br /><br />1987: Police and Corporate Affairs ordered by Dr. John Cornwall, Health and Welfare Minister to investigate (ie. find something illegal) in the shelter. These investigations cleared the shelter of any wrong-doing, and in fact praised the work of the shelter. But Corwnall five days after receiving the final reports, released under parliamentary privilege damaging 'unsubstantiated allegations' against Dawn and the shelter. Funding was ordered to be withdrawn three weeks later. The shelter had to cease operations, and all the workers lost their jobs.<br /><br />1990: Dawn filed an action in the Supreme Court of SA against the SA Government, Federal Government (as the co-funding body they had to agree to the shelter's closing), Channel 10 TV and ABC TV.<br /><br />2002: Justice Debelle handed down a 300-page judgment completely exonerating Dawn and her co-workers of any wrongdoing whatsoever. He severely condemned the use of unsubstantiated allegations in parliament - allegations which the two key players, Dr. John Cornwall and Mrs Judith Roberts AO knew to be false. Justice Debelle found Ms Roberts guilty of malicious defamation, and Dr. Cornwall guilty of misfeasance (abuse of public office). The judge ordered compensation for personal damages of $225,000 (compounded to $500,000 with 14 years interest added) to Dawn.<br /><br />August 2003: All the other parties appealed the judgment.<br /><br />November 2004: Dawn won the appeal, but the full bench of the Supreme Court of SA found the Commmonwealth and the two TV networks not liable for the damages done to Dawn as a result of the defamation. The Commonwealth immediately commenced action against Dawn to bankrupt her. <br /><br />An application to be heard by the High Court of Australia was denied. <br /><br />2006: Dawn took out an action alleging undisclosed bias by the Full Bench judges - Justices Bleaby, Sulan, and Besanko - as a result of discovering their connections with Ms Judith Roberts. Their judgment - handed down six weeks later - denied any bias. They ordered Dawn to pay a lump sum to the Commonwealth of $380,000 (which coincidentally was the value of her home and other assets). Note that the Commonwealth and the State of SA have consistently refused to disclose the millions of taxpayers' dollars spent destroying this innocent woman.<br /><br />2007: The Commonwealth Government took action in the Australian Federal Court to enforce bankruptcy. This is now in the final stages of being enforced. <br /><br />In several communications between members of Federal parliament and the ministers responsible, it has been pointed out that the Government is completely free to exercise discretion in pursuing the bankruptcy or not.<br /><br />Summary: As Julian Burnside QC, a highly respected human rights lawyer put it: 'I have carefully considered your situation... You have exhausted all possibilities of legal recourse... It is now important that your story be known by the public rather than buried... Be more assertive in pushing this issue in the media. Exposure of the Commonwealth's shabby behaviour might cause a change of heart.'<br /><br />Comment: shabby is a mild word for it. 'Deliberate torture' is closer to the truth. Please pray for Dawn, and continue to make representations on her behalf to any Federal Labor ministers you know.<br /><br />See http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/ and http://dawnrowandocuments.blogspot.com/ for links to the legal transcripts etc. <br /><br />Channel 7 This Day Tonight video: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/video/dawn_low.swf <br /><br />(Rev. Dr.) Rowland Croucher<br /><br />January 4th 2008. <br /><br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-40571679207994445512008-01-01T03:59:00.001-08:002008-01-01T04:01:43.858-08:00LETTER FROM NATASHA STOTT-DESPOJA<span style="font-weight:bold;">The Hon Robert McClelland MP<br />Attorney-General<br />PO Box 6022 House of Representatives <br />Parliament House <br />Canberra ACT 2600<br /><br />Dear Attorney-General<br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />Enforcement of Commonwealth costs orders against Dawn Rowan</span><br /><br />I refer to the case of South Australian constituent, Dawn Rowan, whose plight was highlighted by Today Tonight on 14 May 2007 (see http://jmm.aaa.net.au/).<br /><br />I understand that Ms Rowan is currently the subject of bankruptcy proceedings arising from a debt owed to the Commonwealth. That debt arose as a result legal action taken by Ms Rowan 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. Ms Rowan succeeded against the State of South Australia, the Commonwealth and several media outlets. However, the Commonwealth (and other defendants) successfully appealed this decision to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Costs in favour of the Commonwealth and other defendants were awarded against Ms Rowan, who then applied for special leave to appeal that decision to the High Court of Australia. Leave to appeal was not granted by the High Court.<br /><br />Ms Rowan has received strong support from many members of the community owing to a community perception that justice has not been done in this instance. She has endured many years of litigation at and suffered significant financial, personal and emotion toll. Although the Full Court’s judgement clearly allows the Commonwealth to recover its costs from M Rowan, as you will appreciate, the enforcement of a costs award involves a degree of discretion, taking into account any extenuating circumstances that would make such enforcement undesirable.<br /><br />I also understand that the previous Government sought to justify the enforcement of the costs order on the basis of the Commonwealth’s obligation under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to pursue payment of debts that are due to it, including debts that arise under costs orders of a court. However, I note that pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, the Finance Minister may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, ‘waive the Commonwealth's right to payment of an amount owing to the Commonwealth’.<br /><br />The ALP has expressed concerns of its own in relation to this matter in the past. On 14 June 2007 the then Shadow Attorney-General, Senator Joe Ludwig, wrote to the then Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock MP, noting his concern at reports indicating that Ms Rowan's home is to be seized in lieu of payment of the Commonwealth's costs. Senator Ludwig sought responses from Mr Ruddock as to the status of the matter, the Government’s attitude to the enforcement of costs, and queried whether or not a cost-benefit analysis has been performed on the costs recovery.<br /><br />In light of these matters, can you please advise me of the following:<br /><br />1. What is the status of any proceedings taken by the Commonwealth against Ms Rowan in relation to the enforcement of costs?<br /><br />2. Given the concerns expressed by the Labor Party when in Opposition, does the Rudd Labor Government intend to pursue recovery of its costs? If so, will the Government consider seizure of Ms Rowan’s home?<br /><br />3. Has a cost-benefit analysis been performed on the costs recovery? If so, what are the results of that analysis?<br /><br />4. Will the Department seek the consent of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to waive the Commonwealth’s entitlement to the debt pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997?<br /><br />I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.<br /><br />Yours sincerely,<br />Natasha Stott Despoja<br />Senator for South Australia<br />19 December 2007<br /><br />Cc: The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP<br />Minister for Finance and Deregulation</span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-40060465297869762572007-10-16T00:53:00.000-07:002007-10-16T00:55:22.598-07:00ANOTHER LEGAL INJUSTICE SIMILAR TO DAWN'S<span style="font-weight:bold;">Bashed by the cops and out of pocket by $150,000<br /><br />Gary Tippet<br /><br />September 24, 2006<br /><br />Corinna Horvath's jaw and nose were broken so badly she spent five days in hospital.<br /><br />When the police crashed through her door one night in 1996, they left Corinna Horvath senseless and with a horribly shattered nose. In a lasting piece of collateral damage, the lawyer who took on — and won — her case was left with a bill of nearly $500,000, a contempt of court charge and a possible jail sentence.<br /><br />In what may have been a rush of blood during a successful 38-day trial, solicitor Mark Morgan agreed to underwrite Ms Horvath's case in which she was awarded $150,000 damages for assault. But more than a decade after she was bashed, Ms Horvath is yet to receive a cent of that money. Mr Morgan is to front another court after failing to pay $436,877 in legal costs.<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/23eh3a">More...</a></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-64238905451921701532007-10-14T04:39:00.000-07:002007-10-15T04:13:01.923-07:00COURT DOCUMENTS SEPT-OCT 2007<span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Dawn has asked that these Court documents be made available to interested friends. Watch this space: I'll post some time a short introduction explaining each of them:<br /><br />IN THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA<br />REGISTRY: ADELAIDE ADG 95 of 2007<br />IN THE MATTER OF: DAWN MARGARET ROWAN<br /> THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA<br />APPLICANT<br /> DAWN MARGARET ROWAN RESPONDENT<br />ORDER<br />REGISTRAR: P CHRISTIE<br />DATE OF ORDER: 28 SEPTEMBER 2007<br />WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE<br />THE COURT ORDERS THAT:<br />1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of Dawn Margaret Rowan.<br />2. The applicant creditor's costs, including any reserved costs, be taxed pursuant to the Federal Court Rules and paid from the estate of the respondent in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.<br />The Court notes that the date of the act of bankruptcy is 18 October 2006.<br />Date entry stamped: 28 SEPTEMBER 2007<br /> <br />Note:<br />Subsection 104 (2) of the Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999 provides that a party to proceedings in which a Registrar has exercised any of the powers of the Court under subsection 102 (2), or under a delegation under subsection 103 (1), of the Act may, within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court, or within any further time allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court, apply to the Court to review that exercise of power.<br />Rule 2.03 provides that, subject to any direction by the Court or a Federal Magistrate to the contrary, an application under subsection 104 (2) of the Act for review of the exercise of a power of the Court by a Registrar under subsection 102 (2), or under a delegation under subsection 103 (1), of the Act must be made by application for review within 21 days after the day on which the power was exercised. An applicant seeking a review can apply to a Federal Magistrate to waive the requirement that the application for review under subsection 104 (2) of the Act be made by application for review (see subrule 1.06 (1) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001).<br />Prepared in the Adelaide District Registry, Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, Level 5, Commonwealth Law Courts, 3 Angas Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000, Telephone (08) 8219 1000<br /><br />*****<br /><br />FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA<br />AT ADELAIDE ADG 95 OF 2007<br />IN THE MATTER OF: DAWN MARGARET ROWAN<br />BETWEEN: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA<br />APPLICANT<br />AND: DAWN MARGARET ROWAN<br />RESPONDENT<br />REGISTRAR: P CHRISTIE<br />DATE: 28 SEPTEMBER 2007<br />PLACE: ADELAIDE<br />REASONS FOR DECISION<br />1 A creditor's petition was filed in this matter on 18 April 2007. The creditor's petition<br />is stated to be founded upon an act of bankruptcy committed by failure to comply with a<br />bankruptcy notice deemed to have been served on the respondent on 27 September 2006.<br />The bankruptcy notice claims an amount of $380,000, being costs fixed by the Full Court of<br />the Supreme Court of South Australia in Action No. 1481 of 1990 ('the Supreme Court<br />matter') on 13 April 2006. The debt is admitted by the respondent.<br />2 However on 22 May 2007 the respondent filed a notice setting out two grounds of<br />opposition to the petition. The first was that she is solvent, and has the capacity to pay the<br />amount claimed by the applicant. The second was that the applicant has failed to use<br />appropriate alternate means of recovering the alleged debt from the respondent, such as<br />judgment debt recovery mechanisms under State law.<br />3 At the first listing of the matter the respondent made an oral application for transfer of<br />the proceedings to the Melbourne registry as a result of what she stated to be her impecunious<br />circumstances and hardship in having to travel to Adelaide arising from those circumstances<br />and poor health. The petitioning creditor had not had notice of the application and as a result<br />had no instructions in relation to it. So as not to delay the hearing of the matter unduly, the<br /> <br />-2-<br />parties agreed to the making of orders for the filing of material in preparation for the hearing of the matter and in relation to the transfer, with a view to the substantive matter being heard on the next occasion, or if it could not, then the issue of transfer being re-agitated at that time. The respondent was advised that a subsequent hearing could be by way of video conference but indicated she would prefer to appear in person.<br />4 The transfer application was not pursued on the subsequent hearing of the matter, at which time the substantive matter was dealt with, although leave was given for the filing of written submissions by the respondent on or before 14 September 2007. No submissions were filed pursuant to that leave, although on 19 September 2007 the Court received certain documents, other copies of which appear to have been sent to various parties/people involved in the Supreme Court matter. To a large degree the documents appear to reiterate statements made by the respondent at the time of the hearing of this matter regarding her desire to have the proceedings stayed to allow her to enter into private negotiations with the petitioning creditor and other parties, with a view to making "any party who believes they have been damaged in any way whatsoever, commercially whole again and in the right way ". Those statements were taken to be a request for adjournment of the hearing and were dealt with at that time. The documents received by the Court were marked "Strictly Private and Confidential Not for Public Filing" and addressed to me as a "courtesy copy" only. These clearly were not intended to be filed as submissions and were not treated as such. I do not propose to consider them further in these reasons.<br />5 I turn therefore to the substantive matter, that is, whether or not a sequestration order should be made. A consideration of that issue is governed by s 52 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 ("the Act").<br />RELEVANT PROVISIONS<br />6 Subsection 52(1) of the Act sets out the matters which must be proved before a sequestration order can be made. It provides as follows:<br />"(1) At the hearing of a creditor's petition, the Court shall require proof of:<br />(a) the matters stated in the petition (for which purpose the Court may accept the affidavit verifying the petition as sufficient);<br />(b) service of 'the petition; and<br /> <br />-3-<br />(c) the fact that the debt or debts on which the petitioning creditor relies is or are still owing;<br />and, if it is satisfied with the proof of those matters, may make a sequestration order against the estate of the debtor.<br />7 However, s 52(2) of the Act goes on to provide that:<br />"(2) If the Court is not satisfied with the proof of any of those matters, or is satisfied by the debtor:<br />(a) that he or she is able to pay his or her debts; or<br />(b) that for other sufficient cause a sequestration order ought not to be made;<br />it may dismiss the petition. "<br />8 The Court must therefore consider whether the matters requiring proof under s 52(1) have been proved and, if so, whether the respondent has satisfied the Court that she is able to pay her debts or that there is some other sufficient cause why a sequestration order ought not be made, hi addition to the matters to be proved pursuant to s 52, r 4.06 of the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 requires that certain affidavit material be filed before the hearing of the creditor's petition. That material has been filed.<br />9 It has not been argued that the requirements of s 52(1) have not been met and, subject to the further consideration of one issue, I am satisfied on the basis of the affidavit material filed by the petitioning creditor that they have. The issue which I am of the view requires further consideration arises from the existence of an injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with her assets. The respondent is self-represented and although she raised the issue only indirectly, without precisely articulating it as a distinct ground, I believe it should be addressed in my consideration of the application of s 52(1) and s 52(2) of the Act to the facts before me. However, given the fact that the respondent has specifically raised the issue of her ability to pay her debts as a primary ground of opposition to the petition and that a consideration of this question is also of central relevance to the issues surrounding the injunction, I will consider first the question of her solvency.<br /> <br />-4-<br />SOLVENCY<br />10 As noted above s 52(2)(a) provides that, where a debtor shows that she is able to pay<br />her debts, a court may dismiss a petition. A debtor who is in a position to pay all her debts<br />within a relatively short time generally ought not to be the subject of a sequestration order.<br />11 The classic statement of the law in this regard is that of Barwick CJ in Sandell v<br />Porter (1966) 115 CLR 666. His Honour referred to the inability to pay debts as they fell due<br />but referred not only to the use of cash resources immediately available for this purpose but<br />also to monies which can be procured by realization by sale, mortgage or pledge of assets<br />within a relatively short time. He went on to note that:<br />'The conclusion of insolvency ought to be clear from a consideration of the debtor's financial position in its entirety and generally speaking ought not to be drawn simply from evidence of a temporary lack of liquidity. It is the debtor's inability, utilising such resources as he has or can command through the use of his assets, to meet his debts as they fall due which indicates insolvency." (at 670)<br />12 However, a debtor must not only establish an ability to pay any debts that are<br />currently due but also those that will fall due in the reasonably immediate future pursuant to<br />existing obligations (Re Sanders; Knudsen & Yates trading as The Hargreaves Practice v<br />Sanders [2003] FCA 1079 at [27] ("Knudsen "). It is also not enough for a debtor to establish<br />merely that he or she has assets exceeding in value the amount of his or her liabilities. The<br />debtor must establish that the assets are available to be realised and capable of ready<br />realisation (Stankiewicz v Plata [2000] FCA 1185 at [26]-[32]; Australian & New Zealand<br />Banking Group v Foyster [2000] FCA 400 at [17]; Knudsen (above)).<br />13 In addition, a house, furniture and a motor vehicle are generally regarded as assets<br />necessary for a reasonably comfortable and dignified existence and as such might ordinarily<br />be excluded when considering the assets of a debtor which could be used to meet his or her<br />debts (International Alpaca Management Pty Ltd v Ensor [1999] FCA 72 per Katz J at [14]<br />('International Alpaca ")). Despite this, in my view, where a house has significant value it<br />might appropriately be taken into account in considering a debtor's ability to pay his or her<br />debts, at least to the extent that it could be sold and a house of lesser value acquired or to the<br />extent that it could be used as security for borrowing. However, where new or additional<br />borrowings are in question it is incumbent upon the debtor to show that he or she has the<br /> <br />-5-<br />capacity to pay for, secure or otherwise satisfy any new debt so as to establish that he or she is not merely substituting one debt for another (Re Capel; ex parte Caram Finance Australia Z^[1998]FCA372).<br />14 The respondent has deposed the following in relation to her assets and liabilities:<br />Assets Value Liability<br />House - St Andrews Vic 400,000 137,696.53#<br />Money from the sale of a property in 2005 202,561.89<br />held in a trust account as a result of a<br />Mareva injunction<br />Supreme Court of South Australia fund - 30,000<br />arising from costs order in her favour in<br />the original trial in that action*<br />Shire of Nillumbik 3,000<br />(rates - approximate figure)<br />Petitioning creditor's debt 380,000<br />State of South Australia - costs orders 17,000<br />arising from an unsuccessful interlocutory 24,000<br />application in the Supreme Court of South<br />Australia and an unsuccessful application<br />for special leave to appeal in the High<br />Court of Australia<br /># this is a line of credit and the limit appears to be $298,500, with an additional Visa card limit of $9,000.<br />* there is no other evidence before the court in relation to this amount.<br />15 The affidavit evidence filed by the petitioning creditor is that there is a further debt<br />owing to it of $2,000 arising from additional costs orders made by the Supreme Court of<br />South Australia at the time of the making of the injunctive orders referred to above. A further<br />costs order made by the High Court of Australia in favour of the petitioning creditor at the<br />time of the refusal of an application by the respondent for special leave to appeal from the<br />decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia has been quantified at<br />$13,259.97, but has not yet been taxed, and a costs order arising from the application for the<br /> <br />-6-<br />fixed costs amount founding the bankruptcy notice was also made in favour of the petitioning creditor on 13 April 2006. The latter amount does not yet appear to have been quantified.<br />16 It appears that the quantum of the two amounts said to be owing to the State of South<br />Australia is disputed by the respondent and they have not yet been subject to taxation. The<br />State of South Australia appeared as a supporting creditor in this matter, but did not file any<br />additional material.<br />17 Two other potential debts have also been identified by the respondent. They relate to<br />costs orders made in favour of two other parties in the Supreme Court matter. It appears that<br />to date these amounts may not have been formally quantified (although there are indications<br />in the material filed that they would in each case be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars).<br />There is no evidence that they are being actively pursued, although there is also no evidence<br />that they have been compromised.<br />18 No information has been provided by the respondent in relation to her income and<br />expenditure, although she has deposed that she is "only able to work a few hours each week"<br />and is "unable to make regular payments to ING in relation to the line of credit they have<br />provided" and that she is "getting further into debt with each passing week".<br />19 In addition, in correspondence dated 25 July 2005 between her former legal<br />representatives and the legal representatives of the petitioning creditor, her legal<br />representatives noted that the respondent "has no hope of being able to satisfy any of the<br />claims for costs ".<br />20 There is no evidence before me to suggest that the respondent could service additional<br />borrowings or a further draw down of her secured line of credit. In fact the evidence is that<br />she cannot support her liability in respect of funds already drawn down. I am therefore not<br />prepared to take into account the possibility of an additional draw down on that line of credit<br />in the absence of a subsequent forced realisation of the associated security in considering<br />whether she is able to pay her debts.<br />21 I turn therefore to consider the respondent's ability to realise assets to pay her debts.<br />On the evidence before me the only non-cash asset owned by the respondent is her house<br /> <br />-7-<br />property. The value ascribed by the respondent to her house is her assessment of value, based on results of other property sales in the area. There is no independent evidence of this. However, even if that valuation is accepted, it is not clear that this asset should be taken into account in considering the assets which could be realised by the respondent to pay her debts within any relatively short period of time (International Alpaca (above)). There is also no evidence that, even if the injunctive orders currently in existence were varied or discharged, the respondent has any interest in doing this. She has indicated from the Bar Table that she wishes to make parties that may have been "damaged in any manner" by her actions "commercially -whole", however there is no evidence at all that she is inclined to sell her house in order to do so. I am therefore also not willing to take this asset into account for the purpose of determining whether or not the respondent is able to pay her debts. Even if I did take the possible sale of her house property into account, however, there is no evidence of the likelihood of achieving a sale at her stated value in the reasonably immediate future or of the costs of such a sale. I do not believe that the debtor has established that it has a net readily realisable value such that, together with her cash assets, her readily realisable assets exceed her undisputed debts.<br />22 The respondent has therefore not satisfied me that she is able to pay her undisputed<br />debts either immediately or within any relatively short time. In these circumstances I do not<br />need to consider the extent to which the other unquantified or disputed liabilities should be<br />taken into account.<br />INJUNCTION<br />23 I turn therefore to the issue flagged above, namely the impact, if any, of a Mareva<br />injunction on my consideration of the proper application of s 52 of the Act. In my view the<br />impact of the injunction must be considered in two contexts, namely:<br />(1) whether a valid act of bankruptcy has occurred; and<br />(2) whether the obtaining of the injunction constitutes other sufficient cause why a sequestration order should not be made.<br />24 The respondent has deposed that on the application of the petitioning creditor, the<br />Supreme Court of South Australia granted an injunction in August 2005 restraining her from<br /> <br />-8-<br />dealing with her assets. Orders were made in October 2005 continuing the injunction, which appears to remain in force. As far as is relevant, the terms of the order made on 20 October 2005 are that:<br />"1. The injunction granted by the order dated 19 August 2005 and varied on 26 August 2005 whereby the plaintiff was restrained whether by herself, her employees, agents, attorneys or otherwise from:<br />1.1 from [sic] disposing of or encumbering in any manner whatsoever any of her assets whether such assets be within or outside South Australia; and<br />1.2 if any such assets be within South Australia, from removing such assets from South Australia;<br />provided that:<br />1.3 the plaintiff may use her assets for normal daily living expenses and to that end may dispose of assets not exceeding $500.00 in value per week<br />continue in full force and effect until further order.<br />2. ….<br />3. The parties have liberty to apply on short but reasonable notice. "<br />25 Section 40(l)(g) of the Act relevantly provides that a debtor commits an act of<br />bankruptcy where a creditor has obtained a final judgment or order the execution of which<br />has not been stayed, and has served a debtor with a bankruptcy notice, the requirements of<br />which are not complied with. If no act of bankruptcy has been committed, because execution<br />of the judgment relied upon had been stayed, s 52(1) is not satisfied.<br />26 It is, however, not necessary for there to be in place an express order staying the<br />execution of the judgment for the judgment to be effectively stayed for the purposes of<br />s 40(l)(g) of the Act (Re Richards; Ex Parte Sommers (1947) 14 ABC 112). If the creditor is<br />not in a position to obtain a writ of execution on the judgment, the judgment cannot be used<br />to found a bankruptcy notice and no act of bankruptcy will be committed as a result of failure<br />to comply with such a notice (Re Pannowitz; Ex Parte Wilson (1975) 38 FLR 184; Penning v<br />Steel Tube Supplies Pty Ltd (1988) 18 FCR 568).<br /> <br />-9-<br />27 There is a large body of authority dealing with what constitutes an effective stay of a<br />judgment in the context of the existence of an order restraining a debtor from dealing with his<br />or her assets. Much of it is summarised conveniently by Madgwick J in National Australia<br />Bank Limited v Pollak [2001] FCA 1408 ("Pollak"). On my understanding the law as it<br />currently stands can be summarised as follows:<br />• A Mareva injunction, one of the functions of which is to aid execution, does not impose the same restrictions on execution that the appointment of a receiver or trustee to control the property of a debtor does (Re Ousley; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 48 FCR131 ("Ousley"));<br />• A petitioning creditor may be disqualified from issuing a bankruptcy notice by reason of a restraint imposed by order of a court on the property of a judgment debtor thereby removing her ability to pay, where the practical reality is that it prevents the debtor from paying the debt (Wiltshire-Smith v Mellor Olsson (1995) 57 FCR 572) ("Wiltshire-Smith ");<br />• The test is whether in the eyes of ordinary fairness in business it will be said that the order has in a business sense prevented the debtor from paying (Wiltshire-Smith; Boscolo v Botany Council [1996] FCA 897 ("Boscolo "));<br />• The fact that a court order or a creditor has made it more difficult to comply with the bankruptcy notice as opposed to preventing compliance is not sufficient (Ling v Enrobook Pty Ltd (1997) 74 FCR 19 ("Ling"));<br />• The debtor bears the onus of proving affirmatively that the claim in respect of which the bankruptcy notice was issued could and would have been paid but for the act or omission of the creditor or order of the court (Wiltshire-Smith (above)).<br />28 Pollak involved orders in the nature of a Mareva injunction made on an application by<br />the National Australia Bank over all of the respective respondent's property and assets. The<br />Bank issued a bankruptcy notice and subsequently a creditor's petition based on non<br />compliance with that bankruptcy notice.<br /> <br />-10-<br />29 After considering the body of case law his Honour concluded at [52] - [53] that:<br />"What was said in Ling, Ousley and Boscolo is to be applied. In my opinion, seen through the eyes of ordinary fairness in business, there is nothing in this order that in a business sense practically prevented Dr Pollakfrom paying the debt he owed to the Bank within 21 days of the bankruptcy notice being served upon him. I do not doubt that the existence of the Mareva injunction would have tended to make compliance with the bankruptcy notice more difficult. However, as the authorities make clear, this in itself does not provide a basis to say that execution of the judgment should be deemed to have been stayed. The mere existence of a Mareva injunction obtained by the judgment creditor is not conduct of such a nature by the Bank that it should be regarded as having prevented Dr Pollakfrom paying the debt he owed.<br />Further, Dr Pollak has not satisfied the onus he bears of proving that, in fact, in the way matters transpired, the Bank should be deemed by its conduct, in a practical business sense, to have prevented him from, or even to have materially hindered him in, paying the debt. There was no evidence that Dr Pollak had assets which he could have used to satisfy the debt. ... There was also no evidence to suggest that Dr Pollak would have been able to raise funds to meet the debt, subject to his dealing with his property in a certain manner, or that he had approached the Bank with a plan which would allow him to meet the debt, or that he had approached the Court to vary the notice requirement. Accordingly, this challenge to the validity of the bankruptcy notice, and/or to the justice of acceding to the petition founded upon that notice, fails. "<br />30 On the evidence before me in this matter I am not satisfied that the respondent could<br />and would have paid the debt in the absence of the injunction.<br />31 I have dealt with the respondent's ability to pay her debts above and have concluded<br />that she has not established that, irrespective of the existence of the injunction, she is able to<br />pay her debts. In considering the more limited question of the possible payment of the debt<br />founding the bankruptcy notice only, even taking into account a fully drawn line of credit and<br />the amount held in the solicitors trust account, the funds available to the respondent would<br />not have been sufficient to pay that debt. Prima facie, however, if the amount held in the<br /> <br />-11 -<br />Supreme Court was also included, the respondent may have had available sufficient funds, although only at the expense of the other creditors. However, the respondent has produced no evidence in relation to the amount said to be held in the Supreme Court, or anything to indicate that it would be available to her to use to pay the debt of the petitioning creditor. I am therefore reluctant to take it into account.<br />32 Further, as noted above, it seems that the respondent would not have been able to<br />support any increase in the use of her line of credit and there is no evidence to suggest that in<br />those circumstances she would have sought to do so. There is no evidence that the<br />respondent has at any time entered into discussions with the petitioning creditor (or any other<br />creditor) about variation of the injunctive orders to allow payment of the judgment debt or, at<br />least since July 2005, in the hope of reaching some arrangement regarding satisfaction of this<br />debt or other liabilities. She has deposed that in October 2006, just after she was served with<br />the bankruptcy notice and around the time of the commission of the act of bankruptcy, she<br />applied for a waiver of her debt to the petitioning creditor but there is no evidence of any<br />other step being taken by her at any time up to the hearing of the petition.<br />33 For these reasons I am of the view that the respondent has not established that she<br />could and would have paid the debt founding the bankruptcy notice in the absence of the<br />injunction. I am also not convinced that the terms of the injunctive orders in this case<br />prevented the payment of the debt by the respondent as opposed to making it more difficult.<br />34 The injunction in Pollak was said to apply until further order and restrained dealing<br />with assets without at least 19 days notice to the applicant bank. In contrast, in general terms<br />the effect of the orders in Ling was, until further order, to restrain the debtor from dealing<br />with, or permitting the dealing with, any of his assets in any way except by making certain<br />specified payments. The orders in Ling were obtained by a creditor other than the petitioning<br />creditor but remained in force at the time of the issue of the bankruptcy notice. They also<br />were found not to create an effective stay of execution of the judgment.<br />35 In the circumstances of this case, the injunction obtained on the application of the<br />creditor was more restrictive than that in Pollak, but as far as is relevant, not more restrictive<br />than in Ling. In addition the orders in this case specifically only apply until further order and<br />provide the parties with liberty to apply.<br /> <br />-12-<br />36 There is no evidence before me that the respondent has at any time applied pursuant<br />to that liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order so as to enable her to pay her debts or<br />some of her debts (see also comments by Raphael FM in Crown Diagnostic v Sood (No.2)<br />[2006] FMCA 265 at [12] affirmed on appeal by Gyles J in Sood v Crown Diagnostic<br />Imaging Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1721 at [13]). There is also no evidence before me as to why<br />such an application was not made. (I note that counsel for the petitioning creditor has<br />indicated that it did not do so because it considered such action would have had no utility<br />given what it understood to be the financial position of the respondent.)<br />37 For these reasons, I am of the view that the respondent has not established either that<br />the injunction prevented her from paying the debt founding the bankruptcy notice or that she<br />could or would have paid it in the absence of the injunction. On the basis of the evidence<br />before me it is my view that the Mareva injunction does not operate as a stay of the judgment<br />and I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s 52(1) of the Act have been met.<br />38 For the same reasons, I am also of the view that the actions of the petitioning creditor<br />in seeking the injunction and then some time later issuing a bankruptcy notice, in the<br />circumstances described above, do not constitute 'other sufficient cause' why a sequestration<br />order should not be made pursuant to s 52(2) of the Act.<br />OTHER ENFORCEMENT METHODS<br />39 However, in the notice setting out her grounds of opposition to the petition, the<br />respondent also alleged that a sequestration order should not be made as the petitioning<br />creditor had failed to use appropriate alternate means of recovery, such as debt recovery<br />mechanisms under State law. She deposed to her belief that the petitioning creditor was<br />using bankruptcy proceedings as an alternative method of debt recovery.<br />40 I am not persuaded that, having obtained a judgment, there is a hierarchy of recovery<br />proceedings that a creditor must work through before it is permissible to issue a bankruptcy<br />notice. Speaking generally, a creditor may elect to pursue a judgment by issuing one of the<br />proceedings available at law or may elect to issue bankruptcy proceedings. The institution of<br />proceedings is a decision for the creditor and it is not for a debtor to insist that a particular<br />type of recovery proceeding be pursued in preference to others (Slack v Bottoms English<br /> <br />-13-<br />Solicitors [2002] FCA 1445). The fact that speedier, cheaper and more effective remedies may be available to a petitioning creditor has been held not to constitute other sufficient cause why a sequestration order should not be made (Re Poulson; Exparte Hempenstall Bros Ltd (1929) 1 ABC 54). Indeed even a prior demand is not a statutory precondition for the issue of a valid bankruptcy notice based on a valid judgement of a court (Cavoli v Etl [2007] FCA 1191 per Heerey J at [18]).<br />41 It is true that the issue of a bankruptcy notice simply to put pressure on a recalcitrant<br />debtor who is otherwise solvent to pay a debt, rather than to genuinely invoke the insolvency<br />jurisdiction of the court may be an abuse of process amounting to other sufficient cause why<br />a sequestration order should not be made (Killoran v Duncan [1999] FCA 1574). However<br />there must be a real intention on the part of the petitioning creditor to use the process for<br />some purpose which is not legitimate (Rozenbes v Kronhill (1956) 95 CLR 407) and if there<br />is no evidence of this a court will not infer improper motive (Bride v KMG Hungerfords (A<br />Firm) [1998] FCA 412). There is no evidence before the Court in this case that there was any<br />such intention on the part of the petitioning creditor. There is also nothing before me to<br />indicate that at the time of issuing the bankruptcy notice the petitioning creditor knew or<br />contemplated that the debtor had the financial capacity to pay her debts. In fact counsel for<br />the petitioning creditor has stated that attempts by the petitioning creditor to obtain<br />information from the debtor as to her financial position were unsuccessful and, in the face of<br />what was on the public record as to her liabilities and financial circumstances, it is<br />unsurprising that a view might have been taken that she was not able to do so; a view this<br />Court has also reached.<br />42 On the evidence before me there is nothing to suggest that the bankruptcy<br />proceedings were issued as an alternative debt recovery proceeding or that there existed an<br />improper motive on the part of the petitioning creditor.<br />43 There has been no other suggestion of abuse of process by the petitioning creditor in<br />pursuing the sequestration order. Although the respondent deposed that she was not formally advised that her request for a waiver of her debt had been refused until after the issue of the creditor's petition (which I note was presented on the last date it could be presented in reliance on the act of bankruptcy committed on 18 October 2006), she did not suggest this<br /> <br />-14-<br />gave rise to a ground to dismiss the creditor's petition. To the extent that I need to consider it I am not satisfied that this provides 'other sufficient cause' to dismiss the petition.<br />44 Although I feel some sympathy for the situation in which the respondent now finds<br />herself, the question which I need to determine is whether or not a sequestration order should<br />be made pursuant to s 52 of the Act. I have taken into account the fact that the respondent<br />has represented herself and closely considered the possible relevance of all of the matters<br />which have been raised by her, but on the evidence before me, there is nothing which to my mind suggests that I should exercise my discretion not to make the sequestration order sought by the petitioning creditor.<br />45 I am satisfied that the debtor committed the act of bankruptcy alleged in the petition.<br />I am satisfied of the other matters required by s 52 of the Act. I am not satisfied that the<br />respondent has established that, pursuant to s 52(2) of the Act, she is able to pay her debts or that there is other sufficient cause why a sequestration order should not be made.<br /> <br />Counsel for the Applicant:<br />Solicitors for the Applicant:<br />The respondent appeared in person<br />Hearing Date:<br />Date for last submissions:<br />Date of Reasons for Decision:<br /> <br />N J Parkyn<br />Australian Government Solicitor<br />24 August 2007 14 September 2007 28 September 2007<br /><br />*****<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-54229096177467178922007-10-09T23:29:00.000-07:002007-10-14T01:31:09.332-07:00LETTERS FROM PARLIAMENTARIANS MAL BROUGH, JASON WOOD, JOE LUDWIG, LINDSAY TANNER<span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />(Two constituents wrote to their local Federal Member, Mr Jason Wood, who got identical responses from Mal Brough): <br /><br />Thank you for your letter of 9 July 2007 on behalf of Mr _ _ _ _ about Ms Dawn Rowan. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Ms Rowan then applied for special leave lo 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 judgment in a particular case. <br /><br />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 secking costs against the applicant. The Commonwealth docs 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. <br /><br />The issue of costs was, in this case, determined by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, in a separate judgment, after Ms Rowan had exhausted her avenues of appeal. The court awarded the Commonwealth $380,000 in costs. In coming to its decision. the court stated: <br /><br />"We think that there is sufficient information upon which the court can conclude that a figure of $380.000 is logical, fair and reasonable ". <br /><br />Under the Financial Management and Accountability Act /997, the Commonwealth is required to pursue payment of debts that are due to it, including debts that arise under costs orders of a court. In such circumstances. the Commonwealth must take whatever 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. <br /><br />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.<br /> <br />In particular, the Commonwealth is required to comply with the principles set out in the Legal Services Directions 1005, 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, wherever 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. <br /><br />Once again, thank you for writing on Mr _ _ _ 's behalf. I trust my comments are of assistance. <br /><br />Yours sincerely <br /> <br />MAL BROUGH<br /><br />*****<br /><br />Here's an informed response from Bob Moles, a legal expert in the area of miscarriages of justice, and author of <span style="font-style:italic;">A State of Injustice </span> reproduced here with his permission:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">I find the response by the Minister to be particularly disappointing.<br /><br />It fails to have regard to the equity, justice and substantial merits of the case which were all in favour of Dawn Rowan.<br /><br />It is particularly disappointing that the Minister refers to the duty to act as a "model litigant".<br /><br />If regard had been had to that issue from the outset, this matter would never have occurred, and Ms Rowan's reputation would never have been put in question.<br /><br />Let me know if you require something more,<br /><br />Best wishes to all,<br /><br />Bob<br /><br />Dr Robert N Moles<br />Networked Knowledge<br />http://netk.net.au </span><br /><br />****<br /><br />The Hon. Philip Ruddock<br />Attorney-General<br />Parliament House<br />CANBERRA ACT 2600<br />14 June 2007<br />Dear Attorney<br /><br />I refer to the case of Dawn Rowan, whose plight was recently highlighted in the<br />Today Tonight on 14 May 2007, and whose case I'm sure of which you have been<br />made aware.<br /><br />After the broadcasting of that report, I have been contacted by a number of<br />constituents who are now concerned about the Commonwealth's role in the case.<br />As I understand the matter, Ms Rowan as a self-represented litigant joined the<br />Commonwealth as a defending party in her action against the South Australian<br />Government.<br /><br />While the Commonwealth should not reward speculative litigation, I am concerned by<br />the implication in the reports that Ms Rowan's home is to be seized in lieu of payment of the Commonwealth's costs which were awarded against Ms Rowan.<br /><br />In order to respond to these concerns, I therefore seek further detail from your office and the Department as to:<br />Firstly, whether this action is presently subject to further appeal (if so, I note you may not be able to provide advice on the questions following).<br />Secondly, whether the Commonwealth has, in fact, made a final determination on to<br />seizure of Ms Rowan's assets, and if so, what that decision is.<br />Thirdly, whether or not Ms Rowan is entitled to damages from other defendants in the<br />case, and whether consideration has been given to seizure of these funds.<br />Finally, whether or not a cost-benefit analysis has been performed on recovery of<br />costs from Ms Rowan.<br />I thank you for your consideration of this matter. I look forward to your early<br />response.<br />Kind Regards<br />Senator Joe Ludwig<br /><br />*From: *"Tanner, Lindsay (MP)" <Lindsay.Tanner.MP@aph.gov.au <mailto:Lindsay.Tanner.MP@aph.gov.au>> <br />*Date: *9 October 2007 9:33:33 AM <br /><br />*Subject: **Dawn Rowan* <br /><br />Dear _ _ _ _ <br /><br />Thank you for your email of 2 October 2007 concerning Dawn Rowan. <br /><br />I have received similar correspondence from another of my constituents earlier this year. I am able to inform you that representations have been made by our Shadow Attorney General Joe Ludwig to the appropriate Ministers (as the parties seeking to recover costs in the case), Attorney General Phillip Ruddock and The Minister for Community Services, Mal Brough. A query to Senator Ludwig’s office yesterday confirmed that there has as yet been no reply. I have attached a copy of the text of this letter for your information. <br /><br />In addition to this I referred my constituent’s concerns about Ms Rowan’s situation to The Member for McEwen, Fran Bailey who is now Ms Rowan’s local member and hence the other most appropriate Member of Parliament to make representations on her behalf. <br /><br />Yours truly, <br /><br />Lindsay Tanner <br />Shadow Minister for Finance Federal Member for Melbourne <br /><br />www.lindsaytanner.com<br /><br />*****<br /><br />A friend sent this article, from The Australian: <br /><br />Judges too timid for hard cases: Kirby<br /><br />October 11, 2007<br /><br />THE High Court's "great dissenter", Michael Kirby, has taken a swipe at his fellow judges by suggesting they are too timid to make the signature decisions taken by the court in the 1990s.<br /><br />Delivering the 10th annual Hawke Lecture in Adelaide last night - honouring the former Labor prime minister - Justice Kirby posed the rhetorical question whether today's court would rule the same way on the Mabo and Wik native title cases, among other landmark decisions that tested the limits of judicial activism under then chief justice Sir Anthony Mason.<br /><br />His answer: "Probably not." <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22566087-17044,00.html">More...</a> <br /><br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-4875488233896777162007-10-08T23:39:00.000-07:002007-10-08T23:46:25.859-07:00LETTERS FROM FEDERAL MPs JOE LUDWIG AND LINDSAY TANNER<span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />The Hon. Philip Ruddock<br />Attorney-General<br />Parliament House<br />CANBERRA ACT 2600<br /><br />14 June 2007<br /><br />Dear Attorney<br /><br />I refer to the case of Dawn Rowan, whose plight was recently highlighted in the<br />Today Tonight on 14 May 2007, and whose case I'm sure of which you have been<br />made aware.<br /><br />After the broadcasting of that report, I have been contacted by a number of<br />constituents who are now concerned about the Commonwealth's role in the case.<br />As I understand the matter, Ms Rowan as a self-represented litigant joined the<br />Commonwealth as a defending party in her action against the South Australian<br />Government.<br /><br />While the Commonwealth should not reward speculative litigation, I am concerned by<br />the implication in the reports that Ms Rowan's home is to be seized in lieu of payment of the Commonwealth's costs which were awarded against Ms Rowan.<br /><br />In order to respond to these concerns, I therefore seek further detail from your office and the Department as to:<br /><br />Firstly, whether this action is presently subject to further appeal (if so, I note you may not be able to provide advice on the questions following).<br /><br />Secondly, whether the Commonwealth has, in fact, made a final determination on to<br />seizure of Ms Rowans assets, and if so, what that decision is.<br /><br />Thirdly, whether or not Ms Rowan is entitled to damages from other defendants in the<br />case, and whether consideration has been given to seizure of these funds.<br /><br />Finally, whether or not a cost-benefit analysis has been performed on recovery of<br />costs from Ms Rowan.<br /><br />I thank you for your consideration of this matter. I look forward to your early<br />response.<br /><br />Kind Regards<br />Senator Joe Ludwig<br /><br />*****<br /><br />*From: *"Tanner, Lindsay (MP)" <Lindsay.Tanner.MP@aph.gov.au> <br />*Date: *9 October 2007 9:33:33 AM <br />*To: *<nathan@laughingbird.net> <br />*Subject: **Dawn Rowan* <br /><br />Dear Reverend Nettleton, <br /><br />Thank you for your email of 2 October 2007 concerning Dawn Rowan. <br /><br />I have received similar correspondence from another of my constituents earlier this year. I am able to inform you that representations have been made by our Shadow Attorney General Joe Ludwig to the appropriate Ministers (as the parties seeking to recover costs in the case), Attorney General Phillip Ruddock and The Minister for Community Services, Mal Brough. A query to Senator Ludwig’s office yesterday confirmed that there has as yet been no reply. I have attached a copy of the text of this letter for your information. <br /><br />In addition to this I referred my constituent’s concerns about Ms Rowan’s situation to The Member for McEwen, Fran Bailey who is now Ms Rowan’s local member and hence the other most appropriate Member of Parliament to make representations on her behalf. <br /><br />Yours truly, <br /><br />Lindsay Tanner <br />Shadow Minister for Finance Federal Member for Melbourne <br /><br />www.lindsaytanner.com<br /><br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-31292297173785212902007-09-12T02:43:00.000-07:002007-09-12T02:45:06.839-07:00VIDEOS OF TODAY TONIGHT AUGUST 23 & 24August 23<br /><object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BdJYo3iMJoA"> </param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BdJYo3iMJoA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"> </embed> </object><br /><br />August 24<br /><object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p0kS2KUgOJM"> </param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p0kS2KUgOJM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"> </embed> </object>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-37692934262973843402007-09-07T23:38:00.000-07:002007-09-12T03:37:58.786-07:00AN ALTERNATIVE LEGAL PARADIGM<span style="font-weight:bold;">Here are two articles -pro and con - re the legal theory underlining the approach Dawn is taking in her case. Googling 'artificial person' 'strawman' 'ALL CAPITAL LETTERS' 'redemption process' 'immemorial common law' 'UCC' etc. will provide a fairly comprehensive bunch of articles on the subject: pro and con in terms of conspiracy theories about it all.<br /><br />Here's an article whose URL I misplaced (anyone able to find it?):<br /><br />1. Understanding My "Straw Man" & The "Redemption In Law" Process<br /><br />(I am attempting to adapt the information from the book: Redemption In Law - see advertisement at the end of this document - so that it might be applicable to myself as a Canadian living in Canada. This exercise is twofold, firstly to permit me to better understand this new information and secondly to stimulate those who may choose to read it to be motivated to further reasearch the background information as it applies to their respective "straw man" and then take action to re-capture their "straw man.")<br /><br />I telephoned Industry Canada on (October 25, 2000) to inquire about how I could proceed with a UCC Search Request and about geting the UCC - 1 form for the Financing Statment. After being passed along to four people someone called me back and left a message saying: "Could you explain a little more about UCC." It seems that either they do NOT know about UCC or else they do not want to tell me about it.<br />Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy<br /><br />Having knowledge of the Statutes and Codes of Louisiana is necessary to understanding the Redemption In Law process. The basic premis to fully understanding my straw man and the "Redemption In Law" process is the fact that the (Uniform Commercial Code) UCC - 1 Financing Statement is the only unbreakable contract in the world. This new process of "Redemption In Law" is in its infant stages and as successes continue to occur, the authors of the book will continue to offer new suggestions as to the optimal actions to take as we seek to redeem or re-capture our respective straw man.<br /><br />The second premis that comes into play is that since the UCC is the ultimate foundation, the bedrock, upon which the world's commerce functions, it follows that there are severe penalties for fraud in commerce. This becomes very significant when we learn that all commerce functions through straw men. I, Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy (as the real being) sign for accommodation on behalf of my straw man every time I sign a document.<br /><br />All areas of government and all alleged "courts of law" are de facto, "colour of law and right" institutions. Our "courts of law" only recognize and deal with other legal persons. This is why my lawful name is never entered in their records. The all-caps legal person is used. Likewise, jurisdiction in our "courts of law" covers only other artificial persons. The proper jurisdiction for a lawful being is a Constitutionally sanctioned, common-law-venue court. Unfortunately, such jurisdiction has been shelved and is no longer available; the only courts in Canada today are statutory courts.<br /><br />My straw man is an artificial person created by law at my birth on September 1, 1948 via the inscription of an ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS NAME on my birth certificate/document, which is a document of title and a negotiable instrument. My lawful, Christian name of birthright was replaced with a legal, corporate name of deceit and fraud. I, Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy have been answering when the legal person, KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH, is addressed, and therefore the two have been recognized as being one and the same. When, I, Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy, the lawful being distinguish myself as another party than the legal person, the two will be separated.<br /><br />My STATE-created birth certificate with an all-caps name became a document evidencing debt the moment it was issued. Once the Federal Government of Canada registered my birth certificate with the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce, that Department notified the Treasury Department, which took out a loan from the private Bank of Canada. The Treasury used the loan to purchase a bond from the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce which investsed the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issued Treasury securities in the form Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new "securities." This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH, whose name appears on the birth certificate. This also means that the bankrupt, corporate Canada guaranteed to the purchasers of their securities my lifetime labour and tax revenues with my birth certificate as collateral for payment. This device was craftily initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of Thomas-Jospeh: Kennedy as a newborn into a legal, juristic name of a person, KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH.<br /><br />Legally, since September 1, 1948, I have been considered a slave or indentured servant to the various federal, provincial and municipal governments via my STATE-issued, STATE-created birth certificate in the name of my all-caps person. My birth certificate was issued so that the issuer could claim "exclusive" title to the legal person cteated thereby. This was further compounded when I voluntarily obtained a driver's license and a SIN (Social Insurance Number). The state even owns my personal and private life through my STATE-issued marriage license/certificate issued in the all-caps names. I have had no rights in birth, marriage, nor will I have them even in death unless I re-capture my straw man. (The names on tombstones in cemeteries are in all-caps.) The STATE holds title to my legal person it created via my birth certificate, until Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy, the rightful owner, the holder in due course of the instrument, that is myself, reclaims/redeems it.<br /><br />The main problem is that I have voluntarily (though unknowingly) agreed to this contrived system of plunder by remaining silent and failing to assert my absolute rights. Therefore, the maxim of law becomes crucially operative: "He who fails to assert his rights has none." The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There are no court hearings to determine if those rules are correct. Their "law" is self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, their "laws" automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been followed.<br /><br />My straw man has a ficticious name written in a manner not provided for in the rules of English grammar. My straw man has a same-sounding name as Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy, but is artificial and exists only by the force of or in contemplation of law. My straw man is a distinct legal entity that benefits the creator - the Government of Canada - because the creator can then accomplish things in the name of my straw man that would not otherwise be permitted e.g. secretly acquire property etc. My straw man is: KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH. The Government of Canada has been using my straw man for the purpose of siphoning off wealth from myself, an otherwise sovereign man and conveying the proceeds to its credtors, the private Bank of Canada and the IMF. It is my intention to now use my straw man for my benefit, rather than continuing to be enslaved and abused because of it.<br /><br />Under the Uniform Commercial Code, my straw man is defined as, and serves as, a "transmitting utility." The operators/controllers of the policical/economic/industrial system have set it up so that the only way for Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy to access the industrial goods and services of the nation of Canada is through a nominal third party, a front man, a dummy, a public corporation of one, a corporately coloured juristic person, a straw man - a utility through which said goods and services may be transmitted. This means that the only way that Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy can acquire goods and services is through my straw man. I cannot keep my body alive and survive in the world today without the industrial goods and services of the nation of Canada, so I have been forced to interface through my straw man in order to partake of them. Because my straw man has no body, and because I am the one actually benefitting from the consumptions/use of the industrial goods and services of the nation and because, (prior to Redemption) I do not hold title to my straw man, I am the one responsible for discharging the public liability associated with the "benefits" that come to you in the name of my straw man.<br /><br />The "purpose not otherwise permitted" is "extraction of income tax from a sovereign" that is myself - something I would not knowingly agree to. All "income" is "corporate income," and my straw man is a dummy public corporation. Because my straw man is registered (my birth certificate), and because I cannot work for another except through my labour license (Social Insurance Number) or have a bank account except through my Social Insurance Number, taxes have been relatively easy to monitor, assess and collect from Thomas-Jospeh: Kennedy. All claims made against me, whether civil or criminal, are instituted in the name of my straw man, the title to which is currently held by the Government of Canada. Accordingly, upon acquiring legal title to my straw man, I will have the capacity to protect my interests so that no one can come against Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy via my straw man and a perfect claim.<br /><br />I am considering that it is possible that the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce (or some other Department) of the Federal Government of Canada acquired my Birth Certificate via the City of Kingston in the County of Lennox and Addington and the Province of Ontario, which in turn accepted it from my parents, who unwittingly pledged me, Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy to the "state" and delivered me into bondage, slavery, and the status of being chattel property in a state of permanently indentured servitude. The Department of Industry Trade and Commerce became the de facto holder of the Certificate of Rights to my body, labour, and property and gave me a claim check, a pawn receipt, a warehouse receipt, a certificate of deposit - a birth certificate. Whoever the holder of my Birth Certificate may now be has no more right to it than a pawnbroker holding a possesion for me in my absence and awaiting my return to claim it, to redeem it.<br /><br />The current holder of my Birth Certificate is able to capitalize on it because of my inaction and silence, that is, my failure to instruct the said holder otherwise.When I accept for value, my Birth Certificate I reacquire title and regain my crown - I reinstall myself on my own throne. I regain dominion and sovereignty over my own kingdom.<br /><br />I have learned that there are only two classes of people in our modern Canada, as well as in all legal proceeedings: creditors and debtors. Once I have established my sovereignty in law I become the creditor, and any adverse party in dispute with me is registered to the inferior status of debtor. As long as I fail to establish my sovereignty in law, I do not hold title to anything in my life, I have no, legal capacity and I am devoid of standing to assert any rights, that is, I remain a permanent debtor, and I must always lose in any dispute with the system for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Reclaiming title to my straw man acts as a bar, or estoppel, to any and all comers. If I fail to reclaim rights to title of my straw man by filling a (Universal Commercial Code) UCC - 1 making me the creditor and absolute ruler of my straw man, I will not be sovereign and I will lose at resolution of any dispute.<br /><br />When I establish my sovereignty and self-ownership in law via a UCC - 1 Financing Statement, my entire life will be dramatically affected. I simpy become the sovereign, rather than a hopeless debtor and chattel property.<br /><br />In summary, the State (in any aspect, any jurisdiction, any country, any culture, any time) can act against me via my straw man only if said State holds title to my straw man by virtue of my failure to redeem the document of title, the Birth Certificate, to the straw man. My failure to do so constitutes assent to the presumption that the State is the de facto owner and holder of the title to my straw man.<br /><br />The most powerful contract in the world is a UCC - 1 Financing Statement, which is impenetrable and the foundation of all commerce. The UCC - 1 Financing Statement currently in place against my life, my labour, and all my property was established by illegitimate presumption. That I have failed to rebut this presumption is the reason that I am in the scarcity mess that I am in today.<br /><br />The security instrument is my Birth Certificate. The bankers presently hold title. I am the collateral. This can happen only by ommission/failure to rebut my presumption of security interest in everything associated with the debtor - KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH.<br /><br />The bankers have conquered and enslaved the world only because of the ignorance, apathy, and default of each slave - including myself. This is a free-will universe. The unit of experience, choice, rights, and sovereignty is each individual like myself. I am the a unique being in the universe with the right, knowledge, or duty to speak for myself; no one else can assert my rights for me. It I fail to assert my rights, I have tacitly agreed to be a slave, subject to the whims of my masters.<br /><br />It is of utmost importance to understand that the bankers' claim of a security interest in everything associated with my straw man via my Birth Certificate is by presumption only, and stands only because of your failure to rebut it. Filing a UCC - 1 Financing Statement against my straw man absolutely rebuts any presumption of a valid claim against my straw man by anyone other than myself, while at the same time itself being unrebuttable. There are many reasons for this, the most crucial being:<br /><br />1. Any substantiation of a bona fide contract between me and the usurpers of my throne is impossible because there never was a bona fide contract due to absence of true agreement based upon the interaction being devoid of full disclosure, geneuine meeting of minds, and mutual good faith.<br /><br />2. I am, and therefore, I am correclty presumed in law (all law, including theirs), to be the foundation, originm and unit of sovereignty. Whatver I choose to do or not to do is presumed to be (and always is) so by my free choice. If I fail to rebut my presumption that I am subject to their system they possess the grounds to presume that I chose to act as I did, with full knowledge of the law, in the free will manner that I did. Conversely, the same philosophy that has worked against me can work for me when I rebut their preumption and redeem my sovereign capacity.<br /><br />If the real me (Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy, secured party) has the supreme claim against the artificial me (KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH, my straw man, my debtor), the system cannot perfect a claim against either (my straw man or my real and lawful name of Christian birthright); my straw man because I hold the supreme claim thereon; my real self because the system - another straw man - can deal only with other like entities i.e. other straw men.<br /><br />More to come .....Readers are invited to share any knowledege that they may have acquired from self-imposed courses of study re: the "strawman."<br /><br />A fellow New Zealander patriot, Richard Roland Riley, Esquire has posted some information at his website about the legal theory of the straw man in New Zealend. To read what he has written visit this URL: http://www.zolatimes.com/astrawman.html<br /><br />Some UCC information is posted at this URL: www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html<br />Redemption in Law (highly recommended)<br />(New Second Edition)<br />July 2000<br />Theory and Practice<br />"Cracking the Code"<br /><br />The hottest book in America Today!<br />Discover how your govermentally-created, ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS-WRITTEN NAME, which is a corrupted, non-standard English version of your true name and compromises you with an entirely separate legal entity that-is used by banks, government agencies, and corporations to attack and exploit you legally and financially. Learn hot to get yourself proofed up against such legal predators and commercial pirates, who would come after you merely because you did not undertand the enourmous legals significance between your true name (intial letters only capitalized) and your name in ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS. This book contains practical information about the biggest breakthrough in commercial and legal freedom to come along in the last 6,000 years. The architects of this master plan never expected that their secret would ever be discovered.book $125.00 (US Funds)<br /><br /><br />Redemption in Law To purchase from the website Click Here<br /><br />Audio Tapes Available!<br />Five 90 minute audio tapes<br />by the book publisher.<br />Explaining from A to Z<br />the whole story!<br />Temporarily must be ordered<br />by mail only!<br />$35.00 (US Funds)<br />Check or MO. to:<br />The BBC of America<br />19528 Ventura Blvd.,<br />PMB 449<br />Tarzana, CA. 91356<br />YOU NEED THESE TAPES!! <br /><br />*****<br /><br />2. And for a contra article visit<br />http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/NamesInCaps.htm<br /><br /><a href="http://jmm.aaa.net.au">Rowland Croucher</a><br /></span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-87109548593292101992007-06-28T04:01:00.000-07:002007-06-28T04:04:27.403-07:00DIAMOND VALLEY LEADER ARTICLE<span style="font-weight:bold;">Here's an excellent article in the local paper distributed throughout Dawn's area of north-east Melbourne.<br /><br />Congratulations Fiona!<br /><br />~~~<br /><br />Diamond Valley Leader, Edition 1 - DVV<br /> WED 27 JUN 2007, Page 005<br />Pursuit towards bankruptcy <br /><br />A ST ANDREWS counsellor who fought a David and Goliath court battle to<br />clear her name is now on the brink of losing everything she owns.<br />After a 20-year battle, the Federal Government is threatening to<br />bankrupt Dawn Rowan to recoup court costs of $397,000.<br />Ms Rowan, 61, successfully sued the South Australian and federal<br />governments and two television stations for defamation in 2002,<br />following the publication of a damning report into a women's shelter she<br />helped run in the 1980s.<br />But in 2004 the parties appealed and all were cleared except the South<br />Australian Government.<br />Ms Rowan is now legally liable to pay court costs for the Federal<br />Government and television stations ABC and Network 10.<br />The television stations have not pursued her for costs, but the Federal<br />Government has filed a bankruptcy claim against her for $380,000. It is<br />also claiming a further $17,000 for costs associated with the bankruptcy<br />proceedings.<br />Ms Rowan now fears she will lose her home and livelihood when she faces<br />a bankruptcy hearing at the Federal Magistrates' Court in Adelaide next<br />month.<br />``When I started this, I knew I could lose everything but I never<br />thought I would lose everything if I won,'' Ms Rowan said.<br />She has set up a postcard campaign, hoping public backing will encourage<br />the Federal Government to drop its demand for money.<br />Prominent Melbourne QC Julian Burnside, who has reviewed Ms Rowan's<br />case, said the Government's pursuit of the money was ``pretty<br />miserable''.<br />``If an ordinary citizen sued and succeeded, it would be understandable<br />they would want their costs paid,'' Mr Burnside said.<br />``But you would think trying to shake money out of her would be of low<br />priority for the Commonwealth Government.''<br />If she is made bankrupt on July 5, Ms Rowan's 20-year fight will be<br />over.<br />``I will be homeless, and I work from home, so I will have nothing,''<br />she said.<br />Ms Rowan said public support was now her only hope.<br />Supporters are sending postcards calling on Attorney-General Phillip<br />Ruddock to drop the bankruptcy action.<br />The Attorney-General's Office referred Leader to the Department of<br />Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.<br />In a statement, the department said that ``under the Financial<br />Management and Accountability Act 1997, the Commonwealth<br />is legally obliged to recover<br />outstanding debts, including court costs awarded against litigants''.<br />* Dawn's battle for justice: Pages 12-13. <br /><br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />--------<br />Caption: Dawn Rowan stands to lose her St Andrews house, and her ability<br />to run a business from home, when she faces a bankruptcy hearing next<br />month. <br />Illus: Photo <br />IllusBy: Picture: MARK FRECKER N52DV350 <br />Section: NEWS <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br />Diamond Valley Leader <br />Diamond Valley Leader, Edition 1 - DVV<br /> WED 27 JUN 2007, Page 012<br /> <br /><br />Legal fight takes toll <br />Pictures: Mark Frecker <br /><br /><br />IT'S hard to spot the chinks in Dawn Rowan's armour.<br />The St Andrews counsellor is a fighter in every sense of the<br />word.<br />Her determined battle against domestic violence in the 1980s turned into<br />a gruelling battle against South Australia and the Commonwealth that has<br />spanned two decades.<br />And after more than 20 years of fighting, Ms Rowan is set to lose<br />everything she has fought for.<br />With a bankruptcy hearing pending next month, the 61-year-old feels as<br />though the battle has finally broken her.<br />``Basically I don't get out of bed these days unless I have to,'' Ms<br />Rowan said.<br />``I can't recover from this.''<br />After years of controversy, public humiliation and vicious court<br />battles, Ms Rowan has no remaining family, no partner, few friends and<br />only $40,000 in superannuation.<br />If the bankruptcy order is successful, she will be forced on to the<br />streets.<br />Ms Rowan has been driven by a need to seek justice. But she never<br />guessed the road would be so long or hard as it has been.<br />Ms Rowan's legal fight began in 1987, when she worked at Christies Beach<br />Women's Shelter in Adelaide. The then South Australian community welfare<br />minister Dr John Cornwall ordered an independent review by a joint state<br />and federal committee into the state's women's shelters.<br />The report, Shelters in the Storm, released in August 1987, contained<br />anonymous claims of physical, sexual and verbal harassment of Christies<br />Beach clients, as well as intimidation, inappropriate counselling<br />practices, professional negligence and misappropriation of funds.<br />Despite a police investigation and subsequent parliamentary review<br />finding no wrong-doing, Christies Beach was closed on September 4, 1987.<br /><br />WITH her professional and personal reputation in tatters, Ms Rowan<br />quickly moved to Victoria.<br />After a ``deafening silence'' from most of her old friends, the formerly<br />sociable woman became extremely depressed and withdrawn.<br />``When you get dumped with this kind of scandal, people steer clear of<br />you,'' she said.<br />In 1990, Ms Rowan decided to take action against the report that had<br />effectively ``destroyed'' her.<br />She filed lawsuits against the South Australian government, the<br />Commonwealth, Network Ten and the ABC, which had interviewed committee<br />head Judith Roberts about the allegations.<br />In 2002, South Australian Supreme Court Justice Bruce Debelle said the<br />allegations were a ``shocking defamation'' and ruled all defendants<br />liable.<br />Ms Rowan was awarded total compensation of $585,000, most of which paid<br />her legal bills.<br />Following a successful appeal in the Full Court of the Supreme Court in<br />November 2004, the Federal Government demanded Ms Rowan pay court costs.<br />It obtained an injunction against her in August 2005 and her assets were<br />frozen.<br />The Government is pursuing her for more than $380,000 the value of her<br />St Andrews house.<br />In her back garden, overlooking the suburb's bushland, Ms Rowan speaks<br />of her journey's end. She doesn't expect to enjoy this sight for much<br />longer.<br />``I don't know who will feed the birds when I'm gone,'' she said,<br />throwing bird seed at a growing flock of feathered friends.<br />Friends are a rare commodity these days. But those she has have shown<br />solid support for her cause, particularly her counsellor, the Rev<br />Rowland Croucher, who has stood firmly beside her since they met six<br />years ago. He believes the Federal Government is ``cruel'' to pursue her<br />for the costs.<br />The two have started a postcard campaign, believing public support is<br />the only way Ms Rowan will win her final battle.<br />To join the campaign, email dawn.rowan@optusnet.com.au.<br />* What do you think? Email diamondvalley@leadernewspapers.com .au.<br /><br />Caption: Dawn Rowan believes a postcard campaign to Attorney-General<br />Phillip Ruddock is her only hope of keeping her house and business. <br />Illus: Photo <br />IllusBy: N52DV350 <br />Section: NEWS <br /> <br />WED 27 JUN 2007, Page 013<br /><br /><br />SEPTEMBER 1981: Dawn Rowan starts work at Christies Beach Women's<br />Shelter in Adelaide.She becomes a prominent advocate for women's<br />shelters, lobbying for more funding.<br />OCTOBER 1986: Women's shelters call for the then community welfare<br />minister Dr John Cornwall's Father of the Year award to be revoked<br />because he will not increase funding for shelters. Dr Cornwall announces<br />an independent review into shelters, headed by Judith Roberts.<br />AUGUST 11, 1987: Dr Cornwall announces in SA Parliament that he is<br />withdrawing funding to Christies Beach because of allegations in the<br />Shelters in the Storm report.<br />SEPTEMBER 1987: Ms Rowan loses her job, Christies Beach Shelter is<br />closed down and she moves to Victoria.<br />1990: Ms Rowan files lawsuits against 13 defendants from the state and<br />federal governments, Network Ten (then Channel 7) and the ABC both of<br />which broadcast interviews with Ms Roberts for defamation, negligence<br />and misfeasance (abuse of public office), claiming the report has ruined<br />her professional and personal reputation.<br />JUNE 2001: The court hearing starts.<br />JUNE 21, 2002: Supreme Court Justice Bruce Debelle finds the<br />governments, Network Ten and the ABC guilty of defamation and awards Ms<br />Rowan a total of $585,000. He finds Ms Roberts and two other review<br />committee members acted with malice, and Dr Cornwall guilty of<br />misfeasance.<br />NOVEMBER 2004: The Full Court of the Supreme Court overturns Justice<br />Debelle's finding of defamation against the television stations and the<br />federal government. The ruling of defamation against state government<br />defendants is upheld, but the finding of malice is overturned.<br />APRIL 2005: The court finds Ms Rowan liable for the court costs of the<br />cleared parties. She is also ordered to pay back more than $65,000 in<br />previously awarded damages.<br />AUGUST 2005: The High Court refuses to allow Ms Rowan's appeal.<br />APRIL 2006: Commonwealth Government asks for more than $600,000 in<br />costs. South Australian Supreme Court orders Ms Rowan to pay $380,000,<br />the value of her house.<br />AUGUST 2006: Ms Rowan is unable to pay and the Commonwealth orders a<br />creditor's petition to the Federal Magistrates' Court in South<br />Australia, seeking for her to be made bankrupt. <br /><br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />--------<br />Section: NEWS <br />Fiona Willan<br /><br />Journalist<br /><br />Diamond Valley Leader</span>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-57750394291369863562007-05-29T20:13:00.001-07:002007-05-29T20:18:19.422-07:00DAWN ROWAN PICS - FROM CHANNEL 79<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-HCm_r8PqH7UG886fklCViffiEscLffHVo2NPZfvQl9Gl69dWhT3QkejhGg-o9XRW9jgbuJdiYT6-yQHa0g8x9v2XLMgeQPEP5S4x5tQL03llEttfjKoU69L84mNmzp5fMERY1BBL264/s1600-h/DAWN+ROWAN+009.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-HCm_r8PqH7UG886fklCViffiEscLffHVo2NPZfvQl9Gl69dWhT3QkejhGg-o9XRW9jgbuJdiYT6-yQHa0g8x9v2XLMgeQPEP5S4x5tQL03llEttfjKoU69L84mNmzp5fMERY1BBL264/s400/DAWN+ROWAN+009.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070187355091660850" /></a><br /><br />8<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJBcr3HJGDB6f4XJ_bAC0bADcU9Yv2uPmaF8Dpq0jVvkxBa5WcEImTjBZlb1_P8OjWzBDZJ-3SE7WCMHz6VwF4OlYtlmKPrLsOzhSrzSf4drT9CMdJhl9oIiJFFWzj9GVvAk4vLb-Y4N4/s1600-h/DAWN+ROWAN+008.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJBcr3HJGDB6f4XJ_bAC0bADcU9Yv2uPmaF8Dpq0jVvkxBa5WcEImTjBZlb1_P8OjWzBDZJ-3SE7WCMHz6VwF4OlYtlmKPrLsOzhSrzSf4drT9CMdJhl9oIiJFFWzj9GVvAk4vLb-Y4N4/s400/DAWN+ROWAN+008.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070187260602380322" /></a><br />7<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiej0O3cdlWqcwU989dPcxZH-a8xG39rsob0Rl_smkr7jEpXq-1S15bkrUx0UCnGS9u4L5yGz9iOEhoiBgYmrj50sDWuhDH6OCDLOjZpoScRY9vMR-S7V4TjTqu2dPpqMvmfLueS_PYauY/s1600-h/DAWN+ROWAN+007.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiej0O3cdlWqcwU989dPcxZH-a8xG39rsob0Rl_smkr7jEpXq-1S15bkrUx0UCnGS9u4L5yGz9iOEhoiBgYmrj50sDWuhDH6OCDLOjZpoScRY9vMR-S7V4TjTqu2dPpqMvmfLueS_PYauY/s400/DAWN+ROWAN+007.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070187174703034386" /></a><br />6<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv8rwHmm8ejvEObSr3KHiRBLN26rz9xmOnhaJJHPZFT1_fJuY7WAI-v4M7Yt-WdADVUhv84uii_Kj8X4_rsmkaPPsr6Sl_SuWDGbBM6awiCb2cqHV9d_M5y-I7DR6NSiWOoJjkVbpKOOE/s1600-h/DAWN+ROWAN+006.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv8rwHmm8ejvEObSr3KHiRBLN26rz9xmOnhaJJHPZFT1_fJuY7WAI-v4M7Yt-WdADVUhv84uii_Kj8X4_rsmkaPPsr6Sl_SuWDGbBM6awiCb2cqHV9d_M5y-I7DR6NSiWOoJjkVbpKOOE/s400/DAWN+ROWAN+006.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070187088803688450" /></a><br />5<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig6s5lsu8x5afIdm8hjG6gK-p6JLFiM7RI9glQg9icug87XIvF7yXaVfsPr3Vo1LqZA-eCbUNXMaLS0f9wlVtmbPDmv8BqDM-Mz6StD8tDzR4ojwctyIbjJuwkHDH_n6RcDK0QEm63l-k/s1600-h/DAWN+ROWAN+005.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig6s5lsu8x5afIdm8hjG6gK-p6JLFiM7RI9glQg9icug87XIvF7yXaVfsPr3Vo1LqZA-eCbUNXMaLS0f9wlVtmbPDmv8BqDM-Mz6StD8tDzR4ojwctyIbjJuwkHDH_n6RcDK0QEm63l-k/s400/DAWN+ROWAN+005.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070187011494277106" /></a><br />4<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc8Dk3WZ_eZc7aDc7SJkY6nzA_ZJmT2EzMUVFfCVUbF9dh452uFA5LRLOVStTIPewlv4vDpPCE7leeiTKr434_VDVnO7MHBffA1xcsNFwE-lUVPofXPtJBwsUXOyiBvPBGd7SLWtS_6-g/s1600-h/DAWN+ROWAN+004.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc8Dk3WZ_eZc7aDc7SJkY6nzA_ZJmT2EzMUVFfCVUbF9dh452uFA5LRLOVStTIPewlv4vDpPCE7leeiTKr434_VDVnO7MHBffA1xcsNFwE-lUVPofXPtJBwsUXOyiBvPBGd7SLWtS_6-g/s400/DAWN+ROWAN+004.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070186921299963874" /></a><br />3<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGJSEd-Eu4X9WcvTBBNBvM3lEaxTXc7cRbeIcbPiu1n1h9SvLab0Gn5GNjgIPFWmthMdcBC32l530PYN7CsEFmCYnSBbm-2OZC_oVk7BA9_D7CEBZpWd69VdwmI8BduyMGEjzUmQzcxUU/s1600-h/DAWN+ROWAN+003.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGJSEd-Eu4X9WcvTBBNBvM3lEaxTXc7cRbeIcbPiu1n1h9SvLab0Gn5GNjgIPFWmthMdcBC32l530PYN7CsEFmCYnSBbm-2OZC_oVk7BA9_D7CEBZpWd69VdwmI8BduyMGEjzUmQzcxUU/s400/DAWN+ROWAN+003.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070186835400617938" /></a><br />2<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1ivTs1s3xblpS3foGGZRIs0EJOsNuWGTeGxUT0IreA3FuXm2X4yexsRyT5D82DVptOQQR36mALGyYM-pPJlXCFXZHXd_qf-TV18zFLXIqTfd0KqEDgyRb6lBNo6HbsHbLCqZ3gyyHDG8/s1600-h/DAWN+ROWAN+002.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1ivTs1s3xblpS3foGGZRIs0EJOsNuWGTeGxUT0IreA3FuXm2X4yexsRyT5D82DVptOQQR36mALGyYM-pPJlXCFXZHXd_qf-TV18zFLXIqTfd0KqEDgyRb6lBNo6HbsHbLCqZ3gyyHDG8/s400/DAWN+ROWAN+002.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070186736616370114" /></a><br />1<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkEhT7hrUGJq7WpGGzMDrxd5VbAUemuS1KNswXosUqcgxNX2bmyILo6iLWEvFon9dAC14Ig6tNTl6u9tNOfbH_P1LNSJcEUDzmj18ENsR-P8Ezjo2r6H0j5Ew0zhnb0S_QJDbu64EbKT0/s1600-h/DAWN+ROWAN+001.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkEhT7hrUGJq7WpGGzMDrxd5VbAUemuS1KNswXosUqcgxNX2bmyILo6iLWEvFon9dAC14Ig6tNTl6u9tNOfbH_P1LNSJcEUDzmj18ENsR-P8Ezjo2r6H0j5Ew0zhnb0S_QJDbu64EbKT0/s400/DAWN+ROWAN+001.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070186650717024178" /></a>Rowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619616203216188262.post-15865198066861515462007-05-24T17:14:00.000-07:002008-04-12T01:43:30.870-07:00EXPLANATION<span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />This Blog has been set up as part of a group of Blogs produced by me, <a href="http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/">Rowland Croucher.</a><br /><br />That's why you'll see my biodata here, not Dawn Rowan's.<br /><br />Hopefully, when Dawn has been freed from this tyrannous situation, she'll have the mental space to manage this Blog herself. But Jan and I are committed to supporting her through this whole ordeal.<br /><br />See the initial <a href="http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4728.htm">story</a> we published, for info about how we met Dawn.<br /><br />She's a very courageous person, and I would encourage all Australians who read this to communicate with their federal parliamentary representatives to advocate for Dawn.<br /><br />Shalom!/Salaam!<br /><br /><a href="http://jmm.aaa.net.au/">Rowland Croucher</a> </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">P.S. This Blog grew out of an older one, which was then replaced by the Dawn Rowan Saga Blog (http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/). For the record, here's the material which appeared on the original Blog:<br /><br />Thursday, May 24, 2007<br />NEW BLOG<br /><br />Dear friends,<br /><br />It's now Friday morning (whatever the date and time you read on this Blog) and we've just heard that the bankruptcy hearing set for Monday 28th may be postponed. Dawn and I - Rowland - have already purchased tickets to fly to Adelaide. This is the way Dawn has been, to use an expression well-known to Australians 'mucked around' for 20 years.<br /><br />We'll keep you posted.<br /><br />Meanwhile, we've set up a new blog with a new template, layout and title here:<br />http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Please add this to your favorites, and watch regularly for developments.<br /><br />Rowland Croucher<br />Posted by Rowland Croucher at 6:23 PM 0 comments<br />Labels: New Blog<br />Sunday, May 20, 2007<br />UPDATE: MAY 20, 2007<br /><br /><br />***** BANKRUPTCY HEARING *****<br /><br /><br />The Commonwealth Government is enforcing bankruptcy - proceedings to be held in Adelaide Monday may 28th. the S.A. Government is joining the fray to destroy Dawn, and will at the same time petition to claim costs against her.<br /><br />An offer has been made via Dawn's lawyer to forestall this drastic procedure, but so far no response...<br /><br />Urgent: please contact the Prime Minister - the Hon John Howard MP<br /><br />Tel: (02) 6277 7700 Fax: (02) 6273 4100<br />email: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm<br /><br />and/or the attorney-general, Hon. Philip Ruddock at<br />ag@ag.gov.au<br /><br /><br />~~~<br /><br />HERE'S THE EMAIL I'VE JUST SENT TO THE PRIME MINISTER (and COPIED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL):<br /><br />THE HON. JOHN HOWARD<br />PRIME MINISTER<br />COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA<br /><br />20th May 2007<br /><br />Re: Dawn Rowan<br /><br />I wish to draw to your attention a gross injustice perpetrated by the Governments of South Australia and the Commonwealth against a citizen declared at all times in the court process to be innocent.<br /><br />The Commonwealth and SA governments are now pursuing her for costs, whilst the perpetrators of the injustice against Ms Rowan will not suffer personally in any way.<br /><br />Please visit http://dawnrowan.blogspot.com/<br />or<br />http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4728.htm<br />or<br />Channel 7's TT program of May 14, 2007 (link on front page http://jmm.aaa.net.au)<br />for a summary of her case.<br /><br />A bankruptcy hearing against Ms Rowan is set down for next Monday, May 28th May, 2007. If it succeeds she will be homeless and destitute.<br /><br />I respectfully request that your government exercise compassion and clemency in this case of a gross miscarriage of justice against an innocent person.<br /><br />Yours faithfully<br /><br />(Rev. Dr.) Rowland Croucher<br /><br />~~~<br />Posted by Rowland Croucher at 12:48 AM 0 comments<br />Labels: 2007, BANKRUPTCY, May 20<br />Tuesday, May 1, 2007<br />AN EXPLANATORY NOTE<br /><br /><br />This Blog has been set up as part of a group of Blogs produced by me, Rowland Croucher.<br /><br />That's why you'll see my biodata here, not Dawn Rowan's.<br /><br />Hopefully, when Dawn has been freed from this tyrannous situation, she'll have the mental space to manage this Blog herself. But Jan and I are committed to supporting her through this whole ordeal.<br /><br />See the initial story we published, for info about how we met Dawn.<br /><br />She's a very courageous person, and I would encourage all Australians who read this to communicate with their federal parliamentary representatives to advocate for Dawn.<br /><br />Shalom!/Salaam!<br /><br />Rowland Croucher <br /><br />Monday, April 30, 2007<br />UPDATE MAY 1, 2007<br /><br /><br />Dear friends<br /><br />Thanks for all the wonderful support you have provided over these 'lean years' of litigation.<br /><br />The Federal Government (Philip Ruddock) are now proceeding to bankrupt me... a completely innocent citizen, grossly abused under parliamentary privilege, grossly defamed, who fought for 21 years to get justice -- and has been at all times declared innocent by the judgments, (which are on the public record).<br /><br />This political action will leave me homeless, penniless, at 61 years of age, having worked for 40 years and supported myself throughout my life.<br /><br />My total 'legal' costs, as permitted by the legal system (an actual joke!) have amounted to approximately $800,000, paid upfront/already. My actual costs of running the legal action for the past 17 years is 1 1/2 million dollars (not including lost earnings).<br /><br />In relation to the Commonwealth's pursing me to bankruptcy, a recent communication from Philip Ruddock stated 'The Commonwealth is entitled to act firmly and properly to protect ***ITS*** (my emphasis) interests.'<br />Question: Whose interests is the Australian Government elected to represent????<br /><br />The emotional cost of the last 21 years of torture includes severe post-traumatic stress symptoms, as documented in medical records which I'll post here in the near future.<br /><br />Dawn Rowan<br />[dawn.rowan[at]optusnet.com.au]<br /><br />PO Box 60,<br />St. Andrews,<br />Victoria,<br />Australia 3761<br /><br />May 1. 2007<br /><br /><br />Posted by Rowland Croucher at 7:52 PM 0 comments<br />Labels: 2007, May 1<br />TOWARDS A DICTATORSHIP IN 10 EASY STEPS<br /><br /><br />[Australian readers might like to read this through Australian eyes and 'tick the boxes'.<br /><br />Federal election 2007: what are you willing to do about it? Dawn Rowan].<br /><br />~~~<br /><br />Towards a Dictatorship in 10 easy steps<br /><br />Naomi Wolf " (Guardian)<br />Tuesday April 24, 2007 [Posted here 1 May 2007]<br /><br />Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody.<br /><br />They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.<br /><br />As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration. More...<br /><br />~~~<br /><br />Naomi Wolf's The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot will be published by Chelsea Green in September.<br /><br />Guardian Unlimited© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007<br />Posted by Rowland Croucher at 7:09 PM 1 comments<br />Labels: Dictatorship<br />LETTER TO MINISTER REQUESTING WAIVER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS<br /><br /><br />On the 17th October 2006, the Commonwealth issued a bankruptcy notice demanding $380,000. I responded as follows, to ministers Brough and Ruddock, requesting a waiver of this punitive action on compassionate grounds.<br /><br /><br />Dawn Rowan<br />PO Box 60<br />St Andrews<br />VIC 3761<br /><br />18 October 2006<br /><br />FOR THE URGENT ATTENTION OF:<br /><br />The Honourable Mal Brough MP<br />Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs<br />Box 7788<br />Canberra Mail Centre ACT 2610<br /><br />Dear Minister,<br /><br />Re: Bankruptcy Proceedings Issued By The Australian Government Solicitor<br /><br />I am writing to you in the hope that you will be able to assist me with<br />respect to bankruptcy proceedings that have been instituted against me<br />following sixteen years of litigation. Although I was successful in that<br />litigation the outcome has had a catastrophic effect on me, my health and my<br />career. It has now culminated with the Commonwealth serving me with a<br />Bankruptcy Notice no doubt with the ultimate intention of forcing me into<br />bankruptcy.<br /><br />I am approaching you in the hope that you will intervene and bring an end to<br />what has been a disastrous last fifteen years of my life.<br /><br />In the briefest terms can I explain.<br /><br />Background<br /><br />I was born in 1946 and educated in Adelaide.<br /><br />I chose to follow a career as a secondary school music teacher and did so<br />for ten years.<br /><br />Thereafter I was interested in directing my activities to counselling women<br />and children who had been subject to domestic violence and cruelty. I<br />undertook and completed a degree of Bachelor of Social Administration and<br />applied for and was ultimately appointed the administrator of two women’s<br />shelters in Adelaide.<br /><br />The shelters were jointly funded by the Commonwealth and State Governments<br />and from 1978 myself and a number of other workers devoted ourselves to<br />counselling and assisting a large number of people who attended the shelters<br />for assistance.<br /><br />Joint Report – Defamation<br /><br />On 11 August 1987 a report was published by a joint committee which had been<br />set up by the State and Federal Governments. The report was from an<br />independent review committee which had been commissioned to examine the<br />management and operation of the women’s shelters.<br /><br />The report was ultimately published and received extensive media coverage<br />from television stations and the press. The report contained unwarranted<br />and untruthful allegations of sexual and financial impropriety on the part<br />of myself and others associated with the management of the shelters.<br /><br />The impact of the report was devastating. I had devoted my career and life<br />to counselling women and children and given up everything to pursue this<br />career. I had considered it was a most worthwhile cause and I had intended<br />to devote my life to that career.<br /><br />As a consequence of the report, funding was withdrawn and the Christies<br />Beach shelter closed.<br /><br />The impact on my health was immediate and I remained on sickness benefits<br />for two years.<br /><br />I fled the State and relocated in Victoria, but my professional reputation,<br />my ambitions and my health had been effectively destroyed.<br /><br />I was left without means of income.<br /><br />Although I obtained some employment in Victoria for approximately twelve<br />months I ultimately had to resign from that position because of my health<br />and political pressure.<br /><br />Litigation<br /><br />Because the allegations in the report were completely false and misleading,<br />because my career had been ruined and I was without income I took legal<br />advice and commenced defamation proceedings out of the Supreme Court in<br />South Australia.<br /><br />Whilst I had little in the way of funds, I obtained legal representation and<br />proceedings were instituted on 26 June 1990.<br /><br />The Defendants to the proceedings were the authors of the report (these<br />being the State and Commonwealth employees, as well as the State and Federal<br />Governments). I also sued the two television stations who had published the<br />findings of the report.<br /><br />The legal proceedings were extensive and protracted and the Defendants for<br />the next ten years took numerous steps to have the proceedings defeated.<br /><br />The trial eventually commenced in June 2001 and proceeded for sixty-seven<br />days. For sixty of those days I was without legal representation and fought<br />the case on my own.<br /><br />The State, the Commonwealth and the television stations were all represented<br />by Counsel, an army of solicitors and in some cases Queens Counsel.<br /><br />In a judgment delivered on 21 June 2002 Justice Debelle, a senior and highly<br />regarded member of the bench published his reasons. He described the<br />allegations as a “shocking defamation”.<br /><br />I was ultimately awarded the sum of approximately $585,000 in damages,<br />together with the costs of the action.<br /><br />In subsequent contribution proceedings the amount to which the Commonwealth<br />was found liable to pay was $39,117.42.<br /><br />Although the award of compensation was less than I had expected I felt that<br />my action in bringing the litigation had been vindicated. Needless to say<br />the years in preparing the case for trial, the trauma of fighting the case<br />in court without legal representation and the associated affect on my health<br />meant that I had been without income for virtually all of that period.<br /><br />Appeals<br /><br />Because of apparent unlimited resources the State, the Commonwealth and the<br />two television stations all lodged appeals.<br /><br />In order to defend the judgment I was forced to retain solicitors and<br />barristers.<br /><br />My health deteriorated, I was unable to work and spent a vast amount of time<br />instructing lawyers to defend the appeals.<br /><br />I was required to sell a property which had been left to me by my mother in<br />order to pay legal costs associated with the appeal and the subsequent<br />appeal to the High Court.<br /><br />Eventually the Full Court allowed the appeal.<br /><br />For reasons for which I am unable to understand the two television stations<br />and the Commonwealth were exonerated. The damages awarded to me were<br />reduced, but I retained the judgment against the State of South Australia.<br /><br />Whilst I was awarded 75% of my costs against the State, I was ordered to pay<br />the costs of the Commonwealth and the two television stations.<br /><br />The total claims for costs of the Commonwealth and the two television<br />stations exceeded $1 million and the liability to pay these sums would have<br />meant that even though I had succeeded in the litigation overall, the result<br />would have been my bankruptcy.<br /><br />Faced with this I had no further alternative than to instruct my lawyers to<br />appeal to the High Court.<br /><br />Because the High Court considered that the matter was not of public interest<br />and only involved legal costs my application for special leave to appeal was<br />refused.<br /><br />Subsequent Action by the Commonwealth<br /><br />The end of the court processes left me in poor health and financially ruined<br />as I faced costs orders of the television stations and the Commonwealth of<br />over $1 million.<br /><br />The two television stations have not pursued me for their legal costs. The<br />Commonwealth, however, has been relentless.<br /><br />Since the dismissal of the High Court proceedings the Australian Government<br />Solicitor, on behalf of the Commonwealth, has:<br /><br />· Made a demand for costs in excess of $600,000.<br /><br />· Obtained an injunction against me, freezing my assets.<br /><br />· Relentlessly pursued the claim for costs against me and<br />eventually obtained an order for lump sum payment of costs of $380,000.<br /><br />· Issued a Bankruptcy Notice against me with a view to<br />obtaining a Bankruptcy Order.<br /><br />As a consequence of this I have had funds from the sale of a house that I<br />owned frozen and have had access to my bank accounts limited.<br /><br />In September 2005, in the course of the injunction proceedings, I requested<br />my solicitors to write to the AGS outlining my position. I requested that<br />my situation be referred to the Minister with a view that the Australian<br />Government Solicitor be instructed to refrain from pursuing its claim<br />against me.<br /><br />I enclose herewith a copy of the letter that my solicitors sent to the AGS,<br />together with the medical report that was referred to in that letter.<br /><br />I do not know what transpired as a result of that letter.<br /><br />The Current Position<br /><br />The Bankruptcy Notice issued by the Australian Government Solicitor demands<br />payment of $380,000 by 17 October 2006. I presume that if that sum is not<br />paid the Australian Government Solicitor will issue a petition against me<br />with a view to having me declared bankrupt.<br /><br />I do not know if the two television stations will join in those proceedings,<br />but to date neither of them have made demands against me for costs. I<br />believe that if the Commonwealth were to withdraw its demand the two<br />television stations would not pursue me.<br /><br />My current position is as follows:<br /><br />· I have a house at St Andrews in Victoria. It is my home<br />and a place where I am trying to re-establish my practice as a counsellor.<br />The house is valued at about $500,000, but is subject to a mortgage of<br />nearly $130,000.<br /><br />· I previously had a holiday home at Coronet Bay in<br />Victoria. This was sold in August 2005 for $190,000. Those funds were<br />frozen by the Commonwealth as part of its court proceedings and are<br />currently in a solicitor’s trust account in Melbourne.<br /><br />· There is a balance of about $30,000 held by the State<br />Crown being the balance of court costs due to me. The State, however, is<br />claiming $17,000 of that sum.<br /><br />· Overall I have spent over $380,000 in legal fees and have<br />no money in the bank. All of my personal financial resources have gone into<br />the litigation over the last fifteen years. I have less than $40,000 in a<br />superannuation fund.<br /><br />The Future<br /><br />As a result of the last fifteen years I remain shattered and confused. I<br />have ten years of my working life left, but with no realistic prospect of<br />obtaining fulltime work or employment.<br /><br />If the bankruptcy proceedings continue I will certainly lose my house and<br />everything that I have worked for over the years.<br /><br />With the limited finances that I have I would prefer to attempt to rebuild<br />my career as a counsellor and attempt to retain my health and my dignity. I<br />do not want to lose my home and become reliant on Centrelink payments.<br /><br />Although the Commonwealth was excused from liability by the Full Court,<br />there is no doubt that its officers were involved in the preparation of the<br />report that ultimately was found to be grossly defamatory and which ruined<br />my career. Although the television stations were involved in the defamatory<br />conduct they have exercised clemency and have not to date pursued their<br />claims for costs against me. It is only the Commonwealth that has adopted a<br />relentless approach to have me ruined.<br /><br />In the circumstances, therefore, I am again asking for clemency with the<br />request that you intervene and instruct your department to refrain from<br />pursuing its claim for legal costs.<br /><br />I have forwarded a copy of this letter to the Australian Government<br />Solicitor with the request that it take no further bankruptcy proceedings<br />pending your consideration of my position.<br /><br />I would be most appreciative of any assistance that you are able to afford.<br /><br />I remain<br /><br />Yours sincerely,<br /><br />DAWN ROWAN<br /><br />Copy to: The Hon Philip Ruddock MP<br />ATTORNEY-GENERALRowland Croucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13473460918145751334noreply@blogger.com0