This is the matter in the Federal Court which ITSA fucked over to try and protect themselves.
ITSA failed to answer a subpoena for information in an attempt to cover up the failure of their responsibility and duty of care to adequately investigate serious corrupt conduct and fraud by Paul Pattison.
Annette Moodie from ITSA Enforcement then attempted to have Mr Geoff Slatter held responsible for costs. Clearly Annette Moodie needs a fuck up her ARSE!!!!!!!
Mr Slater then was forced into a position where he withdrew the matter before the courts.
12 months latter Senator Williams questioned Veronique Ingram about Pattison and the failure of Bankruptcy Regulation to investigate.
Senator WILLIAMS: He was deregistered as a trustee in bankruptcy after he had voluntarily resigned from his 272 active matters in July last year. I think I have raised this issue of Mr Pattison with you before. I want to raise with you a matter that involved Mr Pattison and Mr Alex Kane Mircevski, of Victoria. You would be familiar with this long-running battle with Mr Pattison?
Ms Ingram : I am aware of some of the issues, yes.
Senator WILLIAMS: I refer to a letter dated 12 August 2009 signed by you, Ms Ingram. It is a response to complaints Mr Mircevski made to the Attorney-General on 17 and 8 July 2009. You refer to a letter dated 19 June 2009 which indicated the conduct of the trustee was not considered inappropriate. What investigations of Mr Pattison led your Bankruptcy Regulation Branch to that conclusion?
Ms Ingram : It is important to note that the trustee, Mr Pattison, has been deregistered. I do not want to reveal the details of that deregistration, but it principally related to his lack of resources to run a trustee business, if you can call it that. The companies he was using, in terms of his corporate insolvency practice, had gone into voluntary administration. Another one had gone into liquidation. We were examining his systems and files and also came to the view that, after those procedures had happened, he no longer had the resources to undertake a trustee business. As to the issue with Mr Mircevski, yes we did review his matter and we did not uncover any improper conduct on the part of the trustee
Then 18 months after this matter in the Federal Court a"FOI" revealed that ITSA had received 9 complaints about Pattison in the 12 months prior to his de-registration and 5 had warranted investigation.
This now leads to the matter where Veronique Ingram was referred to the Australian Public Service Commission under S 41(f).
Despite considerable evidence what was occurring at ITSA and despite this fuckers failure act accordingly to her position at ITSA the complaint was fucked over by Karin Fisher who would also benefit from a good fuck up the arse.
Part of the Code of Conduct of AP Servants is.........
PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 13
The APS Code of Conduct
9) An APS employee must not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee's APS employment.
.Special note should also be made that neith Bankruptcy Relations or the Australian Public Service commission have an investigation policy
Mircevski v 
Pattison 
[2011] FCA 740 (25 May 2011)
Pattison [2011] FCA 740 (25 May 2011)
Last Updated: 30 June 2011
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
| GENERAL DIVISION |
| JUDGE: | MARSHALL J |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 25 MAY 2011 |
| WHERE MADE: | MELBOURNE |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceeding.
- The applicant pay the third respondent’s costs of the proceeding.
- There is liberty to apply on the question of costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
| GENERAL DIVISION |
VID 193 of 2011
|
| JUDGE: | MARSHALL J |
| DATE: | 25 MAY 2011 |
| PLACE: | MELBOURNE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
- At the hearing of this matter the applicant sought leave, through his counsel, Mr Slater, “to withdraw this matter before the court in whole”. This, in effect, was an application to discontinue the proceeding.
- Counsel for the first respondent, Mr Fary, opposed the applicant’s application to discontinue and made submissions seeking that the matter be dismissed instead. Mr Fary submitted that “[t]oday is the hearing. There is no evidence before the court and so the court is in a position to dismiss the application.” Mr Slater then confirmed that the applicant had no evidence to present on his application.
- I found Mr Fary’s submissions for dismissal of the matter persuasive and consequently made the orders set out above.
| I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall. |
No comments:
Post a Comment