MARCH 2011: MINISTER REFUSES ANY ACT OF GRACE PAYMENT

LETTER FROM MINISTER GARY GRAY (2ND MARCH 2011) AND DAWN ROWAN’S RESPONSES

Preamble

The attached is a point-by-point set of responses from Dawn Rowan to the Minister’s letter refusing any compensation for the abuses perpetrated on her by the Commonwealth Government.

My (Dawn Rowan’s) responses are preceded by ==>> and highlight the deliberate efforts to mislead in the Minister’s 1½ page letter. I take full and sole responsibility for all the comments here.

==>> The original judgment by Justice Debelle found all four parties – the SA Government, Commonwealth Government, Channel 10 and the ABC TV - guilty and liable for my costs. The Appeal Court (three judges) reversed the liability of the Commonwealth and the two Television networks. The State of South Australia and its representatives remained the guilty party: but these three judges made me responsible (as the innocent party) for my costs (approx. $475,000) and the costs of these three parties. The guilty party – the SA Government – was ordered to pay only its costs! Bizarre!

==>> Further background factual information: see the original 300-page judgment - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2002/160.html
Also this summary of the Saga: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4728.htm

****

HON GARY GRAY AO MP

Special Minister of State

Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity

Ms Dawn Rowan


PO Box 60
ST ANDREWS VIC 3761

REF: C10/1768

Dear Ms Rowan

I am writing in reference to your request for an act of grace payment of approximately $3.5m for alleged psychological injury and financial loss due to the Commonwealth initiating legal action and bankruptcy proceedings and the alleged delay in removing an injunction over your funds.

Dawn Rowan’s response: ==>> This document is malicious, designed to injure/assassinate. Alleged psychological injury? My medical reports provide overwhelming factual evidence of the appalling psychological injuries I have sustained over the past 25 years.

==>> Alleged delay? For five years the Federal Government chose to keep my assets frozen: so that I was not able to freely access bank accounts and any other resources.

In reaching my decision, I have considered the information provided in your correspondence of 10 June 2010 and 2 November 2010, several letters of support and advice from my Department. I am aware of the circumstances of your involvement with the Commonwealth and the decisions made by the former Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Hon Lindsay Tanner.

==>> ‘Aware of the circumstances?’ I have appealed for any documentation attached to be used by the Minister in arriving at his decision, to be made available to me for comment. Response? Refusal. Therefore this minister has come to this decision based on two documents submitted by me out of a 25-year legal process and thousands of pages of documents in the Commonwealth’s possession. Departmental documents provided to me by Hon. Jenny Macklin and Lindsay Tanner contain evidence of a malicious campaign conducted by some bureaucrats against me. For example: a comment – against medical reports – by some bureaucrats in Jenny Macklin’s department that “Ms Rowan is not suicidal because there is no evidence of her having attempted suicide’!!!!

You have stated: “I believe that the Annulment of the Bankruptcy, rather than a simple waiver of the debt, acknowledges that the procedures by the Commonwealth were improper and should never have occurred at all. It would follow logically that the Commonwealth accepts liability for the extreme suffering on a day-to-day basis I have experienced since 2005”.

I note that you maintain that the Commonwealth bears some liability to you despite the finding of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia in which the Commonwealth was cleared from any liability upon appeal. It is my view that the appeal decision is the final and operative position regarding the Commonwealth’s legal involvement with you. While I consider that you did not frivolously or vexatiously take action against the Commonwealth, you did so knowingly, and the order for costs is an ordinary consequence of such action.

==>> ‘Cleared from any liability’? This is a cowardly statement – hiding behind a legal rather than a moral argument. My application for an act of grace payment was at all times based on MORAL not legal considerations.

==>> Knowingly? What choice does an innocent person have, when scandalized in full public glare with false allegations made about them of sexual abuse, financial corruption, and unethical work practices released under parliamentary privilege (‘coward’s castle’)? AND DEFENDED FOR 25 YEARS BY THE PERPETRATORS AS ‘JUSTIFIED’... even after all allegations had been proved false and malicious in court?

==>> This ignores the fact that the three judges conducting the appeal did not disclose previous associations with the guilty parties in this disgraceful episode of character assassination and abuse of political power. It is a criminal offence for judges not to disclose any association with people before the court.

==>> Their ‘unbiassed judgment’, strangely, overturned the previous finding of Malice by the only Supreme Court judge – Justice Debelle – to have read the all the evidence and to have heard all the witnesses.

==>> How can FIVE Government departments (Police Department, Corporate Affairs Commission, Crown Solicitor’s Office and Community Welfare in SA. and one Commonwealth Government – Community Services) ‘lose’ the same cohort of documents without a malicious conspiracy being involved??? Justice Debelle states in his judgment (June 2002: see paragraphs 87-94) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2002/160.html : ‘It is possible to understand that files from one department might have been inadvertently lost or destroyed. Coincidence cannot explain why files from five departments cannot be located.’

==>> This begs the questions which must be asked by Autralian citizens: Why was this done? How was all this coordinated? Who did it? And why? This is not just about me – this is about all of us. We are all potentially abused when our ‘democratically elected’ Government is free to perpetrate these frightening, malicious abuses of power against its own citizens!

==>> And why have the media been so silent about all this?

In accordance with his responsibilities for recovering debts under section 47 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act), the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs was required to recover the debt which resulted in you being bankrupted. While I understand this caused you stress, I am satisfied that the Commonwealth’s actions to recover the debt were reasonable and obligatory.

==>> Required to recover the debt? The Commonwealth Government claims to be ‘litigants of best practice’. They claim to be role-models for the Westminster system in Australia. God help us – in this context of denial of the truth, and exquisite practitioners of injustice. We are dealing here with a ‘LEGAL system’ not a ‘JUSTICE system’ – in which the truth is irrelevant. And the Commonwealth are indeed ‘best practice’ exponents of this shocking system!

==>> There is always a discretionary power that can be exercised by our elected politicians. Reasonable and obligatory? That is maliciously misleading.

Although the former Finance Minister exercised his discretion and waived your debt, he did not have the power to annul your bankruptcy.

==>> Didn’t he? The Commonwealth has complete discretion in terms of waiving so-called ‘debts’ owed to them. Check my earlier comment: there are discretionary powers frequently used here (often to politicians and their powerful mates).

As the Commonwealth was the only proved creditor in your bankruptcy, and as the debt no longer existed because it was waived, the bankruptcy was annulled.

==>> Re ‘proved’: This is because the Commonwealth was the only party to pursue me! See above: all three parties had the opportunity to pursue me for costs, but only the Commonwealth CHOSE to waste additional taxpayers’ money pursuing me to homelessness and destitution. Why did the two other parties – the ABC and Channel 10 – never pursue me for this alleged debt?

The former Minister also sought to expedite the annulment of your bankruptcy by waiving an additional amount of $6,283.74 which was owed to the trustee.

You also claim that there was a delay on the Commonwealth’s part in lifting the Mareva injunction. However, I consider that the removal of the injunction, which required a court order, was carried out in a timely manner.

==>> Five years of frozen assets... The Government alleges that’s in ‘a timely manner’???

While you claim to be in financial difficulty, and are reluctant to apply for social security benefits, it is not appropriate to use the act of grace mechanism to circumvent existing mechanisms or legislation which may lead to eligibility for Government benefits. It is open to you to test your eligibility for benefits with Centrelink.

==>> My financial condition has been fully documented for the Commonwealth Government. The word ‘claim’ is a carefully-chosen and misleading abuse of language. This is a smokescreen. This claim for compensation is a totally separate issue. It’s about losses incurred in my 25-year battle to clear my name, and be properly compensated for injuries perpetrated upon me by the Commonwealth Government.

==>> Minister Gray: what would you have done if you had been vilified in this way?

On the basis of all the information before me, I do not consider it appropriate to authorise an act of grace payment to you as I consider that the Australian Government has met its moral duty in providing discretionary relief to you by waiving your debt and there are no special circumstances that warrant payment in this case. Accordingly, I have declined, pursuant to section 33(1) of the FMA Act, an act of grace payment of approximately $3.5m to you.

==>> Regarding the Commonwealth’s having ‘met its moral duty’: I would challenge the minister to a public debate with me where he can attempt to justify his statement that he has ‘met [his] moral duty’ and that ‘there are no special circumstances’ in this case.

I have also enclosed an information sheet with the options you have in respect of the decision.

Yours sincerely

Gary Gray

2 March 2011



Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/