COURT STAFF ACCUSED OF STEALING FROM POOR BOX

October 5, 2005

 

Staff at a Victorian law court stole money from its poor box for years by writing fake cheques to people who did not exist, a whistleblower has alleged.

Victorian Auditor General Wayne Cameron has investigated the claim and found the alleged misuse of funds was possible, but not able to be proven.
He has referred the matter to the police.

Mr Cameron's report, tabled in parliament today, says the money in the Geelong Magistrates' Court fund was meant for needy people who sought help from the court and for charities and welfare groups.

Money in a court's poor box comes from defendants who are found to have broken the law and are ordered to make a payment to the fund, which is separate to a magistrate imposing a conviction and fine.

However, the system of administering the money at Geelong was found to be lacking in accountability and open to misuse.

"Under the existing circumstances, it is very difficult for the court to identify, let alone effectively prevent, the possible misappropriation of funds," the report said.

Similarly, Benalla and Shepparton magistrates' courts were found to suffer weaknesses in their systems during internal audits in 2002.

"The internal audits also identified instances where court funds had been misappropriated or there was a strong suspicion they had been misappropriated," Mr Cameron's report said.

The Geelong whistleblower - a former court employee - alleged that "a number of court staff acting together misappropriated approximately $200 per week from the court fund during the period from 1995 to 1998".

Staff took cash from the day's takings and replaced it with court fund cheques "made out to fictitious persons," the whistleblower said.

"These cheques were opened to cash and included in the court's daily bankings."

The report said: "One of the magistrates endorsed payments from the fund at the end of each month by bracketing the payments on each page of the cashbook and signing his name next to the bracketed payments".

"Such a procedure effectively transfers discretion and control over the funds from the magistrate to court staff."

Also, trust account cheques for amounts up to $5,000 had been endorsed with the words "please pay cash," contrary to the requirements of the registrar's manual, the report said.

Last year, in a call to the Ombudsman's office, the whistleblower first alleged that staff had been misappropriating funds.

Early this year, the same person contacted the office again and, under oath, disclosed how the alleged misuse had been carried out, named the people allegedly involved and identified several potential witnesses.

In August, those witnesses were interviewed under oath by staff from the Auditor General and Ombudsman's offices.

"One witness provided strong corroborating verbal evidence that the alleged fraud had taken place," the report said.

The investigation by the auditor general included a review of the court's financial management systems and procedures.

It found that in 2001, the Geelong Magistrates' Court started the Kicking Goals youth program which also showed payments not supported by documentation.

"Consequently, we were unable to determine who received the funds or whether the payments were made for appropriate purposes," the report said.

"Following receipt of our draft report in August 2005 by the (Justice) Department, the Kicking Goals Youth program was discontinued."

The draft report also spurred Victoria's chief magistrate to issue a direction to all regional coordinating magistrates that no cheques be made payable to cash and that no further cheques be made payable to individuals.

Mr Cameron said the Justice Department's response to the findings was "proactive and positive".
Comment was being sought from Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls.

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls said he welcomed the report.

"The Department of Justice and Magistrates' Court have moved quickly to address the major recommendations of the auditor-general in relation to this matter," he said.

"The department initiated its own independent inquiry ahead of the auditor-general's report and the findings of both inquires provide a solid platform to moving forward.

"Both the department and court are drafting detailed criteria and guidelines to strengthen the administration and management of the court fund."

- AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/court-staff-accused-of-stealing-from-poor-box/2005/10/05/1128191763868.html

MELBOURNE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION TO END THE COURT ‘POOR BOX’ WILL HURT THE MOST VULNERABLE

MEDIA RELEASE 19 February 2013

Melbourne City Council’s action to end the Court ‘poor box’ will hurt the most vulnerable

Victorian charitable organisations will be deprived millions of dollars from court-directed donations after Melbourne City Council successfully overturned the long-standing legal practice says the Victorian Council of Social Service.

‘Melbourne City Council’s action to end the court “poor box” will hurt community organisations who deliver important front line services to some of Victoria’s most disadvantaged people,’ said Carolyn Atkins, Acting CEO of VCOSS.

‘Court-ordered donations have directed millions of dollars to community organisations. In successfully ending the practice, the Council appears to have put their own financial benefit ahead of the needs of the most vulnerable in our community.’

‘The process, which has historical roots dating back hundreds of years, has allowed Magistrates to order that fines for relatively minor offences be paid as donations to community organisations working in the field where the offence occurred.’

‘Organisations who have received ordered donations in the past work directly with people in need and the funds from the courts have helped do things from put food vans on the streets to helping people find temporary accommodation and employment options.’

‘The last online annual report of the Magistrates Court for the 2010-11 year shows that 3,403 orders were made directing payments to charitable organisations.’

‘At a time of funding constraints, it is unacceptable to deny poor-box funds to accountable organisations who use the money to undertake activities that benefit the most vulnerable in our community,’ says Ms Atkins.

‘The donations system is also a meaningful way for people to make reparations to any harm or damage they may have caused – it promotes a more responsible and connected community.’
‘The outcome of this decision needs to be rectified as quickly as possible. VCOSS is calling on the Victorian Parliament to come together to amend the Sentencing Act (1991) to give specific provision to magistrates to be able to issue court-ordered donations.’

More information: PilchConnect media release Melbourne City Council statement

For more information, or to arrange an interview with Carolyn Atkins
contact John Kelly – M: 0418 127 153

Follow the conversation at www.twitter.com/vcoss

http://vcoss.org.au/media-release/melbourne-city-councils-action-to-end-the-court-poor-box-will-hurt-the-most-vulnerable/

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT MOVES TO QUICKLY PASS LAWS TO STERILIZE, ELECTROSHOCK, AND RESTRAIN CHILDREN WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT

Prevent Disease Mon, 05 Mar 2012 

 

Another draft mental health bill, this time in Australia is mirroring global efforts in what is now an international and deliberate surge by government officials to remove parental consent. If passed, the shocking new law will allow children who are considered sufficiently mature, to be subjected to horrifying procedures including sterilization and electroshock.

© Alamy

An important message by the Director of Applied Scholastics in Western Australia based in Perth, Alison Tarrant was sent to the public on behalf of The Athena School. "Some very disturbing information has come across our path in relation to a Draft Mental Health Bill which concerns our precious children and our rights as parents," said Tarrant in a statement in the February 29, 2012 letter.

Tarrant initially thought the information lacked authenticity and was later astonished when she found out the document was legitimate. "When I read it I was quite shocked and thought someone was playing a joke on me but then I went onto the main website which is the Government Department of the Mental Health Commission and looked at the actual Draft Bill," she added.

PreventDisease.com recently reported that vaccinating without parental knowledge will soon become the norm across the world. There is now a confirmed global initiative to remove any consent parents have to safeguard their children's health while simultaneously removing any chance of informed consent by those who are considered of "mature" age regardless of their status as a child or teenager. These proposed bills are poised to become law and their frequency is increasing especially in the U.S, U.K, Canada, Australia.

Some of the more disturbing clauses draft mental health bill include:

• CHILDREN OF ANY AGE TO CONSENT TO STERILISATION: If a psychiatrist decides that a child (under 18 years) has sufficient maturity, he or she will be able to consent to sterilisation. Parental consent will not be needed. Only after the sterilisation procedure has been performed does it have to be reported and then only to the Chief Psychiatrist. [Pages: 135 & 136 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]
• 12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO PSYCHOSURGERY: Banned in N.S.W. and the N.T., psychosurgery irreversibly damages the brain by surgery, burning or inserting electrodes. This draft bill proposes to allow a 12 year old child, if considered to be sufficiently mature by a psychiatrist, to be able to consent to psychosurgery. Once the child has consented it goes before the Mental Health Tribunal (MHT) for approval. Parental consent is also not needed for the MHT to approve the psychosurgery. [Pages: 108, 109, 110, 197,198, 199, 213]
• 12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO ELECTROSHOCK (ECT): Electroshock is hundreds of volts of electricity to the head. Any child aged 12 and over, whom a child and adolescent psychiatrist decides is "mature" enough, will be able to consent to electroshock. Also, once consent is given, there is no requirement for parents or anyone, including the MHT, to approve the electroshock. Electroshock should be banned. Its use on the elderly, pregnant women and children is especially destructive. [Pages: 100, 101, 103, 104, 194, 105]
• RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION OF CHILDREN: Children can be restrained in a psychiatric institution, with the use of mechanical restraint (manacles, belts, straps etc.) and bodily force. Chemical restraint - the use of psychiatric drugs to subdue and control the person - is not covered in the draft bill, so there are no legal safeguards to prevent its application. Death can result from all forms of restraint. [Pages: 122, 121, 113, 246]
• INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN: A psychiatrist can involuntarily detain any child for up to 14 days if "suspected" of mental illness. Parents will not be able to discharge their child during this period and take them home. The psychiatrist can then make a "continuation order" to continue the detainment for up to 3 months and thereafter for each subsequent 3 month period. During detainment, the child could be drugged, restrained, secluded, given electroshock if over 12 and could be put into a ward with adults. Parental consent is not required to continue the detainment or for any treatment, including the child being placed on a legal order to continue to receive drugs at home. The MHT hold hearings on the detainment of a child, but there is no guarantee the child will be able to go home. In 2010/11 there were 1,248 hearings for all ages and only 58 people had their status changed from involuntary to voluntary. [Pages: 21, 22, 35, 19, 107, 36, 53, 54, 183 -185, 190, 191, 213, 214,18, 46, 47, 48, 65, 66, 70, 73, 75-77]
• WHO WILL BE ABLE TO DETAIN A CHILD IS NOT FULLY KNOWN: An "authorised mental health practitioner" can also detain a child or adult in the draft bill. Exactly who an authorised mental health practitioner is, is not defined by the draft bill. The Chief Psychiatrist can literally give anyone or any profession the power to detain someone just because he considers they are qualified and by publishing the decision in the Gazette. This clause must be removed from the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011. Only a judge or magistrate should have the power to order someone be detained, and only with full legal representation for the person facing depravation of liberty [Pages: 246, 247, 21, 22]

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DRAFT BILL?: The Western Australia Mental Health Commission (MHC) were responsible for writing the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011, with Mental Health Commissioner and clinical psychologist, Mr Eddie Bartnik overseeing the process.

Tarrant suggests everybody write a letter saying exactly what you think of this absurd legislation. Write expressing your objections to the Mental Health Commission and to your state legislator.

Please don't let your citizenship stop you from speaking out against these human rights violations. This destructive movement against humanity is global and it's a pressing concern of grand proportions. If we don't speak out now, the health and safety of future generations are in serious jeopardy. 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/242534-Australian-Government-Moves-To-Quickly-Pass-Laws-To-Sterilize-Electroshock-And-Restrain-Children-Without-Parental-Consent

COURT POOR BOX GIVES RICH SOLACE TO NEEDY

By Fergus Shiel Law Reporter July 8 2002

A historic court tradition is raising millions of dollars for Victoria's needy.

The Victorian Magistrates Court Fund, once known as the court poor box, last year raised more than $2 million for welfare organisations and people in distress.

Figures released by the court show that contributions rose to $2,184,066 in 2001, up from $1,978,323 the year before.

The tradition of ordering defendants to make contributions to the court poor box originated in England. Magistrates decided to temper justice with mercy by ordering defendants to pay into the box and avoid a conviction.

In 1973, the court fund raised $121,095. Ten years later, contributions had grown to $1,393,353.
Until recently, court fund money was directly distributed by court staff to those requiring emergency assistance.

Typically, it was given to deserted wives and children during the initial stages of maintenance proceedings. Or it might be given to those who had no money for a tram or taxi to get home after a court appearance. 

In a small number of cases, it was given to people who sought direct assistance from the Magistrates Court.

In recent years, the fund has been used to directly assist hard-pressed welfare organisations, including the Salvation Army and the Smith Family.

Last year, $1,827,725 was distributed to agencies from the court fund and $186,536 was paid to applicants by court registrars. Payments to welfare agencies must not go towards administrative costs. 

All payments out of the fund are authorised by a magistrate and subject to audit by the State Government.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/07/1025667088664.html

REPORT FROM THE STATUTE LAW REFORM COMMITTEE UPON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1958 (SECTION 655) TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND APPENDICES

REPORT FROM THE STATUTE LAW REFORM COMMITTEE UPON THE PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) BILL 1978 TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX

ALL WORDS HAVE 900 DEFINITIONS? DAVID WYNN-MILLER IN THE NEW SOUTH WALES COURT

January 29, 2010 · Filed by Mark Liberman under Psychology of language

Reader RC sent in an item from the Australian Law Journal that brings together several LL topics: the relations of language to  legal interpretation, computation, and nonstandard brain states.
Here is the seal whose inter-word dots are discussed in the quoted transcript:


Wikipedia explains what a "McKenzie Friend" is (and gives some background on DM). Beyond that, you're on your own.

---

[From ALJ 2010]: An obscure directions hearing
Most cases in the trial divisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court are the subject of directions hearings a couple of months before the date fixed for trial to ensure that pleadings and affidavit evidence are properly finalised and the matter is actually ready for hearing.
Usually these proceed with workmanlike efficiency. However, particularly where there is a litigant in person, odd things occur. The following is the edited transcript of a directions hearing last November before McClellan CJ at CL:

Applicant F in person

Mr B Hodgkinson SC for the Respondent

–

HIS HONOUR: Mr F?

M: Appearances from plenipotentiary judge, DM.

HIS HONOUR: I am sorry?

M: I am a plenipotentiary judge. My name is DM. I am from America

HIS HONOUR: That may be, but what is your right to appear here?

M: Excuse me?

HIS HONOUR: What is your right to appear here?

M: Under knowledge of a fraud and the right to stop and correct it. In other words, I have a –

HIS HONOUR: Unless you are a legal practitioner in this State you can't appear in this court.

M: I have been already certified here in the New South Wales courts on four different occasions.

HIS HONOUR: Do you currently hold a practising certificate in New South Wales?

M: No. I just got in from America a couple of days ago. I am making an appearance –

HIS HONOUR: Then, Mr F, you will have to appear. Mr F, you will have to appear for yourself.

HIS HONOUR: You will have to appear for yourself. Do you understand? The gentleman with you does not have a right of audience in a New South Wales court. Do you understand?

APPLICANT: I do also understand that my friend is a judge who can appear in any court anywhere in the world.

HIS HONOUR: Not in New South Wales, I am sorry.

APPLICANT: But New South Wales is also in the same planet.

HIS HONOUR: That's true, but we have a statute in New South Wales which controls legal practitioners who can appear in the Supreme Court and they have to be admitted to appear. Do you understand?

… [Later]

APPLICANT: You see, it is my understanding that Judge DM has been appearing in a number of hearings in this country and even yesterday and technically speaking there is nothing to stop him because he is a judge of the world court and he can step in any court and rule. That's my understanding. So I would appreciate if you can kindly consider what you said previously and allow judge DM talk on my behalf and he has very important things to say as I understand.

HIS HONOUR: He cannot appear without a practising certificate as a lawyer.

HIS HONOUR (to DM): I need evidence that you have a practising certificate in New South Wales. However, you are entitled, if the court grants you leave, to have a friend –

M: McKenzie Friend, yes. I have been a McKenzie Friend, both here and in New Zealand.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that might be right, but you can't come here and act as a lawyer. Do you understand?

M: No, I never have. I have always been a McKenzie Friend here and in New Zealand. I didn't say I was a lawyer. I said I was here to assist him.

HIS HONOUR: You gave me the understanding that you thought you had a right of appearance, or at least –

M: A right as a McKenzie Friend because I have pertinent information that's relevant to this court.

HIS HONOUR: Just a minute. Mr Hodgkinson, what do you say?

HODGKINSON: Your Honour, frankly, I am in the dark. I don't know what the relevant information is. I haven't heard of this gentleman before. I am not sure that I could make any sensible submission. I think the best thing, if there is an application to be made, is to allow Mr M to appear as a McKenzie Friend, then the basis for the application without amplification ought be made to the court. That would at least allow us to compute the reasoning and take an informed view.

HIS HONOUR: What I will do, Mr Hodgkinson, is I will allow Mr M to speak this morning, but confine the leave I grant to this morning. Do you understand?

M: Yes.

M: The paperwork in this case goes back twelve years, as you well know, and I saw the file brought in, it's about four inches thick. The syntax, and I am the judge in 1988 who wrote the mathematical interface on all 5,000 languages proving that language is a linear equation in algebra certifying that all words have 900 definitions through this mathematical algebraic formula and over the course of the past 21 years have developed an accuracy level in the syntaxing of language sentence structure to prove the correct sentence structure communication syntax language is required in a court system.

Now, the seal behind you which advertises the Crown's seal and jurisdiction of this court uses the correct syntax. That is why you have the dots. Now, the dots between the words are prepositional phrases. There's only two places where dots as allowed as a syntax prepositional phrase to certify the value of each word and that is on money, coinage and on seals. When you created, when your Government created the seal they used the correct sentence structure, they used the correct syntax and they are advertising that you have the correct syntax and knowledge of it.

I have looked at the paperwork for the past twelve years and both the doctor and the State in one hundred percent of every single sentence you have got in that folder is modified with adverbs and adjectives and there is not one legal sentence or a prepositional phrase to certify the value of any word so, therefore, the facts of the case have been have been muddled since this case started twelve years ago. The necessity of having the accuracy of a fact in a court, if you are not in a fact you have not committed perjury. And Bernie Madhoff, who you would know has just walked away from Wall Street with $69 billion, was prosecuted under the fictitious conveyance of language of title 18.1001.

Now, this law, title 18.1001, is required on all 250 countries' passports. In other words, fraudulent conveyance. The title 15 chapter 2(b) section 78FF carries a $25 million fine to modify language to extort money from a private citizen from a corporation. This gentleman represents corporation and every single document he has filed has been modified with adverbs and adjectives. So if you are going to modify a fact and change it to something that is not what the true definition of that word is you have got a babble of information in front of you. Now, I know that when we communicate, you and I – you've got a mess.

[Further discussion ensued and the directions hearing was adjourned for some weeks to allow the applicant to apply to amend his Statement of Claim.]

M: Your Honour, can I leave my book with you?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, you may.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2084