Cause not matched to "cure"

(Now former) Premier of NSW Barry O'Farrell resigned over minor inconsistencies in his recollections (or not) of receiving a bottle of wine as a gift.   Several years beforehand.  In what was the first few days after he was voted into office and busy forming government.

Way out of perspective?  You betcha!

The authority which fearlessly nabbed him, the NSW anti-corruption commission, ICAC, was not formed to root out the odd undeclared gift of a bottle of plonk.

However an entire week of Commission hearings was devoted to nothing but the very peripheral and very throwaway issue of one bottle of wine.  (Wonder what the real story was, politics is a dirty game - he was brought down by a bottle of wine?  Yeah right!)

However...... nobody should be sorry this fool is out of power.  He deserves every bit of public humiliation he gets;

For early in his premiership he did this, which some may remember:

In response to a pedestrian being beaten to death in an unprovoked attack on the street at 10pm, O'Farrell brought in tough laws to prevent any future attacks.

He legislated pubs to cease admitting patrons at 1.30am, and cease serving liquor at 3am.
All bottle shops in the entire state must cease sales at 10pm.

There are further rules on glass in pubs after 11pm, spirits (including single malt scotch) can be served after midnight only if it is mixed with Coca-Cola or other sugary fizz.

In O'Farrell's mind this is going to prevent a street mugging at 10pm?
Neither victim, nor killer, had been inside a pub that night.

Thus Mine Host is justifiably of the opinion that Barry O'Farrell is a buffoon.
Mine Host's opinion is correct.

The Boss is Wrong!

"Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up today is a bum."
 BOB HAWKE, after the historic victory of the yacht Australia II in the 1983 America's Cup.

Such a statement would be unthinkable today.
When Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke said this, in memorable circumstances, just plain old not coming to work was grounds for dismissal.

Times have changed markedly.  A boss who sacks anyone for not turning up would today be entering a dual world of legal pain and financial penalty.

Think I'm joking?  Just try it and see!

Someone once did not turn up for work at the Wayside Tavern.
Three weeks later Mine Host informed them they were not welcome back.  That only came about as the person actually turned up for work (after three weeks would you believe) as if nothing had happened.

Mine Host then entered a world of financial and legal pain, one in which due process was absent, and his "guilt" was taken for granted by the (cough) impartial system and (cough) unbiased commissioners.

Hearing the above phrase of the (then) Prime Minister quoted, as it is from time to time, is a "trigger phrase" for Mine Host.   Though it is unlikely there will ever be retribution or atonement for the wrongs perpetrated in the name of "unfair dismissal" legislation, in his more maudlin (or perhaps more realistic) moments, Mine Host dreams of someone carrying out the brutal thrashing of an ALP politician.

In the circumstances, such an event would be most deserved.

Substandard

At 4.18 pm Australian Eastern Standard Time, on Thursday 4-4-2013 Mine Host telephones to an office in NSW.

The call is answered by a recorded message:  "Thank you for phoning X-corp, our office hours are 9am to 5pm, Australian Eastern Standard Time, please call back during these hours."

Mine Host checks the time, then tries again.  Same result, time after time.

The following morning, the number is phoned again.  Mine Host is put through to a director of the company (a significant sized operation, they employ more than 200 people, mostly in office work).

Mine Host mentions the surreal event of phoning between 9-5 eastern standard time, and being continuously met with a recording stating the the office closed at 5pm.

Specifically it is pointed out to the director of X-corp that Mine Host was phoning at 4.18pm Queensland time, (the state of Queensland uses Australian Eastern Standard Time - New South Wales vacillates between standard time and daylight saving time).

The X-corp director acts as if Mine Host has hydrophobia or something, patiently explaining that Queensland does not having daylight saving, whereas NSW does, and this is why 4.18pm in Qld is 5.18pm in NSW, thus 4.18pm in Qld is ..... (etc.etc.etc..... y'all've got the picture by now)

Mine Host rather succinctly points out that he is well aware that NSW occassionally switches from Standard Time to "Brokeback Mountain Time", however the matter at hand is that X-corp is answering the phone with a recording that is somewhat embarrassing to X-corp.

.... Yep, these self-centred dickheads believe that whatever time NSW decides to set the clocks to, is Eastern Standard Time.

Such delusion is not an uncommon one in NSW.

Safer Workplace

A government inspector, from the "Office of Occupational Health & Safety" made a visit to the Wayside Tavern.

He was there to inspect an area in the back of house that had "been reported" as having an "unsafe" method of climbing into a loft.

The inspector assessed the ladder used to get to the loft and as it was simply a common step-ladder, declared it "unsafe".

The inspector issued a requisition that a new ladder be installed, this one to have "bannister rails" (would you believe?), and that the employer was to write up a formal "ladder climbing procedure" (to be signed by any/all staff before they climed this ladder).

Included in the procedure was to be the requirement that any person climbing this ladder must at all times maintain 4 (four) points of contact with the ladder.

.... Anyone wondering why the new state government is going to fire 20,000 public servants, will have part of the answer by reading the above.

Don't break the law, Just make your own instead!

Mine Host is caught up in litigation with his landlord, a merchant bank.
"McBank" is the uncrackable code name that shall be used for this bank.

The case swings on a (very thick) contract. The contract is so thick it is stapled & bound in what looks for all the world like heavy duty sticking plaster.

Specifically the case swings on a few clauses (as it always does).
The pages upon which these clauses are printed are not endorsed with the Mine Host's signature or initials.

This is because a sheaf of about 20 pages has been added to the contract, after it was signed.

All pages show the wear & tear of having been unbound, unstapled then restapled & rebound. Except of course the inserted pages, which not only are pristine, they are a slightly different colour.

Every original page in the contract is endorsed with Mine Host's signature or initials. The newly inserted pages are not.

It is clauses found amongst these newly inserted pages that will hang Mine Host.

And hang him they do. McBank produces a fax they purportedly sent announcing that they will be inserting after the fact new clauses into the contract.

The existence of the "fax" and the altered contract were unknown to Mine Host until they were provided as part of Discovery. Until that moment, he had been unaware of their existence.

Mine Host's lawyer ruefully advised that the "fax" meant that the (effectively entirely new) contract was valid, and there was no choice but to roll over.

If Mine Host is ever in the big city with a skinful of rum, God Help any person in his proximity who declares they are an executive of McBank.

M'lud, I was under stress, I was scared I'd be caught.

If I'm tried for murder, I want it to be in front of this judge.

Police turn up to arrest you, you produce a firearm, discharge it several times, stopping only when police officers shoot you down. You have managed to shoot only one police officer.

In court your defence is: "I was scared of being arrested, I only wanted to warn the arresting officers so I could run away, naturally I pulled a gun out & opened up, but I didn't mean to hit any of them, honest!"

Your defence for carrying an illegal concealable firearm is: "I carry a concealable firearm, because I'm afraid of being picked on because of my religion, honest!"

How much indulgence would you expect from a court? Really?

The glaring question: Why did the prosecution agree to a judge only trial? I'm not saying this was a fix, but... er... why not a jury trial?

The facts as I see 'em: Cops came to arrest him, he resisted arrest by starting a gunfight. He shot a policeman, the gunfight ended only when police shot him.

I smell a cock & bull story (who doesn't?) by Mr. Mahmood Yusef (or whatever his name is).
Quite obviously I am too stupid to understand the matter, and were I "in possession of all the facts", like a real smart & sensible judge would be, I would see the matter in a more accurate perspective.

Horrific Workplace Injury (Part 2)

Cecil Steptoe made a common-law claim for workplace injuries.
This claim was lodged several weeks after he finished work.
No report of injury was ever made to his employer.
He did not seek initial medical attention for the injuries until Three weeks after he had ended his employment.
The claim was for $410,000 (Four Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars).

His claim stated that he entered a guest room at the hotel, to replace a faulty castor wheel on the ensemble bed.
Using his knee to raise the ensemble bed a few inches, he unscrewed the faulty wheel by hand and screwed in the new one.
(This story is false. Cecil Steptoe didn't do any work even when specifically instructed to. He would never have done any work, no matter how minor, on his own initiative. Had he entered the room with his boss, he would have remained idle and watched sourly as the boss did the work.)

Some days after replacing the faulty castor wheel (according to his claim) he experienced pain & discomfort just above his knee, in the leg he had used to lift the ensemble bed.

The Medical Evidence stated that:
The injury was a non-specific soft tissue injury.
The injury was unable to be detected by any known diagnostic method/implement/device, not by sight, ultrasound, pressing to see if he yelled, x-ray, or any other method.
The injury did not manifest itself every day.
(This last was added when Mine Host, as part of discovery, put in his observation that Cecil Steptoe did not always limp, at least not on the same leg, and furthermore it hadn't prevented him on several occassions from playing cricket most vigorously on the beach with a group of schoolteachers)

Discovery, as part of the legal process, is nothing more than an innocent target being forced to tip off a vexatious or lying complainant about holes in their fake complaint, thus allowing said complaint to be adjusted accordingly.

Workcover (the insurers) and their legal firm, both contacted Mine Host. After rapidly dispensing with their rantings, ravings & threats over the employer having not submitted any paperwork, or even filled out an injury report (the employee having never reported the injury didn't seem to readily register with them) they then got down to brass tacks:-

There would be a "conference" between Workcover & solicitors on one hand, and on the other the Claimant & some slimeball personal injury lawyer. A lady from Workcover telephoned Mine Host & informed him that it is "nice" if the employer can come to the conference, and "input from the employer" is appreciated in such conferences.

Mine Host raised the spectre of the cost (in time & money) that would be incurred were he to travel to Brisbane for this conference. The Workcover lady was unable to process the concept that not eveybody lives in, or within easy reach of, the capital city.
She became even more unsettled when Mine Host gave some idea of what his input would be:

Mine Host provided a quick opinion on the probity, ethics, & usefulness to society of the slimeball law firm representing the Claimant (it was obvious that Mine Host, were he to be present, would "unload" this character opinion at the conference) also gave an (accurate) character reference on the Complainant, followed by a rather acidic observation on Workcover themselves, who were not even challenging the (cough) medical evidence listed above.

This all made the Workcover lady most uncomfortable, especially when Mine Host stated that Cecil Steptoe "wouldn't be forgetting which leg to limp on" - that was, not if he rode up to the conference in the same lift as Mine Host.

When the conference occured it was without Mine Host being present - the invitation probably got lost in the mail or something.
The claim was settled for circa $150,000 - Mine host's worker's compensation insurance consequently went up by $20,000 per year (due to Mine Host's newfound bad workplace injury record)

Workcover did not provide any information to Mine Host about his options for appeal, or to force a review of the matter. That these avenues had even existed was only discovered some years later. This omission was deliberate.

The legislation which allowed this type of claim to happen was brought in by former Premier Peter Beattie. Mine Host struggles with the idea that someone deliberately created legislation that does little but provide a fat living to lowlife personal injury lawyers, at the expense of the taxpayers of Queensland. The Queensland Worker's Compensation scheme is now broke. All the money has gone in uncontested payouts in cases such as this one. Most of the money goes to personal injury lawyers, who could not get such cases off the ground without a medical professional who is prepared to perjure themself.
The supine staff at the worker's compensation scheme are just as complicit in this, and more so those who call the shots at Qcomp.

It is enough to cause people who actually work for a living to vomit.

This claim is far from the largest that has been claimed from Mine Host. None of the cases involve someone who was actually, you know, injured at work.

It has started Again

Industrial Relations Laws took a retro step a year or so ago. The "Fair Work Act" was voted into being.

Mine Host is now experiencing his first "Unfair Dismissal" claim of the Orwellian-named Fair Work Act.

We'll see how things pan out. Both of Mine Host's experiences of being a victim under the previous Unfair Dismissal legislation were bitterly unfair experiences.

Mine Host at this moment appreciates how the mafia came into being. They filled an essential need.

Culturally Insensitive Teacher

A teacher is in front of her class of teenagers. Mid-lesson a teenage boy (from another class) strides purposefully into the room, without so much as a bye-your-leave, marches to the desk of a girl pupil (his younger sister) and sets about bashing her.

The beating is fast, savage & expert. By the time teachers have intervened, blood is drawn, lips are smashed, her dress is torn, bruising and black eyes follow.

How was this handled by the teachers?

The Police are not called. Instead the Teacher whose class was interrupted gives the boy detention, or lines to write out (or something equally mild) as punishment for interrupting class & failing to "show respect" for his sister.

A day or two later the teacher is again in front of her class. Mid-lesson a woman (mother of the abovementioned brother & sister) strides purposefully up to the Teacher, without so much as a bye-your-leave, and with brutal swiftness sets about bashing the Teacher.
The first blow knocks the Teacher back over the teacher's table. The table is tipped over, the Teacher lands with a thud on the floor. Class props & student projects are sent flying as the woman's intensely physical attack on the Teacher continues.

This time the Police are summoned. The woman is taken away by the Police, all the while loudly proclaiming that nobody "interferes" by telling her son how to handle his sister AND gets away with it.

The Education Department tut-tutted aplenty and pressured the Teacher into not pressing charges against the woman. The police "investigated" & found no charge to stick the woman with.

The Teachers Union didn't wait for the Teacher to contact them. Instead the union's senior official in the nearest city immediately made a public statement that they would be helping the Teacher with counselling on the matter of cultural insensitivity, and that Teachers in general should be more culturally aware of the norms of the towns in which they teach.

During a newspaper interview (on another matter) the reporter seeks Mine Host's opinion on, amongst other events, the recent high school "incident". Mine Host, having just read in the press the comment by the Union, gives a quick opinion on the topics of:
Protection of Members (union abrogation of),
Common Assault,
Public Disorder Offences,
Safety in the Workplace (as viewed by the Trade Unions)
Classroom Discipline,
Liability of Employers who fail to take measures to prevent staff being assaulted at work.
And a quick character opinion & suggested alternative career of the union official who made the reprehensible statement implying that the Teacher brought it upon herself.

The reporter blurted: "That union officer is my daughter!"
Then calmed down Three seconds later & said "By golly, you're dead right though, I've never thought about it like that before!"

This, in a Queensland state high school, in a Queensland town, in 2010.

On the House! (by law)

A customer knocks off $90 from the Wayside Tavern when the staff are not looking, swifly exiting the premises.

The theft is captured in high resolution digital video format by the camera surveillance system.

The customer denies the offence.

The customer/offender is then advised to pay the $90 to avoid police involvement.

A month passes, no payment is made. Police are called.

The offender then writes a letter (written by a solicitor) admitting nothing, offering to pay $90 as a "goodwill gesture" on the condition Mine Host withdraws the complaint to Police.

$90 is the only currency acceptable to Mine Host. The letter is ignored.

In court the offender pleads guilty, but says he has no memory of the incident as he was "too drunk to know what was happening"

(This contrasts with the video evidence, where he is shown consuming Two glasses of beer in Two hours, reading the newspaper, then furtively glancing left/right before committing the offence.)

The Magistrate imposes a fine of $400.

The court handled the debt to society, but ignored the debt to the Wayside Tavern.

Until the $90 is paid, the offender will be refused admission, for eternity if need be.

The average citizen will try to tell you that Magistrates have brains, perhaps even common sense.
A claim not supported by decisions such as the one above.

A bit hot under the collar (postscript to the previous post)

Outside the courtroom, but in the courthouse, the "Financial Controller" of Scam Group Pty Ltd engaged Mine Host in a spot of conversation. He seemed to be of the (erronous) belief that Mine Host was knocked into line by the decision of the Magistrate & was now "seeing sense".

It became clear within about half a second that Mine Host did not believe there had been either a "full" or "fair" hearing in the court. (There often isn't if a Magistrate is involved)

The opening statement of the besuited smart-alec didn't help. "You realise we'll close your account now, standard procedure with anyone who has to be taken to court to own up to their obligations to us"

Mine Host pointed out succinctly that the disputed goods had just turned up unsolicited, that an account (or lack of) had not bothered "you fellers" much at the time the disputed goods were dispatched, that they need not think that court was their idea, as Mine Host would have gladly brought a case against them (in his own town).

This last sentence was quite a shock, & must have been delivered by Mine Host with the "ring of truth" to it, as the besuited spreadsheet jockey was clearly (until that moment) of the belief that Mine Host had been dragged unwillingly into court by Scam Group Pty Ltd.

Mine Host went on to question why he would ever want an account with people who operate in a manner as underhanded as the Scam Group Pty Ltd.

The "Financial Controller" (whatever that is) was quite enraged at this remark, and was well on the way to shaping up to Mine Host. He angrily retorted to Mine Host his displeasure that Mine Host would have even the remotest grounds for questioning either the integrity of Scam Group Pty Ltd, or the decision of the court.

The (extremely fat & toad eyed) telephonist woman tugged at the arm of her boss, quietly urging him to lay off a bit...

.....for she was the one who had made the calls & handled the matter, and she knew very well that no matter what the official position of Scam Group Pty Ltd, that Mine Host was 100% correct in everything he said, and that it would be wise to quit while they were ahead.

It may also have been obvious from Mine Host's eager expression that Mine Host was not averse to the idea of the besuited one taking a swing at him within the walls of the courthouse.

With six NSW police, two security guards, countless lawyers, & miscellaneous others watching, Mine Host would take one helluva hiding, you'd be able to tell that by the way he fell, & how, down on the courthouse carpet, he convulsed with pain.

Impartial Law Applied

Decisions by Magistrates in Australia cannot set legal precedents. Mine Host believes this to be an acknowledgement by the authorities of how ...er.. erratic Magistrates can be.

Online, in discussion groups etc, Mine Host is fed lots of rot about how Magistrates are "impartial" & "bound by law" (& other stuff just as far removed from what actually goes on in a Magistrates courtroom)

When recently in NSW, besides observing preceding cases, Mine Host had the interesting experience of the case in which he was involved.

Mine Host's version of events: Goods (envelopes, pens, etc) arrived unannounced by the boxload at the Wayside Tavern.
Attached to the boxes was a bill for several thousand dollars.

The envelopes & pens were imprinted with an email address, street address, phone number & the name of the Wayside Tavern, Mine Host noted the following weirdness:
The email address was incorrect (info@waysidetavern.com.au). Real email address: waysidetavern@bigpond.com
The street address was the wrong street and the wrong street number.
The name printed: Wayside Tavern & Bistro, (real name: "Wayside Tavern")

Mine Host telephoned the number on the bill, explained that the goods had been delivered in error, & should he send them back? The dispatching company stated coldly that Mine Host had ordered the goods, many months prior to their delivery, and must pay for them.

The dispatching company (clearly experienced in this scam) sent via fax a copy of an order form, with the blanks obviously filled out at their end by automation (not by handwriting), however the name and signature of the "authorised officer to purchase" at the bottom, were most definitely not those of Mine Host.

It was that of a receptionist from some months previously. The name was correct, but the signature did not match the signature on file for that ex-staff member.

Bumping into the ex-staff in the street, Mine Host asked if she could throw any light on the matter? She recalled being telephoned by the company, asked her name, and informed that a fax would be following, as "a previous manager" of the Wayside Tavern had ordered some goods, and that she must "sign off" on the order.

A telephone call accompanied the fax, instructing her to sign the fax and send it back. The fax was an order form already filled out, with her name typed on the bottom.

She ignored the fax, but after repeated phone calls advising her to sign & return the fax, she faxed it back, unsigned. When the company phoned to advise her that she had overlooked signing the fax, she stated that she would not be signing it. She assumed the matter had ended there.

She was most surprised to learn that some months later the goods had arrived, along with a bill, and the order form, purportedly duly signed by her.

When showed the order form she stated the signature was not hers. She subsequently produced an affidavit swearing the signature on the order form was not hers, and attached copies of several documents that did carry her signature, these being driver's licence, passport and the like. The signature on the driver's licence etc was not the same signature as the one on the order form.

An affidavit is sworn on a bible, in front of an impeccable witness, thus carries a lot of weight in a courtroom. The witness was a JP, and the lady swearing the affidavit was also a JP.

This brings us to why Mine Host is way down south in a NSW courtroom, defending a case brought against him for non-payment for "goods ordered".

The company that had sent the goods produced a lot of documents for the court, transcripts of telephone conversations with Mine Host, these transcripts clearly generated from some sort of software which is filled out while the telephone call is in process.

Also transcripts of a telephone call with the receptionist, made months after the order, in which she supposedly admits signing the order form. The format of this transcript is inconsistent with their other transcripts, this one being typed in the manner of the script of a school play, rather than generated by the call centre software... hmmmm....
Also submitted was the signed order form, and typewritten accounts of the saga. Mine Host noted that no officer of Scam company had put their personal signature at the bottom of their written accounts.

Presuming that his sworn affidavit would carry some weight, Mine Host was shocked by what happened next......

The Magistrate asked Mine Host how he had come by the affidavit from the receptionist.
When informed she had agreed to provide it after a chance conversation in the street, the Magistrate grunted "I find that hard to believe".
The Magistrate then went on to note that the signature on the affidavit did not match the signature on the order form provided by the company (er... the very point of the affidavit).

The Magistrate then asked the representative of the company was their written account true? The company piouly replied that what they had written was 100% truth.

The Magistrate then hammered a gavel onto his desk and stated "I find for the plaintiff" (that is, he found in favour of the scam company)

In the next few seconds Mine Host said several things which undoubtedly brought him very close to arrest for contempt of court or somesuch.

The topics covered in his "post-decision impromptu statement" were bigoted remarks about New South Wales in general, an observation that the town we were in was solidly anglo-saxon, and the affidavit may have carried some weight, except it was sworn by a JP who was a black woman, in front of a JP who was chinese.

Mine Host then leaned over the desk to the company representatives, congratulated them on getting a hometown decision, then spat out that the next time they phoned a black girl to sign a document & forged her signature it would not be settled in a "mexican court".

The junior of the two company people, a female telephonist who had placed the calls to the Wayside Tavern, spoke "but we didn't realise she was black".

For those who have spent their life under a cabbage leaf, or have no legal experience, the above statement translates as: "Your version was valid and correct, every word we spoke in court was perjury."

Psst! Is that Bin Laden over there? (Part 1)

Recent "Money Laundering" legislation has been a source of amusement and stress (in equal measures) for Mine Host.

Anti-terrorism money tracking measures have brought changes to the pub trade.

If you win more than $10,000 gambling in a pub, the pub must immediately report you to "Aus-Trac" (the name would indicate a machinery dealership, however it is some sort of federal govt anti-money laundering outfit)

If the pub does not immediately report you, the consequences are serious (for the pub, the feds have lots of power).

Aus-Trac is immediately notifed of a win of $>10,000 by the relevant statutory authority. This is either the TAB if you won on the horses, or the Electronic Gaming Monitor if you won on the poker machines.

Once Aus-Trac is thus notified, the pub has a short time span (a couple of days) to lodge an accompanying paper form,
1. Confirming the win,
2. Listing the personal details of the winner, and
3. The signature and printed name of the individual who verified the ID of the winner, and
4. A copy of the ID that the winner presented.

No verifiable ID, no payment. That is the federal law. (The opposite of state law, which says winners must be paid within 24 hours, with no ID required. Federal law trumps state law, I hope)

The punters were unhappy at having to provide verifiable ID, being scared their wives would discover they won more than $10,000 in the pub. Nor do they want the Tax Office to know (gambling winnings are not taxable, but most punters prefer to err on the side of caution)

Pointing out to them that the law now says this form must be filled out, with their ID, blah blah blah, goes straight over their head. However, Mine Hosts directive: "no ID, no payment" was a concept they quickly grasped.

Mine Host is of the belief that if Bin Laden (or other nefarious types) wish to launder some money in Australia, they are unlikely to (A) turn up beyond the Black Stump to do it, and (B) put it on a horse. Betting on the gee-gees being a ...er... most unreliable financial strategy, never mind as a method of washing cash.

Witness for the Prosecution

If one is a party to a civil case in Qld, you just turn up on the day & lurk anywhere in the environs of the courthouse, you will be called when the case is to be heard.

One of the quirks of the NSW court system is that all parties in any cases set down for that day, MUST wait inside the courtroom, all day, until called.

This is a royal pain.

One has nothing to do but witness proceedings in any cases heard before yours.

In this case, Mine Host had a grandstand view of the tail end of a criminal matter.

From what Mine Host could piece together (coming into the case part way through) The owner of a kebab shop was answering a charge of receiving stolen goods. Specifically, an (expensive) commerical espresso machine.

The police prosecutor took us through where the machine was found (in storage at the shop) & listed lots of other stuff which had been found at the home of the accused (hot DVD's & various other similar stuff, all inside cupboards & cabinets near the TV).

It didn't look good for the accused, it was the instinct of Mine Host that the kebab shop owner, a young fellow from Turkey, was guilty.

Thus far Mine Host & the police (and the magistrate, as could plainly be seen) were on the same page. All believed the Turk was guilty.

However this differed dramatically when the accused appeared as a witness and the police prosecutor began to examine him.

The Turk was operating a kebab shop in a shopping centre.
The Turk lived somewhere away from the shopping centre.
The Turk was the single parent of a 12-14yo lad.

The stolen goods were (a) a $10,000 or so espresso machine (requiring significant repair) useful in the shop, but not able to be used, and (b) a pile of consumer electronic leisure software (DVD's) the titles indicating they were unsuitable for young children. (note: not XXX stuff, just stuff unsuitable for children)

There was no indication that the espresso machine was stolen, except the police said it "must have been". There was no complainant, nobody identifying the machine as their stolen property, no match with a serial number of a stolen machine etc etc etc. Incredibly, the Police Prosecutor went on to list many other items of equipment found in the storage locker with the espresso machine, all of which "must" be stolen, but that no charges would be brought for these other items (hammers, saws, various small tools).

This standard of...er.. evidence.. must be allowed in NSW courts.

The DVD's were branded with the name of a local video rental shop, which had reported a break-in several months previosly, and the loss of an unspecified number of DVD's.

Under cross examination, the Turk's story was:
1/. The coffee machine was offered to him cheap by an unidentified stranger who came into his shop.
(Implausible, Mine Host does NOT believe, Magistrate & Police Prosecutor actually swallowed this part of the story whole)

2/. The coffee machine was deposited at the shopping centre loading dock by unknown persons and a shopping centre janitor alerted the Turk that a delivery had been made for him.
(Highly likely, stolen or not, Mine Host believes this part, Magistrate & Police Prosecutor clearly did NOT believe this. They seemed amazed that anybody would be asked to believe that ANYTHING is left anywhere, even at a business loading dock, to be collected later by the person whose name is attached to the parcel)
(- Until confronted with events like this, one forgets how clueless about real life experiences of the population are the police & magistrates. )

3/. He had not seen much of his house, or son, as he was working a zillion hours per week in the shop, and slept on the sofa in the first room. And for weeks on end not entering any part of the house except the sofa and the shower (outside).
(Having done the same himself, Mine Host believes this, it is consistent with about 120% of small food businesses operators, especially in the early stages.) (Cluelessly the Magistrate and Police Prosecutor clearly thought this was made up, that nobody would work so hard, or fall asleep for weeks on end just inside the door of their house)

4/. He knew that lots of DVD's were in his house, had no idea that any of them were "hot", or that any of them were inappropriate for children the age of his son.
(Mine Host, can imagine what he would have got up to at that age, if dad was at work 25 hours each day.)
The Magistrate was having none of this, declaring that all parents keep a watchful eye on the type of DVD's their kids are viewing, and found the Turk guilty.

Just like that.

Almost weak kneed at the total and complete cluelessness of the magistrate, Mine Host was about to say something, but was silenced by a glare from the bench.

For Mine Host had spoken out earlier in the cross-examination, when the Police Prosecutor and Magistrate had both latched cunningly onto what was (in their mind) a fatal flaw in the Turk's story: that no paperwork (invoice etc) had been given at the supposed time of sale of the espresso machine.

Compounding their (seemingly non-stop) public display of cluelessness, both Mag & PP patently disbelieved the accused when he stated that he did all his deals "in cash, without paperwork".
(Gee, how do these dickheads think half the NESB fast-food economy operates?)

So deep ingrained in Mag & PP was cowardice in the face of the citadel of bureaucracy, that they were unable to conceptualise middle class citizens having the drive and enterprise to ignore government bulldust.

Indeed, for the Turk, streamlining his business by ignoring as much paperwork as possible was likely the only reason his head had been above water.

Mine Host's outburst? He had stood up and wearily stated to the court, mainly at the Police Prosecutor "Crikey, don't you fellers have any idea what you are talking about?" At the time the questioning had been deep into the intricacies of machinery depreciation and the applicability of GST. The PP hadn't the fainest clue what he was talking about, and had taken to turning to the public gallery with a confused & desperate face, hoping someone would come to his rescue.

As had indeed happened, the party who had brought Mine Host to court, the financial controller in a big corporation, scurried forward to confer with the police prosecutor and help the prosecution rescue their case.

There was no evidence presented in court that the espresso machine was stolen, and a strong liklihood that the son or some inappropriate companions of his were responsible for the DVD's, the prosecution should NOT have had a case.

Mine Host bristled with sympathy for a fellow traveller (ie, small business operator being squashed by the system - in this case being found guilty of being being someone whose makeup sufficiently confused a Magistrate, such that the Magistrate was completely unable to identify with the Turk.)

$1 a pop, extra for snarkiness!

As an upright member of society, Mine Host takes quiet umbrage at slants on his honesty and responsibility.

An example: the "roadside breath test".
An offence without a victim.
An offence with an arbitrary demarcation between virgin innocent and guilty as sin;
that demarcation is a blood alcohol content of .05%
and previously was .08%
and in parts of the developed world is .01%

An offence of which one is guilty of being impaired, but it not being possible to drink oneself into a state where your reflexes would deteriorate to the point that they would match those of elderly & inept drivers who freely tootle past during your arrest.

An offence where one must prove one is innocent, rather than the state having to prove one is guilty.
An offence where declining to prove your innocence automatically results in being guilty, and being publicly besmirched as guilty.

Notwithstanding that, Mine Host complies readily with the procedure.

Mine Host carries silently his umbrage at the indignity of the procedure and the automatic slight on his probity. This is a feeling shared by many/most of the population.

Mine Host is however, in a postion to assauge his umbrage.

Every time he is asked to provide a breath specimen, he will at his place of business, subsequently add a random extra $1 to the bill when a police officer buys a round.

Wickedly, when being breath tested, Mine Host often asks if the testing officer would like to "get a second sample".

No Wheels on Justice, she's up on Blocks.

Having spent Two days travelling more than 3,000km for a court appearance in a civil matter, Mine Host and a key witness, the Manager of the Diver's Arms, were standing outside the courthouse, Three minutes early for the hearing, set down for that day's date at 1:00pm.

The courthouse was locked and in darkness.

Heavy clouds loomed low, lending a gloomy atmosphere. Teeming tropical rain (the umpteenth day of it) washed accross a street deviod of both foot and vehicular traffic. Not a car was in view, either parked or moving.

At precisely 1:00pm a hand, then arm, then torso, appeared inside the courthouse door and unlocked it. Lunch hour was over!

Observing Mine Host & companion standing under the awning, the court staffer came out, puzzled as to why anybody would be standing there.

The explanation that we were there for a hearing which was set down for "right now, actually" brought an even more puzzled look onto her face.

Struggling to process this nugget of information she finally came up with: "Come back tomorrow" & went back inside, then through a door into the mysterious labrynth which occupies the "authorised personnel only" section.

She exhibited a manner that indicated the matter was at an end.

After a pause of disbelief it was now Mine Host's turn to struggle with processing unexpected developments.

Entering the courthouse and rapping on a bash-proof perspex shield produced the same staffer, who did no more than put her ear near to an apeture in the perspex.

Mine Host explained that he and his witness had travelled a long distance to comply with a hearing date which had been set down by the Magistrate, and quite reasonably expected the hearing to proceed, now. Tomorrow was for other places to be and other things to do.

With a resigned look on her face she said no Magistrate was in town today, and that in that case she would hear the case, however she was the only person at work today and the hearing would not be able to proceed until she could find somebody prepared to come in to work and mind the reception window.

Meantime would Mine Host & companion be kind enough to sit and wait?

A local staff, barely in her mid-20's, with a very pronounced regional accent indicating she had probably rarely been more than 20km from the courthouse in her life, and she was going to sit on and rule on, a court case.

Mine Host & companion sat for close to an hour, feeling as if they were in a "the day after" movie, as not a soul went by on the street, either by vehicle or foot, nor did anybody enter the courthouse, nor did any court staff appear (even behind the bash-proof reception window).

Then the same girl appeared, to state that the matter could now be heard.

The girl said that she and another staff would hear it together.

Mine Host stated most emphatically that he didn't mind who ruled on the matter, provided it was someone who had the authority to hear a matter of this nature, as past experience had taught him that only a Magistrate could hear such a matter as this, and if the matter was heard & ruled on by someone without the authority to do so, it would when the judgement was being processed, be annulled and have to be heard again, in which case Mine Host would ".. have something to say"

This brought a most uncertain look to her face, and she said that she would have to telephone a Magistrate for instructions.

A while later Mine Host & witness were invited into the courtroom. It was empty and felt deserted, especially as the lights weren't switched on. Shortly after the girl and another just like her entered from a side door and sat on the bench.

They made a big production out of quoting case numbers and suchforth, as if hearing of a matter of great importance was about to proceed, then promptly stated that the matter would be postponed and nominated a date Five months in the future. Almost before they had finished stating this, they got up and began to exit the courtroom.

Pinching himself to make sure this was not taking place in a dream, or in a parallel universe, Mine Host asked could he be given a Notice of Hearing which indicated the new date.

The two girls conferred together for a moment, consulted some papers they were carrying, then announced accross the room that the Registrar would issue a Notice of Hearing and post it to Mine Host, that is, just as soon as the Registrar returned from holidays.

Somewhere in reading the notes which informed them of the procedure for issuing a Notice of Hearing, the two girls made the discovery that there was another party to the matter. They pondered aloud how to handle this new piece of information.

(Most laymen are aware that in any court hearing there are Two opposing parties, either Claimant vs Respondent, or Crown vs Defendant.) These two girls were court staff.

It transpired that there were Two other parties. The two girls finally decided that the postponement of the matter applied to the other parties also. (Gee, you don't reckon?)

They drew themselves up as tall as they could and gravely informed Mine Host that postponement of the matter as it stood applied to the other parties also. (as if the hearing of a matter didn't affect ALL parties simultaneously?)

The impression gleaned by Mine Host was that in their minds, by telling Mine Host this, it was as if they had informed the other parties.

The look on the face of both Mine Host and witness must by now have been priceless. The girls hesitated, pondered for several moments, conferred together again, then announced that they would telephone to the indicated telephone numbers of the other parties and inform them of the postponement "that way".

This happened in 2008, in Queensland.

Case #1 bench orders criminal to keep proceeds of crime

UK blogger Magistrate Bystander has provided in comments some information on ways in which the UK magistrate industry is superior to our own, thus highlighting the stupidity and weaknesses of our own system.

However the acid test is whether a magistrate produces judgements which punish wrongdoers, reflect community expectations, and protect law abiding citizens.

Would one of Bystanders colleagues have pronounced the following judgement?:

A chequebook was stolen from a parked car.
The thief subsequently used the chequebook, forging a signature to match the name of the real owner of the chequebook.
Each cheque was passed at a small corner shop, or other business operated by a husband & wife team, mostly within a 200km radius. Most of the victim businesses could not afford the $300 or thereabouts which the cheque was written for.

At the inevitable prosecution only the use of 33 of the stolen cheques was mentioned.

One of the Thirty-Three stolen/forged cheques was for $200 and presented to a pub in town. Mine Host has no idea which pub, it could have been the Wayside Tavern, it could have been a competitor, the court did not ever elaborate.

The Magistrate's judegement:

"Guilty, no conviction to be recorded, and no restitution to be paid, as until banks serve alcohol, pubs should not cash cheques"

The Air Sure Gets Rare Up There

A blogger from overseas (UK) The Magistrates Blog, has made some ill informed & slanderous remarks about the pub industry. (Though it was the UK pub industry, Mine Host feels a kinship with his overseas brethren)

Bar staff are well accustomed to barstool experts. Bar staff are equally well accustomed being let down by the obscenity of inadequate decisions by Magistrates, and often wonder how they would fare when confronted by the reality which the rest of us have to live in.

A posting on decisions Mine Host has been impacted by, which should have resulted in dismissal of the Magistrate will follow. Preceded by a brief correction of the ill-researched comments of Mr. Magistrate Bystander.

First, let us look at who are Magistrates:

They are recompensed with a salary many times above the national average, plus they have the benefit of the Magistrate's quarters, a 3 bedroom house set on a quarter acre. (No problem with this)

The ranks of Magistrates are drawn almost exclusively from "time served" clerks in the court office. (This is a mistake). 20 years of stagnation in the most iniative and independant thought free section of the public service produces a stale mentality, one may almost say a warped mentality.

This mentality is then given unimpeachable and unquestionable power to sentence, release, acquit, set bail, allow bail, quash convictions (or refuse to convict in the first place) without ANY requirement to explain, be called into question, or to held culpable for the consequences of their actions.

The type of person (usually male) who works in the clerks of the court office for twenty years is generally an extremely introverted and sedate individual, who is unlikely to have any sort of background in team sports, manual labour, physical violence, or any dealing with criminals/crime (except for filing typed A4 papers which refer to some actual crimes in a dry and detached manner)

The result: Magistrates have much in common with Ottoman Sultans, who after a lifetime locked in the harem then in solitary, were almost gibbering idiots when suddenly elevated to the throne and absolute power, without ever having been into, or having any concept of life beyond the walls of the harem where they were born & raised.

In short, Magistrates have never had the opportunity nor ability to accumulate any wisdom, nor are they able to conceptualise the consequences their decisions have upon the hapless populace.

Yet on pain of summary gaoling for contempt, the citizenry and the police have to unquestioningly comply with decisions pronounced by these.. er.. highnesses.

IR case #2, "Factcheck Challenged"

Exactly a week after starting work, Two staff did not arrive for work at the Divers Arms.

Their room (they were in a common-law marriage) in the staff quarters was vacant, the key left in the open door.

He was a Chef. She a Receptionist.

A yellow post-it note reading "Good Luck" was stuck atop the 10cm high pile of paperwork she had supposedly been processing the night before on (what became) her final shift.

What she had been doing instead was tampering with every accommodation booking for the next several weeks, dates of arrival, contact phone number, length of stay etc. were all altered, many were deleted.

Three days of full time work, referring to the handwritten paper copies, was required just to rectify this damage.

A few weeks later a bill arrives from the taxi company, dated the morning of their departure, for their 6am ride to the airport! Until that moment, Mine Host had been unaware that taxi rides were on anything but a strictly-cash basis.

For this Mine Host reported the pair to the police, for fraud.

Some weeks later a fax is recieved from the Industrial Relations Dept.
The pair were claiming for unfair dismissal (including for wages to be paid in lieu of "no notice of dismissal given by the employer".)

Shocked return fax advised I.R. that all allegations were false.
Several senior staff & professional advisors informed I.R. that the wording of the complaint was defamatory. The police were notified that the taxi fraud suspects had surfaced.

I.R. kept faxing, tersely noting that payment had not yet been made to the claimants, & recommending that Mine Host pay up, to "avoid the matter being handed to a compliance officer for investigation & prosecution".

Several statements were produced by I.R., all supporting the pair of claimants. Every statement was by disgruntled former staff.

In support of Mine Host were statements by:
Several CPA's (Accountancy professionals)
Contract Head Chefs (with several leading overseas hotels on their C.V.)
Four persons of sufficient character to hold a liquor licence, including 2 who were J.P.'s.

I.R. openly took the view that all statements made in support of Mine Host were by people who "would say that wouldn't they?"

I.R. openly took the view that statements supporting the claimants, by persons with outstanding arrest warrants in other states amounted to "damning evidence" against Mine Host.

Mine Host's representations that the Two claimants had "done a runner" may have tweaked a chord with the I.R. investigator. Very early in the investigation the pair were called in & asked had they absconded without notice from their employment with Mine Host.

Gravely they both denied this.

The following morning both had disappeared from their rented accommodation, from their new jobs, their mobile phone numbers had been deactivated. They were suspected of fleeing interstate (to avoid jurisdiction). I.R. was never able to contact or locate them.

But none of this was revealed to Mine Host by the compliance officer. The terse, demanding faxes continued, for months.

Statements by Mine Host that the pair had "done a runner from their job" were scoffed at by the compliance officer.

The rough treatement of Mine Host ceased only when the housekeeping staff at the Divers Arms wrote a joint statement in their own words: "Fritz & Xaviera had been bragging about what a laugh it would be to make a mess of the paperwork, then do a bolt without telling the boss, this hotel was a joke to them, but to the rest of us it is our job & our living, we reckon they done the wrong thing."

I.R. then faxed that prosecution would not be proceeding at this point, due to "insufficient evidence".

IR case #1. Legalised Shakedown

Secretary didn't come to work. Didn't appear all day.
No message, no warning, no nothing.
Phone calls to her house dialled out.

Casual conversation in the staff room revealed that the secretary was on holidays. Long planned holidays, booked & paid months in advance.

Several weeks later the secretary reappeared in the office, at her old desk, & was busy with paperwork.

She had been interstate "on holiday".

In the abscence of a valid reason for several weeks abscence from work, she was advised there was no longer a job for her.

Subsequently Mine Host was hauled before the Industrial Relations Commission. The secretary had made a 14 page complaint (apparently this is quite a long one) alleging "unfair dismissal".

The claim was for in excess of $30,000. Advice from the QHA was that just to fight this particular claim would cost $20,000.

Mine Host was contacted by an officer of the Clerks Union, (representing the former secretary).
The conversation ended with Mine Host & he agreeing to disagree. Mine Host called it "Workplace Abandonment", the Union Officer called it "Unfair Dismissal".
(The Union Official also had a poorly worded go at entrapping Mine Host into a comment that would compromise his position)

A "Mediation Hearing" was ordered by the IRC.

Mine Host was present, along with an Industrial Officer to represent him, likewise the former secretary was there with her Union Officer.
Mine Host's representative whispered to him that the Commissioner presiding over the mediation was a former magistrate, & thus likely to be impartial. (For those who never had to endure the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, impartiality by the Commissioners was most uncommon)

The hearing commenced with the Union Officer presenting the Commissioner with 20 pages of new documentation.
The Commissioner refused to allow Mine Host or his representative to see these new documents.

The union official opened by stating the secretary had been summarily dismissed for taking holidays, "which is a bit rough".

Mine Host's Industrial Representative opened by stating the secretary had walked off the job and gone on holidays without so much as a by-your-leave or any concern about how her job would be performed.

The Commssioner announced he would now speak with each party in "private conference". He then moved into a side room with the secretary & union officer.
Returning 20 minutes later, the Commissioner informed Mine Host: "Things don't look very good for you, I recommend that you settle immediately".
Mine Host refused to agree to an immediate settlement, confident that his 20 minute session with the Commissioner would throw a different complexion on things.

Instead, the Commissar spoke:
"Okay, I'll give you two weeks to come to your senses, all parties will reconvene at date X time X. I recommend you think about settlement"

Stunned, Mine Host put it to his representative that if this was an "impartial" commissioner, what could be expected of one who was anti-employer?

Over the next 2 weeks the representative earned his fee. Several telephone discussions were held with the union officer.
The secretary had not been full & frank with the union about the exact circumstances:
She had told them that she had applied for leave in writing & that leave had been granted.
This representation collapsed very quickly, after which the Union Officer quickly reduced the claim by 90%.

By the time of the reconvened Mediation Hearing, the claim had been reduced to 3 weeks pay + 1 week pay in lieu of "notice not given".
When asked how he felt about this by the Commissar, Mine Host weighed his options, a $20,000 cost to win, or pay a few weeks wages now to get it out of the way?

Mine Host poined out to the Commissar that the only thing he had been asked in this whole kangaroo court was will he pay? NEVER had he been allowed to state his response to the claim.
The Commissar expressed disgruntled surprise at this, & explained that Mine Host had been given "ample opportunity" to say his piece on the matter.

To this Mine Host retorted that "his piece" had been limited to a simple Yes or No to the Commissar's endless demands that cash payment be made to the secretary, whilst the opposing party had been given a 20 minute private audience.

The Commissar was unmoved.

The "week's pay in lieu" was dropped, and Reluctantly Mine Host agreed to a payment of 3 weeks wages. Laregely because the Wayside Tavern did not have $20,000 to spare.

Feeling ashamed at having put money before principle Mine Host was in a tense emotional state, very close to an outburst.

Then something happened that triggered Mine Host to dig his heels in.

As part of the settlement statement, the Union Officer asked for, and the Commissar granted, that Mine Host would also write a statement that the secretary had been a highly competent employee, & had left on very good terms.

Mine Host let go an emphatic "NO!"
In disbelief the Commissar asked for clarification, unsure of what he had heard, unable to believe he was being defied.
"I will not sign any such thing, such a document would be untrue, and I will go to gaol before I will ever put my signature to something which is not true."

Mine Host then gave a quick summation of the lack of due process so far, ending with an expression of shock & surprise that the Commissioner would expect someone to put their signature to something that wasn't true.

Sensing that the settlement offer was about to be withdrawn by a wronged employer who had been pushed too far, & knowing the secretary's case had limited prospects in a substantive hearing, the Union Officer hurriedly withdrew any requirement for a signed statement of "competence & goodwill" from the employer.

The settlement was signed, & the legalised shakedown was complete.