OFFICE OF INSPECTER GENERAL Renee Wyler complaint 1584643269858
March 19, 2020
My name is Darla Goulla,
I would like to add support to Renee Wyler complaint 1584643269858. Many Homeowners need support and are so beat down over repeated reports to CFPB, DOJ, FTC, Office of Inspector General.
I can share my own experience of filing a complaint previously with Office of Inspector General and NOTHING BECAME OF IT.
The Banks who have committed FRAUD know that we are complaining They are not concerned anything will become of our complaints, we are joining together and taking on the crooked banks and those who do nothing about our claims of MERIT.
If you need details of our claims see Rene Powers REMONSTRANCE.
Helen Edwards, Whistleblower/Complainer to the Australian Law Reform Commission's Inquiry into holding corporate executives personally responsible, documents are part of the material at this financialservices.house.gov/news/documen...px?DocumentID=406382
Memo to National Association of Whistleblowers Newport Beach
Jayde Perera was aware of the FBI investigations into, amongst other things, complainants about his colleague Ms Jeannie Pakula, such as Mr Elliot Sgargetta. Perera's CEO Mr McGarvie informed the Victorian Liberl Party State leader and Counterterrorism Minister that he and Mr Howard Bowles were unaware of the US investigations even though Mr Perera and Ms Claire Marshall and Mr Howard Bowles were.
Vanessa Iococo at the legal services was the contact for Michael McGarvie and was aware of the FBI & SEC investigations into the Commonwealth Bank case that was prosecuted by President Obama's national security prosecutor Ms Eileen Decker. Was also aware of the Assoc Profssor Dr Doherty who's in Exhibit J at the US Secret Service in Sacramento and with the Governor from the hamlet that the lsbc was reported as 'spying on'. Was also aware of the US Organised crime task force investigations into Keila Ravelo's transnational narcotics ring that the lsbc was advised by Associate Professor Dr Doherty was not delusional. Ravelo was subsequently convicted and disbarred on the application of those the lsbc were - very informatively - 'spying on'. News reports say the Royal Commission into Mokbel figures may look at the legal profession too.
And Jamal Khashoggi's widowed fiancee will be at the Portugal Conference with the preeminent expert on those RICO laws that McGarvie claimed to his Opposition Minister for Counterterrorism & Police Robert Clark he was unaware of even though his files refer to the CBA and the Ravelo Racket.
By now, you may have read a myriad of articles on the mandatory requirement for public and large private companies to implement and publish a Whistleblower Policy by 1 January 2020.
But it wasn’t until ASIC released Regulatory Guide 270: Whistleblower Policies (RG270) in mid-November 2019, that the regulator’s expectations on how to comply became clear.
What’s also clear is just how much confusion remains on key elements such as what’s disclosable, what qualifies for the whistleblower (WB) protections, and how organisations are expected to manage communications.
This article busts some of the common myths that we’ve been hearing.
myth #1: We don’t have to provide WB protections if the disclosure doesn’t state that it is being made under the Whistleblower policy?
Remember that cliché, if it looks like a duck? Well the same applies to a WB disclosure.
If an ‘eligible discloser’ (such as an employee or a supplier), makes a disclosure about a ‘disclosable matter’ to an ‘eligible recipient’ (which may be internal or external) then they will qualify for WB protections regardless of whether the disclosure is marked or labelled with any special words.
A ‘disclosable matter’ relates to ‘misconduct’ or an ‘improper state of affairs’ in relation to an entity or its related bodies corporate.
This carries two inherent difficulties for companies:
‘Disclosable matters’ is intentionally broad to cover a wide range of matters that may affect organisations and some disclosures may prima facie appear not to be a WB disclosure. It may include circumstances or conduct that don’t break any laws.
An ‘eligible recipient’ is not just the authorised person identified in the WB policy. It can be an officer, a senior manager or even an auditor, in addition to a relevant regulatory body such as ASIC, APRA and the ATO.
recommendations
To avoid an inadvertent breach of WB protections, we recommend:
Senior staff training – All senior management level employees (and above) should receive specific training to identify a WB complaint, and know their obligations when one has been disclosed;
Triage checklist – Have an easy to use checklist available to assist the recipient to assess the substance of the report and whether it qualifies for WB protections;
Referral process – If the receiver is unsure, have a clear procedure as to how the matter is to be referred, potentially for external legal advice, before the matter is dismissed.
myth #2: I’m being bullied by my boss. I’ll use the WB laws to make them pay.
WB policies do not cover personal work-related grievances such as interpersonal conflicts between team members or hiring decisions. The Act and ASIC do not regulate disputes that are purely employment related and this has not changed with the introduction of WB protections. In fact, there is a specific carve out.
A general rule of thumb for any employee is that if the matter only affects them as an individual then it will be unlikely to fall within WB protections, unless there is victimisation involved.
Companies need to take care in relation to what is known as a ‘mixed report’. For example, a disclosure that deals with a personal work-related grievance and includes information about a ‘disclosable matter’, such as:
allegations of misconduct – noting that misconduct is expressly defined in the Act as ‘fraud, negligence, default, breach of trust and breach of duty’;
breaches of commonwealth employment or other laws that are punishable by a period of imprisonment of 12 months or more;
reports of an ‘improper state of affairs or circumstances’ – this is intended to cover systemic issues that should be known by the regulator or may cause harm to the public (therefore not likely to cover workplace matters that only affect one individual).
Remember that complainants may be emotional, and the subject matter of the complaint may involve a multitude of things. It could take some time to unpack it and identify which issues are ‘disclosable matters’ and which ones are not.
We anticipate that very few workplace disputes will qualify for WB protections. Federal employment laws (except for the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth)) do not provide for criminal sanctions or terms of imprisonment. WB protections will apply to employees who make allegations of criminal misconduct such as fraud or sexual assault and any contraventions of the specified legislation such as the Act.
recommendations
To avoid employees incorrectly using the WB policy to air personal work-related grievances, in addition to the earlier recommendations, we suggest that:
Companies update their ancillary HR policies to ensure there is cohesion between all relevant policies;
Choice of authorised ‘eligible recipients’ – When choosing who to name in your WB policy as a person eligible to receive WB complaints, think carefully about that person’s interpersonal skills and whether they are likely to be well-equipped for the role;
Senior staff training – Should include training on ‘mixed reports’ and identify the other tools (such as a Triage Checklist) available to them to assist in identifying whether these contain a ‘disclosable matter’ or elements of victimisation. Training should identify appropriate avenues and responses for different elements of a complaint, and the other applicable company policies that may need to be followed, if the WB Policy does not apply.
General awareness training – Staff at all levels should receive general awareness training of what is, and (importantly) what isn’t a matter to be dealt with under the WB policy. This may assist in curbing over-use of the policy.
myth 3#: I’m anonymous so I can say what I like!
Individuals can report anonymously under WB protections and are entitled to remain anonymous through the course of their disclosure.
On one hand, recipients of disclosures have positive obligations to:
Permit an individual to remain anonymous if they choose, including receiving complaints made via anonymous emails or letters;
Maintain the confidentiality of the discloser’s identity, including redaction of any information that may likely lead to their identification;
Ensure that no action is undertaken which may result in detriment to the discloser (e.g. Westpac’s alleged demotion of their compliance officer for advising the board of their failure to declare payments under anti-money laundering laws).
But this doesn’t grant free licence to the discloser to say what they like.
The Whistleblower is only eligible for protection arising from a legitimate WB disclosure. If their report is a ‘mixed report’, then WB protections may not apply to the entirety of their disclosures. False or vexatious disclosures will not receive the available protections, and could expose a discloser to liability or other consequences of any misconduct they have engaged in during their employment.
recommendations
Given the time it can take to determine if a report is false, companies are far better to err on the side of caution before opening themselves up to criminal liability for failing to extend WB protections.
A breach of confidentiality for a legitimate WB discloser is an offence which may result in criminal liability.
Any WB Policy and staff training programs need to specifically address how confidentiality and anonymity will be retained.
myth #4: The Company can decide whether to communicate with Whistleblowers
WB disclosures that qualify for protection are required to be investigated and WB policies must stipulate how the investigation will proceed.
ASIC have now clearly communicated that (whenever possible) companies are encouraged to communicate with a discloser throughout the course of any investigation, including providing progress updates, and clarifying in the policy how investigation findings will be documented and reported (either internally or to the discloser).
Notably though, the Act does not require companies to continuously communicate with the discloser or provide them with updates on the investigation, particularly if this communication may jeopardise the confidentiality of the discloser or overall investigation.
Continuous communication with disclosers is a discretionary matter for each company to consider on a case-by-case basis. We do not recommend that companies enshrine such an obligation in a policy, as it may be impractical, and in some cases, may jeopardise an organisation’s ability to provide required protections.
As a practical matter, Companies should be aware that WB disclosers will expect action, and a failure to communicate with the discloser may result in an attempt to make the complaint external.
recommendations
Do not enshrine communication obligations in a policy;
Setting expectations on how the investigation procedure will work (in each case) and the level of communication a discloser can expect to receive from the outset (following a disclosure) will help to mitigate the risk of further action;
Companies should keep a detailed record of each complaint and investigation undertaken so they can be prepared to respond to any enquiries from a regulator.
myth #5: The new laws mean that whistleblowers can go to the media or use social media to blow the whistle.
Disclosers will not be afforded WB protections if they go straight to the media.
To receive WB protections, a discloser must meet the requirements of the Act in relation to a ‘public interest’ or ‘emergency’ disclosure – meaning the discloser must:
have made a previous disclosure of the information to the company or other ‘eligible recipient’; and
have either:in the case of an ‘emergency disclosure’ reasonable grounds to believe that ‘the information concerns a substantial and imminent danger to the health or safety of one or more persons or the natural environment’; or
in the case of a ‘public interest disclosure’, the discloser has waited 90 days since their previous disclosure and has reasonable grounds to believe that no action is being taken, and that making a further disclosure is in the public interest;
notified the body to which the previous disclosure was made with sufficient information to ascertain the previous disclosure, and state that they intend to make a ‘public interest’ or ‘emergency’ disclosure under the Act;
make the disclosure to a journalist or a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, state or legislature of a Territory; and
disclose information that ‘must be no greater than what is necessary to inform the recipient’ of the improper state of affairs or misconduct (in the case of a public interest disclosure) or the substantial and imminent danger (in the case of an emergency disclosure).
Ultimately, a discloser will have to jump through these hoops before they can go straight to the media with a complaint. These reasonably high thresholds ensure that companies have an opportunity to take appropriate and measured responses to complaints, without being held to ransom by threats of premature public disclosure.
recommendations
Ensuring that potential whistleblowers understand the types of disclosures that may receive protections, and in what circumstances, is an important feature of staff ‘general awareness’ training;
Consider whether your organisation’s social media policy needs to be amended and cross-refer to its WB Policy to guard against inappropriate use of social media;
Whistleblowers are recommended to follow the procedures identified in the WB Policy or contact the relevant regulator before resorting to a disclosure to the media.
If someone is adamant about making a public disclosure, we recommend seeking prior independent legal advice about how to access the legal protections available, or to understand the potential consequences if the protections do not apply.
WB policies were never intended to be a one size fits all policy and each company will need to adopt their own procedures that suit the needs of the company.
After 127 days of public hearings and dozens of high profile witnesses, a royal commission into turncoat gangland lawyer Nicola Gobbo is set to wrap up.
The inquiry into Victoria Police's use of Lawyer X as an informer will end on Friday, but will continue to investigate policy issues surrounding management of informers with legal obligations.
Commissioner Margaret McMurdo is due to hand down a report on her findings on July 1.
The inquiry has examined Ms Gobbo's three periods as a registered police informer.
ADVERTISING
Ads by Teads
She was first recruited as a law student in 1995 when she turned on a former boyfriend for drug dealing.
In 1999 she was registered again while trying to offer police tips on fellow lawyers she accused of money laundering.
Her longest stint ran from 2005 until 2009 when she gave evidence against clients, including drug kingpin Tony Mokbel and underworld killer Carl Williams.
Ms Gobbo admitted she had acted as an agent for police instead of in the best interest of her clients.
"Was I accumulating information and, on one level, trying to impress people? Yes I was," she said.
"Do I regret it now? Yes. Every day."
The inquiry has heard from more than 100 witnesses, most of whom gave evidence in the public hearings.
Among them were former chief commissioners Simon Overland, Christine Nixon and Ken Lay, prominent gangland investigators including former Purana Taskforce boss Jim O'Brien and detective Stuart Bateson, and a number of handlers who directly managed Ms Gobbo and her tips.
Ms Gobbo was one of the last witnesses to give evidence, ordered to appear despite efforts to be excused on health grounds.
Crooks previously represented by Ms Gobbo - some who turned informer on her advice - also gave evidence.
Inspector John Nolan and former detective senior sergeant Shane O'Connell are expected to be the final witnesses on Friday, when lawyers will also make closing remarks.
Australia: TGIF: Out of the shadows: ASIC investigation of insolvent trading results in prison sentence for shadow director
19 February 2020
by Cameron Cheetham , Mark Wilks and Craig Ensor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
0 Liked this Article
This week's TGIF considers ASIC's efforts to pursue enforcement action against three former directors of the Kleenmaid group, resulting in the first sentence of imprisonment for a 'shadow director'.
What happened?
The Kleenmaid group was a whitegoods distributor, founded in 1980.
Administrators were appointed to the group in April 2009, at which point the group's debts amounted to approximately $96 million.
Shortly after, ASIC commenced an investigation into the group's affairs, focussing on three individuals who were or had previously served as directors: Andrew Eric Young, his brother Bradley Young, and Gary Collyer Armstrong.
In 2014, the three individuals were indicted on charges of fraud and insolvent trading in breach of section 588G(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Notably, while Armstrong and Bradley Young were directors for all or part of the period during which the conduct occurred, Andrew Eric Young resigned as a director prior to November 2007. Regardless, he was an equal focus of ASIC's investigation, and was ultimately found by a jury in the District Court of Queensland to be a 'shadow director' within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).1
This marks the first occasion on which a shadow director has been convicted and sentenced to prison for insolvent trading charges.
The District Court proceeding
ASIC's case against Andrew Young culminated with him being found guilty of nineteen offences, including:
seventeen counts of criminal insolvent trading in relation to debts exceeding $4 million (incurred after he had resigned); and
one count of fraud arising from dishonestly removing $330,000 from a company bank account, to an account of an unrelated entity from which he stood to benefit, two days prior to the appointment of administrators in April 2009.
Last week, Mr Young was sentenced to nine years with a non-parole period of four years in relation to the fraud offences and an additional three years for the insolvent trading offences to commence from his parole eligibility date, of which he must serve at least 12 months.
He will now join the other Kleenmaid directors who are serving similar lengthy sentences for fraud and insolvent trading offences.
Commentary
ASIC's 'why not litigate'? mantra has been the subject of numerous headlines in the aftermath of the FSRC. Whilst those under the regulatory microscope have included the banks, financial planners & advisers, the pursuit in this instance serves as a warning to directors, executives and their advisors of the reach & 'new-found' conviction of the regulator.
Typically, a breach of the duty to prevent insolvent trading can lead to significant civil liability. The corporate veil is lifted, personal assets are at stake and reputations are on the line. However, it should not be forgotten that, should the incurring of the debt be considered dishonest, criminal penalties can apply under s588G(3).
Mr Young will now serve the next five years (at least) in prison.
Government's top lawyer knew about Gobbo's informer role in 2010, inquiry hears
Tammy Mills
By Tammy Mills
January 31, 2020 — 5.28pm
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Send via Email
Today's top stories
Parliamentary trip to UK cancelled after High Commissioner pens angry letter over Huawei leak
Huawei ban
Parliamentary trip to UK cancelled after High Commissioner pens angry letter over Huawei leak
Dubious friends and a big legal claim: Questions raised in spy case
China's Spy Secrets
Dubious friends and a big legal claim: Questions raised in spy case
The important High Court judgement this week that 'has been vastly overlooked'
Indigenous
The important High Court judgement this week that 'has been vastly overlooked'
'We woke up to the shot': Man injured in drive-by shooting near Chapel Street nightclub
Crime
'We woke up to the shot': Man injured in drive-by shooting near Chapel Street nightclub
The Victorian government’s head lawyer and the son of a former premier knew gangland barrister Nicola Gobbo was a police informer years earlier than he claims, Victoria Police’s chief lawyer has told a public inquiry.
Though John Cain, the son of the former Labor premier and the current state coroner, says he was “astounded” when he found out about Ms Gobbo’s secret role in 2015, Victoria Police’s legal services director Fin McRae has told a public inquiry Mr Cain would have found out in a series of high-level meetings years earlier.
Victoria Police legal services director Fin McRae arrives at the royal commission on Friday.
Victoria Police legal services director Fin McRae arrives at the royal commission on Friday. Credit:AAP
Mr McRae, in his second day giving evidence to a royal commission into Ms Gobbo’s use as Informer 3838, said it was an open secret among lawyers that one of their own was a registered informer.
Speculation was rife in 2010 because Ms Gobbo sued Victoria Police over their handling of her as a witness in a failed murder case against former drug squad detective Paul Dale.
Advertisement
Ms Gobbo had secretly taped a conversation with Mr Dale and that became the centrepiece of the prosecution's case.
“The whole of the criminal, legal community knew of her status by then,” Mr McRae said.
“The gossip around the bar and through connections was rife, an open secret that she was assisting police.”
His evidence shows the inquiry is focused not only on police, but the legal fraternity. Though it appears some of the state’s most experienced lawyers knew, it would take another eight years for the scandal to come out that Ms Gobbo had given police information about her own clients.
Mr McRae met with Mr Cain, then head of the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office, and Michael Strong, the director of the now defunct Office of the Police Integrity, in a briefing ahead of a settlement for the civil lawsuit with Ms Gobbo in 2010.
Lead Counsel Chris Winneke asked Mr McRae if at the meeting "it was discussed openly that she was an informer".
"Oh yes," Mr McRae replied.
In his statement to the commission, Mr Cain said he did not find out Ms Gobbo was an informer until 2015.
"I was completely astounded. I did not have any knowledge of this during my time as VGS [Victorian Government Solicitor]," Mr Cain said.
Mr McRae said Mr Cain must have forgotten he was told she was an informer, with the meeting focused on the mediation with Ms Gobbo for the case that is understood to have settled for just under $3 million.
“I’d spoken to John Cain – because this is a matter of such high public importance, that we’re proposing to settle a matter that involves a defence practitioner who has been a human source and it involves the government,” Mr McRae said.
He said the former Labor police minister Bob Cameron was briefed about Ms Gobbo and the settlement in 2010, but he didn’t know if he was told the lawyer was an informer.
Mr McRae backed away from his claim on Thursday he worked “relentlessly” to expose the scandal, but maintained on Friday that he did not find out Ms Gobbo gave up her own clients until 2012 and helped to kick-start a review into her use.
Lead counsel Chris Winneke QC said he had an “ample basis” to find out from the moment he knew she was an informer in 2010 and there had been suggestions the civil settlement was an attempt to hide Ms Gobbo’s role.
The public hearings continue next week with Ms Gobbo expected to give her highly anticipated evidence from Tuesday.
Ms Gobbo – whose current location is unknown – is arguing she should be able to give her evidence over the phone, and not over video, despite appearing in a recent television interview with the ABC’s 7.30.
An unimpressed head of the inquiry, Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, asked her lawyer Rishi Nathwani on Friday to find out from his client whether she planned to give any more interviews before she decides on Monday how Ms Gobbo will give her evidence.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Send via Email
License this article
Informer 3838
Melbourne gangland
Tammy Mills
Tammy Mills
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Tammy Mills is the legal affairs reporter for The Age.
www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1248966/download
33 Case 1:18-cr-00457-AMD Document 126 Filed 02/13/20 Page 33 of 56 PageID #: 1381 response to the investigation, HUAWEI and HUAWEI DEVICE USA made efforts to move witnesses with knowledge about HUAWEI’s Iran-based business to the PRC, and beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and to destroy and conceal evidence in the United States of HUAWEI’s Iran-based business. By impeding the government’s investigation, HUAWEI and HUAWEI DEVICE USA sought to avoid criminal prosecution with respect to HUAWEI’s Iran-based activities, which would subject HUAWEI and its U.S. affiliates and subsidiaries, including HUAWEI DEVICE USA, to the threat of economic harm. COUNT ONE (Racketeering Conspiracy) 88. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 87 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.
The former chief of Antigua’s Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) has pleaded guilty for his role in connection with the Stanford International Bank (SIB) Ponzi scheme.
Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick of the Southern District of Texas made the announcement.
Leroy King, 74, of Dickerson Bay, Antigua, was the last remaining defendant in the SIB scheme. Today, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and one count of obstruction of justice for his role in obstructing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into SIB. He was extradited to the United States in November 2019.
King is a dual citizen of the United States and Antigua. Beginning in approximately 2002, he served as the administrator and CEO of the FSRC, an agency of the Antiguan government. As part of his duties, he was responsible for Antigua’s regulatory oversight of Stanford International Bank Limited’s (SIBL) investment portfolio, including the review of SIBL financial reports and the response to requests by foreign regulators, including the SEC, for information and documents about SIBL’s operations.
In or about 2005, the SEC began investigating R. Allen Stanford and Stanford Financial Group (SFG) and made official inquiries with the FSRC regarding the value and content of SIBL’s purported investments. From 2005 through February 2009, Stanford, James Davis, King and others conspired to obstruct the SEC’s investigation of SFG, SIBL and their related entities. From at least 2003 through February 2009, Stanford made regular secret corrupt payments of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts to King in order to obtain his assistance in hiding the truth about SFG and SIBL from the SEC and other regulatory agencies.
Over the course of the conspiracy, Stanford’s cash payments to King totaled approximately $520,963.87. Stanford also provided King tickets to both Super Bowl XXXVIII in Houston, Texas (2004) and Super Bowl XL in Detroit, Michigan (2006). Stanford also provided King with repeated flights on private jets Stanford or SFG entities owned.
King later denied the SEC’s request for help, and he wrote that the FSRC “had no authority to act in the manner requested and would itself be in breach of law if it were to accede to your request.” In reality, the FSRC did have this authority and failed to exercise such because of the payments and other benefits Stanford gave to King.
A federal jury found Stanford guilty in June 2012 for his role in orchestrating a 20-year investment fraud scheme in which he misappropriated $7 billion from SIB to finance his personal businesses. He is serving a 110-year prison sentence. Five others were also convicted for their roles in the scheme and received sentences ranging from three to 20 years in federal prison.
U.S. District Judge David Hittner of the Southern District of Texas accepted the plea today and set sentencing for April 24.
The FBI’s Houston Field Office, IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigated the case. Trial Attorney Brittain Shaw of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney John Pearson of the Southern District of Texas are prosecuting the case.
The Justice Department extends its gratitude to the government of Antigua for its cooperation and assistance.
The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice. Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.
Topic(s):
Financial Fraud
Component(s):
Criminal Division
Criminal - Criminal Fraud Section
USAO - Texas, Southern
Press Release Number:
20-112
Paul Oosting from GetUp at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Kym Smith
Paul Oosting from GetUp at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Kym Smith
Exclusive
Geoff Chambers
FEDERAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
@Chambersgc
11:43PM February 12, 2020
169 Comments
A charity set up by senior GetUp officials, which is being investigated by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, has appointed the left-wing activist group’s former campaign director to its board.
The Australian can reveal Commons Library Limited, launched by GetUp staff including national director Paul Oosting in 2014 as GetUp Commons Limited, was notified on October 22 that it was under investigation by the ACNC.
The investigation was sparked following reports in The Australian in August last year revealing links between GetUp and the Commons Library, including personnel and shared office space.
Read Next
commentary
Party ceasefire is holding, for now
DENNIS SHANAHAN
Despite being aware of the ACNC probe, the Commons Library appointed former GetUp campaigns director Django Merope-Synge to its board in January, replacing Benjamin Brandzel.
Mr Brandzel was a founding board member at the New York-based Avaaz.org, which made three donations to GetUp between 2013 and 2017 totalling more than $268,000.
Charities and Electoral Matters Assistant Minister Zed Seselja told The Australian the “links between GetUp and this charity are becoming clearer and clearer”.
READ MORE:GetUp links ‘concerning’|GetUp stirs activists’ climate claims|‘False and tawdry’: GetUp hijacks fireys|GetUp: poll fail Palmer’s fault|GetUp uses child to labour point
“It is absolutely appropriate the commissioner investigate these links to ensure integrity in the charity sector, and it is critical that GetUp, who preach transparency, publicly outline the extent of this relationship,” he said.
Senator Seselja wrote to ACNC commissioner Gary Johns on August 20 asking him to formally examine the “very close links” between the Commons Library and GetUp.
Senator Seselja told Mr Johns it was important that organisations with charitable status were “complying with their obligations and fulfilling their charitable purpose, and not being used as de facto political campaigners”.
An ACNC spokeswoman said the commission was not legally allowed to provide details on the status of investigations.
The Australian previously revealed senior officials at GetUp — which publicly claims “we don’t have or want charity status” — were involved in setting up the Commons Library, which had worked out of the offices of the left-wing group.
As a registered charity, the Commons Library is endorsed for “GST concession and income tax exemption” and as a “deductible gift recipient”.
On his LinkedIn account, Mr Merope-Synge said he was GetUp’s campaigns director between 2016 to October last year. He was previously communications co-ordinator of the NSW Greens and a senior adviser to Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie.
The Australian last year revealed Mr Merope-Synge — who led GetUp’s push to oust former prime minister Tony Abbott in Warringah — was a director of Climate Leaders, which was linked to Zali Steggall’s campaign.
A GetUp spokeswoman said Mr Merope-Synge had finished with GetUp on October 4 and that the group had “no role in the operation of the Commons”.
A Commons Library spokeswoman said they were an “independent social change library for the benefit of the Australian public”. “Our focus is broad and we have supportive relationships with many stakeholders in civil society. Commons materials are available for viewing and download by anyone with an internet connection.”
The “social change library” previously said GetUp had “no involvement in the operation of the Commons Library” and was an “independent organisation”.
The Commons Library says its vision is based on an Australia “that has well-informed, skilled, collaborative and effective movements for social and ecological justice”.
The online “public library” includes collections of articles, manuals, training materials and practical guides to “inform and equip” Australians to influence public policy and engage in “political structures”. “The Commons is committed to being accessible to the breadth of the Australian public,” the Commons Library says. “We aim to overcome barriers to access, including those related to ability, education levels, language, income, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and any other oppression or systemic disadvantage.”
Geoff Chambers
Federal Political Correspondent
Geoff Chambers is The Australian’s Federal Political Correspondent. He was previously The Australian’s Canberra Bureau Chief and Queensland Bureau Chief. Before joining the national broadsheet he was News Edito... Read more
Share this article
please be advised that former Chairman David Turner was advised personally of their failure since 2011 in my case Re money laundering, potential terrorist financing, fraud, counterfeit cheque's etc.
—
15th August 2015 - email from #CBA - part of:
Dear Ms Edwards
Financial Ombudsman Service (#FOS) Case No 406723 #CBA Case No CF-2957013C
Ms Edwards, the Bank #does #not have an obligation to monitor and verify each #transaction that is made on a #customer’s #account.
—
#FOS renamed to #AFCA #AUSTRAC covered up for them to date.
#CBA also published & signed the #WOLFSBERG #AML Checklist in July 2016 - answering “YES”
That their legal compliance program was approved by the board etc
A “FALSE” PUBLIC DECLARATION!
—
The clean-up of the bank also has a way to go, and the regulatory scrutiny won’t stop.
But #Comyn has the bank in the right shape to weather this storm.
—
Another big positive for #Coymn was that #CBA’s remediation bill ticked up only $30 million in the half year, to $2.2 billion.
You won’t hear #Comyn say this pain has now peaked, but surely the worst is now well behind the bank.
Still, there are plenty of other issues for #Comyn to sink his teeth into.
Court-approved guardians—strangers swooping in and taking over the lives of elderly people who are helpless to stop them. We’ll dig in on who, why and how.
In this photo taken Oct. 12, 2011, Irving Lindenblad, 82, rides down the stairs assisted by a stair lift, at his home in Washington. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
In this photo taken Oct. 12, 2011, Irving Lindenblad, 82, rides down the stairs assisted by a stair lift, at his home in Washington. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
It’s an epic scandal targeting the elderly. For profit guardians—strangers— knocking on the doors of our most vulnerable people and taking total control of their finances and lives. Moving them out of their homes into facilities, all at the expense of people who are helpless to stop them. Families think they’ve been kidnapped or gone missing And in some cases, this is perfectly legal. This hour, On Point: Who’s guarding the guardians? -- Jane Clayson.
Most Viewed Stories
A sign points to the emergency room entrance at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. (AP Photo/LM Otero)
Opinion: I'm An Emergency Room Physician. Inadequate Access To Health Care Is Breaking Us
On PointFeb 4, 2020
State Of The Union: Unpacking President Trump's Address As Senate Moves Toward Impeachment Vote
Play
On Point46:51Feb 5, 2020
How Overcrowding In Emergency Rooms Has Impacted Patient Care
Play
On Point46:46Feb 4, 2020
Coronavirus Latest: How China Is Responding To The Spreading Outbreak
Play
On Point46:25Feb 5, 2020
Guests
Rachel Aviv, staff writer for the New Yorker. (@RachelAviv)
Pamela Teaster, director of the Center for Gerontology Virginia Tech. One of the few scholars in the country who studies guardianship.
Julie Belshe, daughter of Rudy and Rennie North – two Las Vegas residents who fell under exploitative guardianship and lost nearly everything they owned. They now live with Julie.
From The Reading List
The New Yorker: How the Elderly Lose Their Rights — "In the United States, a million and a half adults are under the care of guardians, either family members or professionals, who control some two hundred and seventy-three billion dollars in assets, according to an auditor for the guardianship fraud program in Palm Beach County. Little is known about the outcome of these arrangements, because states do not keep complete figures on guardianship cases—statutes vary widely—and, in most jurisdictions, the court records are sealed."
Las Vegas Review-Journal: Clark County’s Private Guardians May Protect — Or Just Steal And Abuse — "Over the course of five years, Berger’s court-appointed private guardian systematically drained her $495,000 estate nearly dry. The licensed private guardian, Patience Bristol, 39, was caught only when someone from outside of the guardianship system called police. She is now serving three to eight years in prison for stealing everything from cash to jewelry and expensive purses from Berger and other wards. Berger is left with nothing more than a feeling that she has been abused not just by Bristol but also by the county government that gave Bristol nearly unchecked power to ruin her life."
Vegas Voice: What Would You Do? — "There is a knock on your door and the care giver who has stopped by to check on your wife of 50 years motions you to sit, he will answer the door for you. Two people enter, a woman and a man. They approach you and the woman says, “Mr. xxxxx I am an officer of the court, you and your wife need to come with me." You ask, “why, what have I done, go with you where?” She responds “you have three choices, I can have you arrested, you can come with us to Lake View, or you can be taken to a mental facility.”
