Queensland Legislative AssemblyNumber. ' 5 ' 5 \ ^ T

® 0 8AU6 2017MP: 'T ^ \ v \ e

Clerk's Signature: ^

Council:- Gold Coast City Council

Date:- August 2017

This example demonstrates the purposeful administrative 'merry go round' and cover-ups employed by senior public servants against various complaints processes, so as to evade detection and punishment o f misconduct and subsequently corrupt conduct in the Gold

Coast City Council and some State Government Departments.

The redevelopment o f the Main Beach Bathing Pavilion was a corrupted outcome involving a major criminal swindle instigated by the administration o f the Gold Coast City

Council and Mayor | | commencing In 2010 to present. The lies, fraud and cover-ups continue through the devolved authority o f the CCC back to the council to investigate themselves.

This serious misconduct, including breaches of consent orders agreed in the Planning and Environment Court between a complainant and the Gold Coast City Council and other parties involved, was reported up to the CMC/CCC by a citizen, a councillor w ith more than 40 years legal experience, the ombudsman, the Office o f Information Commissioner (QIC)

and is supported by independent legal that further clearly lays out the evidence and the prima facie case for corruption and corrupt town planning practices.

Gold Coast City Council, on this occasion in concert w ith DEPH (previous iterations) and the

CCC/CMC directly and through the ir devolution principle, have and continues to engage in gross^ corrupted practices including but not lim ited to:-

• Breach o f consent orders obtained by a complainant in the Planning and Environment Court.

• Deep Collusion & Fabricated Documents.

• Premediated collusion to pervert the course of Justice.

• Fabricated statutory documents including IDAS applications.

• Fabricated documents including Council Agenda material.

• Fabricated Certificate of Classification that provided unlawful occupation.

• Premediated illicit circumvention o f the Gold Coast Planning Scheme between a councilsupervising planning officer and the applicants town planner over assessabledevelopment and the development process.

• The use o f a private building certifier who wrongly certified the building circumventing fire ratings fo r materials and fire separation.

□ ByUonD

(GROSS definition:- im m e d ia te ly o d v io u s : g la r in g ly n o tic e a b le u s u a lly b e c a u s e o f in e x c u s a b le ba d n e ss or

o b je c t io n a b le n e s s ; v is ib le Vtfifhout Ib e a id o f a m ic ro sco p e ]

The use o f a private building certifier who was to be found guilty in a Court of Law over corrupted practises and tagged as a rogue certifier.

The failure of council to have a mandatory statutory supporting document, pertinent to the heritage development process, being the Conservation Policy approved by Council rendering the process invalid.

The abuse by the GCCC Integrity Officer, also the CCC/CMC Liaison Officer, to label the complainant vexatious and frivolous in conform ity w ith s44 of the Crime and Corruption Act (enacted by the CEO) w ithout conducting an appointm ent or viewing numerous incrim inating council-own documents, which amongst others, incriminated the Chief Executive Officer. The decision defied the legal opinion o f the Queensland Government w ith respect to vexatious and frivolous behaviour.

The above conduct was farcical as a copy of the decision was sent to the CCC/CMC which then became the devolved decision o f the CCC.

The CCC/CMC was provided w ith two statutory declarations by the complainant implicating two officers at the GCCC w ith official misconduct. They came w ith the proviso tha t another tw enty eight statutory declarations were to be provided. The CCC/CMC rejected the two statutory declarations and directed the complainant not to send the other tw enty eight statutory declarations.

The complainant then informed the CCC/CMC that should the statutory declarations be invalid then it was apparent the complainant had provided a false and misleading declaration which is punishable at law

The complainant then insisted the CCC/CMC prosecute him under the Crime and Corruption Act for the provision of false and misleading inform ation

The CCC/CMC refused to prosecute

One statutory declaration provided substantiated proof tha t the GCCC building compliance officer had lied about the land-uses approved fo r the Main Beach Bathing Pavilion to perm it the provision o f an unlawful service o f liquor license. The land-use was fabricated meaning the building does not comply w ith building certification in defiance of the Queensland Building Act.

Personal reviews were undertaken by CCC/CMC Acting Commissioners and ^as well as Commissioner The Queensland Ombudsman,

also undertook a personal review. Everything aside, if the building is not approved fo r a restaurant (the right to conduct service o f alcohol) then these four entities have obstructed justice and concealed official misconduct. Records show there is no land- use approval for a restaurant.

Table o f Contents

Descriptor Date Page

Cover page August 2017 01

Letter to Rob Pyne MP 28/06/2017 04

Informant le tte r to City Council 26/06/2017 04

Informants Solicitor - Letter to CCC 15/11/2016 06

Informants Solicitors - Letter to 'Informant' 03/05/2016 12

CMC confirms devolution to City Council 18/02/2013 16

City Council, Councillor le tte r to CMC 19/02/2013 17

Letter 'in form ant' to Council 06/03/2013 19

CMC to Councillor (City Council) 20/03/2013 21

Ombudsman agrees CMC is appropriate agency 22/03/2013 22

Letter Councillor (City Council) to 'in form ant' 25/03/2013 23

'in form ant' to Council 20/06/2017 24

LIST of Council officers involved in the illic it swindle 27

'in form ant' to Council 26/06/2017 28

Conservation Management Plan

Proposed Alterations

March 2010

10.06.2011

{available on request)

(available on request)

Page 4 of 28

From:Sent:To:Subject: MBBP

For the attention of

t: weanesoay^^e 28, 2017 5:37 PM

qld.gov.au ; Division2(.gov.au ; DivisionSt _________

; Divisional o u n a n o T Division9(a)|

D iv is ion l2(

:|ld.oov.au qld.Qov.au

qld.aov.au ld.aov.au

.Qld.Qov.aui-goy-au. ;

D ivisions

a id .Qov.au ; Cr|qld.Qov.au ; D iv is ion lS

at the Integrity and Ethical b the Crim e and Corruption

From:Sent; Wednesda To:Cc: D iv is io n l

)tvision D ivisions D ivisions _ Division 11 @1 D iv is io n H Subject:

Dear Councillor,

P lease find attached two letters sent to Mr S tandards Unit by m e and one from my la C om m ission (CCC) and now served on Mr

M r MP the M em ber fo r Cairns recently said, “The current process isin a d e q u a t^ T lu s t getting the CCC to investigate is a m assive obstacle. The percentage o f com pla ints investigated is LESS than 2%. The rem aining 98% are referred back to the organisation being com plained about.” In o ther w ords to investigate them selves.

Local Authorities are obviously conscious o f th is shortcom ing conundrum . Corrupted adm in istra tions such as that a t the C ity o f | | H | | | | | | H | | H | } under the control o f Mr

have k n o w in g l^ D u s e ^ h a t shortcom ing.and M ayor I

The redeve lopm ent o f the Mam Beach Bathing Pavilion w as a corrupted outcom e Involving a m ajor crim inal sw indle instigated by the H H H adm inistration. The sw indle w as not only ‘covered u p ’; the CCC was d r a w ^ n t ^ n e corrupted outcom e on the basis o f devolution. Once the ‘bed was m ade' all entities had to m aintain the f a c a d e w t ^ now d irectly invo lves M r Qf q q q

the Q ueensland G m b u d s rr ia r^ R la irT n n e C CC and the O ffice o f the O m ^ ^ ^ n a n are a part o f the sw indle suprem ely m anipulated by the 23 officers at the ■ ■ tha t I have nam ed in the le tte r to M r M any o ther entities arein v o T v ^ fro m the Departm ent o f Environm ent and T C n tag e Protection and the Office o f Justice and A tto rney G eneral as well as private consultants. T he building certifier, M r | ^ H H | | | H , has since his illic it building certification o f the M BBP been found g u ilt^ ^ lT iC ia n T iis c o n d u c t in a case Involving the as a rogue certifier.defic iencyM r received m any qualified op in ions from notableprofessionals, a ^ T T ^ e t te r m entions, but he and the CCC continue to ignore the

C ity Council and tagged

Page 4 of 28

Page 5 of 28

obvious. The legal opinion f r o m | H | l | | | H | | H Law yers they served on the CCC could not be m ore accurate and o S a n e n u r a i l l the CCC rem ains unm oved. The CCC w as com p lic it in the w indow dressing cover up investigation by

on beha lf o f DEHP.

t am now le ft w ith no a lternative but to include M r |H ||| H I unacceptable behaviour in squashing an investiga tio rnn to iR ^ m B b p o t ^ n ^ a s is o f a protective bu t illic it determ ination by im plicated Executive Services.

No inc ident w as m ore dem eaning to D em ocracy than the actions o f M r H | H and the M ayor w ho instigated a Procedural M otion a t the 654th Council m e e t in ^ o r the MBBP deve lopm ent applica tion fo r it to be heard in private session. The m otion was m oved by Or | | | | | and seconded by Or | | | | H | ; so as to conceal the pending d iscussion. A t m e private session the C ity S o lic ito r b rie fed the councillors and then inform ed them they were required to vote fo r the contentious developm ent app lica tion w h ich they did. Councillo rs in the 2012-2016 C ouncil and in attendance at the 654th Council m eeting would be aware o f the circum stances. This is dem ocracy denied.

M r H j l is not considered fit to hold the esteem ed position as C hie f3cutive OTTicer <Executive OfTicer o f the C ity o f m ^ m . Please insist tha t lESU investigate the

redeve lopm ent o f the MBBP.

M any thanks,!

Page 5 of 28

Our Ref

IS hiovember 2016

ORIGINAL BY POST

ChairpersonCrime and Corruption Commission

Dear

RE: REDEVELOnulENT OF TH

Also by email: I

ITY COUNCIL- OWNED, HERITAGE-USTEDI

Our Client:

REQUEST TO CCC TO:

a.

b.

OPEN A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE LEGALITY OF THE PLANNING AND BUILDING APPROVAL FOR THE BASED ON THE FACTS OF OUR CLIENTS COMPLAINT; AND

INVESTIGATE MR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ("aO ") OF THE CITY OF^ ^ ^ ^ ■ C O U N C I L ( H B ) a n d OTHER PARTIES (SOME COUNCILLORS AND EXECUTIVES,) IN REUTION TO THE CEO'S PURPOSEFUL NON-COMPLIANCE VRTH SECTION 44 OF THE CRIME M ID CORRUPTION ACT, IN REUTION TO HIS INTERNAl- INVESTIGATION OF OUR a iEN TS COMPUINT.

We act for who has written copious tetters to you compiaining about and,substantiating beyond doubt, the illicit and illegal conduct of many government and non­government agencies and departments, in making application for, and obtaining approval for the heritage redevelopment of t h e l H H

Who is

|is an architectural lighting designer, who focused on period design and styles. His professional knowledge also includes period d6cor theming. He is categorized as a 'heritage

Page 7 of 28

professional' by the Australia ICOMOS Inc (International Council on Monuments and Sites) known as the Burra Charter, which is the charter for Places of Cultural Significance, with associated Guidelines and Codes on the Ethics of co-existence. ICOMOS is closely linked to UNESCO, particularly In its role under the World Heritage Convention 1972. The Burra Charter forms part of the heritage constraint code of th4l|||||||IHHH^l9>^'^^'^E scheme.

Society Inc.reviously the longstanding Chairman of the I iHistorical

What Evidence Does [have to p p o rt his Complaint?

On or about the 31 Mav 2012. and based on his bdlef that the Redevelopment of the| interfered with the cultural herluge and vandall^d the architectural merit of the heritage-listed

H H V i a n d another party, ^ registered practicingarchitect, separately and independently lodged vindicating complaints with the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection ("DEHP".)

made for release of

City Council documents:

md not happy with the response from DEHP, soapplication to t h ^ ^ ^ l ^ B c f t y Council ) RTI Officer,council documents relating to the history of the heritage redevelopment of the______Consequently, he was provided with a base of 3500 documents and from that received copies of some 1,000 documents that were directly pertinent to the I H I heritage redevelopment. Many other documents have been forthcomir^ since that time.

These base documents convinced ||||||||||||HH||i^at there had been illegal circumvention of t j j^ H fc ity Planning Scheme; Queensland Heritage Act; and the Burra Charter.

All DEHP Documents:

Unbelievably, as it has now transpired relevant to his complaint, DEHP also g a v e H j H a DEHP computer disk that contained all the documents that were pertinent to the heritage development assessment approval made by DEHP, as the Assessment Manager.

The documents firmly established the illegality of the process used by DEHP officers to Illegally issue a DEHP Heritage Approval for the Heritage Redevelopment of MBBP.

Also, the assessment and processes employed by DEHP did not comply with the Qld fteritage Act; the Burra Charter; and the Heritage Impact Statement prepared by the Heritage Architect (Mr Andrew ladlay.)

W hat did next do?

City CoutKil

In or about September 2012 and, on discovering that the Applicantmade an application to |[ | |m for a Material Change of Use for a

land use for Receptions, which was impact Assessable, |||||||||m H lodged properly-made submissions against the application with the GCCC.

Page 7 of 28

Page 8 of 28

In his submissions, contended that the application did not comply with theConstraint and Place Codes of the Planning Scheme and was iilicitly and fraudulently concealing the existing'dpproved land uses.

2. DEHP:

At the beginning of 2013. and armed with alt the information he had, DEHP agreed withthat It would investigate the DEHP assessment process. The investigation was to

be undertaken by an external c o n s u l t a n t | | | ^ | ^ ^ ^ ^ | , a former public servant known to the Crime and Corruption Commission.

An Interview, which was reccM'ded by b e t w e ^ ^ H H I , ^ ^ H H I and

t the Insistence of I I, was held

On questioning openly admitted that he had no experience orqualifications in any of the relevant and various jurisdictions, for example and most notably, the Qld Heritage Act; the Qld Building Act; the Sustainable Planning Act and the

Planning Scheme.

Notwithstandingi lack of knowledge, the Interview proceeded.

On 26 February 2013. the Meeting was held ("the Council meeting".)

The agenda for this meeting had been received, in advance,

Prior to the Council meeting, by 2 tetters, H H B informed all Councillors that tf« agenda contained false and misleading information pertaining to the l is t e d j |H item for the MCU Oeveiopment Application.

In addition, letters and emails had informed Councillors, including M ayo r||^ |H ’ under separate investigation by each of theD E H P ^ m im ) and, for fraud, by the Federal Department of SustalnatNiity Environment, Water, Population arKi Communities (relating to wrongful expenditure of a Federal Government Heritage Grant.)

Further, one week t>efore the meeting, C r | ^ H had personally informed the CEO that he was making an official complaint under Section 38 of the Crime and Corruption Act against City Council in relation to t h e j j H matter.

When the matter came before Council, the first activity came from the Chair of City Planning, Notwithstanding that C r ^ H H had been properly andpersonally informed of the range of illicit praaises by his submissions andcorrespondence, asked the CEO if he knew of any reason why the mattershould not be immediately put to the vote. Although C r | [ | B | w a s negating his own knowledge of the matter and his reporting responsibilities and statutory governance duties, the CEO responded that he knew of no reasons why Council should not immediately vote u|»)n the application.

Page 8 of 28

Page 9 of 28

Clearly both the CEO and C r j ^ ^ m withheld vital knowledge from the Council meeting and misled all Councillors prior to the vote (who had already been appraised of Mr m i H allegations, anyway).

Notwithstanding all the foregoing, the Mayor allowed the matter to beconducted and considered by Council in Closed Session (confidential) and a Development Application was approved.

4. Complaint to CEO's breach of his Section 44 (Crime and CorruptionCommission Act) obligations:

On 28 February 2013. made a formal complaint to in which heaccused the Director of Planning, Mayor and councillors, of breaching integrity and illegally employing planning processes in giving Councillor approval to the Material Change of Use Development Application.

The CEO received the complaint and was authorised to investigate it.

believes that the C^O had a conflict of interest in investigating the complaintbecause:

a. he had personally directed the Parks Manager o f m ^ ^ arrange a $400,000.00 grant to t h e ^ l ^ o r the heritage redevelopment. The executive officers then folbwed through on the CEO's wish and put the grant application before the 599 th meeting of Council for approval on 26 February 2013, and it was so approved.

Ijjjjjjjim il believes that this grant, which had already been spent by t h e | m | when the matter came before Council for the MCU DA, was in breach of the Local Government Act because the grant was used for the commercial purposes of the

when it should have been used for community purposes, and It was comprised partly of an allocation of future years' discretionary funding. believes thatthe allocation of the grant needs to be part of any CCC investigation;

b. he sarKtioned the decision b y H [ | to hold its meeting in Closed Session to consider an Illegal Development Application, the complaint being of knowledge to him personally and via his (Erector of City Planning. Further, the CEO did not object to either the fraudulent content of the application to be considered, or the Mayor's procedural motion that the matter be heard In Closed Session by Councillors; and

c. both the Mayor and CEO had been previously Informed by the Deputy Chair of City Planning, Cr H H / of his claims of a prima facie case at law against f h e ^ m H | | City Council over the heritage redevelopment which he was duty bound to report and did report to the Crime and Corruption Commission.

In any event, neither the CEO, nor the CCC Liaison Officer, read thousands of pages of material In our client's p o s s e s s io m ^ H jm requested this to occur and, in fact the CEO declined an appointment for||||||||||||[||^|toha over the mountain of incriminating pages of evidence in his possession.

The CEO then stalled the investigation and did not progress it.

Page 9 of 28

Page 10 of 28

It is understanding that It Is a legal requirement and a precondition to the CEOinvestigating the matter, based o n H j H U H complaint, that the CEO consider all the mountain of information th a t^ ^ ^ jjjjj^ ^ his possession (1,000 pages f r o m ^ m and the disk from DEHP, plus other material). This did not happen.

W h e n l l^ ^ ^ l subsequently complained to the CCC about the CEO's investigation, he was informed that the CEO of t h e m had invoked his authority under Section 44 of the Crime and Corruption Act to negate an investigation because the CEO had determined

compiaint was:

" vexatious and frivolous and an unjustifiable use o f resources."

The CCC accepted this devolved "outcome advice” and, itself, declined to progress| :omplaint.

submission, that the CEO has:

incorrectly, purposehjily and illegally represented to the CCC that he had investigated our client's complaint, when he had not, abused his position in breach of the Local Government Act; and illegally and for his own purposes classified and victimised j reserves his rights against the CEO and t h e ^ H .

5. DEHP:

In or about Aoril 2013. at the completion of f [ | j j j | ^ | report, was written toand informed t h a t d ^ H P ia d found that there was no basis for concluding that DEHP or its officers had committed any offences or malfeasance in approving the original Heritage Development application

fervently disagrees with this conclusion and invites open debate on it, underoath

6. L(^al Opinion:

In Mav briefed our firm to advise on the lawfulness and merit of theabove processes employed to facilitate the Heritage Redevelopment of t h e | ^ | , and the continuing unlawful occupation of the premises.We considered:

• m m i l l City Council Planning Processes;• DEHP Heritage Processes; and• The Building Works Approval (IDAS) and Building Classification (Certification)

by Pty Ltd recently been exposed as a"rogue certifier ”

We concluded that, beyond doubt, there had been a total corruption of the process which was illegal. A copy of our legal opinion is attached hereto and we invite comment and debate on It, from any appropriately-qualified person.

As it currently stands, the not have a valid and lawful Certificate of BuildingC)assifi(3tion by which any part of it can be occupied or used for any purpose. As the

Page 10 of 28

Page 11 of 28

is a City Council'Owned building and is visited by many people, thisshould be of enormous concern to the ratepayers of the City, not to mention the insurers of the building who, probably, are in the dark about the truth: if the building burns down and/or If someone Is injured, will the insurance of t b e j m H i m City Council and the te n a n t ,^ ^ ^ respond, other than on a basis misrepresented by the insured/s?

Submission:

I submits that this whole matter is one illegal cover-up, for reasons only the parties involved could explain under oath.

However, believes that it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the illegal conductof the parties was borne out of the erroneous belief by all of them that they, perhaps on behalf of the City, collectively should show, or owed, a community organisation | [ | j ^ | ) a general favour and a preference, albeit that both were Illegal and In breach of their statutory duties.

That being the case, it shows how susceptible governance and planning decisions on t h e H are to corruption and the exercise of illegal discretion, based on the errant opinions and

predilections of the City's decision makers.

submits that the ^ ^ m a tte r is a prime example of something that is systemically wrong with the Planning Approval Process for t h e ^ ^ ^ ^ | City, as administered by t h e ^ | H H I City Council and its Councillors.

It also explains to him why. at every turn, he has been treated with utmost contempt due. undoubtedly, to his superior research; intelligence and passion for the rule of law, particularly as It applies to Heritage-listed buildings.

A CCC inquiry into this matter would, almost certainly, bring about change to the illegal and, "laissezfaire” attitude by H Councillors and executives and their consultants to Town Planning approvals.

W hat asking the CCC to do?

res|Mctfully recpjests that the CCC to.

a. open a full investigation of his complaint and launch prosecutions against ail parties for fostering and partaking in illegal planning processes, about t h e ^ B Retlevelopment and MCU Oeveiopment Application; and

b. prosecute the CEO and other relevant parties in relation to the CEO's purposehji breach of Section 44; his purposeful abuse of his position; his conflict of interest; his purposefully misinforming the CCC that he had fully Investigated the matter, when he had not; and his abhorrent and self-interested classification of our client's complaint as "vexatious and frivolous."

We look forward to your reply and thank you for reading our client's submission.

Yours faithfully ___

Position: Solicftor/nrector and Principal

Page 11 of 28

Page 12 of 28

Our ftef:

3 May 2016

Deal

RE: $2.1 million RedevebHHnent of |

Thank you for briefirg me in relation to the sequence of events pertinent to the above matter, particularly as regards the issuance of a building api 'ovai which followed, at the compietton of constrw:tion. with a Certificate of Clarification.

Before prc^rerlng, it needs to be reinforced that the ^ H ia r e

uses for the

PubKc Amenities (note ttm there was a doner Room as an auxiliary use);

The applicant was the Australia; B i^ B P ia n n k ig P/L; and

{[H P and their agents] iject Certifiers).

The process followed by the applicant and their agents Invoived 3 statutory steps which, in our view, were totally compromised due to falsified Information. These steps were:

1. IDAS Form 1 Approval (Building Works Approval) by the Assessment Manager (Oept of Environment and Heritage Protection ('DEHP'):

a. Item 6: the currant uses of the premises were declared as (those highlighted being incorrect):

Page 12 of 28

Page 13 of 28

• Public Conveniences- Stmv (Kiosk)' Meeting Room and MusiHjm- Board Hire Premises [tills activity was operating but unapproved)- Lifesavers Training

b. The architectural drawings prepared b y A u s t r a l i a and which accompanied the IDAS Applicatksn and were approved by DEHP showed the existirtf uses as (those highlighted i^lng incorrect):

* Shop' fOtchen- Hall* Surf Stop- Workshop- Public Amenities (including the auxiliary Boiler Room/Storel

c. Howevef the DEHP stamc»d ato approved proposed floor plan drawing s^nificandydiffers from the existing uses in the following respects (those highlighted being incorrect);

- Boiler Room/Store not noted- Space where Boiler Room/Store was now becomes a Store:- Museum and Beach Awarenoss Centra included

I Tr^tUrm Room included

You instruct me that it was well expr^ed in documentation, including under the control of DEHP and | H B H Council, that alteratiom to the Store area were planned and. In fact Implemented, for no other purpose than the construction of a Bar, meaning that the aeation of a Store was never intended to be given effect to. This was specified in the Heritage impact Statement, well in advance of the IDAS fomi 1 Approval, with words to the effect, "to cllitate addition^ food and beverage and function facilities.''

Unlawful Coitduct by DEHP and all entitles associated with the Application:

The unilateral change of the land use from Store to Bar was, in our view, unlawful in that DEHP, who had no statutory authority in relation to town planning issues, allowed the drawings to be manipulated in breach of town planning provisions (in that proper MCU processes were not engaged in); and permitted Illicit and deceitful tampering with statutory documents during a formal assessment phase.

2. Building Works (for Construction) Approval by the Building Certifier, B ^ P r o je c t Certifiers

In H H I IDAS Form 1, they list the existing uses as Retail and PuMic Amenities, which are totally incorrect.

Again, this is a false declaraticm In a forniai statutory approval process.

Page 13 of 28

Page 14 of 28

niey also approved a drawing ttiat was different from the drawir^ stamped and approved by OEHP in l.c above. For example, in relation to the Store (which now know was planned for a Bar) there is the inclusion of a roller shutter, which is indicative of a planned Bar.

Issuance b y ^ |[ j| | of a Form 11 Certihcate of Classification upon completion of construction of the redevelopment project, whk:h Certificate provides the right to occupy the premises:

hi essence. Government Guidelines for Certificate of Classifx:ations state that a classification issued in reiatlon to a devetopment must have r^ard to the use for which it was designed, bulit or adapted and state each ciasdfication restive to larxf use.

did not comfrfy with its statutory oUigations in this respect because they simply inserted for the land use description, ''Alterations 'Class 6."

jj^H shou ld have noted the following land uses in the Certificate:

• Shop Kitchen MuseumBeach Awareness Centre Lifesaver Training Room Store (Bar)

lllllllllll^ failure to properly specify the individual land uses is a breach of Section 103 of the Building Act (Qld) in that it should have noted the Class for each individual land use.

The majority of the above land uses are Class 6, however the Museum and Beach Awareness Centre are places of aswmlNv and should have been noted as Class 9 (b), which dictates higher standards of building materials and fire wall separation, to name but a few, for the whole building.

Cofictusdon:

Based upon the foregoing, we are left with no alternative but to conclude that there has teen a systemic and deliberate disregami of the due process of the taw as it relates to the building approvals for this project. Specifically, the Classification is inv^id and unlawful and there should not be any occupancy of the premises concerned. We are further concerned as to:

i. the arbitrary nature of amendments to drawings in a project where there were many parties invoived, including a State Government Department;

li. the lack of a relevant MCU, albeit that the applkant, subsequently, after the premises were operating, obtained a part-premises MCU approval;

Page 14 of 28

Page 15 of 28

iti. the consequent compromising of building safety in terms of materials, fire separation etc. in circumstances where it was planned to have people assembling for, for example, alcohol consun^ton; and

iv. whether or not this example is s^ptomatic of unlawful bad practice in process, governance and certifkation on thel

We tru2% you find our comments helpM and would pleas^ to answer any queries which you might have.

Yours feithfuliy

Position; SoVcltor/DjnKterandPfiKfealPhone:Email:

Page 15 of 28

16 of 28 C R I M E A N D M I S C O N D U C T C O M M I S S I O N

OarRefei ce: CoiUM Officer:] QUtBM SLAT MD

18 Febniaty 2013

PRIVATE A PERSONAL

•m ail:

RE: YOUR CONCERNS

Thank you for your e-mails of 6 and 8 February 2013 in which you provide^urther information in relation the concerns about the conduct of an officer o f th<City Council (the council) regarding th<

We have c ^ fu lly considered the information contained in your most recent correspondence.

You will recall from our letter to you of 31 January 2013 we advised theCM C’s role is to ensure matters of ‘official misconduct’ in Queensland’s public sector agencies are dealt with effectively and appropriately.

Following the receipt o f your e-mails of 31 December 2012 and 2 January 2013, the CMC exercised its statutoiy obligation to deal with the matters o f official misconduct you detailed.

ThecOTcems you have raised regarding the council officer’s conduct in relation to the were referml to Uie council to deal with. Nothing confined in your most

recent correspontknce causes the CMC to alter its view that dtis is the most appropriate course o f action.

Youre-nmils o f 6 and 8 February 2013 have not been provided to the council. I f you wish to provide further informatioiMi^ippor^fyour complaint^teas^ontact the council’s CMC Liaison on telephone | | | | | | | | | ^ ^ ^ .

Please n«e, as the council is the agency responsible for dealing with your concerns, future correspondence received from you in relation to this matter will be forwarded to the council tor its consideration.

Yours sincerely

SERVICES

Page 16 of 28

CouncillorDivision

ConwiiBiSkJii

O w 8 MMtadWn

S«clion 38 o f The Crime and liSBCoiidua A ct2001 requires rne, as a pidrfic o^dal. to noll^ you If a inallar ImolweB, or may fe w o ^ ofBcial miaoonduct

hi M Bm ant o f n v didy under ttitf Section, I therelDre vwifeB to riotify you o f hre rnatters eMah iaeslire otikin l inlBoofiducl

Botii m atlari rataae to toe <an M o d e lx 4 fn ^ U ||U a tJm pm eeitln CourxS). « id were broughl to my notice by a oonstilueiit. P I le to M a d toal Ire ptare Me o g re |||M |u M d 8n0, and he dto so fay ia iB r detod 5 rearuB ry2013 . A copy of toe j^ M B ^ p e lle r , wtih aSanhmanli, to Mfcadred. A tortoer IM to rd reK ill Ftoaireqr2013 (w <hallachiiianii ad d aio to elnlbiTneiion enctoMd. Ihew eoancludK itoeltoeretoeprtarelw iiB oaeetoauaportof — f rmi . and that I raoat toereiaw notoy you.

'n w d e ta K c ^ tre tH D m a a e re m ^ b e d to o a m e d h e n iH H Ik M la re . How ew r.by erey re ■wreaucnn, i prDvna ree RMOMang oacNBtrejra uironnason.

haa been Mad fre preeenntion as an IMndrbuadtop. ttaan«dlbrii»nydeQadea|)FOvfdtoeshoweia.loiletoandGlmn0e reomafarhaBiare. ThwewaatoaoaaraaaidoaicaoMrtoanaelciandiei reahmanto. There

Lueed tor atoiaoaL and ocaaaienal miwinire bv the _ Howreirer,MprinoMaUjMUfl|Ma8 relevant

toaaafBrbaiwre ThebMUtoo Men Cream land faaanged by | H H B ^ Council.I to various oparetore. Theinaloperetonm

, vriiioh cuwenibf remetoa in poeaereion.

ia^aO TM asisffifyiff^e»i0ir>ii pn»d. awdapanflrom toeDapartmaatolSuatatoaMKtf. EatoPaaRMRt, IMrear, PepulBlDAandConBnunMeafnCBitooMe, fl M Prevecaniedout

worfci at toe presrin^heO ubw D idd maintain toafalrequfatiepermRs and. ^ • . m ._■■—» ................................» . - jg _ a ------------------a.._ —^ B M A ---------a - ■ , , ■ j p , ,(mreaoaaeao. MM^VrearaBtoareaKvrereDacremeRaaDncouaBnBrecs

baan dbabeyad, end toal tire ftodandGeaireaMalQnnl and variouapermlli have been alNriMd aa a reaul of Mtooondaet wHi Cold Coari C ly Ctoond and tire Queanaiand Daparitirentof Enwbonmetitand HeritoBelhelactiDn. Preeantiy. tirerelareiapplcation tor W aria l Chaage of Uee belbre Coundl to relaBoniD tire use o f pari of tire preriiBee,

^ * ------- * * « . » - -m -ererepi rex M f are kUML..J2

7 of 28

Page 18 o f 28

tn li^8w vloM (C M O P ^ 2MUBttMdtBaWMFWfan-MCU____________________________________ 22Frtw iy2013

The two xnptaintB may be sttm n^^ad as fbiows:

1. HHnMdeanapplcM lonfbrlUm ingtotieFadacalDapaftmentofSurtrfM i iilly , Eiw ifDnnwnt. Water, Popi|g|onjnd C o^anun itav^ at Mtentel input *om a ante offlcor amr oyiad by Counci - <08 ofW llc rto n herew^.

It is aHeged tfw ipplktellon WB8 d e lla e i^ decepHwe. bi lhat a gave ttw Invew ion dial only H*aa teteiaaoite a w eontenvtelBd to the hteloric buidteQ andttiat^fM iifciw oiidiam atelnlad. Olhemlae,*«idteg would not haw been forlhooRino.

, the reatey (88 CoiflMira Giaiaa otecer waH toww w n dwt nrnicM iwereprapoeadtoiiealrucluvaandusageorihebuadtea. Whatwaaa

tinwlM oilcwattolM axwwiloiifiaedlpwaHlaeateiltianBapeniiionlh ii nwdM tnMoii yaarhuteniiaa C iM iG l% M ltaiteaor9 lliy201^^£C M m radtD lB

II M fu a n r2 (H ^ te n n fw p fa p fle te lo ^ H ^ H B a n lI — im • * ■ . . . . .. ------------------t ■ -tWHHBICRMi KiCb O U H M H H VOTI IFHKVIOOHV

tumoveia.

TIte eeoond ooftteia^ p iltic l)^ tewo^as cdnoeiuywAjeenteteid D e fa A i^KMJh B ^ H to a o a N e g e so fE ratoangt n iyjgaM aP rotecto

liy oAom of ■ H b CI^ Coundl

ItteallagBd-

(a) That Counc^ehould have baan the ABaeeementManagar, but wrongly d a o to a ^ M lh a M p a ^ ^

(b) That tie eaisfigSaor plan an endoeedakaa room which r te a demeWon plaii, a tioaeroom wtei a doer and

and lian in a propoaad Soer pten, the aiaa waa ahown as tewino ateMatnowalBw Thteamawaedaainedtobecomeabar.

(c) Theae cteaieteoi vddtet in iie poeaaei ion of flw Department of Envfrorwierrta ■ r ^ i n ■ - - - - JI . m . . j >....■■«------ _ ...■ -------------■ _ »

MW I m u y i f^wWBanMwronMBMiBv v ion i#R 9B n^ oy aoanon w noteioiB by pemena unteioim In e» Depaitnrient

I aantt your quatfona and Ganmnte.

Youraliu^

cxxm c ujo r FOR owmm lMtaeti

Page 18 of 28

Page 19 of 28

E m a i t -6 March 2013

ixecutive Coordinator Integrity and Ethical Standards

City Council

Dear Mr

When I spoke to you on Monday 4* March you asked me to indicate the headline reason/s for seeking an appointment with you. I did not provide you with details.

There has been a very small suite of correspondence provided to the CMC. They informed me they have passed that Information on to you for investigation. You confirmed that you had not yet read the correspondence. The CMC refer to you as their Liaison Officer.

m U H L I will now provide you with information that may assist you in your role as the CMC uaisorTOrficer with legal interpretations about frivolous and vexatious complaints that may lack substance or credibility which could include unjustifiable use of resources or dealing v^ith the complaint as it would be an unjustifiable use of resources.

because you are declining to take on board information, be informed of information or consider information that you are currently unacquaintedwittiyou are alleged to be in contempt of the following Queensland Government Legal Opinion. | H | H | | H , these issues could not be more serious. I propose you are acting on the uninformed a o v ic ^ T the CEO who Is claimed to be personally involved in the allegations. Therefore, it could be said that you are potentially seeking to pervert the course of justice by shutting down any investigation or to provide a response in a fair and reasonable manner to any complaints that it receives.

Lega/ Op/n/on

CASE FACTS

Case Facts

1. On occasion, Council has situations where constituents act in a frivolous and vexatious manner toward its officers. In some such cases, constituents have made repeated complaints to Council in an attempt to hold up the administrative process and to waste the time o f Council officers.

2. Council seeks advice on how it should handle complaints which are o f a frivolous and/or vexatious nature.

OPINiON

Opinion

3. We have considered the relevant legislation and note that there are no specific legislative provisions dealing with how Council must respond to frivolous and vexatious complaints.

Page 19 of 28

Page 20 of 28

4. We do, however, note that section 8(1) o f the Public Sector Ethics Act provides that Council officers must, in broad terms:-

(a) provide advice which is objective, independent, apolitical and impartial;

(b) show respect towards all persons, including members o f the general public; and

(c) act honestly, fairly and respectfully in engagements with the community.

5. Having regard to these broad imperatives, we consider that Council should adopt a system whereby complaints are assessed to determine:-

(a) the seriousness o f the matters underlying the complaint; and

(b) whether the complaint is properly characterised as frivolous and/or vexatious.

6. As a matter o f good administrative practice, and to avoid any finding by the Ombudsman that Council has not acted appropriately, we consider that Council should, in the first instance, respond in a fair and reasonable manner to any complaints that it receives. However, in the cases where a complaint is inherently frivolous and/or vexatious, or otherwise deals with issues that Council has already considered and responded to, we do not consider that Council is obliged to provide a response.

7. In other words, where a complaint is frivolous and/or vexations, either because o f the matters the subject o f the complaint or because it merely repeats a complaint that has already been made, Council need not investigate the complaint nor provide a detailed response to the complainant.

8. We have considered the contents o f Council’s Administrative Action Complaints Policy and note that it makes no provision for the handling o f complaints which are frivolous or vexatious. Council may consider amending this policy to explicitly provide for the handling o f such complaints, so that it is clear to the public that Council will adopt certain procedures where a complaint is deemed to be frivolous o r vexatious.

9. We note that other Councils have expressly provided for the handling o f frivolous o r vexatious complaints in their Administrative Action Complaints Policies. In one particular example that we have considered, the policy provides that Council will refuse to investigate a complaint where it considers that the complaint is trivial, concerns a frivolous matter o r was made vexatiously. If Council were to amend its policy to make similar provision, it would be clear to the public that Council is not prepared to investigate and respond to complaints that are o f a frivolous or vexatious nature.

10. Ultimately, Council needs to be mindful o f the foregoing advice in its handling o f all complaints received, having regard to the fact that an unsatisfied complainant may take their grievances to the Ombudsman, who may in turn undertake an Investigation o f Council’s handling o f the matter. It is, therefore, important that Council maintain thorough and accurate records o f its handling o f complaints, such that it can defend the course o f action undertaken by Council in the event that an aggrieved person takes a matter to the Ombudsman.

the above legal opinion indicates that neither you nor the CEO has discretion to ignore ^ y e ^ jn K n o w n complaint. Accordingly, I believe the motive of your letter is to intimidate and threaten in the hope it will scare or bewilder. Your letter has been referred to the CMC.

Yours tru ly,

Page 20 of 28

Page 21 of 28

9mc

■ B k i

C R I M E A N D M I S C O N D U C T C O M M I S S I O N

» ife B ^ 3 e i3%

QUBBNSLANO

B m t H B

KK» B O C K a i » B n A L W c x » i c » m i b u m B i r l

Th*fc>eB S r3F * liB * flf 19 leeiived 2$

BMlMtfoB (fts) dBpwMnM^ iifilMiQB toibo nwtaioHriBd oMI iBBhs

i jw rtn i% n iM ilg iiT i nngiMw ftuiuHi tn 1 h p Q ia | o a n a B k M *% M i« M n d « id f if ta iA l» 4 w c iitf« iiif iv » « iB H rC C 8 0 ^ o fte

Y m n ^a o m tfy

Page 21 of 28

Page 22 of 28

This le tte r establishes the 'musical chairs' approach. Everything from here on in w ill come back to the devolved decision o f the CCC and the decision made by the GCCC CCC Liaison Officer.

From: Mailbox Ombudsman Sent; Friday. March 22, 2013 3:52 PMToii ____ __Subject: 2 0 i^ ^ ^ ^ ( O u r ref) - Re; Your complaint

O ur re f: 2013/j

22 March 2013

D e a r m i^ ^ ^

Thank you for your email dated 20 March 2013, and attached letter dated 19 March 2013 addressed to Councillor||m||||||||||, Mayor, Gold Coast City Council.

As advised during your telephone conversation with a Complaints Officer from this Office on 18 March 2013, we have formed the view that your compiaint involves allegations, which if proven, could constitute official misconduct.

For this reason, the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) is the appropriate agency to review your concerns. The CMC is an independent organisation that receives and assesses complaints alleging misconduct in public sector agencies.

in this regard, 1 note your letter to C o u n c il lo r^ was also sent as a 'cc’ to the CMC.

Accordingly, no further action is proprosed by this Office in relation to this matter.

Yours faithfully

Assistant Assessment Officer Intake and Engagement Unit

Office of the Queensland OmbudsmanT:

Page 22 o f 28

Page 23 of 28

25 March 2013

Daarl

your iWfM anllGlpatnn was cem ct

The hew now wrtten admoMiede^no Ae ooiiwleinb I filed. MMky « » l yourconcerns hedrihwdy been raised and h«e been fwferred to Comcflwid the Depertment of E ri*a in w t mb H iilie e ProlBcfican to be dee* widL

Iteeeine otoerthatlhe CMC intondetoteice no adronwhiteoewron my tetter. Tbeoperatlw part of tt» le tiy aiwpiyaeid*n>anl( you for bifcigino tw ee rniaieri lo the Mtentfonof^ CMC*.

C>wsir|x1ainoeipKtafttielM lM 'lKM ttwCUCcM rotM thsydklnatfeG eiwniylM terant« 6 days Is dMMWt I tookbie piacatfdn o f p e ^ llfl ihe letter peraona^ *1 an BqamwOaawty anwiope.

Youm M noan^

Page 23 of 28

Page 24 o f 28

20 June 2017Email-

icai Standards Unit Council

D e a r ^ ^

Re: Your letter dated 13 June 2017

On the 6^ January 2017 I wrote to ^ request for information over t h e j | | | lLiterature Review o f Economic and FinancSHmpacts of heritage listing published in August 2 o ^ ^

The correspondence did not involve t h e ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ complaint. It was a request for heritage dannStlorT

) nor did it Involve a

On the 29*^ March 2017 I received an email f r o n ^ ^ M ^ H a d v is in g me he had received a response to my request for information noted as Literature Review'. The Reviewcontained unrequested information about theConservation Management Plan (Conservation P o lic y ^ ^ T ^ a n o n y rrT O u ^ a u tn o ^ f the letter acKnowledged that copies of the document were made available to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP),

Council was required to have the Conservation Policy that it had commissioned approved by Council-ln-Chambers. But it did not do so. A Conservation Policy is a lawfully supporting document pertinent to t h e H jH H j jH Planning Scheme for development upon a heritage listed place. It is not a mandatory incIusiornrn!eritage assessment by DEHP.

The Club Inc is the lessee of t h ^ ^ ^ ^ L T h ^ H H I wasfu rn is n e ^ J itO T ^ m a p p S v e c ^ o n ^ rv a t io r^ o ^ ^ by the City of ■ ■ ^ f t e r itspublication in March 2 0 1 0 . Immedi atel y used the m a n d a to r^ o n s m a tio r ffo llc y in an application to the Australian Government for a Federal grant ($367,000.00). The application was lodged on the 31 May 2010 and was in due course successful. However, it is claimed the two entities fraudulently duped the Australian Government as the Conservation Policy was not approved. The Australian Government has provided me with the documents used In assessing the grant application. Similarly. DEHP did the same for the heritage development application.

Yesterday, Mr disputed my statement that the Conservation Policy had not beenapproved by C o u n o n ^ l searches were undertaken to be able to make such a claim. 1 was surprised Mr I H I H I had not verified the legitimacy of this information as the allegation was central to my J u n ^ ^ e tte r . Either the Conservation Policy is approved or it is not? Would you please state your position?

T T

Page 24 of 28

Page 25 o f 28

Separate to this heritage matter. I asked C r | | ^ H ^ o n the 9*" January 2017 to respond to mattersof operational compliance at the MBBP. C r ] H | | g confirmed on the 10* January 2017 that the request was denied due to hearsay. My letter o^S m pia in t followed on January 10.

Your email of the 11^ January 2017, although containing inaccurate information about referral to the CCC, claimed the appropriate stakeholder unit to receive my compiaint about the councillor was Executive Services. You forwarded my complaint to the Manager, Executive Services

My letter o f 1® June 2017 was relevant to t h e H ^ Literature Review but also advised you that I had still not received a response from E xe cu tiv^e rv lce s over the operational compliance issues. Five months on I have still have not had a response. Why?

Your letter o f 13 June 2017 over the | | |H | Review confirmed the | | m rnatters have been extensively reviewed by Council th roug rnne adopted C om pla in ts (A om in istra tive Actions) Policy and Procedures when that is unquestionably not the case. Your correspondence is evasive. Your header advises that your response is on behalf of Executive Services but does not attach their review; a s th e appropriate unit. Your stand-alone letter then determines that the matters regarding t h e | | ^ | have been extensively reviewed by Council. The matters have not been officially r e v ie w e ^ ^ I th e r council or Council. I have never been interviewed by the CGC or the CCC.

The only connected correspondence emanated on the 5 March 2013 by the GCCC Integrity and Ethical Standards and CCC Integrity Officer. informed by M r | l j | | l theChief Executive Officer had invoked s44 of tn ^ C n m ^ a n d Corruption Act and accordingly he intends to take no action and to discontinue any action taken to deal with the complaint thus far. That has been the consistent pattern of conduct up to and including your current letter.

in my possession I hold a number of letters and/or emails from council advising me over the past four years council would not respond to matters surrounding the | | H | - Ongoing information a s s ig n e e was provided by former councillor In one standouTemaii council informedCr | H that a response to his 'Councillor R e q u e s t^o u ld not be provided because it was considered the information was being sought on my behalf.

For you to misrepresent the truth of the matter and seek to rearrange the outcome is a mischievous attempt to cover up and protect Executive Services.

confirmed that he relied upon the s44 determination (5.3.13) by M r ^ ^ | which was the re a s o r^ r my email on the 19^ instant

IM h M a tte r part 0 ^ 0 1 6 you h e l^ ^ p e rs o n a l meeting with ■ ^ ^ ^ L re p re s e n ta t iv e Mr ■ ■ H p j j ^ f o v e r the H | | and the wrote to me and said.^ T ^ n a t t e r has oeen referred t ^ n ^ e le v a n t C it^co u n c il Integrity and EthicalStandards Unit to support your representation for assessmenHo the CCC.”

Nevertheless, you will not undertake a meeting with me after five years of meticulous interrogation of all flies associated with t h e j H H which includes many thousands of pages of council's internal documents obtained under R T ^ S o jik e M r ^ ^ H you also refuse an interview.

Page 25 of 28

Page 26 o f 28

_ was not the only person to express concern and make a formal complaint over the e list o f notable complainants also includes:

Former (Deputy Chair. City Planning)Former C r ^

.awyersie Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner

How m a n ^u a lifie d complainants are required before your unit senses there is a serious problem over th e | | |^ | |^ a n d more generally with the ■ ■ a d m in is tra t io n ? You would recall your email of 16 D ecem B e^O IS where you wrote to m e ,T tS U assesses complaints about corrupt conduct which involves interaction with multiple complainants.”

Executive Services have to lie about their role to maintain their cover up and obstruction of justice. They are protecting the highly corrupted culture that prevails at City Hall.

Irem a in of the opinion that council has duped the Crime and Corruption Commission over the m u and my affairs. Separately, council has tainted my reputation and slandered my name as occurred in at least two public statements

M ^ o s s ie r o f 7 February 2017 contained substan tia te ^ev ldenceo f deception by B U B ■ ^ ■ . The legal opinion dated 3 May Lawyers (p ro v id ^ o r ^TOvemBer 2016) unambiguously 'triplicate U presentationremains unanswered by your office.

Such manipulation is how my substantiated evidence is continually handled as well as the substantiated correspondence from my lawyers. The incriminating evidence is ignored then a letter claiming the issues have been extensively reviewed is submitted or alternatively council relies upon s44 to not answer the charges. Such decision-making is a deliberate cover up of corrupted practises whilst perverting the course of justice.

Although Executive Services has refused to consider my issue surrounding the legality of the Conservation Policy they have not responded to the information request from January 2017 over operational compliance at the which you directed Executive Services resolve. It seemspotentially apparent that you reporOo the Chief Executive Officer and are obliged to uphold his directions notwithstanding widespread evidence of corrupted practises.

I will make one more RTI search for the approval date of the Conservation Policy. Should it not be approved as other searches indicate I will consider legal action against the City of Gold Coast and more particularly against you for failing to consider this incriminating complaint?

I have decided to conclude this response to your letter of 13 June 2017 by naming the council officers involved in t h e ^ ^ H swindle.

Yours truly,

Page 26 of 28

Page 27 of 28

City Of the nc u

officers Involved In the illicit swindle surrounding the redevelopment of

Chief Executive Officer - Mr City Solicitor - Mr Integrity Officer arid c u u Liaison Integrity Investigative Officer - Manager, Office of the CEO - Manager, Executive Services ~Director, Community and Cuitura Organizational Services Director - Executive Coordinator Parks - MrManager Parks - Mr__________Director, Planning, Environment and TransManager. Planning and implementation >____Executive Coordinator Planning A ssessm en t Supervising Town Planner - Mr Supervising Town Planner SoutSenior Town P la n n e r-_____Manager, Property Services^Senior Property Manager_^Senior Heritage Officer - Building Compliance Officer Building Compliance Officer - Mayor _ h ||||||h h

C h a irm a n ^ ix ^ la n n ln g -

fcer-

eveo ment -

T h ^ e n tra l fig u re ^h a ^o m m e n ce d m manipulation of the planning process w e r e | |a n d j j B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H j l o f H H I I Planning Pty Ltd.

Page 27 of 28

Page 28 of 28

26 June 2017Email-

Icai Standards Unit Council

D e a r ^ ^

Re: My letter dated 20 June 2017

I was remiss by not informing you that I have always claimed that the application of s44 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2009 by the COG Liaison Officer, supposedly on behalfof the Chief Executive Officer on 5 March 2013 was f la w e ^ n n ie re T o re invalid. 1 rely upon the vvTitten Legal Opinion of the Queensland Government titled ‘Case Facts’. A copy of the legal opinion was provided t o ^ ^ ^ ^ H on the 6 March 2013. It was ignored.

Now able to be included is the attachment o f ^ ^ ^ H H m Lawyers and their legal opinion over s44 v4iich the ia'A^ers provided to the C rirri^an ^C o rrup tio n Commission. In their opinion it confirms that the use of s44 was unfounded and an abuse.

and m i j l H was a desperate attempt to cover up the swindle and isolate the incriminating d isco ve n e ^^ ta in e d from my council RTIAccordingly. I claim the use of s44 by

searches.

Yours tru ly ,

Page 28 of 28