CASE # 2

Case #2

This is the second case of Failure of Duty of Care by the Fisheries Department to create a licensing system that records and protects the beneficial ownership of a constitutional fishing right.

NB: The Fisheries Department do not accept a transfer of an LEF as a change of ownership. Change of Ownership is only recognised when a stamp duty receipt accompanies the transfer application.

As with Case #1, a Licensed Fishing Boat Licence [LFBL]holder transferred a Limited Entry Fishery [LEF]licence attached to that LFBL that the LFBL holder was not the beneficial owner of, assuming beneficial ownership and entering into a sale contract.

As with Case #1, the actual/beneficial owner was not aware of or gave permission for the transfer and sale of his LEF.

As with Case #1, the Department “CONSIDERED’ the LFBL holder ‘OWNER’ of the LEF, by it being registered on that LFBL,

As with Case #1, the Fisheries Department had no legislation to register and safeguard beneficial ownership, being a Failure of Duty of Care. See Legal Opinion Case #1 EVIDENCE PAGES

As with Case#1, the LFBL holders, assuming beneficial ownership and selling an LEF they did not ow,n committed FRAUD Criminal Code- Section 409 [1][c],[d]

In 1995, Jim Mace and Andre Hoskins, the LFBL holder, leased Mr Ackerstrom’s LEF,[cray pots]and proceeded as “considered’ ‘to transfer and sell them. Mr Ackerstrom got wind of this and, after reporting it to the Police, they were charged with the offence of 7 counts of FRAUD.

The case went to trial District Court-Criminal Geraldton 10 1996. Judgment 1/11.1999, and they were sentenced to 4 years’ gaol. Ken Bates settled this matter for the DPP’s office .See reference to -EVIDENCE PAGES

This trial and judgement created legal precedent 1 An LEF is “a thing capable of being stolen” as defined in the Criminal Code.

2That the sale of an LEF by an LFBL holder, not the beneficial owner, amounts to deceit and fraudulent means.

NB:Case #1 was not prosecuted by John McKetnie DPP on the grounds that QUOTE “The Licence did not seem to come within the category of non-tangible things recognised by the criminal law as things capable of being stolen,and accordingly Mr McKetnie’s view was that a stealing charge would not be appropriate,”-“Furthermore, Mr McKetnie expressed his doubts as to whether Blenkinsop’s actions amounted to :deceit or fraudulent means’ as required by s409 of the code”. Letter DPP to Fraud Squad 3 June 1997,yes a year after McKetnie and Ken Bates created the PRECEDENT mentioned above.

Given that no stamp duty was paid or receipt of supplied with the transfer of Mark Paxtons LEF to Fred Blenkinsop’s LFBL ,therefore NO change of ownership to Blenkinsop as per Fisheries Licencing Policy

And given that Blenkinsop’s 2 partners in Blenkinsop Fay and Nominees the registered owners of the LFBL ,Jim and Kerry Fay , made signed statements to the Fraud Squad emphatically stating Blenkinsop sold Mark Paxton’s LEF without their knowledge ,and that at all times Mark Paxton was the owner of the LEF situated on their LFBL.

And given that Blenkinsop claimed the FIsheries “granted him the LEF in question,which,

Jim Mace was the boat broker who handled the transfer and sale of Mark Paxtons fishing right by Fred Blenkinsop in 1991,being Case#1

Jim Mace witnessed first hand Fred Blenkinsop committing FRAUD and getting away with it,with the Executive Director of Fisheries Peter Rogers knowledge acceptence and refusal to report Fraud, address the issue and attempt to resolve it,informing all parties of the distinction between “considered ” and beneficial/actual ownership,review his licencing system,re duty of care to beneficial owners,and make amendments to the act , to rectify his woefully inadequte licencing system,which he is obliged by Legislation to do.

Apparently Jim Mace being aware of and complicit in Fred Blenkinsops use of an inadequate licencing system to commit FRAUD thought being “considered owner” was afoolproof way to steal cray pot licences without recourse.

What he didn’t realise was that Blenkinsop was not prosecuted ,to cover up Peter Roger’s actions and inactions that would have cost him his job, criminal charges and the Department torts of negligence with respect to failure of duty of care,abuse of power, and perverting the course of justice.

No-one commits Fraud in Western Australia unless the DPP says so.There are only two differences between Case#1 and Case#2,Peter Roger’s involvement and John McKetnies assessment.