Imagine coming home to find your neighbours have sold your house, and you ring the titles Department and they say, yes we know, we considered them owners for ease of paperwork, and yes we know it was your property and yes we know they committed fraud, and no we aren’t going to do anything about, in fact we will get the Ombudsman and the DPP to help us cover up our criminal negligence, lie about it at every opportunity, and rely on all future Ministers to collude in the corruption.
Well substitute neighbour for Licenced Fishing Boat Licence [LFBL] holder and Limited Entry Fishing [LEF] Licence for house and that is what happened to me.
In actual fact Peter Millington as Director of Licencing did tell me,[and it has been put in writing by Peter Rogers, that the LFBL holder is “considered owner” of any LEF situated on an LFBL] that this considered ownership was for ease of paperwork, which wouldn’t be a problem if they had a register of beneficial ownership, but they didn’t, which allowed the Fraud to happen and which constitutes a failure of duty of care.
I did ring the Department in 1992 to tell them the owner of the LFBL, i was leasing, transferred and sold my LEF on 3.5.91, without my knowledge or permission.
I should note here the registered owners of the LFBL G249 were Blenkinsop Fay and Nominees [BFN], Fred Blenkinsop, Jim and Kerry Fay. The Fays were unaware Fred sold my licence and in fact have made Statutory Declarations, and civil procedings as well as Fraud Squad interview statements that catagorically state it was at all times my licence , never the property of BFN.
The opening paragraph isn’t word for word what they said but it does demonstrate exactly their knowledge of my ownership and their reluctance to address the situation, the involvement ,actions and inactions, of the DPP, Ombudsman and subsequent Fisheries Ministers i will get to, but first i want to tell you of the “Shadenfreud” meeting.
Having told the Department of the situation i finally got a meeting with Executive Director of Fisheries Peter Rogers [ED 1991 to 2006}, on 17.2.93.
I call this the Shadenfreud meeting because its apparent the meeting was for the sole purpose of Peter Rogers’ enjoyment and delight at my misfortune.
He was famous for his disdain of fisherman.
I went to this meeting naively thinking this will now be sorted, taking with me Justice Masons’ High Court ruling [1978] to test a Public Administrators Duty of Care to an individual. His Specific and General reliance Test.
“If an individual has a specific or general reliance on a public administrator, that public administrator has a duty of care to that individual”
At this meeting was myself, the Executive Director of Fisheries Peter Rogers, Tony O’Conner from the Departments Legal Department and Alex Ceschner from Licencing.
I produced the High Court ruling, stating that the Department had Failed in their Duty of Care, to create an adequate Licencing System to protect my ACTUAL/BENEFICIAL Ownership, in response Rogers said Quote “we don’t have a Duty of Care”, incredible, and then he turned to Tony and Alex and said i guess to amuse them, ” we don’t have a Duty of Care to you ,you don’t have a licence anymore”. Nobody laughed.
He added to this ” I have to protect the Department or you and i’m going to protect the Department”.
I was astounded telling him he didn’t have the competency or integrity for his position, and i think he felt intimidated by my demeanor, because he got up a promptly left the room.
The Shadenfreud Meeting, a text book display of Narcissis Sociopath Mental Health Disorder [NSMHD]
I can tell you, when Rogers got up and ran out of the room, as long as his arsehole pointed to the ground he was going to do everything he could to ruin any possibility of me getting Justice, ignoring all Legislative Obligations, Public Sector Code of Ethics, lying to the Standing Committee of Public Administration, subverting the Subsidary Legislation Procedure, subverting an internal inquiry, making Amendments contrary to Ministerial instruction for the purpose of perverting the coarse of Justice and Denying Natural Justice, all of the above amounting to abuse of power and WA Criminal Code 409 FRAUD.
There is no doubt to my claim to a failure of Duty of Care and Fraud by Fred Blenkinsop, which Rogers Mr O’Conner and Mr Ceschner would have been aware of prior to this meeting. No Receipt of Stamp duty accompanied the transfer to LFBL G249, because there was no change of ownership.
The Department claims no change of ownership is “recognised” without a receipt of stamp duty paid accompanying the transfer document , but without a Legislated Register of Ownership where is change of ownership recognised ?, how does ownership exist ?
The Department Recognised me as Actual/ Beneficial Owner, before and after transfer to LFBL G 249, put in writing by, the Director of Licencing, Peter Millington in a letter to me 10.3.93, and “Considered” BFN owners as confirmed in writing by Peter Rogers on several occassions, with one letter from Peter Rogers to R Eadie Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations 14.2.1994, who i had made aware of the issue, reiterating the LFBL holders being “considered” owners, and adding, ” What has apparently been happening is that Mr Paxton has, by verbal agreements with the licencee, maintained some form of ownership, outside of the fisheries regulations”.
Well i say , what regulations ?, no regulations even remotely alluding to ownership existed, and yes i retained some form of Ownership, ACTUAL/BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP, and it didn’t need a verbal agreement with the Licencees.
So we have a mere fisherman quoting a High Court Ruling and telling an Executive Director how to do his job and that he doesn’t have the integrity or competency for his position, a red rag to someone with NSMHD, and the Department decides to do nothing,
The usual scenario here is that a fisherman goes to lawyer, he writes to the Department the Dept. writes back ,letters go back and forth till after 24 months from the crime the fisherman is told no action can be taken for want of time, and the fisherman gives up and goes away.
I did contact one lawyer who Rogers told BFN were the owners albeit “considered”, and that was that, i now realise at this point a Supreme Court Writ re Tort of Negligence should have been served, its a case of i wish i knew then what i know now.
But i didn’t give up and i didn’t go away.
I reported the Fraud, that Rogers was Legislatively Obliged to report, he may be able to ignore his legislated obligations but he can’t make a Fraud go away can he ?
The answer is no, only the DPP can do that.
Here i will digress from what was a campaign to bring accountability to the Department that involved many Government Departments, Public Sector Standards Commissioner, The Standing Committee for Public Administration [SCPA],Ombudsman, Parliamentary Commissioner for Admin. Investigations, Parliamentary Integrity Officer, Legislative Privledges and Precedures Committee Politicians , Ministers, Opposition Ministers , a Premier, questions in Parliament, media and any individuals who i thought could help, i definitely didn’t go away.
When you read on you will realise that these interactions were countered by Rogers with more corruption, it did indeed become a vendetta for Rogers, and that NSMHD led him to just dig the hole deeper, and deeper, he couldn’t help himself.
So i tell people that over the 30 plus years, until recently, i have only had 2 strokes of luck, one finding one Politician in 30 years with integrity, that was Kim Chance, Chairman of the SCPA then opposition Minister for Fisheries, then Minister of Fisheries.
The other stroke of luck was stupid, stupid, stupid, Jim Mace.
Jimmy Mace was Fred Blenkinsop’s boat, licence broker , his actions led to proving not only Peter Rogers’ Criminal Negligence and the Department’s Licencing System being woefully inadequate, but also proves the decision by John McKechnie to not prosecute Blenkinsop can not be relied upon.
People ask me how can you steal a fishing licence ?, well now you know it takes 3 things.
1 an inadequate licencing system, 2 a criminal willing to take advantage of an incompetent Government department to commit Fraud. And 3 to have this Fraud not addressed according to Legislative obligation by a Public Administrator being a text book Narcissis Sociopath.
Maritime Rights Organisation WA 