Fred is on record giving four different conflicting explanations for how he he had a right to Sell Mark Paxton’s LEF,all uncorroborated by Fisheries records ,his two partners,or any paperwork.With Peter Rogers refusing to report the Fraud ,Mark Paxton did.He was investigated and charged.

Stupid stupid Jimmy Mace, who as the boat broker complicit in Fred Blenkinsop’s Fraud,watched the Fisheries,Rogers that is,not report Fred’s obvious Fraud,not cancel the transfer,not review the Licencing system,not interview Paxton and Fred ,not notify Fred that not being beneficial owner ,he had committed Fraud,and most importantly not amend the licencing system whereby an LFBL holder can transfer and sell a licence the Department knows he’s not the Beneficial owner of,but “consider”him the owner of.

Jim Mace was aware of Mark Paxton’s appeal to Peter Rogers, to have the transfer cancelled, receiving no response or action.

Together with Andre Hoskins the LFBL holder they leased a Mr Ackerstroms craypot entitlements,and began selling them.They were the Considerred Owners by Peter Rogers’ Fisheries Department, by virtue of the cray LEF being on Andre’s LFBL They were charged with Fraud prosecuted by the DPP John McKetnie, and lead prosecutor Ken Bates,found guilty and sentenced to four years gaol each..See Geraldton District Court 1996

See Letter DPP to Major Crimes Squad

NB:,see Headline The Australian newspaper 22/2/2018 retired Major Fraud Squad Detective, David McAlpine quote :Investigation….subverted due to political interference”,by the W.A. DPP being McKetnie.

If the question of whether a fishing licence is something capable in Law of being stolen, needed to be addressed and assessed ,which according to the W.A. Police it didnt ,as they work on the adage “If it can be sold, it as value,and if it has value, it can be stolen,then it would have been addressed and assessed prior to the Mace,Hoskins case and as they DID prosecute they had already found that a fishing licence is capable in Law of being “STOLEN”.

The Supreme Court makes any assessment by McKetnie and Bates irrelevant ,as its finding Mace and Hoskins GUILTY OF FRAUD established Precedent contrary to the two grounds for not prosecuting Fred Blenkinsop ,relied upon by the DPP john McKetnie and his lead prosecutor Ken Bates,[also lead prosecutor in the Mace Hoskins successful prosecution for FRAUD.]

You might recognise Ken Bates’ name he is the prosecutor found GUILTY of stitching up Andrew Mallard for Murder.

As to McKetnie’s statement in that letter ,that if it was stolen it would not have been Fraud,well the only way you can steal an intangible asset IS FRAUD.You have to assume Beneficial Ownership ,which of course was possible as the fishing licence stolen was situated on Fred Blenkinsop’s LFBL ,and considerred “OWNED” by the LFBL holder with no Legislated register of Beneficial Ownership or safeguard to protect Mark Paxton’s Constitution right to fish.

Rogers needed Fred Blenkinsop’s Fraud to go away and it did.

If Fred was found guilty of Fraud Rogers would have been guilty of breaching Public Standards,perverting the course of Justice,collusion in Fraud,Fraud,Abuse of Power and corruption,being criminal charges,not to mention his failing to amend an inadequate licencing system and it happening again.

Two failures of duty of care by The West Australian Fisheries Department. resulting from actions and inactions of Peter Rogers.

See Ombudsman letter clearly evidencing Peter Millington’s lies to pervert the course of Justice.

See Standing committee on Public Administration informal inquiry.

Kim Chance Quote i accept all the evidentiary facts ,those facts being ,Departmental Failure of Duty Of Care,the subsequent two Frauds resulting from Peter Rogers’ criminal negligence ,incompetence and lack of integrity,saying he would call for Peter Rogers dismisal in Parliament .He wasnt happy when he realised Rogers lied to him in the Standing Committee of Public Administration, .As to John McKetnies involvement he just raised his eyebrows Hmmm.See ministerial correspondence,re exemption and inquiry.

The Minister assured Mark Paxton he could fish until it was established through a Fisheries Inquiry into who Holds controls or has an interest in the fishing right in question [crucially on the day of Transfer],as per section 249 Fish Resourse Management Act.Establishing who was the beneficial owner of the fishing right on 1991 the day it was transferred and sold,being the only fact needed to be established.

NB:One phone call from Rogers to The Licencing Department requesting stamp duty receipt,that doesn’t exist ,would have confirmed NO change of Ownership from Mark Paxton.

As to “Issues and Matters related to the Transfer,being possible Failure of Duty of Care,by the Fisheries Department,and Fraud by the LFBL holder,both Supreme Court matters,it would be necessary to use FRMA 1994 section 155 “CASE STATED’ He instructed Rogers to hold he inquiry.Rogers didnt hold this inquiry instead getting the State Solicitors Office to investigate the Departments exposure to litigation.The outcome this investigation was that any claim against the Department was statute barred by time constraint.NB you have two years to sue the Government a fact Mark Paxton and Kim Chance had discussed already and certainly NOT the basis for the inquiry.Rogers completely ignored,establishing Beneficial Ownership,and seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court as to possible Failure of Duty of Care and Fraud by the LFBL holder.

Rogers waited out Kim Chance as Minister of Fisheries 20 months,then when Jon Ford became Minister of Fisheries Rogers instructed him i had no claim and the Exemption was cancelled.See Jon Ford Letter and Peter Rogers letters to Mark Paxton

At this Meeting Jon Ford became aware of the whole corrupt mess.

Mark Paxton had submitted an application for an AIMWTF lic to replace the stolen one and after 2 years and a little prompting by the opposition Minister of Fisheries in Parliament,see Hansard the appllication, of course ,was finally rejected by Peter Rogers.This triggered a State Administration Tribunal.

Jon Ford, in light of the forthcoming SAT proposed making an amendment creating a 17th or Vacant Licence.He assured Mark Paxton he would and told the opposition Fisheries Minister Bruce Donaldson that he had intended to or had already done it ,as evidenced in his statement in Parliament May i remind the member there is a vacant licence in the plan

The amendment to the act, was to allow for a Vacant licence that could be given to Mark Paxton.Jon ford was delighted that someone else would deal with and resolve the issue.

Peter Rogers,would have in 1991 thought that as with most problems like this Mark Paxton would have hired a lawyer,the lawyer and Fisheries correspond over two years by which time any claim would out by virtue of the statute of limitations.Lawyer tells client that nothing can be done fisherman goes away.

Mark Paxton couldnt afford a lawyer so started reading law and did not go away.

Rogers would not have thought two Ministers would have become involved,and that with one, Kim Chance, he would have to subvert a Ministerial inquiry,to coand counterman a Ministerial Legislative Amendment directive and write unnecessary /unwarrented to industry Amendments for one purpose, stop Mark Paxton.

Each action by Mark Paxton forced Rogers to escalate his corruption.When Jon Ford requested him to prepare an amendment to the act to facilitate a Vacant lic for the SAT to give to Mark Paxton he had to up his corruption to Contempt of Parliament.There was going to be NO Vacant licence.

Jon Ford talking to Mark Paxton in the Broome airport in 2015 said quote- Mentioning your name at the Fisheries is like setting off the fire alarm.It had become a vendetta for Rogers.

Succinct correct acknowledgement, recognising abuse of power and criminal negligence,as you would expect from someone with Christian’s Legal knowledge and position as Attorney General Of Western Australia,as relayed by Peter Phillips in meeting December 2008 at Christian Porter’s Electoral office Bull Creek.

Thats a concise Legal Opinion from the Attorney General of Western Australia of the Fisheries Departments actions and inactions in the Fraudulent sale of Mark Paxton’s licence,recognising a Fraud, the Fisheries Departments failure to address it,and a licening system that allows it.

C P wrote a letter to M p to present to the P D Quote “no formal brief of evidence was presented to the DPP in relation to your matterr.’and set out the procedure to have the brief resubmitted to the DPP.

The police Department ihformed Mark Paxton unfortunately as Fred had died it could not be persued.

NB

NB:Legislation passed Amendments to

1 -Setting maximum headrope length of fishery,19 years after all those meeting entry criteria were issued licences ,setting maximum headrope length of fishery.It could only be increased if the Vacant Licence, Jon Ford, as Minister of Fisheries,requested Peter Rogers to put in those amendment was actually in those amendments.See hansard Jon Ford Quote May i remind the member there is a Vacant Licence in that plan,tabling the plan with amendments thinking Rogers had done as requested.

2 -Setting a cut off date for applying for a licence 19 years after everybody meeting entry criteria had applied and received licences

.3-Banning fishing with just a try net,when section makes it impossible to fish with just a try net,unless given a Ministerial exempting,which Mark Paxton did in 2005.

Rogers duped Jon Ford.These amendments were made,contrary to the Minister’s instructions and were made by Peter Rogers to quite successfully frustrate a State Administrative continue Peter Rogers’ cover up of his criminal negligence,the Departments Failure of Duty of Care,and his collussion in Fred Blenkinsops’s Fraud and continue his vendetta against Mark Paxton

.This is Contempt of Parliament ,perverting the course of Justice and Fraud Criminal code 409 section

NB:Jon Ford agreed to create a Vacant Licence because the inquiry into who held controlled or had an interest in Mark Paxton’s licence the previous Minister Kim Chance had instructed Peter Rogers to hold ,was never held.See Fish Resources Management Act Section 249 -inquiry into who holds controls or has an interest in an authorisation .An inquiry that would have established Mark Paxton’s beneficial ownership,the Departments Failure of Duty of Care the subsequent Fraud and more importantly Rogers criminal negligence,contravenning Public Sector Standards perverting the course of Justice and collussion in Fred Blenkinsop’s Fraud. Jon Ford wanted a Vacant Licence in the plan to enable the SAT to give it to Mark Paxton,Rogers thwarted this with his bent Legislation,and subverted inquiry.

See KIm Chance Letters re inquiry and issuing of new licence. .

NB:Rogers did not make these unnecessary amendments to any other trawl fishery.

NB:Legislation passed Amendments to

1 -Setting maximum headrope length of fishery,19 years after all those meeting entry criteria were issued licences ,setting maximum headrope length of fishery.It could only be increased if the Vacant Licence, Jon Ford, as Minister of Fisheries,requested Peter Rogers to put in those amendment was actually in those amendments.See hansard Jon Ford Quote May i remind the member there is a Vacant Licence in that plan,tabling the plan with amendments thinking Rogers had done as requested.

2 -Setting a cut off date for applying for a licence 19 years after everybody meeting entry criteria had applied and received licences

.3-Banning fishing with just a try net,when section makes it impossible to fish with just a try net,unless given a Ministerial exempting,which Mark Paxton did in 2005.

Rogers duped Jon Ford.These amendments were made,contrary to the Minister’s instructions and were made by Peter Rogers to quite successfully frustrate a State Administrative continue Peter Rogers’ cover up of his criminal negligence,the Departments Failure of Duty of Care,and his collussion in Fred Blenkinsops’s Fraud and continue his vendetta against Mark Paxton

.This is Contempt of Parliament ,perverting the course of Justice and Fraud Criminal code 409 section

NB:Jon Ford agreed to create a Vacant Licence because the inquiry into who held controlled or had an interest in Mark Paxton’s licence the previous Minister Kim Chance had instructed Peter Rogers to hold ,was never held.See Fish Resources Management Act Section 249 -inquiry into who holds controls or has an interest in an authorisation .An inquiry that would have established Mark Paxton’s beneficial ownership,the Departments Failure of Duty of Care the subsequent Fraud and more importantly Rogers criminal negligence,contravenning Public Sector Standards perverting the course of Justice and collussion in Fred Blenkinsop’s Fraud. Jon Ford wanted a Vacant Licence in the plan to enable the SAT to give it to Mark Paxton,Rogers thwarted this with his bent Legislation,and subverted inquiry.

See KIm Chance Letters re inquiry and issuing of new licence. .

NB:Rogers did not make these unnecessary amendments to any other trawl fishery.