Criminal: Hills district MP Michael Richardson. When is he going to remove these uncorroborated lies and family court pleadings on the confidential Family Court affidavit from the NSW Parliament website?How can politicians commit criminal acts and not be subject to the law like everyone else? When are the police going to charge him for this crime?
REORDERING OF GENERAL BUSINESS
After the Community Protection Act 1994 was struck down by the High Court of Australia Getting Justice Wrong DPP make full admissions then NSW parliament reacted again as follows:
Community Protection (Dangerous Offenders) Bill
Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [2.48 p.m.]: I move:
That general business order of the day (for bills) No. 14 have precedence on Thursday, 10 April.
It is urgent that the Community Protection (Dangerous Offenders) Bill be reordered and debated by this House because at this very moment Gregory Wayne Kable is in the Parramatta Family Court seeking to gain access to his children, Brooke and Clarke Kable, aged nine and 11.
[After the High Court of Australia struck down the Community Protection Act 1994.]
Mr Kable wants to see them for two hours four times a year, at the end of school terms, with a view to building up a long-term relationship with them. He also wants to know their new names.
He has completed a 12-week parent training course and has approached the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Salvation Army to ask whether they could supervise the visits.
He says that the children want to see him but that their minds have been poisoned by their guardians. He claims that, far from punishing him, denying access to his children is punishing them.
(Please Note: The rest of Michael Richardson's parliamentary debate is published on the NSW Parliamentary website and not reproduced here for the following reasons...)
Concerning publication of my children’s names by the Member for The Hills in parliamentary debate and now published on the NSW Parliamentary website.
I have asked the NSW Parliament to remove, not only my children's names but the wrong, uncorroborated, and plagiarised information, and the Family Court Application.
Young adults like my two children, ought not be haunted or offended when or if they might decide to search their names on the Internet, and that if they did, that they would not be provided with such offensive and wrong material, for all their friends, relatives, and the general public to search for and see as well.
Related Updated 2010:
Complaint to the NSW Parliament House About it Updated 8/3/2010:
Letter to NSW Parliament House
Ms Lee RHIANNON, MLC
* Member of the Legislative Council
* Member of The Greens
Parliament House,
Macquarie Street,
Sydney NSW 2000
Phone (02) 9230 3551
Fax (02) 9230 3550
Email: lee.rhiannon@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Website : www.nsw.greens.org.au/lee
Dear Ms Rhiannon,
How are you going? I sent this to your email address above and have not received any response to date, so I am forwarding this again to you in the mail.
As I am suing State Parliament for damages, on foot, for false imprisonment and assault, (the case coming up to court on 9 November this year), and as well, I have a conflict of interest with my local member Ms Clover Moore, if you don’t know.
So I was wondering if you could assist me and pass this material to the person who runs the parliament website to have the wrong information removed.
When my daughter Brooke or son Clark type their names in google they get Mr Richardson a Liberal members, wrong information. See link below:
It would appear to the writer that the NSW Parliament website is in breach of S121 of the family Law Act 1975, because at the time the children were minors and certain rules applied, and I would ask if you could assist me with asking that the parliament remove it.
Thanks Regards
Gregory Kable
29 August 2009
Letter From NSW Parliament House
Mr G. Kable
October 2009
Dear Mr Kable.
I refer to your letter dated 8 October 2009, concerning publication of your children’s names by the Member for The Hills in debate. The Hon Lee Rhiannon has also emailed me in relation to this matter.
I acknowledge your concern that the Member named your children in the course of parliamentary debate, and note your advice that the information made public by the Member was probably derived from a Family Court application.
While publication of such information outside of parliamentary proceedings may breach the Federal Family Law Act, speaking in a parliamentary debate Members are able to exercise a freedom of speech which is not constrained by statutory prohibitions.
The basis of this principal is that the law of parliamentary privilege provides absolute immunity to the giving of evidence before the House Committee. As noted in Odgers, it is “a fundamental principle that the law of parliamentary privilege is not affected by a statutory provision unless the provision alters that law by expressed words” [51].
The New South Wales Legislative Assembly Hansard record of debate held in 1997 has been long published, and the circumstances you refer to in your letter unfortunately do not fall within the House procedures which would enable you to make a citizens right of reply.
Yours sincerely
Richard Torbay
Speaker
Letter To NSW Parliament House
Mr Richard Torbay
Speaker
Suit Parliament House
Macquarie Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Re: My Family Court Application on Parliament Website
Dear Mr Torbay,
Thank you for responding to my complaint. I refer to your letter dated October 2009, received on 19 October, concerning the publication of my children’s names on the Parliament website, alongside wrong information, by the Member for the Hills in parliamentary debate.
There is no absolute immunity to the giving of evidence that has been provided by two or more parties on a confidential application to the Family Court of Australia, then plagiarized and given before a House or a committee. That material is confidential.
The basis for this principle in a parliamentary debate about the ‘contents of an application’ to the Family Court of Australia is constrained by statutory provisions. As noted in Odgers, preparation and publication of documents p55, “ the contents of a document which has come into existence independently of proceedings in Parliament, for example, a report or letter which is exchanged between two or more parties and is subsequently submitted to a House or a committee, is not protected by parliamentary privilege. (For an application of this principle, see Szwarcbord v Gallop 2002 167 FLR 262.)”
I once again ask that that wrong confidential material and my children’s names be removed from the parliament website.
This is my final notice, you are hereby given 14 more days to notify the writer that the confidential, offending and unlawful material has been removed, otherwise this material will be forwarded to my lawyer for a further damages claim against NSW.
Regards
Gregory Kable
19 October 2009
Letter To NSW Parliament House
Mr Richard Torbay
Speaker
Suit Parliament House
Macquarie Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Re: My Family Court Application on Parliament Website
Dear Mr Torbay,
As I have received no response to the final notice I sent to you dated 19 October 2009, to remove from the NSW Parliament Website in 14 days, (my children’s names, the confidential, wrong, uncorroborated, and plagiarised information, from the Family Court Application).
Well since then I spoke to Lucy your secretary by phone on 6 November 2009. She told me that you were seeking legal advice about the complaint by us and that my letter was received in your office on 21 October 2009.
I would have thought that common sense would have prevailed when I pleaded to Parliament to remove the material.
Young adults like my two children, ought not be haunted or offended when or if they might decide to search their names on the Internet, and that if they did, that they would not be provided with such offensive and wrong material, for all their friends, relatives, and the general public to search for and see as well.
It is with regret that I must inform you that the matter has now been filed in the Supreme Court of NSW at Sydney. Please see Notice of Status Conference attached for your perusal.
I will be seeking a writ that commands the performance of an act required by law. In this instance the removal of the offensive material as above stated. We will also be seeking costs and damages.
My instructions are not to serve the filed documents until February 2010 at the latest on the basis that Lucy said that you were seeking legal advice and that you would get back to me about it.
So thanks for that and I guess I will either hear from you or not by the time the matter is due for service late February. We would be pleased if you would just have Parliament remove the material and that the matter including costs could be resolved.
Regards
Gregory Kable
12 December 2009
Please Note: Subsequently no further communication was sent by the NSW Parliamentary Speaker Mr Richard Torbay in relation to his alleged legal advice and the litigation was discontinued by myself on the 4th of March 2010 because I was unable to get legal assistance.
Related:
Getting Justice Wrong DPP make full admissions
Back in May 2001 Nicholas Cowdery QC made an error at law by giving a speech called Getting Justice Wrong at the University of New England, Armidale Thursday, 31 May 2001. Sir Frank Kitto, Lecture now published at the DPP website. At page six, paragraph 3 under the heading:
Judicial, mental health and police corruption
Ian Kay, who blew the whistle on judicial and police corruption here in Victoria has recently been improperly incarcerated in MAP Prison, Melbourne for doing nothing more than writing a letter of complaint to his local MP.
Fatherless Society "80-20 rule Vs 50-50 rule" family law
A Federal Parliamentary inquiry has heard that more children will grow up without fathers unless changes are made to family law. The committee is considering whether separated parents should share equal custody of their children.
80-20 Family Court rule irrational: Martian
A Martian came down from Mars and he noticed that children were the products of a father and a mother. When the family split up the children were still the products of a father and a mother.
The Law According to Gregory Wayne Kable
I was sharply separated from both my children aged just 4 years and two years and sent to prison for the manslaughter of my wife. I cared for my children when my wife worked and I believe that I still had a responsibility to them even after the crisis situation and tragedy. I wanted to reassure them now and find out how they were doing.
