CREWDSON v. Director General Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care & ors

IRC 4851 of 2005

SUBMISSIONS

Filed 28th April 2006

I address these submissions principally to you Justice Wright in that you have leadership of the Commission and are ultimately responsible for everything that goes on in the Commission. On 16th February 2006 you stated:



PRESIDENT: As I said in my decision there is no doubt about the fact that Mr Crewdson is a very intelligent person. One only has to sit and listen to him at any length and it's very obvious he is a person of acute intelligence.

Given that you consider me a person of acute intelligence I trust you will listen carefully to the following carefully considered observations.

Your two latest decisions are blatantly dishonest and fraudulent. I have provided exact reasons as to why in the accompanying Notice of Motion and Affidavit. Accordingly there is no legal basis or authority in those decisions to award costs against me.


The fact that you proceeded to write a clearly dishonest judgement against me after refusing to disqualify yourself simply confirms that I was correct to seek your disqualification in the first place and that it was your duty to stand down. Your refusal to do so and subsequent decisions have only compounded the already grievous wrongs caused to me by both the Respondents and this Commission.

Contrary to your assertions it is not I who have been scandalous in the legal sense. Highly adverse material can only be scandalous in court proceedings if it is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. This is not so here and you haven't even demonstrated or proven that the material you struck out was irrelevant. In fact you are seemingly too frightened to reveal to the public what the scandalous material is. Perhaps you are afraid of the public knowing the full facts would agree with everything I have said including the analogies to Nazi Germany.

Hypocrites that you are - it is the Respondents and you this Commission who all along have been scandalous in the legal sense by perpetuating false allegations and innuendos of serious mental illness against me. These allegations are slanderous and designed to take attention and focus away from the real issue which is mistreatment and abuse of the disabled in the Department of Ageing Disability and Home Care formerly D.O.C.S. I am justifiably furious that you have engaged in such obscene tactics when the fundamental issues are so serious and crying out for public exposure and attention.

My case is symptomatic of the rottenness throughout the Department. I have sacrificed nine precious years of my life in attempting for once to have the 'scandalous' truth about corruption in DOCS and DADHC exposed publicly in a court of Law. My attempts to do so have been sabotaged by this Commission and by the N.S.W. Judiciary. Let me remind you that corruption in DOCS and DADHC involves the abuse and neglect so easily covered up of persons least able to defend themselves - the intellectually disabled. Shame on you.

And it is not I who have abused the privilege of a Court or been in contempt. It is your actions that most of all are bringing the administration of justice into disrepute - actions such as allowing and condoning the destruction, loss or withholding of extensive Departmental records required as evidence in my case and the condoning also of massive perjury by Departmental and HealthQuest witnesses. In this regard the Crimes Act states:

316 Concealing indictable offence

If a person has committed a serious and indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or appropriate authority, that other person is liable for imprisonment for 2 years.



Section 345 & 47 of the Crimes Act further states

Abettors and Accessories

345 Every principal in the second degree in any serious indictable offence shall be liable to the same punishment as the principal in the first degree.

347 Accessories after the fact

Every accessory after the fact to a serious indictable offence may be indicted, convicted and sentenced as such accessory, either before, or together with or after the trial of the principal offender whether the principal offender has been previously tried or not or is amenable to justice or not.

A person who knowing a serious indictable offence has been committed by another receives maintains comforts or assists that offender in any way either to aid in disposing of the proceeds of the crime or to hinder the apprehension, trial or punishment of the offender is an accessory after the fact.

My duties under Section 316 of the Crimes Act are being thwarted by this Commission and I find it extraordinary that judges who have solemnly sworn to uphold the law should be allowing the respondents to get away with criminal acts. In doing so, you have become accessories after the fact. In the recent words of that hypocrite Attorney General Bob Debus you have slipped over to 'the dark side'. Most serious of all is the threat made now against me of legal action depending on my future conduct. I have sworn an affidavit with this application including a statement under oath that I sincerely and honestly believe that this Commission is acting in bad faith towards myself and other HealthQuest litigants. I have also set out the facts upon which I base my allegation that the latest decision is dishonest. If you genuinely believe that my allegations are unsubstantiated and malicious and an abuse of privilege then you should have me charged with perjury. I challenge you to do so.

At present your decisions as they stand will sabotage or delay my attempt to prosecute the respondents for contempt of court and will also ensure that the case of Pascale Bourot is not finalised.

I request that you take remedial action immediately and begin to act in accordance with your judicial oath. Your actions are unacceptable and to accede to them is to allow this Commission to have no standards at all and be utterly unaccountable. This is why the law can never be scandalous in the legal sense when applied to this Commission. It exactly sums up the vicious, vindictive, lying mentality that permeates all your HealthQuest decisions and actions. And as with Roland Freisler's Peoples Court, this Commission has been been turned into a place of oppression and punishment for those who stand up against this criminal government. It has in your hands become a Kangaroo Court where instead of justice we receive the final boot in the head from the sneering amoral cynical and utterly corrupt state government that appointed you.

This is the ultimate public betrayal.

You are being paid handsome public monies and perks to be independent of the government, not to act as their stooges. In my case your decisions simply mouth the original lies of ex D.O.C.S. officer and perjurer Julia Gillett and with regard to the Deed her fellow perjurer barrister Therese Anderson.


It would have saved the public purse to just put these two pathetic criminals on the Bench to judge the case. The result would have been the same with a lower wage bill for the taxpayer. Are you proud to so abase yourselves?

And the greatest injustice of all remains your treatment of Val Kerrison. This is more than anything else truly scandalous, malicious, abusive and wrong. When will you do your public duty and stop punishing and torturing her with your lies and corruption?

When are you going to restore her lawful employment and over ten years of wages and entitlements stolen from her?

What is stopping you? Your judgements against her are legal nullities so DO IT NOW.

Yours sincerely

Gerard Crewdson



28 April 2006

Notes:

Gerard Michael Crewdson was an officer with the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care (formerly D.O.C.S.) when he spoke up against abuse of the disabled in a group home he was helping to supervise. A disabled person had to be hospitalized as the result of an assault. The perpetrator was merely transferred to a new workplace while Gerard Crewdson was sent to the corrupt government medical office, HealthQuest, where he was declared temporarily unfit for work. The reason he was declared unfit was that his supervisor Julia Gillett demanded it, to prevent Gerard from continuing to cause 'trouble' by speaking the truth and defending the rights of the disabled. Gerard refused to accept this false statement of unfitness and has been fighting for justice ever since.

Val Kerrison was a teacher at Kempsey TAFE who spoke up against discrimination against Aboriginal students. As a result of daring to challenge the status quo, Val was also sent to HealthQuest, the 'punishment centre' for disobedient public servants and teachers. She was declared 'unfit' for work and ordered not to return to work (ever again). Val won her case in the I.R.C. but it was overturned on appeal. She now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs, as does Gerard. Read about Val's case and see the actual documents proving the conspiracy and the corruption of Kempsey TAFE and the N.S.W. government here:

Whistleblowers Documents Exposed

wbde.org

These two brave public servants deserve medals for their service to the state of N.S.W. - not the punishment that has been meted out to them.