Apology from Mr Hackett of ASIC
Phillip Sweeney made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Securities and Investments Commission
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
In a letter dated 10 November 2009 (ASIC Ref 36866/09) Mr Greg Hackett an ASIC officer made the following representation:
"CCSL has advised ASIC that it initiated a search of its records and archives of the previous trustee and has uncovered a copy of an executed Trust Deed dated 26 August 1986 which contains the rules of the Elders IXL Superannuation Fund dated 19 August 1985"
The purported Trustee CCSL has now undergone a "Phoenixing" transformation so that it cannot have its RSE licence revoked by APRA.
CCSL criminally concealed the genuine deeds of the trust that provide a survivorship pension for widows. Copies of these deeds can now be found here:
http://superfraud.org/?page_id=3321
http://superfraud.org/?page_id=3461
These deeds were obtained with the assistance of the Deputy Premier and Attorney General of South Australia, the Hon John Rau MP and his Department.
The purported "Trust Deed" dated 26 August 1986 that Mr Hackett misrepresented as the "Trust Deed" was executed by Ken Jarrett who served a term of imprisonment for dishonest conduct after three major investigations by the former National Crime Authority. The Australian Crime Commission replaced the National Crime Authority.
A copy of the "Jarrett Deed" can be downloaded as Item 14-28 from the website of the Australian Crime Commission here:
https://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publi...
The genuine Trust Deed is dated 23 December 1913 and was drafted by Sir John Downer who co-drafted the Australian Constitution.
CCSL also failed to lodge a copy of the genuine 1913 Trust Deed with APRA as part of the Fund Registration process pursuant to the Superannuation Safety Amendment Act 2004, but instead misrepresented the "Jarrett Deed" as the genuine founding Trust Deed.
The document or documents I seek is a copy of any apology that Mr Hackett as sent to the Widows who have not received their survivorship pensions, due to his misrepresentation of the "Jarrett Deed" being the genuine Trust Deed of one one Australia's oldest pension funds.
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Sweeney
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
A response to this FOI Request should have been received by 7 December 2015.
Can a response now be expedited.
ASIC claims that it takes compliance with the FOI Act seriously
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Sweeney
Phillip Sweeney left an annotation ()
Dear Locutus Sum
Thank you for the publicity about the Canberra Times article. I love the James Bond connection.
ASIC attempted to have a life-time ban imposed on me to prevent me from obtaining evidence as to how ASIC is covering up Australia's Largest Superannuation Fraud perpetrated by well-know white collar criminals where widows were specifically targeted.
ASIC failed in this attempt and I am gathering more evidence to confirm that ASIC is a party to a conspiracy to defraud widows out of their surivorship pensions.
You can learn more at superfraud.org
Phillip Sweeney
Dear Mr Sweeney,
I refer to your email of 9 December 2015. I am advised that Lauren Roy,
the FOI decision maker, forwarded her decision on 18 November 2015 however
mistakenly sent it to the wrong email address.
A copy of Ms Roy's email and decision is attached.
We apologise for this oversight.
From: Lauren Roy/Melbourne/VIC/ASIC
To: [email address],
Cc: Cari Byrne/Perth/WA/ASIC@ASIC
Date: 18/11/2015 02:34 PM
Subject: Your FOI request - ASIC decision [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Sweeney
Please find attached ASIC's decision in relation to your FOI request,
received on 6 November 2015.
Kind regards
Lauren
Lauren Roy | Escalated Matters & Government - Misconduct & Breach
Reporting | Assessment & Intelligence | ASIC | ' +61 3 9280 4638 | Fax:
+61 3 9280 3392 | * [email address]
From: Phillip Sweeney
<[FOI #1355 email]>
To: FOI requests at ASIC <[ASIC request email]>,
Date: 09/12/2015 08:20 AM
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Apology from Mr
Hackett of ASIC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
A response to this FOI Request should have been received by 7 December
2015.
Can a response now be expedited.
ASIC claims that it takes compliance with the FOI Act seriously
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Sweeney
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1355 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Securities and Investments Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Apology from Mr Hackett of ASIC'.
I believe it is a matter of Public Interest to ensure that when an officer of ASIC is deceived by white-collar criminals and then misrepresents a document that bears the signature of another well known white-collar criminal as the "Trust Deed" of a superannuation fund in a compulsory superannuation system, then the widows who have had their pensions stolen by these white-collar criminals are deserving of at least an apology and an explanation as to why the ASIC officer continues to provide protection to these white-collar criminals and makes no attempt to come to the aid of the widows who have been left destitute, while the white-collar criminals live the lifestyles of the rich and famous.
I am therefore seeking confirmation that Mr Hackett has acted in such a manner.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Sweeney
Dear Mr Sweeney
Please find ASIC's response attached.
(See attached file: FOI Request - Internal Review.pdf)
Please consider the environment before printing this document
Information collected by ASIC may contain personal information. Please
refer to our Privacy policy http://www.asic.gov.au/privacy for information
about how we handle your personal information, your rights to seek access
to and correct personal information, and how to complain about breaches of
your privacy by ASIC.
NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the addressee(s) only and
may be confidential. They may contain legally privileged or copyright
material. You should not read, copy, use or disclose them without
authorisation. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the
sender as soon as possible by return e-mail and then please delete both
messages. This notice should not be removed.
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
There are three mistakes with this application. The first mistake is by the agency. The agency had an obligation to send to the applicant an acknowledgement of the request of 6 November 2015. The acknowledgement should have been sent by 20 November 2015. This is required by s 15(5)(a) of the Act. The second mistake or failure was also by the agency. It is usually expected to notify the applicant of a decision within 30 days of the application. Because the 30th day was a Sunday, the department was expected to notify the applicant of a decision by Monday 7 December 2015.
The third mistake is from the applicant to expect that the department must now make a new decision. My reason to say "new decision" is because the effect of the law is to say that a decision has now been make by the department. It was a decision to refuse the request. A person can read the explanation in my annotation about "Hottest 100 voting dataset" (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/h... ).
A last comment is that the applicant in this case is very knowledgable of the FOI law and also knowledgable of the number of applications that the agency receives and how little staff it has to deal with his FOI requests (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national... ) and the requests from the othe applicants Julie Simpson (http://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/julie... ) and John Daniels (http://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/julie... ).