The following Draft Statutory Declaration was prepared for official presentation earlier in the year. It has been very slightly edited and provides an overview of the medico-judicial system at the Victorian State level.
I, Malcolm Adams TRAILL, of 10 Munro Street EAST KEW, in the State of VICTORIA, do solemnly and sincerely declare
There will be frequent references to the Chapters on the main website, from which greater elaboration may be obtained.
A Preamble – Medical Pathology provides an overall theme to cover the last 19 years, and should explain much of what has happened :
· First, the major players. Apart from myself, there is “the mob,” being a simple term used to describe John Anthony Delmo, Stanley Meyer Rosenberg and their associates. Stan went to jail in the 1990s for fraud (in other respects). Both were early Directors of Glendon Diagnostics (Aust) P/L (“Glendon,” liquidated) which “bought” my pathology practice by paying a deposit and then no more, the National Australia Bank (“NAB”) leaving the chasing of them until too late, so Glendon acquired a practice for very little. The “purchase” of pathology practices was for the expansion by Gribbles Pathology into Victoria.
Mr John Hartley Smith, variously described as Secretary or Registrar of the Medical Board from before 1990, through 1994, when the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (“MPB”) was set up outside the Health Department, to 1999. Then, for some unknown reason, a Chief Executive Officer was appointed and Smith was made Deputy Chief Executive Officer (a move that effectively demoted him). In that new role he was put in charge of Hearings. In practice, from before 1990, he ruled the office, being almost synonymous with the MPB, a role he continued after 1999. In retrospect, he was not adequately controlled or supervised and ran amok. Late in 2004, I deduced that he was the mole in the office. In late March 2006, I tabled an exposé of his activities, before one of the Hearings, which included the intercepted attempt to set me up. Soon after, in July 2006, he “retired” and his named collaborator also “resigned,” both without fanfare. Accordingly, there are good reasons to believe that :
i Mr Smith was a crook and had been so for years and was involved in malversation
ii All cases involving him were tainted
iii Many cases involving him may be fundamentally flawed
iv He was very likely acting for the mob
v He was actively involved in the planning and execution of the various MPB actions taken against me
vi He probably falsified the (alleged) Minutes of the Informal Hearing involving Lithium from 1997
vii He probably organized the Drugs and Poisons Unit of the Health Department to run the entrapment campaign
viii He probably brought his “chosen mates” from the Governor-in-Council’s list to influence Hearings (mine and others)
ix He may have been in the position to influence who became appointed onto the Governor-in-Council’s list
x He may have been involved in obtaining registration for doctors from interstate or overseas with flawed backgrounds
xi He was probably the driving force to have the slimy legal firm that acted for the Commonwealth, Minter Ellison, appointed to act for the Board, thereby linking Federal and State issues against me
xii He may have influenced law changes, such as the one to protect the identity of prosecuting medical complainants (the VCAT Panel was unaware of the law, and released the name of Associate Professor GG !)
xiii He probably interacted with Mr Gakis
xiv He was probably the person who notified the American database CIRCARE of my Hearings, thereby putting me amongst the world’s Dr Mengeles. (I doubt if there is any other medical practitioner in Australia who has sustained such a prolonged and vicious personal attack – as Mr Gakis said “Its personal – they want you out of the system.”)
Mr Charlie Edward Gakis became a patient of mine in 2002, at a time when I was under attack from the Federal area, the State MPB and Drugs & Poisons issues and a Civil writ, with a lawyer who did not seem on side (he wasn’t). In discussion, Mr Gakis claimed to have worked for the mob in the early 1990s, but had served time in prison and was now reformed and wanted to see them, particularly Stan., go inside. He claimed to have the evidence to counter all the attacks but, of course he needed money. There seemed little choice. He is dealt-with in more detail elsewhere. Suffice it is to say that he turned out not to be acting to my benefit, rather, against me. Later, when I examine the legal issues associated with the Hearings, his role will become quite clear – he was sent by the mob to prevent me from being in the financial position to appeal to the Supreme Court. Perhaps, of some interest was the observation that, when discussing protagonists with him, on the mention of John Delmo and Associate Professor GG he demurred, being vague and reticent, whereas, with the names of Stanley Rosenberg and John Smith, he was vocal and effusive, claiming a desire to see the former in jail and initiating and recounting amazing stories about the latter. The impression was that Rosenberg and Smith had been designated “fall guys.”
· The Glendon Fraud. This is a term I use for the events of late 1989, in which Glendon was asset stripped, with the assets transferred to Ackland Cove P/L (liquidated; traded as “Chelmer-Glendon”). I interrupted the Directors whilst they were in the midst of asset stripping. There was an out of Court settlement, in which I lost because the Melbourne Health Insurance Commission (“HIC,” now Medicare Australia) Officer, Mr David Burdett, sent a telephone facsimile (in Glendon’s favour) indicating a false interpretation of the Health Insurance Act 1973 to the solicitors, who chose not to study the laws of the land and accept what they were told. This out of Court settlement has been cited and misquoted as a precedent for the interpretation of the pathology scheme ever since. This fraud has been fully researched by me, but the HIC has refused to investigate it or allow police investigation, presumably because HIC officers were in complicity. The mob was involved, and Mr Delmo could have had action taken against him, but he and the rest of the mob have enjoyed special protection, not only at the Federal level but, it now appears (see later) at the State level as well.
· The Chelmer-Glendon Fraud was probably similar. The company ended up in liquidation and without assets. The assets ended up with Gribbles Pathology and the mob was involved.
· Medical Pathology (as a form of Pathology Practice), was forgotten, seemingly by all. As far as I am aware, I was the only Pathologist who set out to practise it. It is this form of practice that the mob has been determined to stamp out, and the reasons are simple – power and control: a clinician/pathologist who sees patients in a clinic and has work processed under his/her name in the laboratory employs the laboratory (with respect to the rendered pathology service) and can control events, whereas a pathologist who is purely laboratory based, is employed by the laboratory and the control is vested with the laboratory – they have become “lab. lackeys” and troglodytes in the laboratory caves.
· My concerns, from 1990 onwards, were
i To have the Glendon Fraud investigated and,
ii To practise clinical pathology, and to openly declare how the Pathology Scheme had been hi-jacked by non-medical interests.
Both of these put me in direct confrontation with the mob and its aims and the aims of those they were assisting. Both forms of agitation went straight up their noses. Almost all actions taken against me can be interpreted within this background.
From this introduction, you should recognize that special circumstances have existed from 1988 onwards
B Attacks. These were chiefly to establish:
i My FRCPA was a worthless document as far as clinical medicine was concerned – I was considered a non-Specialist in the clinics
ii The use of unusual, but Specialist knowledge arising from scientific reading was, in the clinic, “experimentation” upon patients
iii A pathologist in the clinic is a medical disaster, like a bull in a china shop, putting the lives of patients at risk
iv That I flagrantly and intentionally disregarded the laws relating to drugs of addiction.
I shall now go through the various Hearings :
1) The Professional Services Review (“PSR”). This set out to establish that my FRCPA was a worthless document, and that, alerted by my figures as a non-specialist (GP) I was to be found wanting as judged by a Committee representing GP’s (not my peers). In effect, the Committee was given open access to my patient files and it then proceeded to nit-pick. This has been discussed at length. As a bonus, the Committee found that I treated some non-psychiatric patients with Lithium. Since I was considered to be a non-Specialist, this treatment was deemed to be “experimental” (a term never defined) and putting the lives of patients at great risk, resulting in an high-speed referral to the MPB. After an initial informal Hearing, there was not another Hearing for almost a year ! (Which gives one some idea of the perceived risk.) There is more elaboration on this in a number of sites. Despite having been heard by the Informal Hearing process and guidelines given, the issue kept recurring, possibly to reawaken the claims of “experimental” (double jeopardy) and to provide an excuse to exteriorize the faked and unattributed minutes of the Hearings.
The PSR process went to an appeal before the Tribunal and later the Federal Court. I eventually realized what the HIC had done to prevent my Specialty being recognized. Mr Burdett, in wording the draft Referral for the PSR did it in such a way as to make my FRCPA meaningless legally. Accordingly, via Freedom of Information (“FoI”) I had the Referral reworded. (I consider this to be one of the best things I ever did ! – but it didn’t help much !) With an hostile lawyer, and insufficient funds for the luxury of sacking him, we went to Court. The Referral was not updated. Subsequently, documentation obtained under FoI showed that the lawyers for the Commonwealth (Minter Ellison) and the PSR were advised of the updated Referral. But nothing was said to the Court. Minter Ellison and the PSR deceived the Federal Court and allowed the Hearing to proceed using the outdated Referral. This means that the outcome from the Federal Court was fundamentally flawed – that Minter Ellison had knowingly allowed the Court’s time to be wasted and reach flawed outcomes, and all conclusions drawn there-from were corrupted. (I complained to the Legal Ombudsman – the response was, in effect “stiff.”)
The Determination was that I should be removed from Medicare totally for 2 years, then for a limited extent for another year. This was one of the more (if not the most) severe penalties. The probable intent of the penalties was that I would loose my clinical patient base over the two years, and then would be eased back into the laboratory scene, in the belief that that would be the only area of Medicare available for the one year. However, the Determining Officer may not have understood things well; if I practised as a Specialist, I could claim clinical Specialist rebates. All I had to do was to persuade all my patients (most of whom I had retained, such as by attending many on a gratis basis in the interval) to obtain Specialist referrals to me, and I could continue medical/clinical pathology practice. For the mob, this would have been a disaster, because I was reaffirming the right of a specialist Pathologist to consult clinically.
Whilst no cancellation of my medical registration flowed from this, quite clearly, there were special circumstances of legal impropriety associated with the Federal Court outcome (it should have been invalid) and probably stands today as a monument to Minter Ellison’s perfidy.
The corruption of the Federal Court system constituted special circumstances.
2) The PSR process referred me to the MPB over the Lithium treatment issue. This has been dealt-with already and more may be found elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, the MPB’s Informal Hearing dealt with this, and I abided by the guidelines. For it to appear later is double jeopardy, but will be dealt-with again later.
3) The MPB Hearing of 2004 was a follow-on from the main Federal PSR attack having been referred to the MPB. I provided Minter Ellison with a copy of my website’s Mal’s Musings current at that stage, believing that it would be tabled. It disappeared, never to be seen again, and was not referred-to. The Panel had the pathology role and Scheme confused. However, since there was no great limitation to my practice, the outcome was fairly bland. But more was in the pipeline.
Since this involved the corrupted Federal issues, special circumstances existed.
4) The MPB Hearing of 2005. This is the main and most important Hearing. An Associate Professor GG made a complaint on behalf of a patient who had subsequently died. He then became a prosecuting complainant, making a large number of complaints and allegations containing much in the way of hearsay accounts. The thrust of his allegations were that I did not give proper advice, that the patient (SO) was potentially curable, that I had recommended ineffective treatment, that I did not give chemotherapy and that I “experimented” by measuring uric acid levels. A second patient made her own complaint, chiefly that I had not taken a biopsy (when the underlying condition was known, and that the diagnosis of skin secondaries was made clinically). She made a string of complaints alleging problems with punctuality, equipment, misunderstanding over the bills, “alternative” cancer treatment (prescribed by someone else) etc., with significant discrepancies. The third complaint was from an Associate Professor at the Royal Children’s Hospital (“RCH”) concerning his belief that I should not have become involved with a 5 year old boy with an incurable brain tumour, because he thought that the RCH had exclusive rights. An in-depth analysis of these cases is presented on the website, which also presents copies of the Consent forms, the Affidavits from David Spall and Nurse F, both of whom were present most of the time (as opposed to Associate Professor GG who relied upon a patient’s various verbal accounts in collusion with him and his powerful imagination, and Professor Peters who spoke as a theoretician). There is an analysis of the 2005 Hearing and its legal issues in the Submission to the VCAT in February 2006. I will now address the two main legal issues:
“MPB” Hearing 2005: Two Main Legal Issues
i The Hearing was inquisitional and the onus of proof did not apply. This was simply announced and was not debated. I protested in my submission, but no-one took any notice of what I wrote. Justification was by referral to the Bausch v Transport Accident Commission, which, in the current MPB situation, is bizarre and ridiculous. This has been examined (see later). What this simple move meant was that the MPB did not have to prove anything, and could admit any form or evidence, hearsay and questionable, accepting anything that the Panel liked and rejecting anything that the Panel did not like (viz. my defence). In effect, I was left to prove that the questionable evidence and opinions should carry no weight. Whilst I am not a lawyer, I have noted that other MPB Open Hearings did require the MPB to shoulder the onus of proof in at least two Hearings, where this was specifically mentioned. I suggest that this move to have the Hearing Inquisitional, as opposed to Adversarial, lacked precedence in the context of the MPB Hearings, and could have been challenged in any appeal to the Supreme Court. For a Panel of questionable status and under the supervision of Mr John Smith, this provided an ideal environment for bias. (See later)
ii At the conclusion of the Hearing, at the announcement of the Finding and Determination, no-one on the Panel was a MPB Member. At the commencement, only one (non-dominant) Panel member was a MPB Member, but she resigned from the MPB. In effect then, the Panel was a group of disparate, locum tenens individuals effectively drawn from the Governor-in-Council’s list. The Panel was not the MPB, not a Subcommittee of the MPB and not an appendage of the MPB. It simply met on the Premises used by the MPB and was supervised and directed by Mr John Smith, now identified as being a crook, involved in malversation and probably linked to the mob. This Panel may be referred-to as the sham MPB, and its Reasons (sine reason), the sham Reasons. The MPB has chosen to allow the sham Reasons to be available on the MPB’s website, as though it is an official publication of the MPB. An unusually large summary of the sham Reasons (probably prepared by Mr Smith) was in the MPB’s Bulletin and widely distributed to medical practitioners to ensure that the defamation under privilege assembled by the sham MPB was fully disseminated to my peers.
Thus, there are two major legal issues that call into question the probity and legality of the Hearing process.
The Inquisitional format with no onus of proof provided special circumstances, irrespective of anything else. The status of the sham MPB with the sham Reasons is extraordinary, providing another special circumstance.
5) The VCAT Hearing 2006. This was an appeal against the outcomes from previous sham MPB Hearing. (There was a slight change, in that the MPB dropped the claim that patient SO was “potentially curable” – possibly related to the departure of Mr John Smith in July 2006 - but it made very little real difference.) As in the previous sham MPB Hearing, the announcement was that it was Inquisitional in form and with no onus of proof. Again, in my Submission I protested, but to no avail. Again, the Reasons (sine reason) gave no explanation to justify this format. As before, the actual Hearing was structured as though it were Adversarial ! The Hearing was presented as being de novo, rather than a review. One might expect such a de novo Hearing to seek to be impartial from the start. That was not so, because the sham Reasons was presented to the VCAT Panel, so that the VCAT Panel had a head start with the adverse sham Reasons, against which there was an appeal being sought ! The VCAT Hearing then, was more of a “refresher” Hearing, with added scope for embellishments to the earlier defamatory claims.
I am not in a position to know whether such prior briefing of the VCAT Panel before a de novo Hearing has precedence, nor do I know how the VCAT Panel would or should approach such a Hearing. If the Panel looked upon the process as one of simply ticking-off the points presented in the sham Reasons, a number of features may be explained :
i On the first morning, the Senior Judge dismissed all my witnesses who had been Summoned, telling most that they were not needed – without hearing from me as to why they were there !
ii The VCAT Orders and Reasons were produced quite rapidly – seemingly too speedily for there to have been a full and considered reading of all the written submissions, Affidavits and Testimony from the sham MPB Hearing. There seemed little (if any at all) evidence that written material for the Applicant (me) was read.
iii Since Nurse F was not called to the VCAT Hearing, her Affidavits and Testimony, and the Affidavit from David Spall, representing the accounts of witnesses who were present at relevant times, were all in writing. There are good reasons to believe that the VCAT Panel never read these witness statements and Testimony.
Elsewhere, I have suggested that Mr Smith influenced the VCAT Panel. Since the sham Reasons may be seen to have been created under Mr Smith’s influence, its acceptance by the VCAT Panel would transfer that influence to the latter. There are other clues to raise the suspicion that Mr Smith may have influenced the Panel more directly – the appearance of snide quips in the VCAT Reasons such as me being in a “scientific vacuum” (whatever that meant), did not seem to come from the Hearing. (I was the person who was the most generally trained and experienced in science in the entire Hearing and had made a submission to the NH&MRC Inquiry - which seemed ignored. But then, my FRCPA was to have no meaning in clinics !) Defamation under privilege hit a high point in the VCAT Hearing, Associate Professor GG being in top form, with abuse flying, not easy to refute when he, merely a radiotherapist and prosecuting complainant, claimed expertise on everything – and his views and (hearsay) accounts were almost always admitted, accepted and given full weight. They lapped it up
Hearing 2006: Two Main Legal Issues
i The adoption of an Inquisitional Hearing (despite an adversarial appearance) allowed the questionable evidence and opinions allowed in the earlier sham MPB Hearing to be admitted and accepted. In particular, the fundamentally flawed sham Reasons, was admitted which would influence the VCAT Panel. One could understand admitting such material in a review, but the Hearing was not a review. It seems inappropriate to admit such flawed material into a “clean” or naive de novo Hearing.
ii As with the earlier Hearing, there was no onus of proof for the MPB. Why the VCAT should accept that claim is not clear – there was no reason given in the VCAT Reasons. It may be that the Panel was influenced by the sham MPB Hearing setting a precedent, and followed this lead.
Both legal points would seem fertile grounds for a Supreme Court appeal: the Hearing processes having been fundamentally flawed in a number of respects. Now, you may see and understand the absolute requirement for Mr Gakis. His role was to guarantee for the mob that I would or could not appeal to the Supreme Court – he accompanied me to the Supreme Court when I sought to lodge documents for an appeal, presumably concerned that I had found funding. He also nursed me until the time for a Supreme Court appeal for the VCAT outcome had lapsed – then terminated contacts claiming an unconvincing “disloyalty” issue.
The sham Reasons being provided to the VCAT de novo Hearing, with the Inquisitional format and no onus of proof form extraordinary and special circumstances
6) The MPB Drugs & Poisons Hearing of 2006. Little detail need be written here, because it is fully presented (with a recent note). What became apparent was, that the officers of the Drugs and Poisons Unit engaged in an entrapment campaign with the plans for me to be Charged having been in mid-2001 (or before) as was in documents accessible under FoI. The extent of harassment did not become fully obvious until after I had been brought before the Magistrates’ Court. Following this, the harassment ceased, and the difference was striking (refer to the Charts and tables). The Magistrate accepted the guilty plea that there had been oversights (although, that the oversights were precipitated by the harassment of the entrapment campaign, was not argued then because it was not fully recognized and documented.) Also, Mr Gakis brought his claimed friend Mr Robert Stary QC to defend me. That was to ensure that I plead guilty, so that the matter would go automatically on to the MPB, where Mr Smith could take over (as he did with the Lithium issue of 1997). Without Mr Stary, there was the real risk that I might have tried do defend myself, claiming that the Drugs & Poisons Unit “lost” Permit Applications and caused other forms of harassment which, at the time, was poorly researched and would have been difficult to present in a convincing way, but I may have pulled enough weight to avoid the recording of a conviction – and the mob could not run the risk of this happening.)
The entrapment of a medical practitioner in order to seek MPB sanctions is extraordinary and forms special circumstances
C The Bankruptcy Act. I came under the Bankruptcy Act on three occasions
i 1988. This was planned and executed by Mr Richard Judson, who was brought into my affairs by the National Australia Bank (“NAB”). By this means, the NAB, with almost certain collusion with the mob, raided the major assets first, enforced a “sale” of my pathology practice to the mob then, when the mob defaulted, allowed them to make off with the practice, having me placed under a Part X so that the other creditors would receive the left-overs and I would not have the funds to fight. (Mr Gakis claimed that there had been a “back-door deal” done between the mob and the NAB. Information obtained in the NAB’s Discovery, was also consistent with this claim. The whole sequence screamed of collusion.)
The probable collusion between the mob and the NAB constitute special circumstances
ii The second occasion was in 2001. This followed my (I believe) reasonable attempt to seek recovery of the losses inflicted by the NAB and the mob in the failed practice sale. I was working hard (until the HIC tried to cut me down), and had received money from my parents, who had died. The action against the NAB became unusual at about 2 years in, when the judge suddenly had a brilliant idea that we should replead the case based upon the NAB’s discovery. Not only had we been pounded unmercifully by the NAB up until then, but my youngest son’s business faulted. So, I had another round of pleading and pounding by the NAB and I saved my son from Bankruptcy. I knew at that point that success may be out of grasp, but there was little that could be done. I could argue that this action against the NAB would not have occurred if the NAB had acted responsibly for its customers, had not rigged the sale and had chased the mob swiftly in 1989. The mob had then committed the Glendon Fraud (still un-investigated).
The Judge’s lengthening of the court case and my son’s financial failure provided special circumstances.
iii The third time occurred in 2004 under the pressure of the confidence trickster Mr Gakis. About that stage I had been under attack from three bureaucratic areas – they were crawling over me. I could tell that the attacks were rigged, but could not see what I could do about the situation. Mr Gakis arrived with answers and forceful browbeating – from the outline given earlier, you may understand that I believed that I did not have much of a chance in the circumstances; I was a sitting duck – at least I am still alive ! Again, the background influence of the mob seems almost certain. The abject failure of the ITSA Trustee to pursue money in any direction, and the FoI documentation revealing that Minter Ellison “discussed” issues with the Trustee raises the serious possibility that the Trustee was “got-at” by or on behalf of the mob and the Federal bureaucrats.
The financial sabotage by Mr Gakis in order to prevent appeal to the Supreme Court formed a special circumstance
None of these occasions involves business trading and all involved considerable personal &/or family financial losses. I suggest that they are outcomes that were brought about by forces largely beyond my reasonable control. I can claim again that, if my practice had been successfully sold as planned in September 1988 and the Glendon fraud had been investigated, none of these would have occurred – once the rot set in and the mob took control (with the assistance of bureaucrats and bankers), there has been no real let-up until I seemed no longer a threat to the currently evolved cash cow called pathology.
D Your specific concerns. (I shall deal with your concerns as they appear in your letter):
1) Serious adverse findings
a) Insufficient information given to the patient for informed consent. Sufficient information was given to all patients for informed consent – refer to the Testimony and Affidavits from Nurse F and David Spall, both of whom were present at the relevant times. Also refer to the Consent forms. The VCAT put emphasis upon unsworn evidence and hearsay evidence from Associate Professor GG – evidence that was in conflict with sworn evidence from witnesses who were present.
b) Failing to advise of the most effective treatment.” The patients were given advice on the most effective treatment. In the case of patient SO, not only was she advised that cytotoxic chemotherapy was the appropriate treatment, but I tried to administer it, only being stopped at the last moment when she refused it (against advice). Refer again to the Affidavit and Memorandum of David Spall, also Nurse F’s Affidavit and The Dark Side.
c) Charging the Health Insurance Commission for treatment not administered. The intravenous infusion had been charged to the HIC since about 1990 in Western Australia, and was continued in Melbourne. A definitive definition for the use of the Item number concerned was not issued until the NH&MRC Inquiry into the Microwave therapy in late 2005. I feel sure that if the HIC/Medicare felt that the number had been incorrectly applied at the relevant times, repayments would have been sought – and they have not. (The MPB was dealing with issues in the Federal jurisdiction, and the views may be questioned on that basis.)
d) Excessive Charges. The charges were similar to those in Western Australia. They were commercial. No suggestion as to what were “reasonable” charges was proffered by the MPB.
e) Claiming to be an Oncologist when not. The term oncologist is not an official Specialty, and can be used by various Fellows or Members of a number of Clinical Specialties, indicating a particular interest or knowledge of cancer. It does tend to imply a clinical interest which, in the context of medical pathology, is to be stamped out in accordance with the mob’s wishes. There was produced no clear definition. The opposition to the use of this term as a qualifier after Specialist Pathologist, was chiefly from Radiotherapists (especially Associate Professor GG), whose views did not represent the official views of the College of Radiology or the Medical profession generally. The opposition seems based on the mob’s general opposition to medical pathology, and does not represent the general medical professional view.
The explanations presented should show that these issues lack real substance, and that special circumstances apply
2) Federal. Paragraph 119 of the VCAT decision - - unable to make claims on Medicare. A full exposition on how the HIC fraudulently brought me into the Professional Review Service process, and how Minter Ellison deceived the Federal Court is provided on my website, and mentioned briefly earlier. This was an extremely unusual situation, with many tricks applied to avoid my Specialist status from vitiating the process to have me (a Specialist) judged by a Committee representing non-specialists, the Chairman of which may well have been bribed (according to Mr Gakis) and then to bring the process to the Determining Officer. The nit-picking trivia, (including the Lithium beat-up) that the Committee “discovered” by poring through a relatively small number of files, would seem to be of little relevance in other areas.
The conclusions derived from non-specialists assessing a Specialist in a suspect process form special circumstances
3) The VCAT paragraph 124. This prolix, sweeping, pejorative and seemingly damning defamation made under privilege is, of course, difficult to counter and would represent the crowning achievement of the mob. It, and the occasional snide quip (not called-for in such a document), must be one of the more defamatory statements against any Specialist in Australia. Now may be the time to present a reconstruction of the major events leading to this outcome. The word “probably” is assumed throughout :
· Mr John Smith deputy CEO of the MPB had associations with the mob. He also had extensive contacts throughout the medical scene of Melbourne. He centralized and coordinated the steps in the nefarious operations.
· Patient SO was spotted by Associate Professor GG of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Patient ST was also spotted at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Patient TU was spotted by Associate Professor DD at the Royal Children’s Hospital.
· Patient SO and Associate Professor GG successfully executed a criminal deception against United Medical Protection by having an out-of-Court settlement (effectively unchallenged).
· When the complaints arrived at the MPB, Mr Smith presented his summaries to the Hearings Subcommittee. In the case of patient SO, this was embellished to aid referral to the Open Hearing stream. He had less success with patient ST, there being a closed Hearing initially (although he probably pushed for an open Hearing). However, this was aborted because the issues were “too complex” and the matter could be linked with patient SO. Patient TU was added on – few details known (initially, the parents wanted nothing to do with the MPB).
· Mr Smith was busy in 2002 – Dr G Kerr was groomed for the Chairman’s role and later retired from the MPB to move to the Governor-in-Council’s list. Laws were changed to protect the identities of the prosecuting complainants and Minter Ellison was taken on board – all, probably with Mr Smith’s recommendations.
· Before the Open Hearing, Mr Smith (in charge of Hearings) selected specifically Dr G Kerr and Ms Anna Dea from the Governor-in-Council’s list because they seem to have worked together on other Hearings with less than expected outcomes, adding as well Dr Q De Zylva and Ms K Sanders (a mild person), the latter then being the only MPB member, but soon to resign from the MPB. Together, Dr Kerr and Ms Dea could out-vote the others. Such a stacking of the Panel with locum tenens from the Governor-in-Council’s list was not the envisaged use of the Governor-in-Council’s list.
· The Open Hearing starts. (Mr Smith sat in the room for the first hour.) It is Inquisitional, with no onus of proof required of the MPB. Both these features seem very unusual. They meant that the Panel could, and did, admit, and give full weight to any evidence – hearsay, Testimony from those without relevant expertise, Testimony from those with clear conflicts of interest (especially Associate Professor GG, a complainant).
· Ms Sanders resigns from the MPB, but continues on the Panel, which is now operating uncoupled and separate from the MPB, with Mr Smith directing and supervising.
· The Panel gives full weight to the evidence and Testimony against me, dismissing my evidence, including the scientific explanations, and the outcome of the NH&MRC Inquiry. Associate Professor GG (a Radiotherapist from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, a competitor, and prosecuting complainant) is regarded as an “expert” witness, as is Professor Peters (another Radiotherapist, also from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, and competitor, who admonished me to return to looking down microscopes ! – the mob’s line). Neither had any relevant expertise.
· At the conclusion, in the early evening (about 19:00 h), Mr Smith joined the audience to witness the outcome – he must have had a special interest ! (or wanted overtime.)
· My attendance to the Supreme Court to lodge papers for an appeal stimulated great interest in Mr Gakis, who kindly drove me in and came in to see what was happening. He advised me to appeal to the VCAT. After later discussions (not involving him) the Court advised application to the VCAT.
· The sham MPB submitted the sham Reasons to the VCAT, so that the VCAT Panel would know what was to occur and what the expected outcome would be (a template), in the context of a de novo Hearing. The sham Reasons may also have provided the justification for the VCAT Hearing to adopt the Inquisitional role with the MPB carrying no onus of proof.
· Thereafter, the Hearing involved following the lead given in the sham Reasons, allowing embellishments. Witnesses not clearly part of the earlier plan were sent away.
· Associate Professor GG, the prosecuting complainant, was uninhibited in deriding and ridiculing almost anything I did or said, yet his Testimony was considered the views of an “expert,” impartial witness, able to “validate” hearsay evidence generated in collusion with patient SO. He should have been cautioned at least in relation to some of his outbursts. Professor Peters also joined in, pontificating in areas in which he had no relevant expertise or recent practical knowledge.
· My witness, Nurse F was not called, with doubts lingering that her previous Testimony was ever read. Similarly, doubts arise whether the Affidavit by David Spall was ever read. There seemed little, if any evidence, that any written submissions by me were read – the outcome was predicted, all the Panel had to do was check off the points as they appeared and add a bit to show that they stayed awake.
In considering the main issues, one may wonder how the VCAT Panel was able to come to the sweeping findings in paragraph 124 when examining only 3 patients (actually, effectively only 2 because the third patient’s issue was more of turf war type dressed-up as medical):
Main Issue MPB Claim My Defence
She was advised
Biopsy, at the time, was not
Thermometry was done
Thermometry was not
accurate nor reliable
NH&MRC Inquiry found some effectiveness
In use since ~1990 (in WA)
We are left to ponder where and how, in these main issues (listed above), were the findings of the Panel in Paragraph 124 derived; and, if formulated during the Hearing, why the Panel did not put them to me to address, especially given the Inquisitional nature of the VCAT Hearing ? I suggest that the significant material to justify such sweeping, global and pejorative conclusions was not presented in the Hearing. The possibility arises that these findings were supplied to the Panel by a process not involving the Open Hearing. I wonder if Mr Smith (or someone for him, such as Minter Ellison) had direct access to the Panel member(s).
Regarding the specific phrases in the Paragraph (most of them being “woolly” and somewhat repetitive) :
i. Lack of insight into his conduct. There is no specific example or origin provided. My conduct is best outlined by those witnesses who were present at the relevant times (Nurse F & David Spall).
ii. His ignorance of or contempt for the process of scientific verification and clinical validation of theories which is the hallmark of modern evidence-based medicine. No specific example or origin is provided. As a general pathologist, I was the most qualified and experienced expert in general scientific matters in the Hearing. I had prepared a Submission to the NH&MRC Inquiry (seemingly ignored). I have since followed this up with an analysis of the Inquiry’s Conclusions, including further examination of the chemical pathways that may be involved and a Glossary of scientific terms and abbreviations. At the clinic, I used the accepted protocols from Western Australia and studied tumour markers to try to understand the anti-tumour effects and Uric acid levels in order to try to obtain some insight into the biochemical events. I have also had an interest in the actions of Lithium.
iii. His disregard for the standards set by his peers for the treatment of cancer patients. No specific example or origin is provided. The patients received the correct advice, freely signed the consent forms and appropriate standards were followed (see earlier).
iv. His refusal to acknowledge his duty to conform to the standards required by the profession. No specific example or origin provided. The main source of “standards required” came from the hearsay allegations and opinions of Associate Professor GG who, one may have good reason to believe, had been involved with patient SO in a fraud against United Medical Protection, and could not be regarded as impartial or a relevant, expert witness (a proposal dismissed by the Panel with little comment). The standard of his medical management of patient SO has been examined in detail, which may give some cause for concern. These “standards required” were not clearly enunciated, and seemed based largely on the claim that I had failed to advise patient SO to have chemotherapy (untrue – see earlier) and the reason she rejected it was quite simple and clear – she was incurable, and chemotherapy could be left until later when symptoms developed (which is what happened). Once serious consideration is given to the proposal that she and Associate Professor GG were engaged in a deception to set me up, everything becomes clear, and stricter rules on evidence should have been applied. Similar sentiments apply to the conduct of patient ST (refer to Base Board and Kangaroo Court). I should note that, of the thousands of patients I have attended, only one made a significant complaint to the MPB – patient ST – and she should have been assessed for perjury (but was not). All the other complaints came either from the bureaucracy or other medical practitioners, such as Associate Professor GG and Associate Professor DD, both of whom could be seen to be biased competitors.
In the dichotomous Hearing structure – Inquisitional vs Adversarial – procedural uncertainties may be expected to develop. The issue, then, is the degree to which these sweeping and global generalizations can be substantiated by the specific charges that had been considered to be “made out.” Collectively, they transcend the simple findings of the Charges and have been melded together to create, in this Inquisitional Hearing, what is, in effect, a complex, new Charge, which was never put to me to address and defend. All Hearing processes (with the exception of the Magistrates’ Court, where the issue was rigged) can be considered to be fundamentally flawed.
The failure to provide adequate and convincing reasons for adopting the above pejorative claims makes the derivation of the bases for the claims a special circumstance
4) The Convictions 18/3/2004.
b) Drugs & Poisons. Whilst there was a conviction because I pleaded guilty, there was no penalty, the Magistrate accepting that the lapses were oversights. However, there can be little doubt that the lapses were precipitated by the Drugs & Poisons Unit engaging in a campaign of entrapment, and planning Charges well before Interviews (which would normally be interpreted as warnings of increasing severity) probably requested and coordinated by Mr Smith of the MPB.
c) The referral of the above to the MPB has also been dealt-with in the same website with the extraordinary conduct of Mr M Gorton. See also the attached Dénouement.
The entrapment campaign by the Drugs and Poisons Unit, followed by the rigged Hearing constitute special circumstances
d) The three Bankruptcy Act matters – see earlier.
e) Supervision. Based upon the adverse findings from Federal and State organizations, you would be expected to be concerned. However, as may be learnt from the above and material referred-to, there should be grave concerns about the probity and applicability of such adverse findings, given that both Federal and State areas seem to have been associated with a particular organized crime group that I have termed the mob; the clear intention being to stop me from
i. Complaining about the Glendon Fraud and how it should be investigated and,
ii. Complaining that the Pathology Scheme has been corrupted and that professional standards have fallen, especially in relation to responsibility, and performance.
iii. Complaining that the medical-professional nexus between the clinic and the laboratory has been severed with deleterious results.
You may wonder why I seem to be alone in this cause –
i. The clinics (chiefly GP) are already receiving responsibility-free “rentals” and other inducements (“kick-backs”) so they are not likely to be eager to change to an arrangement in which the practitioners have to accept responsibility for the testing done in their names, in order to obtain payments
ii. The lab. lackey troglodyte pathologists, some of whom are on salary-like sinecures, are hardly likely to view the prospects of being paid on a fee-for-service basis linked to referrals specifically to them with any enthusiasm.
The only group likely to benefit, as by closer scrutiny, better standards and service is the public and, of course, the public does not have a clue, and is most unlikely to apply pressure through vox populi without a major scandal – which the revelations on the mob could stimulate, and it would catch some bureaucrats in the net. In the meantime, there remains the mob and its lobby groups able to maintain power and control over the government-linked cash cow. As you may deduce from all that has been written to date, the mob will stop at nothing to protect the corrupted arrangements that have evolved to date – we have seen character assassination - murder could be an option (that I had considered earlier). In trying to promote medical pathology, I have striven to improve standards and service for the public. This has been in the public interest, but seemingly unachievable.
The failure by those responsible for the orderly conduct of the pathology industry has resulted in widespread corruption. This is a special circumstance.
When organized crime groups can enjoy support and special protection from the bureaucracy, downstream, the public suffers to a far greater degree than may arise from the aberrations of a single practitioner. Shooting the messenger is not in the public’s interest.
From 1988, criminal activity has been left unchecked, despite all my attempts to have proper investigations. This has been a special circumstance that has affected most of my life for the last 20 years.
When dealing with the livelihood of a medical Specialist, one would hope that :
· The evidence to be produced against him/her should be sound, and more substantial than the unsworn and hearsay evidence provided under suspicious circumstances,
· The evidence and Testimony shall not be from competitors and those without relevant expertise,
· Unbiased Panels shall be set up in accordance with sound legal precedents, adversarial in format and with adherence to the principle of the onus of proof being on the accusers,
· When there is known to be a senior and pivotal person organizing Hearings in the office of the MPB engaged in malversations, all material associated with that person shall be expunged from all Hearings, and all Hearings involving him shall be reviewed
· When such a person is identified, the police shall be involved promptly, so that links with external fraudsters may not impede the reasonable Hearing process and opportunity for appeal.
I have great difficulty believing that Judge S Davis, Vice President of the VCAT was not aware that the Hearing, over which she was presiding, was fundamentally flawed.
AND I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of an Act of Parliament of Victoria rendering persons making a false Declaration punishable for wilful and corrupt perjury.
DECLARED at in the
State of Victoria this
Two thousand and eight
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter A Kangaroo Court – Hop onto my written Submission
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter The February 2006 VCAT Submission
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter Base Board
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter How the Office of the Medical Board could pick biased Panels
 Document Attached - Dénouement
 Mals’ Musings – website: Open letter to Michael Susko
 Mal’s Musings – website. Chapter Medical Pathology
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter Medical Pathology
 Ibid. : Chapter Due Process
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter ST’s Discrepancies
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter The Dark Side
 Ibid: Chapter The Consent Forms that were used
 Ibid: Chapter David Spall’s Affidavit and Memorandum
 Ibid: Chapter Nurse F’s Affidavits
 Ibid: Chapter Professor Lester Peters
 Ibid: Chapter The February 2006 VCAT Submission
 Ibid: Chapter The Onus of Proof
 Supreme Court of Victoria, Eames J. BC9605896. No. 5331 of 1996: 24 MVR 392, pp. 408-9
 Document Attached - Dénouement
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter How the Office of the Medical Board could pick biased Panels
 MPB Bulletin; March 2006, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter Onus of Proof
 The VCAT Order 25/8/2006; Para 15-17
 Mr CM O’Neill, Counsel for the MPB: Submission on behalf of Counsel for the Respondent, 9/6/2006, p2, Clauses 1.3 and 1.7 “A copy of the Panel’s Reasons for Decision is filed with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’).” (When it was filed is unclear)
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter Holt’s UHF Cancer Treatment, the centriole and Herbert Fröhlich
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter Defamation under Privilege
 Ibid. : Chapter Submission to the VCAT July 2006
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapters Kangaroo Court
 Document Attached - Dénouement
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter Nurse F’s Affidavits
 Ibid: Chapter David Spall’s Affidavit and Memorandum
 Ibid: Chapter The Consent forms that were used
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter Medical Pathology
 Ibid: Chapter Holt’s UHF Cancer Treatment etc.
 Ibid: Chapters The NH&MRC Review – Dissection AND Case Reports
 Ibid: Chapter The Centriole and the Retina
 Ibid: Chapter Glossary
 Ibid: Chapters Hyperthermia, Lithium and 434 MHz UHF AND Lithium and Non-psychiatric Disease
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapter The Dark Side
 Mal’s Musings – website: Chapters Kangaroo Court
Coyright (c) MA Traill October 2008