Updated August 2010

Mal's Musings

Malcolm A Traill

IN  THE  PUBLIC  INTEREST
Updated 25/8/2010

DÉNOUEMENT

Without Prejudice

 

On Friday, March 7th,  television news reported that a Dermatologist, Dr David Wee Kin Tong had been found guilty by the County Court of rape and other offences against two female patients. It was the revelation. Suddenly, everything fell into place, and the true nature of what had been happening became clear: theMedical Practitioners Board ('MPB') of Victoria's office had been corrupted for years, and had been involved in extortion, importuning, conspiracy and criminal deception.

The television news and printed reports[1] noted that the two patients had complained to the MPB and the doctor received, at worst, a reprimand (or two).

Apparently the Police became involved because one of the female patients had a Police Officer partner, and the latter was not impressed with the MPB's response*; the subsequent investigations bypassing the MPB. The offices of the MPB were raided by the Police and, at about that time, the MPB was forced to make a public apology[2] (21/7/2007) following it up by another two days later, attributing the failures to 'communication breakdown.'

(*Note added 20/5/2015. The accounts to follow deal with the issue of rape, which is a criminal offense. The reason why officers of the Office of the Medical Practitioners Board may have been reluctant to convey the legal term 'rape' (or similar) to any patient(s) can be explained simply; once the term 'rape' (or similar) is applied, there is an obligation to report the issue(s) to the police. Doing this would have two effects (i) the issue(s) would be lost from the Board's control and, (ii) the offers of the Board would lose the ability to seek payments (directly or indirectly) from the doctor(s) concerned, in return for special treatment(s) (extortion).

There may be difficulty believing that the officers concerned did not know or could not interpret (in a legal sense) what the patient(s) was/(were) describing (and ignorance of law is not a defense). In which case, the officers involved may be regarded as accessories after the fact(s). No action on the officers seems to have been taken to date.)

The Tong Court Hearing may be summarized :

NOTES - BRIEF SUMMARY

R v. TONG, David Wee Kin [2008] VCC0315 [Judge Chettle]

Offenses & Dates[3]

1/ Indecent assault (JK) October 2001

2/ Indecent assault (CH) October 2004; CH Complained to MPB (Date not given)

MPB 'published' Reasons 3/11/2006 'Not unprofessional'

3/ Rape (JM) January 2005

4/ (SM) March 2005

5/ (SJ)   March 2005; SJ Complaint to MPB October 2005

             Hearing 26/10/2006 'Unprofessional' Reprimand

6/ Rape (VM) February 2007

7/ Rape (ZM) February 2007

8/ Indecent assault (SH) February 2007

9/ Rape (LF) February 2007

10/ Indecent assault (EC) February 2007

11/ Indecent assault (SM) April 2006 (See 4/)

12/ Rape (LC) March 2007

13/ Indecent assault (SP) December 2006 & March 2007

14/ Rape (KS) March 2007

Photographs of many, taken by mobile 'phone, some without patients' knowledge

Plead: Guilty

Investigations

Photographs on mobile 'phone & Photographs at his home

There were Victim Impact Statements[4] (brief summaries; not detailed)

Tong's Personal Details: Born 23/5/1967, Schooling in Malaysia, then Geelong Grammar & St Michael's; Medical Course in Sydney 1985-1989;

Prince of Wales Hospital, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, St John's Institute of Dermatology, London to 1993; Sydney hospitals 1996-1999.

FACD 2000; Private Practice in Sydney 2000-2001, then moved to Melbourne.

1995 Father diagnosed with lung cancer - stress/family upheaval (died in 2004).

Suffered from 'diagnosable mental disorder in the middle order of the spectrum'[5]

Prior concerns ?: '. . without prior convictions. .' & '. .previous good character. .'[6]

Sentences[7]: 8 years, 4 months

SOME QUESTIONS

ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED:

(i)                Why did he leave private practice in Sydney & move to Melbourne ? Were there any problems with the NSW Medical Board ? If so, was it correctly declared & processed by the MPB ?

(ii)              Why were the two cases CH & SJ (seemingly) treated separately? (They were processed by the MPB's office at or about the same time)

 

On 14/3/2008, Nicole Newton[8] had her name under another press release from the MPB. This was a real 'cop-out.' 'The Board does not investigate allegations of rape - that is the job for the police. Any person who believes that a doctor's conduct has been criminal should go to the police.' So, with an in-house lawyer, contracted lawyers and lawyers as Panel members, no-one in the MPB could tell two patients that what they were describing was rape or criminal activity, and that the MPB's failure to be more active was seemingly the patient's fault ! (This also assumes that all the patients who wish to make complaints have sufficient knowledge of the classifications and definitions in law needed in order to be able to decide what is criminal conduct and what is not ! For interest, Mr John Hartley Smith, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, was involved in the Sexual Misconduct Sub-Committees in the 1990s at least.)

This recent information stimulated a careful examination of diary notes and a close examination of all reports on the MPB's website involving Panel members Dr Geoffrey Donald Kerr and Mr Michael John Grey Gorton (in particular) and also Ms Anna Dea. From these, the following letter was written and dispatched to the State Minister for Health :

                  ________________________________________LETTER                                                                                    

 

The Honourable Daniel Andrews

Minister for Health

50 Lonsdale Street

Melbourne 3000

e-mail: daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

 

17/3/2008

 

Dear Sir,

                        Re: The Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (�MPB�)

Recent and old complaints

 

I draw attention to the recent Conviction and Sentence imposed upon Dr David WK Tong and the apparently conspicuous failure of the MPB to protect the public. These failings have allowed known features to be assembled and enabled the following serious allegations :

 

1/     Mr John H Smith, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and power-broker for the MPB, had teamed-up with a Mr Charlie Edward Gakis in an extortion racket, which may have operated for years

2/     Mr Smith tipped-off Mr Gakis of any �grey-area� (= no hard evidence) complaints against doctors,

3/     Mr Gakis then approaches the doctors, claiming to have a network of influence (probably true) and powerful backers (also, probably true) and could thereby �minimize� the complaint, but there would be �expenses,�

4/     The doctors pay the �expenses� (probably large) to Mr Gakis, who lets Mr Smith know,

5/     Mr Smith influences the Subcommittee of the MPB (the Subcommittee�s make-up possibly also having input from Mr Smith). In his presentation to the Subcommittee, Mr Smith downplays the significance of the patient allegations, in order to recommend that the matter proceeds to an Informal Hearing, which the Subcommittee accepts,

6/     Once in the Informal Hearing pathway, Mr Smith (who has been in charge of Hearings) would select the Panel Members who would hear the matter,

7/     In preparation for this, there had been installed in the Governor-in-Council�s List, those who would comply with Mr Smith�s wishes (eg a Chosen Mate; such as a forceful lawyer, like Mr M Gorton, or a Consultant Physician, like Dr G Kerr),

8/     Mr Smith would appoint ~2 meek and less experienced MPB Members on the Panel, together with the Chosen Mate, selected from the Governor-in-Council�s List,

9/     The Chosen Mate would then ensure (as by legalistic �specialist and occult knowledge,� and forcefulness) that the doctor receives a light or no penalty,

10/ Under special circumstances, the team, which has had evident success apparent to those with the right connections, could take on a prestige contract for non-medical interests, in order to eliminate a doctor who may be perceived by the latter group to be a threat to their form of business (eg pathology; M A Traill),

11/ In such a prestige contract, Mr Smith would maximize (+ invent) faults in his submission and recommendation to the MPB Subcommittee, in order to ensure anOpen Hearing; then establish a Panel with an appropriate Chosen Mate from the Governor-in-Council�s List, to dominate the Panel, to ensure anadverse outcome for the doctor,

12/ Given the considerable influence that Mr Smith and Mr Gakis wield, a prestige contract could be fully executed with influenced assistance from other areas (such as the Health Department and the VACT),

13/ For the latter contract to be executed properly as planned, Mr Gakis would liaise with the doctor in a fraudulent way (against the doctor�s interests), to ensure that the latter is unable to mount an effective legal appeal (eg to the Supreme court), and thereby steering the whole process to a successful conclusion for all, except the doctor (and the public), 

14/Mr Gakis +/- Mr Smith +/- the Chosen Mate could celebrate the events with a party at the Casino, where any debts owing could be settled by incorporation into the fun and gaming activities of the festive occasion. (Mr Gakis is said to have an account at the Casino.)

 

There are good reasons to believe that the allegations, as set out above, have support by experience and circumstantial evidence, and are serious, as are the issues.The Office of the MPB is corrupt and has a corrupting influence. The failings have now become apparent to the public, following the complaints to the Police that bypassed the MPB and which may be followed by civil action and, possibly other complaints.

 

The purpose of this communication is to request, and recommend, that you set in train, forthwith, a serious and extensive investigation into the operations of the MPB, its officers and connections, with particular emphasis on Mr John H. Smith and Mr CE Gakis and his connections.

 

                                                            Yours truly

 

                                                                        Malcolm A Traill

 

Copy: Andrew McIntosh MP (Local Member)

andrew.mcintosh@parliament.vic.gov.au

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Not mentioned was the obvious, but potential issue of blackmail against any doctor who participated in the scheme � with threats of exposing criminal activity (bribery) and the true nature of the patient complaints.

On 29/5/2008, a reply dated 26/5/2008 arrived from Mr Peter Allen, Under Secretary, Portfolio Services and Strategic Projects. After a preamble, he writes

 

The Board is an independent statutory authority, and the minister cannot intervene in individual complaints. The Minister can however request information from the Board, and it is required to give any information reasonably requested by him. Accordingly, Departmental officers have discussed issues raised in your letter with the Board and I am advised that the Board categorically denies the allegations you have made.

In relation to the case regarding Dr Tong, I am advised that the Board has liaised closely with the department and that the Board is currently reviewing its processes in relation to the Tong case to ensure that procedures take account of the issues learnt from this and other recent similar cases.

I also draw your attention to the Victorian ombudsman and its role in promoting excellence in public administration in Victoria. . . .

 

There follows a suggestion to apply to the Ombudsman. This was done, and, on 8/9/2008, I received a letter from Mr Dallas Mischkulnig, Director, Legislative Compliance, for the Ombudsman. After concluding that the issues lay outside the provisions of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 and the Ombudsman Act 1973, he claimed that there was a remedy to the entrapment claim in the Magistrates� Court and that more than twelve months had elapsed. He also claimed that the Panel Members of 2007 (there was no Panel in 2007) �were clearly identified in the MPBV Annual Report 2007 . . . ,� then summarizing �Accordingly, this office is unable to assist you . . . , you may wish to consider reporting your concerns . . . to the Victoria Police.�

A response was sent back :

                                                                                               

Mr Dallas Mischkulnig

Director, Legislative Compliance

The Ombudsman

Victoria

ombudvic@ombudsman.vic.gov.au

14/9/2008

Your Ref. C/08/7397

 

Dear Mr Mischkulnig,

                                    Re: Your letter 5/9/2008, (received 8/9/2008)

 

There are a number of issues that you seem to misunderstand, or where you are in error. These may have influenced your understanding and the outcome.

                 i           With regard to the Ombudsman Act 1973 (OA), you stated that �. . .you had a remedy in the Magistrates� Court.� This view is similar to that claimed by Mr Gorton, the plant on the Panel (2006), drawn from the Governor-in-Council�s list. That version is not correct � up until the Court hearing there was clearly harassment and Departmental sloppiness, but it could be defended by the DHS as precautionary and overzealous care, together with oversights. It was only after the Court hearing that the entrapment issue became clear, because the harassment and lapses ceased virtually immediately. Attempting to bring the perceived harassment as a defence at the Court would have been futile.

               ii           With the demonstration of the entrapment after the Court, the DHS was exposed to have been engaging in improper conduct/malfeasance before the Court date.

              iii           There were a considerable number of points to lead one to believe that Mr Smith was engaged in nefarious activities. These have been documented in my website[9], and are supported by his �retirement� (together with the resignation of another officer) shortly after I presented an expos� to the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (MPB) � presumably some note was taken of my report.

             iv           You are wrong about the confidentiality of panel members. The members of the MPB have photographs and a brief biography presented in the MPB�s Annual Report for the relevant year ended. Those on the Governor-in-Council�s list have no such presentation. Those drawn from the Governor-in-Council�s list will only have a photograph/biography in one or more MPB�s earlier Annual Reports if they had been a Member of the MPB formerly, and retired to the Governor-in-Council�s list. An example is Dr GD Kerr, who was a MPB Member until ~2002, and then retired to the Governor-in-Council�s list. There are MPB photos/biographies for him until ~end 2002, thereafter nothing. Ms A Dea and Mr M Gorton have, as far as I am aware, never been MPB members, but have sat on Panels; their photo/biographical details are not to be found.

 

Examination of the Panel Members for the relevant Hearings and their presentation in the relevant MPB Annual Report

 

Hearing 2005a � MPB Annual Report 2005

Panel Member                    Drawn from                            Annual Report 2005

Dr G Kerr (Chairman)           Governor-in-Council                 No photo/biography

Ms A Dea (lawyer)                Governor-in-Council                 No photo/biography

Dr Q De Zylva                      Governor-in-Council                 No photo/biography

Ms K Sanders                       Member of MPBb                     Photo/biography

                                                         ↓Resigns from MPB

                                             Governor-in-Council�s list ?

                                                            Unlisted ?

aNot published until 2006

bShe resigned from the MPB before the completion of the Hearing. The MPB never had any control of this Panel � Mr Smith (in charge of Hearings) had stacked the Panel with plants from the Governor-in-Council�s list. The Governor-in-Council�s list was never intended to be used in this way[10].  Dr Kerr and Ms Dea could out-vote the others and had effective control but were answerable to Mr Smith.

 

Hearing 2006c � MPB Annual Report 2006

Panel Member                    Drawn from                            Annual Report 2006

Dr S Horne                           Member of MPB                      Photo/biography

Dr B White                            Member of MPB                      Photo/biography

Mr M Gorton (lawyer)d         Governor-in-Council                 No photo/biography

cNot published until 2007

dMr Gorton quickly took over control of the Hearing, overpowering the meek and mild Doctors S Horne and B White. He ran the Hearing as a legal Hearing[11]not a Medical Hearing supposed to be dealing with issues relevant to Medical Practitioners; effectively double jeopardy.

        

               v           Mr Charlie Gakis was clearly involved in crime, and the evidence was that he had links with the MPB, Dr SH Naik and Dr DKW Tong, at least. You omitted mention of him and his roles.

             vi           The Tong, Salter, Associate Professor GG, Naik etc. issues reveal, against a background I have provided, a plausible operational framework, linking the activities of Mr Smith with MPB dysfunction and explaining various isolated happenings that would otherwise be inexplicable.

            vii           Citizens who have concerns about crime rarely have Court-level evidence and proof � such evidence is garnered by those appropriately qualified to investigate � usually the Police.

          viii           Both the Minister and you have made prejudicial pronouncements without knowledge of what may be obtained by appropriate Police investigation; you have usurped the Police, impeded Police investigation and regarded lack of Court-level proof as an indication of a frivolous and/or vexatious complaints. This is a standard ploy.

             ix           You conclude by suggesting that I �consider reporting . . . concerns . . . to the Victoria Police.� My understandings are :

a)     Every citizen has a duty to report concerns about crime to the police.

b)     I did that, but was told that, when entities are established under statute, an approach must be made to the appropriate Minister. I did that, but the Minister was in denial, and suggested I consult the Ombudsman. My view is that the Minister acted quite inappropriately; the issues relate to suspected criminal activity; he should have referred the concerns to the Police, and not suggested an approach to you. (You would be more concerned with bureaucratic bungling, inefficiency and indecision.) Nevertheless, I did as advised.

c)     Having done that, you now tell me that I should go to the police ! � a complete �round Robin !� (I had expected that you would have advised the Police of concerns over criminal activity, or notified the Minister of concerns � but you did not.) My understanding of the Ombudsman�s purpose is to break the �round Robin� situation. You have not done so but, instead, contributed.

                                                               Health

                                                              Minister

                                          Police Ombudsman

 

Over the last 19 years or so, I have made numerous approaches to the Ombudsmen of Australia about my concerns, chiefly because bureaucrats always blocked police investigations into criminal activities involving their bureaucrats. In all cases, the Ombudsmen proved worse than useless. That is because they always found reasons why they could do nothing in the face of outrageous criminal activity or unconscionable conduct; and, by doing nothing, they sent signals to the crooks that the activities were condoned, that the crooks had special protection and everything was �business as usual.�

 

                                                            Yours truly

 

                                                                        Malcolm A Traill

 

The final words from Mr Mischkulnig, on 14/10/2008 were that �. . .in the circumstances I do not consider that there is any further action that I can take in respect of this matter . . . I therefore am unable to assist you on this occasion.� So, nothing changes, the crooks still receive special protection, and its �business as usual.�

 

There can be comments, with reference to relevance to my letter to the Minister :

       The Tong case received only brief mention as an introduction

       The substance of the letter details corrupt conduct and malversation by a �trusted� staff member in the office of the Board, and how he may have influenced and corrupted Board activities and proceedings. Apart from reporting that the Board �categorically denies the allegations,� there is no other comment.

       The thrust of the letter was to seek Police investigation. This has been ignored, implying that the Minister condones the malversation and corruption.

       Bureaucratic institutions typically �categorically deny.�

       The nefarious activities of Mr Smith were, apparently, quite unknown to, or suspected by the Board until I presented an expos� on his aberrant conduct in late March 2006, based only upon what I, (without investigative powers and outside the office of the Board) could glean, as by careful research. Accordingly, there are good reasons to believe that the only true statement that the Board�s executives may be able to utter is that they categorically denied any knowledge of Mr Smith�s nefarious activities (through ignorance).

       Given that the issues would seem to be of a criminal nature, the appropriateness of the action of discussing the allegations with the Board may be questioned.

       When Mr Smith�s nefarious activities and other related issues were raised, the Police should have been involved (in 2006).

       The option that a complaint could be made to the Ombudsman implied downgrading of the seriousness of the issues � to maladministration rather than criminal activity.

 

Remember, the true nature of the issues relating to Dr Tong�s activities and the cover-up only came to light because the MPB had been bypassed.What about all the others ?

The evidence, upon which the corruption (as outlined above) could be based (given that the general public has no investigative powers), had to be largely circumstantial. To understand this, there has to be elaboration of other matters :

 

  1. I was the victim of a criminal deceptionconducted by a Mr Charlie Edward Gakis. (�Charlie� being his real given name, also known as Charles.) This is an embarrassing story and his liaison is mentioned in the letter to the Minister. Briefly, he latched onto me as a patient in early 2002. We chatted, and he claimed to have been with the John Anthony Delmo and Stanley Meyer Rosenberg �mob� of 1988-1990 as a �bag-man,� but that they had ratted on him and set him up, so that he went to prison for some 8 years, having been essentially undefended for fear of reprisals. He claimed that, because he was disillusioned with the legal system, he had set out to collect documentation to force wrongs to be righted. Of course, he needed money to repay his investments in this endeavour, and again later in order to sort out other claimed threatening issue for me. There was always the promised resolution and payout, being compensation etc. Sadly, these outcomes never eventuated but, with his demands, he did send me into bankruptcy, jeopardizing any serious financial support from family and friends in the future. He was going to fund my appeal to the Supreme Court in 2006-7 � but this never happened, and the normal time for appeal came and went on September 25th 2006. In early 2007, meetings diminished, but I was waiting for him to declare his position. That seemed to occur on 25/7/2007, when he blamed me for a failure for him to obtain some medical insurance payout. I reported my concerns to the Police on 9/8/2007. I had been conned. In retrospect, for reasons that may not be fully exteriorized, there can be little doubt that the whole aim and purpose of this confidence trickster was to ensure that there was not the financial capability to fight the medical deregistration in the Supreme Court, (so that the pathology industry�s current status[12] could continue unchallenged). The timing of monetary demands (supposedly to assist MAT in proposed legal action) can be demonstrated at or about the time of the conclusion of the MPB Hearing 2005, after which there was lodged an appeal with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (�VCAT�) (this and later charts may best be viewed with zoom set to above 100%) :

 

CHART 1

This chart shows the demand for money (to weaken the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court) increase once the initial Hearing commenced, later recurring with the Hearing resumption, and increases again in a build-up to the Finding and Determination of the Hearing process. From this, there can be deduced the (perhaps) surprising conclusions that i) Mr Gakis expected MAT to lose before the Panel of 2005, and, ii) an appeal would eventuate, not to the Supreme Court, but to the VCAT which, apparently, was not of great concern, indicating iii) that the appeal to the VCAT wasexpected to fail � ie that the VCAT outcome was known in advance ! (Examination of the VCAT appeal[13] already indicated that the process was rigged � the above study merely confirms this and indicates that Mr Gakis had prior knowledge.)

So, now that we can deduce all this and, instead of self-flagellating, we can also look for those points of a positive and constructive nature, that can be gleaned and claimed from the unfortunate experience  :

       At the time, given the attacks from the Federal and State areas, were there any real options to taking the gamble and acceding to his demands and wishes and chase his promised outcomes (justice and a payout) ?

       If his course of deception had not been followed, would there have been more violent or damaging consequences ? (When we were discussing the mob, and when I asked if they might grant me a concrete overcoat if I did not shut up about the Glendon Fraud and the perverted pathology Scheme, he replied that he thought that they would not do that � at the time he had me hooked, so that the MPB and he could do the next best thing without bloodshed.)

       This course has allowed the association with the Medical Board to be revealed, and this would not have occurred if a legal challenge had followed, whether or not there occurred success or failure.

       With the combined resources of the Commonwealth and State united through the legal firm Minter Ellison, was winning in the Supreme Court really likely, considering the capability of such forces to wear an opponent down over years of legal slogging ?

       The legal issues would have been civil and on points of law, not dealing with criminal involvement: the real activities, such as conspiracy, criminal deception, bribery, extortion, importuning and blackmail.

       By committing a criminal deception (fraud), Mr Gakis has brought in the Victoria Police, who may show less inhibition to investigation compared to the Australian Federal police, the latter always being prevented from investigating by the HIC.

       The more recent appearance of the Dr Tong case puts pressure upon the State Health Minister to permit investigation of the Medical board, particularly with regard to the public safety.

       If the State Minister is reluctant, a threatened class action against the Board may force his hand.

On 4/12/2008, news arrived that Mr Charlie or Charles Gakis had been found guilty of fraud against the Transport Accident Commission (TAC). He was sentenced to 30 months jail and required to make restitution, together with other financial sanctions. He may appeal. This has been reported -

                 Click here to see the Whittlesea Leader reportalso -
                 Click here to read the Judge's Comments, County Court 1990
                 Click here to read the Judge's Comments, County Court 1998
            On 16/9/2009, he had a second Appeal Hearing in the County Court, Melbourne (AP-08-2285), the earlier appeal, based upon an health issue, was
            successful. On this occasion, he had an health issue again, with an operation on his right shoulder planned for October 2009. More significant, was his
            heart-wrenching account of having putting all his (other peoples' ?) money onto the property 62 Botanica Boulevard, Mill Park, only to have his de facto
            (Rita Lapaglia) separate and claim the house. Then he was locked out by Court order, and was now living with friends at 125 Mahadys Road*, Upper
            Plenty. To add to his pitiful plight, he said that his car, with a laptop computer and $30,000, was stolen (no Police Report was proffered nor requested).
            He claimed to be unable to afford legal representation; but had applied for Legal Aid, with acceptance  pending. (His change in address had caused a
            condition of bail to be breached.)  He is to reappear on 10/2/2010. (Rita's address was given as 13 Boronia Street, Thomastown.)
           *Off Munts Road, which is off the Wallan Whittlesea Road.
           On 30/12/2009, a woman telephoned, claiming to be the principal occupant of the Mahadys Road address. She stated that Mr Gakis no longer lived there,
           and that, if people wished to know his address, they would need to ask him &/or the Police.

   County Court Hearing 10/2/2010; AP-08-2285. This was listed as an Appeal. Before the Hearing started, Mr Gakis indicated that he would apply to have me removed from the Court because this internet site 'affected a lot of people.'
His Honour, on entering, was none other than the  former Mr Christopher Miles O'Neill, Barrister, previously employed by that obnoxious legal firm Minter Ellison, the firm that had assisted the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria before its sham Panel of 2005 and the VCAT appeal of 2006. Apparently, Chris O'Neill was appointed to the bench in August 2007, some 11 months after prosecuting the Board's case against me in the VCAT. Those who have read this Chapter, and other Chapters on the subject of those Hearings within this website, may recall the extraordinary precedents and lack of procedural fairness that were established by Mr O'Neill, as Prosecutor. One may wonder if the degree of such aberrations could have caused the legal fraternity to look askance at his conduct, and this might have been a potential problem in his career as a practising Barrister. As a consequence, he may have turned to the bench, where he would have relative immunity. Also, since, in the eyes of the mob and the bureaucratic associates, the outcomes he achieved would have been most favourable, one may wonder if his elevation may have been influenced favourably as a result of those Hearings.

(Whilst the Medical Board Hearings were in progress [2005-6], Mr Gakis claimed that Mr O'Neill carried, within the legal fraternity, the nick-name of 'the Hyena,' [a mammal that eats carcases and having canabalistic tendencies]  - a claim unconfirmed to date.)
With some 50 Full-time and Acting Judges in the County Court from which to select a particular one, the probability (P) of selecting a particular judge would be likely to be less than 1 in 20 (0.05 > P  > 0.01), the point usually used in statistics to indicate a non-random selection. So, his appearance on the bench may not be seen to be so much as a remarkable coincidence but rather as a possible selection. (The name of Mr Gakis was on documentation in the 2006 Hearing, so there was also a possibility of recognition from that time.)  One problem for the mob and its associates might be that Mr Gakis may become displeased with the way he is being treated by the Court and change sides, speaking down, and dobbing in the mob and its associates. Such a major concern could be a factor that might be used to try to modify the roster of Judges.
(In the 2006 Hearing, Mr O'Neill described the Mal's Musings as 'scurrilous and offensive.' The only people likely to consider Mal's Musings scurrilous and offensive would be the members of the mob, their friends, associates and supporters in the bureaucracy and elsewhere.)
If there was some bias in the selection process for Justice O'Neill, Mr Gakis, seemingly, was not told.
Within the Court, Mr Gakis continued his criticisms of me, generally of a defamatory nature, with the protection of Court privilege, along the lines that have been followed in Hearings since the mid 1990s. He blamed me for his claimed health problems, and the reported death of his father who, he claimed, had deteriorated after reading this website. In doing this, he drew attention to my name and my presence in the Court. As one would expect, His Honour recognized my name and, after some procedings, pointed out that he would be unable to hear any Appeal because of a conflict of interest problem, although he still could hear a Directions Hearing, as the current Hearing had become. So, the next Hearing was to be a Directions Hearing only. Mr Gakis claimed great distress from the reported death of his father, claiming that the news came to him anonymously by telephone on an uncertain date.
This was not the first time that Mr Gakis has reported the death of his father - on the 24/4/2003
*, he said that his father may have bowel cancer. On 1/5/2003, he said that his father had bowel cancer and had only 3-8 months to live. On 5/5/2003, his father had six weeks to live. On 7/5/2003, at ~22:02 h, Mr Gakis telephoned me. He reported that his father had died. This was accompanied by sounds consistent with sniffs and sobs. On 10/5/2003, I checked the papers in the Kew Library and found no confirmation. At ~14:03 h Mr Gakis telephoned,  stating 'the funeral (is) tomorrow at 15:00 h at Fawkner Cemetery - Greek.' He claimed to have'cried the last 24 h.'
Then,
hallelujah, there must have been amiracle - a resurrection: on 20/5/2003, his father was reported to be alive        *Contemporaneous Diary notes
Mr Gakis' father must be the first case of a man developing and dying from two different cancers with a clear temporal separation between the conditions.
His family connections must have been blessed: there was a similar miracle a bit over a month before: on 1/4/2003 at ~19:27 h, Mr Gakis telephoned me, sounding'low', to say that his mother-in-law had died in Ballarat and that he was up there. I saw the mother-in-law when she visited Fawkner from Ballarat on 16/8/2003. She seemed fit and healthy, with no indications of what must have happened to her.
Mr Gakis wanted me excluded from the Hearing and also have a Suppression Order placed upon me from reporting the Hearing onto this website. His Honour stated that he was unable to do either.
Mr Gakis came unrepresented, again claiming insufficient funds to afford a lawyer; the situation with Legal Aid being unclear.
Much of what ensued was dominated by Mr Gakis' reporting the death of his father, said to be due to prostate cancer in the Peter MacCallum Clinic.


Whether under oath or not, there was confusion of dates; Mr Gakis having variable degrees of amnesia and confusion attributed to the recent reported death of his father. The surgery to his shoulder (right) was to be a week before, but was cancelled because of the reported death of his father, which was 2 or 4 days before the Hearing - a bizarre discrepancy under oath that His Honour picked up with concern. Mr Gakis brought no documentation to substantiate any claim relevant to the deferment or me.
In the state he attributed to the reported death of his father, he seemed unclear just what sort of Appeal he wanted - to appeal the verdict, or appeal the sentence. The impression was that the sentence was to be appealed, that seemed unclear and might change. When asked if he was working, again, he seemed indecisive, but eventually saying 'no.' Answers of a 'yes/no' type were rare - many answers were oblique.
The Orders were that his bail was to continue as before (no address was given), he was to provide proof of his father's death and a letter from his surgeon regarding the operation on his right shoulder.
The Court would reconvene for a Directions Hearing on 25/2/2010 at 10:00 h.

(The above Court report 16/2/2010)
At
The Reconvened Hearing on 25/2/2010, His Honour, if I understood correctly, placed a Suppression Order on reporting the proceedings, and directed that the Appeal Hearing date be confidential. (No input from me was requested or given.) There may be concerns that now, under Judge O'Neill, there has appeared elements of secrecy. (Note added 5/3/2010.)

Listed on 27/7/2010 at the Heidelberg Magistrates� Court, courtroom 7 (dealing with Domestic Violence), were four Mentions involving Charlie/Charles Edward Gakis : A11539049, A11539071, A10891955 and A10882463. These seemed to involve three police districts, Mill Park, Preston and Northcote. No-one recognizable had turned up by 10:30 h, so waiting was abandoned. At the subsequent Appeal Hearing (5/8/2010), another person claiming to be a Gakis victim/watcher alleged that the Mentions involved more than domestic violence, including breaching intervention orders, driving whilst with a suspended licence, speeding and assault. No doubt confirmation and elaboration of these  may be forthcoming in the future.
At last, Mr Gakis� Appeal was heard on 5/8/2010 (AP-08-2285) in the County Court. The Judge was Gabriele Cannon (appointed March 2010). Mr Gakis was unrepresented and never spoke under Oath (or equivalent). He announced that he wanted to question the TAC Investigator, Mr Gordon Grewcock and me, claiming that he needed time to prepare for this. Accordingly, an intermission of about an hour was granted.
During the intermission, whilst I was sitting at the end of a side passage, Mr Gakis came to the other end of the passage and made, what seemed to me, a threatening gesture.
When the Hearing recommenced, the questioning of Mr Grewcock involved Charlie�s medication consumption. After some discussion with the Judge, he decided not to question me. He claimed to be �out of Rehabilitation today�, waving both wrists bearing plastic wristbands. Nobody checked them. He mentioned the Psychiatric Department of the Northern Hospital. Later, when asked about treatment, he was somewhat evasive, saying �Lithium and others�.
He claimed that he always wanted to plead guilty, but the complexity of the charges and the involvement of a lawyer/barrister at his initial hearing prevented this.
He was said to owe the TAC some $73,700 + $5,000 costs, maintaining that he still intended to pay. He claimed to be �very regretful� and that there was a �property settlement pending�. Throughout, there was maintained the now usual defamation of me under court privilege.  Even the TAC Barrister, Mark Bellamy joined in ! The latter gave a brief but erroneous summary of my Medical Board outcomes.

Judge Cannon, in her Verdict,  noted that the offences were �most serious�. She noted that he had been a good boy since 1998, that he had pleaded Guilty before her and also there was the Psychiatric issue. She chose to convict him on all charges, with a jail term of 18 months, minimum 9 months. He was to repay the ~$73,700 + $5,000 and recommended that he receive appropriate Psychiatric attention whilst in jail.

Comment : The details in the  account above are presented because Judge�s Comments are not usually produced following Appeals.

1) Nothing Charlie says should be believed or acted upon until confirmed by a trustworthy source. Sadly, the Judges seemed not to heed this dictum. Sometimes he did tell the truth, but possibly in order to let the hearer believe that what was to follow might still be true. If, whilst in jail, Charlie redirected and honed his mythomaniac skills towards writing fantasy books for children, he might make a decent living.
2) Earlier Hearings and this one were preceded by alleged rehabilitation sessions. Charlie claimed that he was currently receiving Lithium medication, a treatment best known for helping those with bipolar disorders (manic-depressive). Such a condition was raised in his defence in a much earlier Hearing for frauds. The impression is that it is only considered just before or during a court appearance for fraud.
3) The Judge commented on his clean record since 1998. Of course, this was based upon the court records. Between 2002 and 2006 Charlie was quite busy defrauding me, and this has not come before the courts. Others have alleged frauds in the interval. [Charlie had at least two tricks, the first being relevant here, the other included for interest : i. The scrappy contract. Here, Charlie suggests, with a spontaneously hand-written, scrappy contract, that parties should sign in good faith. Later, when the great deal falls through and the victims appeal to the police, the scrappy contract is seen by the police as showing that the matter was civil, and out of their jurisdiction.  A number of alleged victims reported this problem. ii. The phoney telephone call. During discussions before the promised resolution and settlement of some big deal, Charlie will talk on his mobile �phone, allowing his conversation to be heard. In this he will discuss the impending conclusion of the great deal etc. Sometimes he would hand the �phone over to the victim, who may also talk to the accomplice, and the wonders of the coming settlement would be aired. When the due date arrives, nothing occurs, and a new date is set, and so the process can go on and on for months. (Given the date/times of the calls, the accomplices may be identified.)]
The matters in the Mentions of 27/7/2010 are, of course, without verdicts still.
4) Since I had not been Summoned, I was not obliged to stay for Charlie�s questioning The sequence would be consistent with him trying to scare me away, in order to avoid having a report on this website, and not having someone present who might know when he was making false and misleading statements.
5) The court conditions were not conducive for any defence against the defamatory statements.
6) The persistence and intensity of the defamation under privilege raise the possibility that Charlie had an ongoing contract with the mob.
7) The TAC�s prosecutor augmented the defamation and denigrated a TAC witness !
8) Dear reader, you may wish to ponder what (if any) relevance Charlie�s medications and my contretemps with the Medical Board have to do with him defrauding the TAC over months, especially since he pleaded guilty. A shoal of Red Herrings drifted through the courtroom.
9) With Charlie�s stated Psychiatric and Rehabilitation history, one may question his concepts of appropriate medical management.
10) The claim that he always wanted to plead guilty contrasted with the dissembling and indecision shown in the earlier Appeal Hearings.
11) A property awaiting settlement has featured in all the Appeal Hearings. Details are lacking.

(Court reports added 25/8/2010) 

  1.  The MPB was, and is, corrupt. Already, this has been demonstrated by:

       The perfidious and conspiratorial conduct of Officers of the MPB as detailed on this website[14]

       The collaboration with the Health Department officers in organizing the entrapment, leading to the Magistrate�s Court penalty[15]

       The removal, from the MPB, of the onus of proof (and lots more) for the Hearings (MPB and the VCAT[16]) regarding the UHF treatment of 3 patients

        The relentless aim to defame under privilege

       The exceptional severity of the penalties, taken in comparison with those for others (see later)

       Throughout, from the Commonwealth�s actions to the State Hearings, there was the reasonably clear aim to demonstrate to all that a pathologist in a clinic is a medical disaster, and must not be allowed � a �bull in a china shop.�

The challenge, then, is to demonstrate the link between Mr Charlie Gakis and the MPB, to complete the connection with the �mob.�

At the MPB�s Panel Hearing 2006 (late March) MAT presented his concerns about Mr Smith, and the information on the attempted set-up involving a Specialist and staff at St Vincent�s Hospital. Without fanfare, Mr John H. Smith �retired� in July 2006[17] (probably with a large payout for many years of �dedicated and trustworthy service�), and Ms Clare Lethlean �resigned� also. (Mr Smith was documented in the Kangaroo Court submission and both were listed in theBase Board, as were Mr Conn Constantinou and Chris McIntyre.) That the MPB is still corrupt today is clear � there have been no corrections made to past Hearings and their penalties, and the precedents set have not been annulled. In addition, there is the possible involvement in current MPB activities of Mr Smith�s �chosen mates� still, and that ongoing Governor-in-Council�s list with plants. The only perceived concessions made by the MPB following the exposure and departure of Mr Smith was that the claim for the VCAT that the lung cancer patient had �potentially curable cancer� was dropped, and that the �Reasons� for the MPB hearing of 2006 was released well over time, potentially nullifying the whole process (but leaving the public defamation). The former concession made almost no change to the emphasis of defamation under privilege and the sanctions (largely a paraphrase of the MPB�s Panel �Reasons� sine reason). The latter�s documentation, of defamatory nature, is still publicly displayed on the MPB�s website (see later).

 

  1. Charlie Gakis. Mr Gakis operated and moved in mysterious ways. One of his distinguishing features has been a facile and convincing ability to make false and misleading statements (lies), seemingly about anything and everything. This was probably done i), to establish a �ghost�-like persona � one never knew what he did, where he went, when he would turn up or what he would do and, ii), to flood his accounts of events with so many false statements (�red-herrings�), that one could never be certain what was true and what was false, both at the time and later, making quoting him very hazardous. These patterns became clear after a time, and the policy was soon adopted of not regarding anything he said as reliable until confirmed by external information; but such support was rare. In order to ensnare me, he had perform a balancing act; on one hand, providing enough inside information of a reliable or confirmable type to have me accept that he did have �secret knowledge� and, on the other hand not to release so much that his and the mob�s activities would be compromised and put at risk. Because there were suspicions about his motives, a diary was kept, virtually from the outset. Considerable reliance had to be upon these notes, because he would say one thing at a crucial point, and then, months or years later, would maintain having said another, different statement; or he would pick-up on something that I said, then claim later that he was the first to say it and that people should be grateful for his perceptive advice (mixed in with all the false statements). However, he did produce some interesting observations worthy of specific note :

     Its personal � they want you out of the system.� This was simply a realistic statement and confirmatory.

     That the driving force against me came from Victoria. At the time that this was said, it came as a surprise. That is because most attack had come from the ACT � the full ferocity involving the MPB was then yet to come. In retrospect, this observation was possibly correct.

More recently (July 2008) news has come to hand that Charlie is to be, or has been charged with offences under the Traffic Accident Commission, for which he was found guilty subsequently (see earlier); more news to follow.

  1. The General structure:This is outlined below. There are i) associations with ii) nefarious roles, for which there must be some evidence, but the evidence is difficult and limited, really needing investigative powers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                       (b)            

                                                                                                                   (c)  See text

                                                                                                      (d)

                        Year 2004    2005    2006

 

                                                                       

                                                                         (a)

 

 

 

(a)  The Gakis-Traill link. This association, since early 2002 to mid-2007, is well established by diary notes. The nefarious role can be identified by :

o      The fantastic nature of the association, not being the type expected of a typical confidence trickster

o      The early claims (to attract involvement) of  knowledge of the mob in the 1988-1990 era, and a claimed obsessive desire (possibly false) to see Stanley Rosenberg back in jail

o      The early claim that the PSR process was rigged (confirmed, to MAT�s satisfaction; see Medical Pathology)

o      The early claim that Mr John Petts (solicitor) was corrupt (confirmed, to MAT�s satisfaction; see Medical Pathology)

o      The early claim that MAT would be charged and found guilty of an offence with a non-custodial penalty (later proved correct, see later)

o      His particular concern that there could be an appeal to the Supreme Court, with his advice at the time to go to the VCAT. (Later, the advice that he had given, changed)

o      The claim that Dr Kim Fatt Chan bought leniency (plausible; see later)

 

(b)  The Mob-Smith link. For a long time, Mr John Hartley Smith was a dominant figure in the office of the MPB, and he seemed almost synonymous with the Board, featuring (directly or indirectly) in relation to most correspondence coming from the Board, and being made Deputy CEO from ~1999 onwards (seemingly a demotion). The assumption was, that he wrote the reports presented in the MPB�s Bulletins and Annual Reports (up until later 2006). That he was the mole in the office of the MPB was deduced late in 2004 (being both association and nefarious activity; seeMedical Pathology, and February 2006 VCAT Submission):

o      The MPB�s Bulletin report of MAT�s Hearing (2004); a follow-on from the PSR process, was immediately recognized as being written for the mob � and highlighting the non-clinical role for pathologists

o      Closer analysis of his roles and conduct (seeKangaroo Court). He was the only senior person who would have been in the �trusted� power position to have influenced matters from 1990 onwards (at least � about >16 years)

o      As discussed in the Chapter Medical Pathology, he seems the only likely person to have blocked consistently over years, my concerns over medical roles in pathology.

 

(c)   The Mob-Gakis link. Mr Gakis could have only three roles � i) a solo fraudster/trickster. This seems most unlikely (see earlier), ii) to be acting to assist MAT (as he claimed, falsely). This proved not to be the case when he severed relationships over a trivial issue, still with the claimed debts due to him not being pursued, and,iii) acting against MAT on behalf of others (the mob). This latter is, by far, the most plausible ;

o      An early, confidential meeting with Mr Petts, (an association, reason unknown, but likely to be nefarious)

o      Concern over the potential Supreme Court action, indicating an association with the mob and nefarious intent (monitoring and misleading)

o      Involvement and concern over the Drugs and Poisons Court Hearing, insisting on Mr Robert Stary to represent MAT, to ensure a guilty plea, (and not try to defend, on the basis of the �lost� Permit applications and harassment, later recognized as components of an entrapment campaign, for which there was little clear evidence at the time) and increase indebtedness prior to a bankruptcy.

o      To closely monitor and provide feed-back of MAT�s thoughts and plans on a long-term basis.

o      To respond to perceived threats (eg MAT deducing that Mr Smith was the mole) by supplying a barrage of false and misleading, fantastic stories concerning Mr Smith and others (to �muddy the waters�). (Remember, we have been dealing with professionals with large sums of money and power at stake.)

 

(d)  The Gakis-Smith link. This was suspected, but had little apparent support until becoming eminently plausible following the Dr Tong Court reports :

o      The conspicuous inability of the MPB to suspect or identify criminal conduct seemed (based upon the media reports) difficult to believe if corruption were not involved � some form of external influence seemed almost certain. Presumably, that external influence would have to come directly or indirectly from Dr Tong. Being an intermediary agent would seem a clear role for Mr Gakis (he claimed to have done this for the mob in the past).

o      Mr Gakis on a number of occasions carried large bundles of cash. On one occasion, it was claimed to be in Euros.

o      Money would need to be laundered. Mr Gakis is said to have an account with the Crown Casino.

o      Mr Smith had already shown himself to be of questionable character (see Kangaroo Court & Base Board)

o      Mr Gakis seemed concerned that I may have heard about the MPB matters when the MPB was involved with the Dr Tong police investigations in 2007. Mr Gakis telephoned me, typically asking (along the lines) �have you heard anything from the Board ?� I knew nothing of the Tong Police investigations then (only hearing of the case when Tong was found guilty in March 2008). Mr Gakis knew that I regarded Mr Smith as a crook. Since Mr Smith would be unlikely to restrict his nefarious activities and, given the right clues, I would be able to draw the obvious conclusions (as occurred recently). Mr Gakis� questions were, at the time, thought to be enquiring about the MPB doing anything more against me; instead, Gakis was fishing. The sequence can be shown :

 

                                               

The timing of Mr Gakis� telephone calls &/- visits. These effectively ceased in April 2007, to be stirred-up in relation to i) the Tong arrest, charge and media report, ii) a TAC matter and iii) the MPB�s public announcements admitting the MPB�s failure to protect the public. An explanation involving a sinister connection seemed logical, pointing to a link between Mr smith and Mr Gakis.

 

With regular contacts apparently ceased, the telephone calls after April seem only explicable by events now known -  Dr Tong�s arrest and charge (May), a TAC issue with Mr Gakis (June) and the Dr Tong-inspired MPB public announcements. These events are circumstantial but, in context, indicate sensitivity to news which may threaten, as by recognition of a link between the MPB (Mr Smith) and Mr Gakis, and that might explain the MPB�s lapses in relation to Dr Tong. Noticeable is the hostile �severing� telephone call immediately after the MPB�s public announcements, as if, for Mr Gakis to maintain a link with me, there would be too great a risk.

o      Another clue comes from the diary notes. Here, Mr Gakis� mention of Mr Smith in relating fantastic accounts can be counted. Whilst there is uncertainty as to what had been said to Mr Gakis during the time concerned, an interval in which I was ruminating over the apparent faults of Mr Smith, with particular interest in the revelations of the patient DF and the MPB (see Base Board). Mr Gakis� response can be seen as a �smoke screen� of fantasy to diminish the credibility of any conclusions that might be drawn and exteriorized from his accounts. The silence occurring at or about the time of Smith�s �retirement� may also indicate an awareness of potential problems.

                                               

Here, the number of times Mr Smith was mentioned by Mr Gakis per month is presented. Notes in inverted comments before 2006 relate to statements/claims by Mr Gakis either repeating what I had claimed (Smith a mole), or claiming that Smith and Lethlean had been sacked (false). Both truly �retired/resigned� in July 2006.

 

o      Early in Mr Gakis�s courtship of MAT in mid 2002, he made three important claims, namely that :

     The Chairman of the PSR Committee had been bribed,

     Mr John Petts was a crook and had �done a deal� and,

     MAT was to be charged and found guilty of an offence with a non-custodial sentence.

(He also claimed that the driving force to eliminate MAT was coming from Victoria, not the ACT.)

The first two of these were examined and discussed in detail in Medical Pathology, and the conclusions reached were that he was probably correct (at least in principle). The last claim was presented with much assurance, claiming �secret knowledge� and emphasizing that, without his assistance, this charge and guilty finding would come about. I was sceptical of this claim because there had been an Informal Interview with the Officers of the Drugs and Poisons Unit in late 2001, which was interpreted as a warning, following which there had been particular care over Permits � but eventually prophesy came to pass, reaching the MPB as the Drugs & Poisons issue of 2006. Examination and categorization of FoI documents obtained early in 2005 from the HIC give some interesting insights :

   A letter or memorandum, written by Norman Egerton, Commission Pharmacist 8 June 2001[18], noted that prescribing exceeded the limit in the state permit, and that an interview was planned. He goes on to note �The first interview will be informal. The second interview will be a formal taped record of interview with the view of prosecution. It is therefore recommended that the proposed interview by the HIC be postponed until after the taped record of interview by (blocked out).� A hand-written note suggests �Review 3 months after State Health.�

   From this, we can conclude that :

     The evidence necessary to proceed to prosecution had been collected by mid-2001

     Bar a decision to the contrary, prosecution would follow

     The Informal and Formal Interviews were not warnings with increasing force, the decision had been made  - the dice had been cast

     This information would have been available within the State Drugs & Poisons Unit and the HIC during late 2001 and 2002.

     No amount of care with future Permits would alter the likely course of events

     The Prosecution case would look better if an oversight would occur after the Formal Taped Interview (to demonstrate �blatant disregard.� Since patient DF was being �set-up� by the Office of the Medical Board using a specialist and staff at St Vincent�s Hospital (see Base Board), and she was one on the planned Prosecution list, the Drugs & Poisons unit could benefit both planned prosecutions by �losing� a key Permit application after the taped interview  � and so it came to pass !

(A subsequent letter or memorandum by Mr Norman Egerton on 31/7/2001[19], reported that there had been an interview on 30/7/2001. After reviewing the main points, he concludes �Doctor insisted he was a specialist. Agreed, but, his specialty was pathology.�(Emphasis added.) This summarizes the nub of all the issues from 1990 :

        Mr Egerton presumes how clinical pathology should be practised, and practising within a clinic was just not right.

        How medicine should be practised lies within the MPB�s jurisdiction, not the HIC�s.

        Whilst the view expressed may originate with him, in context, that would seem unlikely.

        He is most likely expressing views conveyed to him from Victoria concurrent with the entrapment campaigns.

        The most likely �authoritative� source for such a prejudicial pronouncement would be Mr John Smith, received by Mr Egerton directly or indirectly by way of the Drugs & Poisons Unit.

These official notes provide an insight into the close working relationship between the Federal and State departments when dealing with the information coming from an entrapment campaign and other set-ups, and the influence that the prejudiced concepts held by non-medical officers had relating to the conduct of medical practice.)

  Elsewhere, the likely involvement of Mr John Smith in the Drugs & Poisons Unit�s entrapment campaign was noted (Kangaroo Court) so that his knowledge (if not planning) of the planned prosecution seems very likely. Mr Smith, we now know to have been involved in nefarious activities, seems the most likely source for Mr Gakis� �secret knowledge.� The information was there at the appropriate time for him to pose threats and provide solutions, he could speak with authority and did not have to make it up - and it would come true.

 

e)     Minter Ellison. In all of the analysis to date, there has been no mention of this obnoxious, sleazy and slimy legal firm, used by the mob�s connections in the Federal area, and by the MPB, apparently being taken on by the latter in mid-2002, about the time that laws were being amended to protect the Prosecuting Complainants for the Hearing of 2005. Mr Smith�s involvement in the firm�s selection may be suspected. Not only does it seem to have been actively supporting the mob�s aims but, from documents obtained under Freedom of Information, a spokesperson from the firm had a �discussion� with my Trustee under Bankruptcy (ITSA) on or about 20/8/2004. What was said is not recorded, but this could explain why the Trustee did nothing to chase the sums owing to Dr Traill from the Glendon Fraud (see Medical Pathology) and to chase, with the aim to claw-back, the monies provided to Mr Gakis; the Trustee was very likely �got-at.

Throughout the Hearings, I presented copies of the then current �Mal�s Musings.� These chiefly consisted of the Chapter on Medical Pathology. For the 2004 Hearing, it was handed to Minter Ellison and then promptly disappeared. In later Hearings, Mr O�Neill referred to it as �scurrilous and offensive� (or similar), and it was set aside at the VCAT Hearing after similar comments from Mr O�Neill. Since the exposition was based upon documentation and personal observations throughout, and dealt with corruption in the bureaucracy, one would expect that the only people who might find it offensive would be those with something to hide. Throughout, neither Minter Ellison, nor any Panel or Panel Member suggested that the concerns expressed should receive the benefit of investigation. This means that they all condoned the alleged offences, maladministration and aberrations.

A brief, but careful examination of the VCAT Hearing (2006) outcome should lead the observer to conclude that the VCAT had been influenced. Whilst Mr Smith may have influence that could extend to the VCAT, a more likely agent would seem to be Minter Ellison. That firm�s involvement in deceiving the Federal Court by withholding the Referral Annotations[20], having a conflict of interest, withholding �Mal�s Musings� from the Panel of 2004, also probably �getting at� Mr John Petts and the ITSA Trustee, should give considerable cause for concern about the firm�s trustworthiness and probity, raising the suspicion of an ability to manipulate arms of the Justice system, Federal and State.

   

Summary to date. So far, there has been presented the mob�s organizational structure for influence over the MPB and the VCAT, with the involvement of Mr Gakis. He was a key player, being the intermediary negotiator, bag-man and confidence trickster, and an important role for him was to ensure that I was not in the position, or able, to mount a Supreme Court appeal.

 

  1. Rigging of MPB Hearings.Most Hearings are Informal (closed) and little can be deduced about these. However, there is the case of Dr Kim Fatt Chan, who could, in 11� h, see on average, one patient every ~3.85 min, a rate repeated and maintained every day of the week for years. He was brought before the PSR system in the same early batch that I was, and received a one month suspension from Medicare (= an annual holiday). (Early on, Mr Gakis claimed that Chan paid for leniency � a claim that is probably correct.) Following this extraordinarily lenient penalty, we can presume that he was referred to the MPB. His name does not appear on the MPB�s public database (even after a second appearance before the PSR, where leniency was not so liberal), so we are left to assume that if he was referred to the MPB, the issue was either dropped, or that he had an Informal Hearing, with a lenient outcome. These penalties can be compared to those administered to me (a Recognized Specialist: off Medicare completely 2 y, partially another year; then an Open MPB Hearing in 2004, with restrictions on practice as a GP for a year). Parity was simply not there ! � overall, probably the harshest penalties dealt-out.

(a)  The MPB Pathway Fork � Dismiss, Informal or Formal. The MPB has the ability to dismiss trivial and vexatious complaints. What these have been may never be known and, presumably, could be influenced. On the assumption that a complaint is considered worthy of further investigation, the office of the MPB would present a summary of the complaint to a Subcommittee of the MPB, (presumably) with a recommendation. Documentation of this process is probably very difficult to obtain but, fortunately, and for unknown reasons, Mr Ian Stoney released the notes on this process with regard to a patient[21]. Mr Smith[22] made the presentation and recommendation, and emphasized features adverse to me, including embellishments and distortions of his own invention*. As advised and as expected, the Subcommittee agreed to proceed to a Formal Hearing. Mr Smith was in a commanding position to influence the direction of all complainants� processing, whether to dismiss, or proceed to Informal or Formal Hearings. Whilst Mr Smith could manipulate the office of the MPB and the MPB�s operations, any patient dissatisfaction could be contained. Only by direct Police involvement could his influence be bypassed (as in the Tong case). *I hoped to question the President of the MPB at the VCAT Hearing about this and other aberrations, but this opportunity was set aside without explanation.

(b)  The Informal Hearing. Once a complaint has been directed to an Informal Hearing, the likely worst outcome is a reprimand (although there is the possibility of referring the matter back for a Formal Hearing). These Hearing form the bulk of MPB Hearings. Presumably the MPB Officer in Charge of Hearings (Mr John Smith) would pick the Panels, being usually 3 or 4 Members. Options available are discussed in How the Office of the Medical Board can pick Biased Panels[23]. As outlined in the letter to the Minister (above), Mr Smith would have no difficulty picking a dominant �chosen mate� (as used in the letter to the Minister) from the Governor-in-Council�s list, and obtain the required outcome. If this person were a lawyer, specialist insight and terms like �weight of evidence� and �hearsay,� coupled with talk of case reports and precedents etc., could be bandied around in a firm and knowing way in order to bamboozle the medical Members and any other non-medical Members on the Panels.

(c)   The Formal Hearing. If complaints are too gross to be safely slipped into the Informal stream, and a Formal Hearing is inevitable, the �chosen mate(s)� can still be brought onto the Panels to ensure a more lenient outcome than would occur otherwise. In the rare case where there is external pressure to have the doctor removed, for a fee, the same mechanism can be used to stack the Panel to ensure the desired outcome.

 

  1. Outcomes[24].These have been selected, based upon (what appear to be) certain dominant �chosen mates,� who were on my Panels:

 

OPEN (FORMAL) HEARINGS INVOLVING DR G KERR & MS A DEA

ME=Minter Ellison (lawyers); VGS=Victorian Government Solicitors

Bold type=Chairperson

 

Dr Geoffrey Kerr:Estimated influence � Kerr>Dea>Sanders            

 Case                                             Legal   Issues                              Outcome; Conditions on Reg.

Eglitis; Nov�01

Johnson, Kerr + 1          ?

Skimpy examinations, prescriptions without good basis; Bipolar/Schizo-effective

Serious; Reprimand;

11 Conditions

Greville; Apr�04

Adler, Kerr, Sanders+1 ME

Inadequate patient advice, consent & supervision for staff performing photoderm; misdiagnosis of rosacea, worsening & blistering

Serious; Reprimand

3 Conditions + fine $2k

Leitmanis; Sep�03

Flynn, Kerr, Sanders+1 ME

Sexual talk and suggestions � some reciprocated

Serious; Reprimand & disqualified 2 y

Orchard; Nov�03

Kerr + 2                        ME

Magistrate Court � 8 counts of false/misleading claims to Medicare

Serious; Caution

Parghi; May�06

Kerr, Dea Sanders +1   ME

Late diagnosis of breast cancer; falsification of records; (6 deficiencies in practice �not made out�)

Serious; Reprimand

Pearson; Aug�03

Johnson, Kerr +1          ME

Magistrate Court -Falsification re Medicare

Drugs & Poisons

Prescribing habit S8

Serious; Cancellation

Salter; May�04

Kerr, Dea +1                ME

False certificates; Prior Magistrates� Court, drug & poisons: suspended registration

Serious; Reprimand; Cancellation 12 m. Recommended counselling

Schiavone; Apr�02

Molloy, Kerr +1           VGS

Ardent love pursuit � harassment of a patient & employee

Serious; Reprimand & suspension 2 m. Psych report.

Silberman; May�03

Haikal-Mukhtar, Kerr+1

                                       ME

Magistrate Court (good behaviour bond); Prescriptions for Panadeine forte to others, for his own use (Falsification); theft of prescription

Serious; Cancellation

Storti; Oct�04

Kerr + 2                        ME

Sex with patient; Panadeine forte & Valium falsifications; witness intimidation

Serious; Reprimand, Cancelled ~2 y (25 m)

Sutton; Dec�01

Johnson, Kerr+1         VGS

Magistrates� Court; prescription falsifications & forgery

Serious; Reprimand;

7 Conditions

Hoong Pas Sze Tho;Dec�01

Flynn, Kerr + 8               ?

Sexual-underage; drugs; prostitution; reporting theft

Serious; cancellation/bar

Traill; Apr�05

Kerr, Dea, Sanders+1

                                      ME

Medical opinion/management issues surrounding UHF cancer treatment for incurable patients

Serious; Reprimand; Cancellation3 y

TT; Apr�02

Phillips, Kerr+1          VGS            

Personal indiscretions, breaches of confidences

Not serious; caution

Wood; Feb�03

Flynn, Kerr, Sanders+1 ME

Failure to communicate well with disregard & treatment lapses

Serious; Reprimand

Light grey hash= Dr Kerr Chairman, without Dea/Sanders; Darker grey hash= Kerr/Dea/Sanders

Pink= suspect; Some of those not highlighted may be of concern & deserve review eg Eglitis, Sutton & Greville

Note that the suspicious and unusual sanctions generally involve Dr Kerr as Chairman. This table was prepared before Mr Johnson became a person of interest (see later)

 

The Salter Case � more  comment

In my February 2006 VCAT Submission (on my website) I made the comparison between my penalty & those of a Dr Eric RW Salter. This latter case was chosen by me because two Panel members in my case (2005) were the same as for Dr Salter (2004): Dr G Kerr & Ms A Dea (a lawyer), both drawn from the Governor-in-Council�s list[25], probably by Mr Smith (who was in charge of Hearings). I believed that these were the two who determined the outcome for me (and are suspect). A new slant may now be proposed � that they were also chosen by Mr Smith for the Salter case to show �unusual and unexpectedleniency. In addressing the comparison with my case, I drew information from the �Finding� of the Medical Board�s Hearing (available on the Board�s website) and, as such, the many issues may have been watered-down by the Panel�s writer already. I attach the summary that I wrote[26] :  �Dr Salter�s medical registration was cancelled and he was disqualified for a period of 12 months. He had inadvertently* issued two certificates to two patients who wished to work in the sex industry, stating that they were HIV negative when, in fact they were HIV positive. His prior involvement with the MPB involved numerous offences in prescribing Schedule 8 poison to a drug-dependent person, failing to report drug-dependent persons, issuing false or misleading prescription details and failing to keep accurate records. He had a significant psychiatric history and had numerous conditions placed upon his registration. Prior to the Hearing in 2004 he had been deregistered under emergency provisions. Whilst the possibility of placing further conditions on him was entertained, this was not possible in his deregistered state#.� *So he claimed. #The Panel could have restricted his activities on re-registration.

These points (as presented above) may be tabulated with mine:

 

Issue                                                  Dr E Salter                               MA Traill (as at 2005)

Medical Certificate �errors�

x 2

Nil

Offences for supporting a drug-dependent person with prescriptions

�Numerous*�

Nil

False/misleading prescription details

�Numerous�

Nil

Failure to keep accurate records (presumably of drugs of addiction)

�Numerous�

Nil

Psychiatric history

A feature

Nil

Restriction on registration

�Numerous�

Nil as a Specialist. Only that hours as a GP be limited (PSR issue)

Emergency deregistration

Yes

No

Sex issues

Yes

No

*�Numerous� may not be specific to the particular issue.

My main alleged sins (with the MPB exempt from the onus of proof) were :

        Using a form of treatment that had been in use in WA apparently without complaint from 1990 to currently

        Not giving chemotherapy to an incurable cancer patient for whom I recommended it, tried to administer it, but she refused it (try to make sense of that !)

        Not taking a biopsy on an incurable cancer patient when the basic diagnosis was known and she was developing clinically obvious recurrences, the biopsy not being urgent and not likely to change immediately foreseeable management

        Calling myself a Specialist Pathologist Oncologist, (when being a Recognized Specialist).

 

Comment

Perhaps you may wish to ponder, not only whether, based upon this, my penalty (cancellation for 3 years) had parity, and if not, you may now also consider if Dr Salter�s penalty was unexpectedly light (in the eyes of an impartial observer in the community), given the documented features and, as presented, the 12 months was more to allow him to sort his life out, rather than a penalty. The nature of his situation would have made an Informal Hearing impossible to expect or arrange, but with a selected and influenced Panel, the potential damage thereafter could be minimized/removed.

Sceptics may query the �inadvertent� Certificates, the status of the 12 months disqualification and the inability to place restrictions on future registration.

Of some interest is an extract of Board Minutes of 6/6/2002, when there was an attempt to have my registration suspended forthwith[27]. For the Book of Evidence, an unknown person (presumably Mr Smith), at an unknown date, with unsigned changes, adds �Note: GDK left the meeting. He had not received any material relating to the matter[28].� This refers to Dr GD Kerr, when he was a MPB Member � he later resigned and remained on the Governor-in-Council�s list. Could he have been �sanitized� and groomed in June 2002 (a busy year for the MPB), in preparation for his Chairmanship in 2005 ? � meaning that he had been selected well beforehand.

 

Open Hearings involving Mr Michael Gorton(Lawyer)

The name sign on the bench in front said �Mr M Gorton� (from memory) and the official �Reasons� from the Panel named �Mr M Gorton.� However, there have been two lawyers named �M Gorton� in town. During the Hearing, the Panel�s Mr Gorton was questioned about a possible conflict of interest, since a �M Gorton� had represented a doctor who was Summonsed with respect to the VCAT Hearing process of 2006. The claim from the Panel�s Mr Gorton was that the representation was by the other M Gorton, who is with the Firm Russell Kennedy Pty Ltd[29]. Certainly, there was no real similarity between the photographs on the internet of the Russell Kennedy Gorton and the Panel Member Gorton.

A check with the Law Institute indicated that one Michael John Grey Gorton had a suburban address, whilst the other was Michael William Gortonof Russell Kennedy, in the city. The latter Gorton has a reputation as a medico-legal lawyer of note, featuring prominently in Google searches on the internet, and in the Russell Kennedy site as Michael Gorton AM (without middle name or initial !) having been the President of Health Services Review Council, a Commissioner with the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission, a Speaker at a Joint RACP & RCPT Conference and President of the United Nations Association of Australia and an Honorary Fellow of the RACS and A&NZCA. With such a background, one would be surprised if he were involved in nefarious activities. Accordingly, he can be referred-to as �Gorton (respectable).� The Michael JG Gorton, as may be gleaned from the accounts in Kangaroo Court and below, would seem to be something of a sleazy lawyer and can be referred-to as �Gorton (sleazy).�

Reference to the Governor-in-Council�s list provides only the Surname and first Given name. So, who was on the Governor-in-Council�s list ?

A check of the Department of Human Services revealed that there had been law changes, and that, under the current law (at least) the details on the Governor-in-Council�s list are confidential ! The names and backgrounds of Board Members are made public, but checks on the Panel members drawn from the governor-in-Council�s list cannot be done. This reveals two weak points when considering the ramifications of having someone like Mr John Smith in a powerful position :

 

Suppose the Michael Gorton on the Governor-in-Council�s list was Michael W Gorton (respectable); appointed with enthusiasm by respectable officials. Yet, when Panel members were appointed by Mr Smith, and letters sent out to request Panel participation, perhaps Mr Michael JG Gorton (sleaze) was invited to participate. Who would suspect ? Who would question ? How would anyone question ? Who would know ? What is the true arrangement ? � We still cannot easily find this out today ! To the casual medical reader and enquirer looking at Google, the �Michael Gorton� will be assumed, naturally, to be Michael W Gorton (respectable) �wrong !

Similarly, perhaps Mr Michael W Gorton (respectable) could have been recommended, yet his contact details were those of Mr Michael JG Gorton (sleaze), such that the governor-in-Council�s list holds the latter�s details.The public deserves a better method of verification of credentials (note also the Moss Report[30]).

Whether or not there has been identity substitution as a deliberate deception, there may be many people who may believe (incorrectly) that the Michael Gorton of my Hearing Panel (2006) was Gorton (respectable), and that any expressions of concern regarding bias or impropriety would be considered �bad losership� and vexatious; to be disregarded, because Mr Michael W Gorton�s assessments would be expected to carry considerable weight.

A Mr Michael Gorton (no middle initial, as usual) was Chair of a 2007 Panel for a Hearing by the Dental Practice Board of Victoria. Once again, an accurate identity check is not easy to perform (but see later).

 

The Officer with the Department of Human Services (8/4/2008) believed that such people should be anonymous, likening them to members of a jury. However, as may be seen from the above, when there is a questionable officer in a senior and trusted position, strange things may happen when there are loop-holes. These people are not strictly anonymous; they are named, but the names are ambiguous and very likely to lead to confusion and wrong conclusions and, in context, could be regarded as deceptive. There are other differences too. In particular, a member of a jury cannot take over the role of judge and run the court. Also, with 11 other jurors, an individual may have less power to influence an outcome, and the jurors� powers are limited.

     

Mr Michael JG Gorton (sleazy) proved to be a forceful character and able to take over the running of a Hearing involving less pushy characters, whereas Phillips was an old hand & tough, unlikely to be trodden-on.

  Case                                            Issues                                           Outcome; Conditions on Reg.

ABB; Jun�06

Haikal-Mukhtar, Gorton, Chipman+1                  ME*

Failure in communication � options in treatment other than operation & advice on the op.

Not proven

Hunter; Dec�05

Adler, Gorton +2         ME

Bad ophthalmological surgery

Serious; Cancellation 12 m

Joseph; Sept�04

Court, Gorton +1         ME

Inappropriate hand contacts of sexual type

Serious; Reprimand (registration had been cancelled in 2003; + health problems)

Kuma; Mar�05

Phillips, Gorton, Sanders+1

                                     ME

Inappropriate hand contacts of sexual type

Serious; Cancellation 12 m, + 2 conditions

Lahanis; Dec�06

Sumithran, Gorton+1

(Panel -2 females)                 ME

Inappropriate fondling, including of sexual type on an 18 year old

Serious; Counselling & Suspension for 13 w

Traill; Mar/Oct�06

Horne, Gorton +1         ME

Magistrates� Court; S8 Drug Permit lapses/exceeded (with entrapment)

Serious; Reprimand; threat of 1 y suspension + 1 Condition for registration

Wesson; Feb�05

Haikal-Mukhtar, Gorton, Sanders +1                     ME

Magistrates� Court (2004); Drugs & Poisons; prior issue (2002) & default; forged prescription for S8

Serious; Suspended 13 w, and Reprimand

White; Mar�06

Sumithran, Gorton +1  ME

Magistrates� Court; Drugs & Poisons

Serious; Counselling & education re �blatant & repeated�; Suspended 13 w; Restriction S8

XYZ; Sep�04

Clarke, Gorton +1

Communication problem; in ophthalmology; Panadeine forte & Rohypnol issues (disappeared); conflicting evidence

Not unprofessional conduct

*Stated in report �The Board bears the onus of proving the allegations made.� !!! (Refer to MAT�s MPB Hearing 2005 & VCAT 2006)

All the pink-shaded cases seem suspect (lenient for 4, with maximum suspensions of 13 weeks, severe for 1).

Perhaps some comment may be made about the report of the Traill hearing in the 2007 Annual report of the MPB[31], chiefly because it would not have been written by Mr Smith, who �retired� in July 2006, some ~3 months after the concerns about him were presented to the Hearing in March. It is a pr�cis of the �Reasons,� comprising six paragraphs. The second paragraph details the reasons for having the Permit system. The last paragraph stated that �. . Dr Traill had flouted the provisions of the Act and when called to account, sought to excuse his behaviour with theories about conspiracy and entrapment as well as asserting that the offences were trivial(in that context).�

The Panel* found that the offences were not trivial (in that context) . . .� (comments added)

*During the Hearing, Mr Gorton ran the Panel

There is a more detailed examination and exposition on the �Reasons� (sine reason) in �Kangaroo Court.� The real defence, that the failures were oversights, has not been presented, and the reason(s) for rejecting this has not been stated. The report uses the legal and criminal term �conspiracy,� which was never stated in the Hearing and not included in the Submission and makes a contrived statement. Assuming Mr Gorton wrote, or at least vetted the �Reasons� and the Report, we can assume that he carried some, if not all responsibility for introducing this, which, in this context is used in a pejorative way to instil ridicule � the age-old technique of �shooting the messenger,� deflecting from, and avoiding an examination of the real issues involved � being the tendered documentation supporting an entrapment campaign, based upon FoI records.  The report claims that the laws were �flouted,� despite Permits obtained intermittently before and after the intervals of lapses. To �flout� the laws with respect to renewing your car registration or driver�s licence would seem an unlikely form of protest in order to prove some unstated point. You may note that there have been presented noreasons as to why the claims and documentation consistent with entrapment should be regarded as �theories� and, presumably therefore, disregarded. There has been no suggestion from anyone that the �theories� should be investigated. After about three months of these �theories about conspiracy� Mr Smith and Ms Lethlean chose to �retire/resign,� so that someone in the MPB must have thought that aspects of these �theories� had some merit. That someone was unable to influence the MPB when publishing the defamatory report much later ! Perhaps a dominant lawyer in a Panel (+ others) may rule the MPB, influencing the MPB�s conduct well after the departure of Mr Smith. The report did not note that the �Reasons� had not been signed within the required statutory interval and that the report may have no other purpose than providing yet more defamation under privilege. One would expect there to be a sensitive reason for such responses � someone with something to hide !

More recently, a Hearing set up under the Dental Practice Board of Victoria chose to have, as the Chairman, Mr M Gorton (no middle initial). We are left to assume that he is the Mr Michael JG Gorton (sleazy) with whom we have been interested :

 

  Case                                             Issues                                          Outcome; Conditions on Reg.

Zenaidy Castro; Dec�07

Gorton +2

Unsterile rooms, equipment & procedures

Serious; Counselling & education, Trained nurse

Note that poor sterile equipment and procedures may cause the transmission of viral infections, such as Herpes, Hepatitis C and B, and possibly HIV. Bacteria could cause injection abscesses etc. There is the possibility of severe morbidity and possibly mortality. One might expect that the doctor would be required to cease practice until appropriate standards became established.

 

Ms Anna Dea, not with Dr Kerr (She is lawyer, on the Law Institute�s database; Hearings not involving Dr GD Kerr or Mr M Gorton)

  Case                                             Issues                                         Outcome

Robert Allen; Feb�05

Johnson, Dea +2;          ME

Manage cardiac treatment

Serious; Reprimand and counselling

Kenneth Bowes; Apr�06

Johnson, Dea +1           ME

Failure to attend a home consultation

Serious; Reprimand and counselling

WLE Hill*; Sept�04

Johnson, Dea +1           ME

*No given name provided

Drugs & Poisons, post Magistrate Court; a complex patient, with patient vomiting

Serious; caution & counselling

David Kaufman; Jun�07

Johnson, Dea +1           ME

Drugs & Poisons, post Magistrate Court; misrepresentation, theft, forgery of prescriptions

Serious; caution not to do it again (!)

Geoffrey Kemp; Dec�07

Sumithran, Dea +1;      ME

Not informing of acupuncture techniques with �degrading position� & exposed naked

Serious; Reprimand

LLL; Aug�04

Phillips, Dea +1             ME

Blunt and direct (tactless?) comments in a letter to an employer

No unprofessional conduct

Peter Metzner; Mar�07

Warfe, Dea, Johnson     ME

Unnecessary, outdated surgery, with complications, no written consent

Serious; caution & reprimand

(As before, the pink highlights those that may be suspect Hearings as assessed by the MPB reports, although some others may be questionable.)

Note that there were no suspended or cancelled registrations. Compare the Drugs & Poisons case outcomes with that of mine.

 

Looking at the list involving Ms Dea, one may be struck by the number of times Mr Warren Frederick Johnson AM (MPB 1995-2003) either was Chairman or the third member. This stimulated some further probing : Mr Johnson claimed �I was very surprised to get the telephone call in 1995 inviting me to join the Medical Practitioners board of Victoria as it was now titled.�[32] Who telephoned and when, during the year, was not detailed. In January 1996[33], he is then noted to be an �Urological Surgeon who has been head of the Urology Unit at the royal Melbourne Hospital since 1987. Mr Johnson has been Chairman of the Victorian State Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons; Chairman, Victorian Section of the Urological Society of Australasia; President of the Urological Society of Australasia and a Member of the Working Party of Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee of the NH&MRC on Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.� Prior to his retirement from the MPB, he has been presented[34] as A Board member since 1995. Mr Johnson is a consultant surgeon in urology. He served as head of urology and as chairman of the Senior Medical Staff at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. He has been active in the affairs of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Urological Society of Australasia, especially in the training of young surgeons. He has served in leadership positions in his specialist field and with the Australian Kidney Foundation and as an adviser to the National Health and Medical Research Council and Government.�

Some memories came back to me:

See the Epilogue in relation to Professor Thomas Kossmann.

 

Hearings:In 2004-5 there were 67 Informal (closed) Hearings, and 24 Formal (open) Hearings. This means that the crucial point for influence is the presentation of the case to the Board�s Sub-Committee for decision on the Formal/Informal direction.

 

Comment: Where Dr G Kerr has significant influence (eg as Chairman): there are two cases where there may be unusual leniency (Orchard, Parghi). The case of Storti involves sexual and drug issues and intimidation of a witness, and the 25 months registration cancellation seems more lenient than one might expect. In the case of Traill, with no sexual, court or drug issues, the cancellation of 3 years seems conspicuously severe, irrespective of the finer points at issue (see elsewhere on the website).

Two suspect cases involved Kerr, Dea & Sanders.

The two cases Leitmanis & Schiavone have similar issues but, seemingly disparate outcomes, which are not explained; the Panel for Leitmanis had 4 members, with the Chairperson the President, Dr Flynn � perhaps difficult to influence.

The belief that Dr Kerr may have been biased (lenient for 5, severe for 1) in 15 cases, remains. He could be a suitable �chosen mate� (as used in the letter to the Minister) for Mr Smith�s special Panel selection. Likewise, Mr M Gorton (sleazy) may have been biased (lenient for 4, severe for 1), and another suitable �chosen mate.�

 

So, the Panel Members of particular interest appear to be Dr GD Kerr, Mr W Johnson AM, Mr M JG Gorton and Ms A Dea.

 

Dear reader, you be the judge.

 

  1. Notes on Mr Gakis. Mr Gakis is known to have attended 3 GP�s (from 2 he obtained Specialist referrals to me, from another, he had an investigation). They were:

Dr A Malek (Mill Park; 2/10/2003)

Dr L Perera (Reservoir; 19/8/2004)

Dr Michael Yacoub (? Coburg; 3/3/2004)

None is listed on the Medical Board�s search database � ie no Formal Hearings.

Little can be made of this information, however, those who have access to the Informal Hearing records may be able to see if these doctors featured with any pattern. Considering Mr Gakis� expressed dislike for certain ethnic groups (he was of Greek-Macedonian descent), his choice of these doctors seems unexpected.

 

At the last meeting with Mr Gakis, he was keen to draw to attention the MPB case(s) of Soo Hua Naik, bringing the latter�s MPB documentation up on a lap-top computer. He claimed that my Hearing(s) were almost the same as Naik�s and that Naik�s defence had been handled far better and that mine should/could have done likewise. Mr Gakis seemed to be referring to the Drugs & Poisons issues, but, on reading the available material, there is uncertainty as to which of MAT�s cases he was referring. We are not to know if he may have been referring to a more recent Informal Hearing (not available).

Soo Naik�s Hearing was in 2002 :

  Case                                            Issues                                          Outcome; Conditions on Reg.

Soo Hua Naik; Aug�02

Johnson, Haikal-Mukhtar & Kennedy*                  ME

Farrago of substandard medical managements, attitude and communication. Questionable amendment of notes

Serious; reprimand, reinstatement, with re-education required

*According to the Law Institute, Elizabeth J Kennedy is a solicitor whose address is the Royal Woman�s Hospital.

Brief Summary[35]. Soo Hua Naik received a medical education in Ireland, graduating in 1971, and was an intern/Senior Medical Officer there until 1981. He moved to Malaysia in 1981 and worked as a Senior health Officer in Orthopaedics 1981-1984, then private practice until 1990. In mid-1990, he moved to Australia and commenced in a �bulk-billing� practice �. . . thus depriving himself from the opportunity of having a collegiate support found in a private billing practice with colleagues who were accessible.� (Disputable.)

He had had his registration in Malaysia suspended for 6 months because, as he had claimed in a letter, �. . . he was unaware of his need to appear in order to deal with the complaint and as a consequence of his failure to appear he had been suspended for six months.�(What was/were the complaint/s ? � acceptable ? � believable ? � strange ?)

There had been three patient complaints dealt-with by an Informal Hearing in 1999, and another in 2001. One or both (number unclear) outcomes were reprimand and a requirement for further education, with one comment that �. . the doctor had demonstrated repeated deficits in the management of patients and showed the need for consideration of assessment of performance.�

Reference was made to Dr Naik�s �experience[36]� in positive terms �. . to be quite self-motivated . . .� � �. . . a general practitioner with many years of experience . . .� (Is some 31 years from graduation, with 12 years of documented substandard practice in Australia to be equated with relevant medical �experience � of value ?)

Much of the �Reasons� was spent presenting and assessing the proposed retraining and refresher program, going into what must have been detailed preparation taken over some time, with little real consideration whether his grasp of basic attributes required clinically would ever really improve. For example, patient C�s story of severe abdominal pain and screaming in the night should, with, relevant clinical experience alert any doctor to the strong possibility that something new and serious was involved (very likely an �acute abdomen� � a non-specific classification) and that the patient should be some doctor�s �problem� � preferably not a general practitioner in a �bulk-billing� clinic - until the problem was completely resolved and explained. This involves intuitive skill or skill acquired as by experience:  nous. The Medical expert ruminated over the difficulties in diagnosing early acute appendicitis. This missed the point. The point was over the management of a patient with a possible/probable �acute abdomen,� which could be due to many conditions: appendicitis, perforated ulcer, strangulated hernia, acute gall bladder, volvulus, etc. Any time wasted trying to pursue a diagnosis in primary care could have fatal consequences. What needed to be done was to transfer the patient�s care promptly for definitive management, and diagnosis could follow in the appropriate environment. This management decision could, very likely, be decided from the history alone.

He had the distinct advantage, by the Panel requiring adherence to the �civil standard of proof.[37](ie adversarial, as opposed to inquisitional.)

For current relevance, you need to have more background information :

In about early 2005, after Mr Smith had been identified by me as the mole in the office of the MPB, Mr Gakis was told and other related concerns were discussed. He then claimed amazing �secret knowledge� of the activities of Mr Smith (see earlier), including the claim that many sub-standard doctors from overseas were coming into Australia via Victoria with the assistance provided by Mr Smith. This titbit seemed relevant and plausible at the time, with the reported activities of Dr Jayant Patel in Bundaberg then topical. However, the claim was not researched further. It now becomes relevant, because both Dr Naik and Dr Tong would seem to be such doctors. In which case, we can draw attention to a number of features in the Naik story (see earlier regarding Tong):

If Mr Smith had been assisting foreign doctors of dubious or flawed backgrounds into Victoria and/or Australia by permitting the granting of initial medical registration in Victoria*, and some of these doctors then stayed in Victoria, only to became the subject for complaints, there would be real problems. Such consequences would demand the swift attention of a �fix-it� team for speedy damage control (not to mention the opportunity for extortion of money out of the doctor). Initiatives would be expected to include approaches as outlined above, with �plea-bargaining� coupled with at least the appointment of a Chairman who could direct attention to the rehabilitation aspect of the Hearing and gloss over ignorance and adverse aspects of conduct. Mr Warren Johnson was the Chairman for the Soo Naik Hearing.

*Documented elsewhere[38] are reasons to believe that Mr Smith was associated with the mob in 1990 at least.

Just why Mr Gakis brought up the name of Soo Naik remains unclear (perhaps pride). The impression was that Dr Naik was treating Mr Gakis (with aspects that might be questionable). Doctors do not usually discuss their Medical Board�s brushes with their patients ! Perhaps there was a dual role � (i) Mr Gakis as a patient and (ii) as a representative of the mob, to remind Dr Naik of past assistance and the need for an ongoing subscription, in order for him to continue practise (blackmail ?). By drawing attention to this doctor and the (presumed) Formal Hearing in 2002, Mr Gakis has opened an aspect of interest, the ramifications of which may deserve more attention.

 

Another Medical Graduate from outside Victoria who could be of interest, is Associate Professor GG � the prosecuting complainant who managed to be accepted as an �expert witness,� despite his clearly partisan status. According to his own Curriculum Vitae[39], he was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland on 19/7/1959 and obtained basic medical training at Queen�s University, Belfast, graduating in 1983, having obtained a prize in an undergraduate test by the Royal College of Radiologists (UK) in 1982. His postgraduate hospital experience was in Northern Ireland until April 1994, obtaining MRCP in 1986, an MD (by thesis) in 1989, FRCR in April 1993, FFRRCSI in May 1993. In May 1994 he became �Assistant Professor� at Stanford University, California. In June 1996, he commenced as a Consultant Radiation Oncologist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre/Institute, obtaining his FRANZCR in September 1997, and becoming an Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne from April 2000. He quotes a list of publications/letters, (56, actual or in press), of which all bar three involved other authors.

The following points may be noted :

Examining the publications presented, covering the interval 1995 to 1998, and comparing his list with that found in PubMed (with some difficulty, because his surname has been presented/spelt 3 ways, and his second initial is occasionally omitted), and using his numbering :

12) Journal - study, 1995, 4 authors; (two co-authors omitted); one co-author a prodigious publisher and presumed to be the senior author. Address, Stanforda; data sourceb, Belfast; groupc, Belfast. Retrospective study of 8 patients and in vitro testing, also study of 4 patients having received chemotherapy (total = 12), concluding that the agent under examination �. . is a reliable treatment . . . and an intermittent dosage schedule is effective.� (Perhaps a rather sweeping conclusion from such small numbers !)

13) Journal - review, 1966, 2 authors; a retrospective review 1961 � 1994. The co-author was a prodigious publisher, and was the presumed senior author. Address, Stanford; data source, Stanford; group, Stanford.

14) Journal 1997 - review, 6 authors; (one co-author was omitted), one had two spelling errors in the name; two initials differ from the PubMed citation. Address, Stanford; data source, Stanford; group, Stanford.

15) Journal 1997 � review, 2 authors; the co-author was a prodigious publisher [same as in 14)]. Address, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, data source, Stanford; co-author, Stanford.

16) Journal 1997 � letter, 8 authors; prospective study based upon 12) above, with 31 test cases examined. The primary author�s address was at Stanford; data source, Stanford & associated; group Stanford.

17) Journal 1998 � review, 3 authors; (one co-author omitted), the other the co-author was a prodigious publisher [same as in 13)]. Address, Peter MacCallum; data source, Stanford; co-author, Stanford.

18) Journal 1998 � review, 6 authors; retrospective 1989-1996. Address, Stanford; data source, Stanford; group, Stanford.

aTheaddress shown under the published title.

bData source is the (presumed) origin of the data being studied and presented

cGroup is the location of the majority of the authors, or the dominant co-author.

 

So, what can be made of all this :

a)     Associate Professor GG demonstrates an undoubted energy, academic ambition and enthusiasm, however,

b)     He seemed unable to maintain an appointment at Stanford University past two years, and did not rise above �assistant professor

c)     All his publications at or about the time 1994-1996 involved either

                             i           a dominant, prolific author, with whom Associate Professor GG can be seen to be a gopher and amanuensis for that principal author, the latter presumably directing and arranging funding

                           ii           a large group, in which Associate Professor GG was one contributor (lost in the crowd).

d)     Not only did he not stay at Stanford for longer than two years, and without academic advancement, but he did not find a position elsewhere in the United States to provide academic advancement

e)     On arrival in Melbourne, his position was not clearly academic, and he did not become an Associate Professor for some 4 years � his move to Melbourne was, initially at least, a downgrading academically.

f)       On arrival in Melbourne, he brought data from Stanford and completed a number of papers, using the Melbourne address: he left Stanford with much uncompleted work.

g)     Overall, his list of publications provides only three examples of solo submissions -  one (probably a review) from 1983, which was very likely prepared whilst an undergraduate (and under supervision), a letter (1994) in response to a publication by other(s) and a chapter (2003) for an educational book

h)     There is little to find that indicates any special originality

i)       There is his usual and surprising plethora of typographical errors and omissions; these being particularly conspicuous in the complaint of 14 May (sic) 2001, receipt-stamped by the MPB 20/3/2001[40]. (One is left guessing whether he used that date because the document was to be entered into processing on or after 14/5/2001, or he was simply confused or sloppy ! A cohort of �alert� letters was issued by the Drugs & Poisons Unit on 21/3/2001, making the possibility that 20/3/2001 was a �start� date for some actions, probably coordinated by Mr Smith.)

j)       There were stylistic features in his writings upon which there was comment within the Hearings � his writings being prolix, rambling and didactic, with repetition and slides (changing an initial statement by steps to a new statement with different meaning).

k)     Comment was made, that all these features were hardly those of an author expected to be trained for, and conversant with the punctilious and exacting demands of scientific journal editors.

l)       His medical management of patient SO at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre has been examined elsewhere[41]. Whether the standard of care shown was influenced by the desire to set up a claim against a medical indemnity provider and shaft a perceived heretical competitor, or was simply typical for him, is immaterial; the standard demonstrated should give concern to those overseeing medical standards.

m)   His performance as a prosecuting complainant and partisan �expert witness� has also been examined earlier[42]. With confidence and assurance, he expressed opinions on anything, whether within his specialty (Radiotherapy, which was hardly [if at all] relevant) or otherwise, and the comments were usually derogatory, utilizing fully the scope, freedom and protection available under court privilege and the Medical Practice Act 1994 ! He was on a high.

Perhaps we may see in all these points why he was unable to obtain an ongoing academic appointment in Stanford or elsewhere in the United States of America. (Overall, the features may suggest that he could have a bipolar problem !)

Associate Professor GG is a medical practitioner who graduated overseas and came to Melbourne with some enigmatic features in his history. Early in the association with Mr Gakis (circa 2002), he claimed to have a contact (or two) within the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Soon after, he claimed that the complaint to the MPB was written by a more senior professor, and that Associate Professor GG was required to present and argue the issues. Undoubtedly, this claim was false, and would be consistent with an attempt to lessen the responsibility carried by Associate Professor GG, with an implied link to Mr Gakis. (Much later, the latter would become quiet with the mention of Associate Professor GG�s name.) If Associate Professor GG had obtained a Victorian Registration with the granting of �special consideration� by the office of the MPB, we would expect that there would be formed a special �bond in camaraderie� tied by a real or implied �debt� (if not obligation/blackmail/extortion) by which Associate Professor GG could be �persuaded� to assist the mob in its plans, especially if they involved shafting a perceived heretic and competitor, and collecting part of an insurance payout as well !     

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The extraordinarily inept handling by the MPB of patient complaints concerning Dr David Wee Kin Tong can hardly be simple �oversights.� This stimulated a deeper examination of the relationships that Mr John Smith of the office of the MPB and the others whom he could draw onto MPB Panels, could have with organized crime. There are good reasons to believe that a common fraudster-bagman, Mr Charlie Gakis, and Mr Smith may have run a racket of extracting payments from doctors against whom there had been complaints, in return for lenient treatment or special processing by the MPB. In special circumstances, when an external crime group wished to eliminate a particular doctor from standing in its way, the group (the mob) could pay the syndicate to set up and deregister the doctor, using unreasonable processing and harsher penalties than would be expected. Examination of the documentation suggests that the organized crime groups could influence, directly or indirectly, officers in the State Health Department and the VCAT. There was a most determined and specific assignment by which Mr Gakis was to prevent any appeal reaching the Supreme Court.

There are reasons to believe that much of the above corruption stems from the failure of the Federal instruments of Government to allow thorough and appropriate investigations into organized crimes involving Federal officers, initially in the HIC as far back as 1990; the ongoing failure providing official protection to organized crime groups, then allowed to flourish: they were left to operate freely and unmolested at the Federal and State levels, infiltrating key Departments.

There is a public perception that Medical Boards represent elite clubs, protecting their own membership. The presentation above questions this simplistic approach. With regard to the MPB, the Board may have been �protectingsome of its own, but shafting others (as desired), not by the wishes of an elitist medical club membership, but by responding to the wishes of an organized crime group (an external, non-medical elitist club). The MPB had lost its control over certain Panels; non-medical interests had taken over.

The inclusion of members of the public (non-medical members) onto the MPB and its Panels was intended to improve transparency. This has failed, because the crime groups were able to have their plants introduced, as by the Governor-in-Council�s select list.

That lawyers should be chosen as non-medical representatives of the public should be questioned. They seem to be included in almost all Panels � perhaps with the planned role for them to be authors of the �Reasons,� and to see the following of legal procedure. But they cannot be seen to represent the public in medical MPB-relevant matters, and there are many in the public who do not trust lawyers; a natural suspicion that could lead to a lack of public confidence. If the MPB or Panels want legal opinions, they can consult the MPB�s in-house lawyer or external consultants, including the �Counsel Assisting the Panel.� A miscreant doctor can only influence a limited number of patients, whereas a shabby or sleazy lawyer, by influencing interpretations and precedents, may affect how an organization operates, and influence a large portion of the public - for a long time. Lawyers can be bombastic and overbearing and, with the capability of using legal terminology and their �secret knowledge,� can manipulate and control Panels in ways that neither the Medical nor other non-medical members may appreciate or understand. Lawyers should not be on the Board or on Panels.

Epilogue

After having written most of the above, there came the public announcements of the outcome of an inquiry into the trauma Surgeon at the Alfred Hospital, Professor Thomas Kossmann. The body of the report seems to be confidential, but there was a media release, which has been reported in various ways[43]. The following comments can be drawn solely from such releases. Whilst, as has been documented elsewhere, inquiries may be rigged, for the purposes of this discourse, the assumption here is that the review is fair and impartial.

In some ways, Professor Kossmann resembles a more highly qualified version of Dr Soo Naik, in that he performed at a level below the profession�s expectations, his versions of issues being at variance with those of others, that he did not have insight into his limitations and deficiencies, including deviant billing practices (on reflection, one may wonder if he suffered from a mild bipolar condition also !).

Apparently, he arrived in Australia about 2001. An account on a television review indicated that he had been �head-hunted.� Who did the seeking, and who advised or recommended are yet to be revealed. Perhaps Mr Johnson could have contributed; an aspect worth exploring. There is no mention that there was any problem in obtaining Victorian Medical Registration. The Management of the Alfred Hospital seemed concerned about a delay associated with accreditation by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. There have been expressed concerns that his qualification &/or experience were not faithfully presented in his application.

All seemed well for about a year, then in about 2002, rumblings started, the details of which are not divulged. After acrimonious public statements over years, the inquiry was instituted. For the public, there are a number of unanswered questions :

      Did Professor Kossmann have any 'problems' in surgical practice when in Germany ? (Given the basic character issues involved,
        some  problems would seem likely)

      Did he have 'problems' (actual or threatened) with the German equivalent of the Medical Board ? (Again, given the character
        issues involved, suspicions that there were, may be entertained.)

      Were there any unusual features relating to his Victorian Medical Registration, perhaps issues that required 'special consideration' ?

      What aspects of his qualifications and experience were misrepresented ?

      Was the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons influenced into providing accreditation that was inappropriate ? (If so, then by whom ?)

 

Dear Reader, as you may have realized, the purpose for presenting this matter is that it may be relevant to the Medical Board's problems. We know :

Mr John Smith was a crook yet, over years, had become, to many observers, the embodiment of the Board, certainly from before 1990 until he 'retired' in July 2006 (about 3 months after I presented an exposé on his activities). His influence dominated the Board's activities: all his associations and areas of influence should give rise for concern. His activities can hardly be considered hobbies or peccadillos - he can be presumed to have gained materially from his prolonged and dedicated attacks upon me, which were designed to discredit me and force me out of medicine, the outcome being that the corrupted and resultant unprofessional pathology scheme may continue unchecked and without criticism, and those involved in the associated organized crimes continue untroubled and unrestrained.

Mr Gakis was/is an extortionist and, by deduction, available for contracted assignments. A link with the office of the Board seems
probable.

Mr Gakis recommended studying the Dr Soo Naik Board Hearing, claiming that it illustrated how a proper defence could have success.

Mr Warren Johnson was the Chairman of the Dr Soo Naik Hearing

Mr Warren Johnson was Chairman for my second Lithium Hearing - a contrived 'beat-up,' and subsequently resulted in unsigned (alleged) minutes being presented, with irregularities.

Mr Smith was in charge of Hearings and would have been the officer selecting and guiding (if not 'employing') the Panel Members.

Mr Warren Johnson may be presumed to have had considerable influence, not only within the Board, but in the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and areas of 'Government.'

Given all the above, and the exposure of Mr Johnson to Mr Smith's influence, you may feel that there could be reasons for concern, that Mr Warren Johnson may have been in the position to exercise influence that was relevant and beneficial for Professor Kossmann's move to Victoria. There are questions. Some may know the answers.

 

                                                                                         Malcolm Adams Traill

    matraill@iprimus.com.au

    Copyright ©MA Traill August & October 2008, February 2009    

 


[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/14/2190118.htm ;    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23376329-2862,00.html

[2] The MPB's website is: www.medicalboardvic.org.au

[3] 'Reasons for Sentence': Paragraphs 1-36

[4] Ibid: Paragraphs 42 - 57

[5] Ibid: Paragraph 71

[6] Ibid: Paragraph 74

[7] Ibid: Paragraphs 91 - 107

[8] In the MPB's Annual Report, 2007, she is presented as 'Communications Adviser.' There has been reference elsewhere (Kangaroo Court) to the inability of Senior Board Members to be seen to be responsible for letters and public statements.

[9] Website: www.malsmusings.info  Chapters 'Kangaroo Court' and 'Base Board'

 

[10] Refer: Medical Practice Act 1994, s. 47(2) & (4)

[11] Website: Chapters 'Kangaroo Court'

[12] Mal's Musings website, Chapter 'Medical Pathology'

[13] Mal's Musings website, Chapter 'The VCAT Experience'

[14] Mal's Musings website, Chapter  'Base Board'

[15] Mal's Musings website, Chapter  'Kangaroo Court'

[16] Mal's Musings website, Chapter  'The VCAT Experience'

[17] MPB 2006 Annual Report

[18] FoI HIC 2005; Tab #236

[19] FoI HIC 2005; Tab #232

[20] Mal's Musings website, Chapter 'Medical Pathology'

[21] The VCAT 'Review Book' Number 3; TRA.003.0132-0134; see Submission 15 February

[22] The Book of Evidence 2005, Tab 3

[23] Mal's Musings, Chapter as named

[24] Taken from the MPB's website.

[25] See my website Chapter 'How the Office of the Medical Board could pick biased Panels.'

[26] See my website Chapter 'February 2006 VCAT Submission'

[27] Book of Evidence 2005, Tab 4

[28] The President of the MPB was to be questioned on this in 2006. She avoided the exposure.

[29] http://www.rk.com.au/pages/profiles.asp?ID=18&Title=1

[30] Irene Moss: 'Independent Audit into the State of Media Freedom in Australia,' 31/10/2007

[31] Page 32

[32] MPB Bulletin Vol. 4, December 2003, p. 39.

[33] MPB Bulletin, Vol. not numbered, January 1996, p. 2, (not numbered)

[34] The MPB Annual Report (2003), p. 3.

[35] MPB Reasons, para. 50, 116-117, 170-171

[36] MPB Reasons, para. 151, 181

[37] MPB Reasons, para. 65

[38] Mal's Musings website, Chapter 'Kangaroo Court - Hop into my Written Submission'

[39] The VCAT Review Book Tab#118; TRA.002.0130-0142

[40] The VCAT Review Book: TRA.001.0021-27

[41] See my website Chapter 'The Dark Side'

[42] See my website Chapter 'Defamation under Privilege'

[43] http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/vic/content/2006/s2254126.htm

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23734894-661,00.html