As presented to the VCAT



1)      The onus of proof usually lies with the accuser, here, being the MPBoV.(“Justice in Tribunals.” Forbes JRS. Federation Press, Sydney. 2002. p154-5)

The “proofs” provided are inadequate to sustain the case(s) for the reasons set out in the tables below.

The MPBoV was unable to prove that GH was “potentially curable” and dropped the issue.



Particular                   Issue                        Proof provided by/for MPB

(i) (A) WBHT

     (B) 434 MHz     

Unproven &


(A)   Irrelevant – procedure not done

(B)   Opinion of Specialists without expertise – No proof provided

(ii)(A) Information

     (B) Chemo.

     (C) Chemo./RT

Inadequate      -

Withdrawal    -

Advise for      -

(A)  Patient* - no valid proof

(B)   Patient* - no valid proof

(C) Patient* - no valid proof

(iii) Item 13915

Not provided

No proof that precedent did not apply etc.

(iv) Lithium

Not appropriate

Opinions without expertise; no proof

(vi)  Fee

Level too high

No proof (relativity); no proof of hardship

(viii) “Oncologist”

Not entitled

No proof from a relevant authority; bias

*  SO – un-sworn evidence supplied by GG (hostile, prosecuting complainant) or through Office of Board after exposure – biased, flawed and tainted (Mr John Smith).



   Particular                      Issue                           Proof provided by/for MPB

(i)(A) 434 MHz

    (B)  LHT

Unproven &/or   -

Ineffective          -

No proof provided

Claimed ineffective without thermometry –

  No proof, no relevant expert.

(ii) Information


Patient#  - no valid proof

(iii) Letter - report

Too slow

No proof (of harm); sent earlier letter

(iv) Skin lesion


No relevant proof of need to investigate

(v)  Biopsy


No relevant proof of need to biopsy (in Vic.)

(vi) Fee

Too high

No proof (relativity); no proof of hardship

(vii) Item 13915

Not provided

No proof that precedent did not apply etc.

      #  ST – false and misleading accounts throughout. Should be assessed for perjury



   Particular                      Issue                           Proof provided by/for MPB

(i) 434 MHz

Unproven &/or



(iv) His Oncologist

Not informed

No proof of need or harm resulting – views are of the prosecuting complainants (biased).


There has been an expectation throughout that the Applicant should prove his professional position – this is a reversal of the onus*, which is a significant bias.

*In the Board's report relating to Dr ABB, June 2006, there was stated “The Board bears the onus of proving the allegations made.”  This seemed the usual arrangement.


2)      WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE provided or processed by :

(a)      SO: All evidence or Testimony associated with her should carry no weight.

                                                   i.            No sworn evidence – unbelievable reasons as to why. Was able to sign an Authorization with a firm hand for Dr Scarlett, apparently on a Minter Ellison document some 3½ weeks before she died (August 2002)

                                                 ii.            Gave false and misleading accounts to different recipients.

                                                iii.            Provided accounts to Associate Professor GG who, in turn provided his views to her, the Health Services Commissioner, her lawyers and the MPB.

                                               iv.            SO and GG must be regarded as in a partnership –  they present as one.

                                                 v.            GG is/was an hostile prosecuting complainant with significant bias. His views cannot be accepted as those of an impartial witness, expert or adviser on any matter.

                                               vi.            He made false and misleading claims or statements.

                                              vii.            He provided Hearsay evidence which should carry no weight

                                            viii.            His area of expertise (Radiotherapy) is not relevant to the VCAT Hearing.

                                               ix.            He did not define the essence which made his concept of “Oncology” applicable only to subgroups of the Royal College of Radiology and Physicians.

                                                 x.            He seemed to hold an unhealthy association with Ms SO.


(b)     ST: All evidence or Testimony associated with her should carry no weight.

                                                  i.            Much of her Testimony is of false and misleading statements &/or claims. The Applicant requests (again) that the MPB provide a list of any and all (if any) statements or claims that she made which can be substantiated by documentation or the Testimony of others who were witnesses at the relevant times.

                                                ii.            In the context of much false and misleading Testimony and claims, none of her Testimony can be accepted.

                                              iii.            She should be assessed for perjury (in principle only – now Pyrrhic)

                                              iv.            By presuming that investigations and biopsy should have been done (begging the question), the MPB had placed the onus of proof upon the Applicant to defend (a reversal of onus of proof).


(c)    TU: All evidence or Testimony associated with him should carry no weight.

i.          The issues arose from complaints from 2 prosecuting  complainants

ii.          Their complaints were motivated largely by a “turf war” considerations

iii.                  They were biased, and cannot be accepted as impartial experts or witnesses.

iv.                 None had expertise or significant knowledge of the 434 MHz UHF, but presented views never-the-less.

v.                   Neither was speaking as a spokesperson for a medical authority or College concerned with medical titles or descriptors.

vi.                 None could define the essence which made their concept of “Oncology” applicable only to subgroups of the College of Radiology and Physicians.

vii.                Neither could provide a coherent palliative care plan that had been accepted by the parents.

viii.              By opposing those in other colleges from using the term “Oncologist” they are trying to introduce restrictions upon trade, by limiting a professional descriptor to two Royal Colleges.

ix.                 Their complaints were frivolous and vexatious.


(d) Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria.

i.                     There have been detailed in the Affidavit of 15/2/2006 by the Applicant, of improprieties and lapses in probity associated with the Office of the Medical Practitioners Boards of Victoria. The concerns have been identified as the conduct of Mr John H Smith, Deputy Chief Executive Officer.

ii.                   There are documented and tabled before VCAT “Mal’s Musings” (RB tab 127/128) and the Affidavit of Ms DF (MAT.002). Both deal with the tainted and perverted functioning of the Office of the MPB.

iii.                  Mr Smith oversaw staff associated with these three complaints, including submission to the MPB, the briefing, supervision and direction of Investigating Officers, and the collections and collations of evidence. The evidence processed by the Office of the MPB is fatally contaminated and flawed to a degree which makes rescue impossible. This relates particularly with the un-sworn evidence associated with Ms SO.

iv.                 Almost certainly, he played a key role on briefing and advising Minter Ellison in the drawing-up of the Charges and Particulars of the Note, with Particulars begging the question, shifting the onus of proof to the Applicant.

v.                   He would have to have played a part in the unconscionable release to the public area, of the Minutes of the Informal Hearings into the use of Lithium.

vi.                 The Applicant is concerned that the Minutes released were fake documents.


(e)   Minter Ellison

    i.         As related in “Mal’s Musings,” Minter Ellison was appointed by the MPB under unusual and suspicious circumstances, with links to relevant events in the Federal area.

                                                       ii.               Minter Ellison deceived the Federal Court in 2002, the MPB in 2004, and in 2005. The firm operates by deceit.

                                                      iii.                  The firm seems actively involved in the failure of obtaining a Sworn Affidavit from Ms SO. Their account cannot be believed.

                                                     iv.                  The firm has maintained false and unsubstantiated accounts of issues, despite explanations to the contrary (eg Uric acid as a monitor of disease when questioning Dr Scarlett and Professor Fox)

                                                       v.                  The firm has pursued allegations by Associate Professor GG that are irrelevant to the Charges. (eg  uric acid and cytotoxic chemotherapy). These allegations introduce bias because they are not, or are poorly substantiated, and place an onus of proof on the Applicant. They remain unaddressed by the Applicant, who requests a chance to respond.


Press "BACK" to Return


Copyright © MA Traill 2006, edited Mar 2008