Truth and Justice Matter

Is not a crime even if it doesn’t match the accuser’s suspicion.

You can’t be held in contempt of court for telling the truth.

The SAT expect remorse even when they know you are telling the truth.

If you are a trades person and invited to attend an interview a “thanks but no thanks” appears to be the best option. You won’t be caught in a “frame up” or as was described on Vimeo “Involuntary Compliance”. The BC can get an order but that is hardly an invitation?

A small fine may appear better than a large fine and the loss of livelihood alternative, but confessing under duress is a crime. Also paying a fine is seen as an admission of guilt and may be used in evidence against you years later.

You don’t want to end up at the SAT all day giving Involuntary Compliance evidence against a decent bloke.

Governments at a State and Federal level across Australia have produced a range of guidelines known as model litigant rules. At their heart, these guidelines focus on:

Acting honestly, consistently, and fairly in the handling of claims and litigation.

Dealing with claims promptly; (7 years is not prompt)

Making an early assessment of the government’s prospects of success; (7 years is not early)

Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks resources; (the commisioner’s code is not law)

Not relying on a merely technical defence against a claim. (outdated methodology)

Model Litigant Rules

Model litigant rules (obligations) are guidelines for how a government ought to behave before, during, and after litigation with another government body, a private company, or an individual.

It is vital that government bodies should not be ‘out to get’ people, but should be acting in the public interest, according to law. These guidelines seek to address an inherent and substantial power imbalance.

The guidelines are integral to the rule of law where a substantial imbalance of power in litigation with government agency may occur. Government bodies may have access to substantial resources, powers to investigate.

Employing police to investigate building matters and issue Building Remedy Orders will fail and be referred to the SAT because a lack of expertise. An ex-Builder would identify a problem early and find a resolution acceptable to both parties. The traditional Police Frame up works with known criminals but is hardly the MO for dealing with parties assisting with their enquiry. These fact finding exercises are not a crime investigation so shouldn’t be treated as such. Where will it end? Builders attending interviews with a State appointed solicitor?

The Geneva convention of 1929 requires only your name rank and serial number.

Obtaining a conviction at the SAT knowing it to be wrong is perverting the course of justice and shows contempt of due process.