ALECOMM

COMMON STORY WITH TRUSTEES

State Trustees lose clients’ life savings
Date February 1, 2015
The late Christa Simmons, who had dementia and whose funds were almost all lost by Victorian State Trustees.
The life savings of disabled and mentally impaired Victorians have been lost by the state-owned company that administers their estates after it invested their money in high-risk funds.
A Sunday Age investigation has found that State Trustees ignored its legal obligation to act in the best interests of clients, allowing its financial planning division to speculate in high-risk investments that led to substantial losses. This included putting savings and money from government pensions with LM Investment Management, a Gold Coast-based scheme that lost $800 million when it collapsed in 2013 amid allegations of misconduct.
State Trustees controls more than $1 billion belonging to 9500 vulnerable people who have been deemed unfit to manage their own financial affairs and now depend on the investments made in their names to meet their living expenses.
State Trustees would not reveal how many of its clients lost money in the schemes, citing privacy laws and the need to protect “community confidence” in the system. “State Trustees seeks to take a conservative approach with its clients’ money,” a spokeswoman said.
Among the victims was Christa Simmons, a 75-year-old woman with dementia who was under the administration of State Trustees for 15 years before her death.
Due to privacy laws, the family of Ms Simmons has been kept in the dark about her finances since the Guardianship& Administration Board (now VCAT) appointed State Trustees her financial and legal administrator in 1997.
“It’s State Trustees – it’s practically the government. You assume they have the highest level of integrity and there’s checks and balances in place. We never had any reason to suspect otherwise,” her daughter Darlene told The Sunday Age.
But documents show a State Trustees financial planner invested a significant portion of her entire savings – more than 40 per cent at one point – in a “pension account” that fed into three investments with high- to very high risk ratings.
In 2010, State Trustees reviewed Ms Simmons’ investment position and noted her risk profile should be “moderate”. The report recommended that the pension account balance of $37,894 be transferred to a marginally safer financial product that charged lower fees and commissions. The recommendation was not implemented and two years later the account had lost nearly all its value.
The major problem was a significant investment made on her behalf in a mortgage fund run by entrepreneur Peter Drake, founder of now-defunct LM Investment Management. When the fund ran into trouble in 2009 all investments were frozen, leaving investors to watch as its value dropped but their money could not be withdrawn. LM eventually collapsed with losses estimated at $800 million.
At the time of her death in 2012, Ms Simmons had just $3700 left in her pension account in potentially accessible funds. Another $15,100 remained trapped with LM and is now considered essentially lost.
In the last year of her life, Ms Simmons had paid $778 in fees and commissions to State Trustees and other financial managers to administer her rapidly diminishing pension account.
Records show that the rest of Ms Simmons life savings at the time of her death – about $63,000 – was being held in a number of other, if better performing, high-risk products, as well as some safer investments and cash. State Trustees had based its investment strategy on the expectation they would need to provide for her financial needs to age 88.
The family of Ms Simmons was completely unaware of the troubled state of her finances until she died, when they began to question State Trustees about her will. But the group, acting as her legally appointed administrator and executor, refused to disclose detailed information.
After a protracted dispute, her daughter took over as executor and obtained some of her mother’s records. “It’s unfathomable how a government body awarded guardianship over frail, sick and vulnerable people appear to have a licence to gamble with their savings with impunity for the loses,” Darlene said.
She is now considering taking legal action.
It is not known how many other of the State Trustees’ 9500 clients may have lost money in risky investments such as LM. Documents show the three financial products Ms Simmons’ money was invested in required State Trustees to make a minimum buy-in investment of $20,000, $25,000 and $100,000 for each, suggesting many other clients have been assigned stakes as well to meet this target.
State Trustees has ignored repeated requests to provide figures about its investment activities or losses.
“While a pension fund may reduce over time due to normal withdrawals, an overall financial position for a client whose finances are managed by State Trustees could be stable or even experiencing moderate growth even during a period when most investments were being heavily affected by the global financial crisis,” a representative said.
With State Trustees claiming it cannot disclose information about losses due to privacy rules, it is likely any potential victims may never know they are victims.
The collapse of LM is now the subject of a pending class action lawsuit by law firm Slater & Gordon, which is seeking compensation for investors tipped into the fund on the advice of their financial planners. “The timeline for making a claim runs out soon. Anyone who has invested in LM should get legal advice right away,” said the firm’s commercial litigation lawyer, Mark Walter.
Financial planner-turned-whistleblower Jeff Morris, who exposed wide-ranging malfeasance inside the CBA’s financial planning arm in 2013, said the problems at State Trustees would likely go beyond just one rogue planner.
“The lack of accountability to clients and secrecy in this case makes that a racing certainty. No competent adviser would put clients into these dodgy mortgage funds but it is important to remember that the incompetence is systemic because it is the dealer group that decides the menu of products that planners can recommend,” he said.
The losses are the latest in a series of scandals to plague State Trustees, which was the subject of a damning report from the Auditor-General in 2012 that found it could not demonstrate it acted in the best interests of its clients.
“Flawed implementation, ineffective oversight, and a failure to regularly and systematically test how effective controls are in practice, limit the assurance it can provide … about organisational compliance and performance,” the report said.
In 2009, State Trustees agreed to pay $13.5 million in compensation to investors that were burned in the collapse of Perth-based property scheme Westpoint.
It was also blasted by the Victorian Ombudsman over the quality of care provided to vulnerable people following an investigation in 2003.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Mr. Peter Carne,
Public Trustee
Office of the Public Trustee
G.P.O.Box 1449 Brisbane. 4001

Dear Peter,
Re: Carl Ross Taylor
I refer to correspondence from Tony Steinmetz dated 2nd June, 2016.
I am well aware of the supreme court proceedings, the decision and the reasons for the decisions made aa a result.
I would however like to draw your attention to:
1. Brian Laver assumed power of attorney for Mr. Taylor in 2003. He arranged the finances.
2. Will Marcus never had ownership of any part of the building in Horan Street, West End, known as Ahimsa house.
3. The loan negotiated through Barry Sims with Challenger was based on false figures supplied by Brian Laver, purporting to be power of attorney.
4. Correspondence from Will Marcus dated 16th July, 2008 admitted to receiving funds of $168.032 which he was not entitled to receive. Action could have been taken to recover these monies.
5. Work claimed to have been done by Marcus was never done, therefore there were no monies owing to him.
6. The public trustee became administrator for Mr. Taylor in 2009.
7. The debts shown in the public trustees figures are monies owing to Mr. Taylor NOT owed by him.
8. Leases on the property at West End could have been put in place were not.
9. An offer to buy the building to avoid negative action b y Challenger was never considered.
10. A report by James O’Regan commissioned by the trustee, in relation to the property at 433 Mains Road, Sunnybank. This report appears to not presented in court.
11. The public trustee sought leave from the court to not expend monies to recover monies owing to Mr. Taylor
12. Mr. Taylor was not represented in these proceedings. Solicitors were/are acting for their client, the public trustee, NOT Mr. Taylor. Refer Youtube video”Ross and friends meet the public trustee”

13. The decision made by Judge Martin in 2012 would indicate that action could be taken but on evidence submitted by the public trustee officers, it should not be taken.
14. The file was then sealed to cover up the actions of the trustee.

Furthermore, as evidenced in the court document, Mr. Taylor wished to reside in the matrimonial home at 433 Mains Road, MacGregor. He also wished to establish a community centre at West End. Both of these wishes have been denied by the public trustee because of false and mis-leading information to the courts and QCAT. Mr. Taylor is now contained in a high care dementia facility due to the injustices as stated above and false reports again commissioned by the trustee and the guardians.

Why Peter, did the public trustee indicate to the general public that you “resigned” in 2014, a day after submissions to the Crime and Corruption commission? Why Peter, was no one appointed to the position of public trustee? Why was Mark Crofton only ever “ ACTING” as public trustee. How is it that you are again public trustee?
How is it then, that the public trustee was able to get action through the corruption commission for an ex staff member for only $42.000 when the trustee has not acted for Mr. Taylor’s best interest for millions of dollars.
Mr. Taylor is only one of thousands of clients of the public trustee.
Peter, this is just one instance of the above of power at the office of the public trustee.

God bless you

Rosslyn Mirciov

The following includes a few thoughts generated after years of dealing with the most despicable scum on planet earth.

Firstly, the legal / judicial / political / media racket has a LOT to answer for. These entities have since the dawn of time promoted the myth of equal access to justice. Blind Freddie has always been aware that justice is as much a commodity as cornflakes and electricity in that the amount of justice we get depends on how much we can afford to purchase. Quite obviously Gina Reinhart can afford to purchase considerably more justice than you or I, so does that fit with ‘equal access’ ?? remember also that an entry level lawyer bills at least $250 per hour, and at the other end of the scale, a QC averages a thousand or more dollars per hour. Dunno about you, but I’ve never earned, or wanted to earn, a thousand bucks per hour. I don’t seem to recall any elected politician represent my interests in this area by agitating for true equal access to justice. Certainly I’ve heard the odd whisper about legal aid, but that doesn’t even begin to get to the bottom of the problem which is simply that the legal profession is avaricious (I’ve always contended the very word ‘avarice’ was invented purely for the legal profession). How do we fix this ?? A good start would be legislation severely limiting the fees that can be charged to an absolute maximum (for a QC) to twice the median hourly wage and for a lawyer to one and a half times the median hourly wage. Clearly this would arouse more than a bit of consternation in parliament where most of the DIS-honorable members are failed lawyers who could well be forced to return to the profession after the next election.

Secondly, the sheeple have long been deluded by the establishment (in which I include media interests) to accept male bovine dropping like ‘separation of powers. This unmitigated twaddle suggests that each of the three arms of government (legislature, executive and judiciary’ are independent. This is provably and demonstrably NOT the case and in all probability never was. One of the most elementary instances of deliberate deception concerns parliamentary ministers. These turkeys are politicians, ergo part of the legislature, however they are also heads of one or more departments which are part of the executive.
Are we seriously expected to believe the deathadder takes no interest in the running of entities like the kangaroo tribunal (quasi-judiciary) and OPG / PTQ (executive), not to mention all the watchdogs which legislation provides that she administers ??

Thirdly, the plot thickens considerably when we look at kangaroo tribunal, OPG and PTQ skullduggery. If indeed there was such a thing as genuine separation of powers, would the legislators have produced legislation like the GAA Act which joins the OPG and PTQ (executive) to every kangaroo tribunal guardianship racket matter ?? Or did the clowns at the bottom of George Street fail to recognize that doing so constituted a blatant breach of separation of powers doctrine ?? In any case, there is stuff-all evidence that neither the red, blue nor green teams have ever considered rectifying that situation. One only needs to attempt to bring one arm
of government to account to discover concerted opposition from both other arms. I suggest that fair dinkum separation of powers would necessitate the two arms not being asked to account for its actions keeping strictly out of the fray, at least that is what we are told is the intent of separation of powers.

Fourthly, legislation provides that kangaroo tribunal quasi-judges enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as supreme court judges. Given that ALL members of the judiciary (real and quasi variety) are reasonably expected to possess an in-depth knowledge of legislation, one wonders why they need any immunity. These
clowns are wont to tell members of the public ad nauseum that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but then the clowns spend most of their life arguing over law that they expect the sheeple to know intimately. Seems a bit one-sided to me. A consequence commonly encountered in the kangaroo tribunal is that if a
quasi-judge is questioned regarding his or her non-compliance with legislation, they typically burst into hysterical laughter exclaiming ‘it doesn’t matter what we do because we are immune’. Now isn’t it reasonable to expect the supposedly independent legislature to ensure this regular, deliberate and flagrant ignorance of legislation does not continue ??

Fifthly, by default, the legal / judicial racket observes an unwritten convention that no legislation binds the crown unless it specifically states that it does. Not that it matters, because I have yet to see any legislation which states that it binds the crown, which provides that an official MUST do this or that, and which
provides any remedy when said official fails to observe the requirement. The GAA Act is jam-packed to the rafters with relevant examples, likewise the Public Service Act (would someone please correct this if its the wrong legislation) provides that all departments, quangos and whatever have an internal complaints
review facility. Interestingly there is no mention whatever of a recourse system or penalties for non-compliance. Again, true separation of powers would demand that the legislators cover all bases and not pander to the interests of an ostensibly ‘independent’ executive or judiciary. Neither the OPG, PTQ nor
kangaroo tribunal have a workable complaint review system. In the case of the kangaroo tribunal, registrar Julie Hay advised that it is pointless sending complaints as ‘we don’t take any notice of them’. Furthermore, the job description for the kangaroo tribunal president states that he is responsible to monitor and police the actions of his minions, although there is no known instance where any kangaroo tribunal president actually did so.

Sixthly, deeper into the mire of the guardianship racket, we had a couple of events occur in April and May this year which absolutely horrified the kangaroo tribunal and its incestuous cohort in crime the PTQ, both of which assumed they had seen the last victim escape their clutches. Not one but two victims of the guardianship racket with hitherto not completely plundered assets managed (albeit after herculean effort) actually succeeded in wrenching open the exit door jammed shut after /Maher/, in witch Clare Endicott copped the bashing of her miserable life from the Court of Appeal. There is no doubt that all effort
was expended to protect Endicott from any further embarrassment and this involved quasi-judges creating evidence held to be a matter of fact (non-appealable), thereby blocking most avenues of appeal. The previously used appeal-blocker, scheduling appeals to be be heard by non-judicial members continued as normal. It didn’t take long for the skullduggery committee comprising high level representatives of the legislature, executive and judiciary to be convened to figure a way to permanently weld shut the exit door
from the guardianship racket. More concerning for victims of the guardianship racket currently planning their exit strategy, the GAA Amendment Bill 2017 attempts to totally negate international law, attempts to distort and misconstrue precedents created in /Bucknall/ and in /Bergmann/ regarding assumption of capacity at each review, attempts to ensure that once a victim has been declared incompetent, there is no possibility of escape before death or PTQ -initiated insolvency, and legitimizes manufacture of evidence by completely
unqualified quasi-judges. Some may be aware that current legislation requires the kangaroo tribunal to retain ‘specialized’ expertise however the current crop includes only a very occasional appearance by a claimed speech pathologist of dubious ability, a long retired and non-practicing psychologist who has only ever been brought in when the International Criminal Court intervened, and one who ‘claims’ to be a doctor (she has a PhD in english literature). Legislation also provides that the kangaroo tribunal must be a supreme court judge and the deputy president a district court judge. For the majority of the kangaroo tribunals existence, these provisions have been breached and in fact that situation exists at this point in time. Does that mean we can prosecute the deathadder ?? Finally I’ll point out that there is actually a qualified supreme court judge Tim Carmody in the kangaroo tribunal who is quite capable of filling the position of president. Why doesn’t the deathadder appoint Carmody and thus ensure compliance with legislation ? Or could it be that the deathadder would rather deliberately ignore legislation than allow Carmody to destroy the guardianship racket. In any case, the decision was made by the PTQ which pulls the deathadder’s strings.

The Queensland Government is currently attempting to hoodwink the people into believing their rights matter. In reality, the Human Rights Bill 2018 is nothing more than a farcical deception which will do absolutely nothing to protect us from the goons in parliament, in the bureaucracies or the judiciary. Submissions can be made to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for another week, and those submissions MUST be included in Hansard, consequently the politicians / bureaucrats cannot hide them as they do with everything else they don’t like. I strongly suggest that anyone critical of the guardianship racket and / or government shenanigans submit their own version (or simply cut and paste the following, its not copyright)

The Human Rights Bill 2018 is a carefully crafted con. Superficially it purports to conform with the legal principle that Australian legislation does not conflict with international law, and with Australia’s responsibility as a member state of the United Nations to fully observe and implement international law, but in fact the Human Rights Bill 2018 deliberately and intentionally avoids compliance with both of the above.

What I see as the main problem with the Human Rights Bill 2018 is the deliberately conceived total lack of recourse for breaches.

It is blatantly obvious from several Acts including the Public Service Act 2008, Local Government Act 2009, QCAT Act 2009, Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, that legislation ostensibly created to regulate the actions of each of the three arms of government intentionally omits any provision for recourse. Exactly the same criticism applies to the Human Rights Bill 2018.

A major percentage of human rights abuse in Queensland is attributed to the guardianship racket. The guardianship racket involves collusion between the non-constitutionally legitimate QCAT kangaroo tribunal, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Office of the Public Trustee. Note also that the doctrine of separation of powers has also been deliberately ignored by the Queensland government in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 provision joining the OPG & PTQ (bureaucratic entities) to QCAT (quasi-judicial entity) in all guardianship matters. The inherent brutality of QCAT, OPG and PTQ operatives toward their victims results in destruction of families and support networks, denial of all rights due to the victim, plundering of the victims estates and infliction of severe psychological injury on both victims and their supporters.

Neither QCAT, the OPG nor the PTQ are accountable to any power in Queensland or indeed any power within Australia. All these entities are laws unto themselves and they are all demonstrably immune from observance of any existing legislation. Their internal complaints review facilities (required by the Public Service Act) are totally shambolic, and both the Ombudsman and the crime Cover-up Commission are completely farcical, being more about covering up official malpractice than addressing it. I challenge the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to identify even one instance where either the Ombudsman or the Crime Cover-up Commission has addressed official malpractice by a member of the legislature, bureaucracy or judiciary. The Legal Services Commission refuses to accept complaints against the PTQ and the oxygen-bandit Commonwealth Human Rights Commission isn’t interested in any complaint concerning QCAT, the OPG, PTQ or for that matter any state government politician, bureaucrat, judicial or quasi-judicial officer, department or quango.

The fact that QCAT members have been endowed with the same immunity as supreme court judges means that they can and do thumb their noses at all non-criminal legislation. Given that there is no facility for breaches of human rights legislation to be a criminal action, it follows that breaches of the Human Rights Act would also have no consequence for QCAT members. Furthermore, since the OPG and PTQ are legislatively joined to QCAT in all guardianship matters, this incestuous relationship extends the protection enjoyed by QCAT members to OPG and PTQ staff.

The Human Rights Bill 2018 involves renaming the Anti-Discrimination Commission to the Human Rights Commission. Historically the Anti-Discrimination has proven to be a complete farce. Among other issues, I am unaware of any occasion when it has addressed discrimination complaints involving any legislator, bureaucrat or member of the judiciary. In particular, I have attempted to file complaints regarding deliberate discrimination by QCAT members / OPG / PTQ staff and have been advised that the Anti-Discrimination Commission does not accept complaints against QCAT members / OPG / PTQ staff. There is no reason to believe this policy will change with the renaming.

It is a matter of fact that Australia has an absolutely shocking record of human rights abuse. This has been acknowledged by the United Nations Human Rights Council on multiple occasions, and also by numerous Australian and international human rights organizations. All watchdogs including the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission are farcical. What is even more concerning is that rather than address this issue, Australian governments resort to ever more deceptive and duplicitous measures to avoid honouring their responsibility to citizens. Whilst legislation occasionally mentions international instruments, no legislation to date has made any attempt to comply with human rights principles. With this in mind, it is not surprising that a UN Special Rapporteur told a group of advocates in September 2016 ‘Australia is the most corrupt country in the world’.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that all members of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, all members of parliament, and all bureaucrats involved in creation of the Human Rights Bill 2018 should hang their heads in shame for their participation in this sham which will do absolutely nothing to compel bureaucracies like the OPG and PTQ, the quasi-judicial QCAT kangaroo tribunal, or the judiciary generally to observe any semblance of human rights principles.