Update 26 June 2017:
Five complaints lodged this morning with the Tax Practitioners’ Board about BDS Huon, and matters of misconduct arising from the hearing last week at the Albury Local court, into the charge they assisted their employee to bring against me, after I had accused her of misconduct towards themselves.
I will be taking those complaints to the Federal Court, if BDS Huon do not cease and desist with this harassment, and corrupt and unlawful court proceedings.
To the owners of BDS HUon
As you are aware, I am unable to contact you to discuss our matters before the Albury local court.
I’ve also been experiencing computer problems recently, and lack of a private space to finish preparing my defence for the five charges you again have me facing this year, and so am behind in my paperwork, and still preparing my defence strategies against the first charge, bought against me on 20 January 2016, by Con Rowan Weekley.
Jon Williams was always required to attend that hearing, to be cross examined by the defence, as he is nominated by the ‘victim’ and the arresting officer as having been a witness to the ‘crime’.
However, the victim goes on to describe the actions of Ross Griffin and Leasa Brown, in relation to that same crime, and the actions they took regarding it, in her witness statement to the police. The defence had not had access to that statement until November 2016.
The defence has therefore decided to call Mr Griffin and Ms Brown to give evidence at that first hearing on 20 June 2016.
Mr Griffin was not going to be cross examined until the second charge is heard, when he appears as a police witness at that hearing. Ms Brown is to appear as a witness for the police at the hearing of the third charge.
I believe that we might be able to avoid some of those other hearings, if the Magistrate on the day hears the case honestly this time, and actually considers at least some of the defence statements and evidence.
However, that might not be the case, and those employees will be summoned, along with other staff, in relation to the other matters, over the course of the following four to five months.
Therefore, please consider this to be preliminary notice that you are required to attend the Albury local court on 20 June 2017, to give evidence at the hearing into the criminal charge.
I will get a copy of the notice to summon you, to police, asap. I have no desire to walk into their cesspit of corruption to give it to them, nor am I allowed to email Con Weekley or I will again be assaulted and arrested for ‘internet crimes’. I will try to get it in the mail this week, to the arresting officer.
It will be nice to finally meet you all face to face.
I will then confirm to the current investigation into these issues, by the Tax Practitioners Board, that you did all show up, and did all try to have me convicted of crimes that you are very aware were not crimes at all.
And yes, BDS Huon ARE under investigation as we speak, by the TPB, for issues which were not properly investigated last year.
BDS Huon claimed on the Google Review platform, that they don’t even know who the TPB are, and that they were investigated and exonerated, but also that they were never investigated and exonerated.
I think those police witness statements have provided the proof the complaint needed, to make it undeniable.
I must get around to sending the rest of them, now that I am back online.
Just for the readers information:
I was also facing another charge on 20 June 2017, bought against me by a staff member of the Albury court house, for lodging complaints about the police involved in all of these questionable charges surrounding BDS Huon. She claims those complaints are internet crimes, and victimization of herself.
However, in checking the court list last week, I see that the hearing of her charge has been removed, and replaced with ‘to be mentioned’.
Meaning, it has been delayed again, and without myself being notified, or advised what has created the delay. That’s actually illegal, but staff at the Albury court house don’t understand the word ‘legal’ anyway.
Police say I will be sentenced to a jail term, for those internet crimes which caused offence to one person. So my time in jail has been delayed for a bit longer.
I will continue to try to avoid that all together, by having a higher court acknowledge that it is an illegal charge, and for which police have not only tampered with the evidence, and acted unlawfully in other ways, but because police have failed to provide my IP and telecommunications account details in their arrest documentation, and therefore, the charge cannot proceed until they do so.
They are aware they would have to arrest and charge another person for that allegation of a crime having been committed from their telecommunications account. Yet they have chosen not to do that. I wonder why?
Tax Practitioners Code of Conduct
Confidentiality of client information
You must not disclose information relating to a client’s affairs to a third party unless you have:
- obtained your client’s permission; or
- a legal duty to do so.
This is one of the obligations (item 6) under the Code of Professional Conduct (Code).
‘Information’ refers to knowledge you have acquired or derived about a client, whether directly or indirectly. It is only necessary that the information relates to the affairs of a client. Further, the information does not have to necessarily belong to the client.
A ‘third party’ is any entity other than you and your client and could, for example, include entities:
- to which you outsource your tax agent services
- within the same service trust structure, unless the client is defined (for example, in the engagement letter) as the whole structure
- maintaining offsite data storage systems (including ‘cloud storage’).
We recognise that tax practitioners are increasingly engaging in outsourcing or cloud storage arrangements. However, the obligations under Code item 6 have not changed – you must ensure confidentiality of client information, including appropriate disclosure of such arrangements to your clients to ensure you comply with your obligations under this Code item.
Failure to maintain confidentiality of your client’s information
If you disclose information relating to a client’s affairs to a third party without the client’s permission or a legal duty to do so, the TPB may find that you have breached the Code and may impose sanctions for that breach.
Failing to comply with your obligations
All registered tax practitioners must comply with the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (TASA), including the Code of Professional Conduct (Code) and the civil penalties provisions. We consider allegations that a tax practitioner has failed to comply with the TASA very seriously.
If we receive a complaint that a tax practitioner is suspected of failing to comply with the TASA including the Code, we will look into the matter further by making preliminary enquiries. Where we consider it appropriate, we will initiate a formal investigation.
If we find that a tax practitioner has failed to comply with the TASA we may impose one or more administrative sanctions or seek a Court imposed civil penalty. Administrative sanctions for breach of the Code can include:
- a written caution
- an order requiring the tax practitioner to:
- complete a course of education or training we specify
- only provide certain services
- provide services only under supervision
- suspension of registration for a certain period
- termination of registration.
The severity of a sanction depends on the nature and extent of the breach and the individual circumstances of each case.
If an administrative sanction is imposed (other than a written caution), details of the sanction are listed against the tax practitioner on the TPB Register.
There are a number of civil penalty provisions in the TASA relating to certain conduct of registered tax practitioners, and certain activities of those who are acting as unregistered tax practitioners.
The Federal Court has the power to impose penalties of up to $45,000 for individuals and $225,000 for corporations for each breach.
For more information, refer to:
- Code of Professional Conduct
- About complaints
- Termination of registration
- Civil penalties under the tax agent services regulatory regime