Australian Politics Forum - Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #45 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:18pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 7:42pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 7:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets.

It's been done before!
The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!!
The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!

Found guilty by whom/what? The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything.

And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then?

It does not have power to do that either.

Really?

Royal commission refers Kathy Jackson, Cesar Melhem to prosecutors!

Since when did prosecutors become synonymous with courts?

Well, IF there are NO Prosecutors, then the court system isn't going very far?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39703 Gender:	Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission Reply #46 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:23pm Quote: Well, IF there are NO Prosecutors, then the court system isn't going very far? Sure, but they are not courts or the court system either. So far you have learned a couple of things you did not know before.
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #47 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:25pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 7:42pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 7:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

His whole reason for moving to the Vatican was because he knew this was coming. The powers that be couldn't have him divulge all their dirty little secrets.

It's been done before!
The "Spotlight" movie, gives some background information!!
The thing is, he could face questions via a video connection, But if found guilty, the likelihood is, he would remain in the Vatican!!!

Found guilty by whom/what? The RC has no power to find him guilty of anything.

And, IF the RC finds sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the courts, what then?

It does not have power to do that either.

Oh & IF the RC's didn't have the power to send people to the courts, then why set up the RC?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39703 Gender:	Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission Reply #48 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:28pm Quote: Oh & IF the RC's didn't have the power to send people to the courts, then why set up the RC? Bloody good question. Fact is, they do not have power to send people anywhere.
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #49 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:32pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

Quote:

Well, IF there are NO Prosecutors, then the court system isn't going very far?

Sure, but they are not courts or the court system either.

So far you have learned a couple of things you did not know before.

"In his final report released on Wednesday, Commissioner Dyson Heydon referred Ms Jackson, the former national secretary of the Health Services Union, to prosecutors for possible charges over obtaining property and financial advantage by deception."

Well Aussie, as far as I am concerned, it seems that the RC IS referring to the Prosecutors AND they will then decide IF the issue/s go to court, so as far I can see the RC's have the power to send people to the courts.
Alright, its via the prosecutors, but if the RC didn't refer it, then the Prosecutors may not have actioned it, so it certainly has the appearance that the RC's do have the power!

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39703
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #50 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:51pm

Quote:

"In his final report released on Wednesday, Commissioner Dyson Heydon referred Ms Jackson, the former national secretary of the Health Services Union, to prosecutors for possible charges over obtaining property and financial advantage by deception."

Well Aussie, as far as I am concerned, it seems that the RC IS referring to the Prosecutors AND they will then decide IF the issue/s go to court, so as far I can see the RC's have the power to send people to the courts.
Alright, its via the prosecutors, but if the RC didn't refer it, then the Prosecutors may not have actioned it, so it certainly has the appearance that the RC's do have the power!

Prosecutors (in this context....Police) do not need to wait for a RC to ask them to do anything. They are not bound by anything a Royal Commission says, finds or does. In fact, they cannot even use what a person has said in the RC's witness box as evidence of anything against that person in any subsequent proceedings. (There is a practical way around that, but that's technically irrelevant.)

Ultimately all the RC has a power to do is prepare a Report for the Government which has commissioned it. That Report may list adverse findings against people and may make recommendations of referral to appropriate regulatory authourities, not limited to Police, but neither Governmnent not those authorities (including the Police) can be bound by the RC to do anything at all.

They almost always are (I will exclude the RC into Institutional Child Sex Abuse) and mostly always will be political witch hunts set up by Government to inflict as much damage on their political opponents as is possible.

Poor old Kathy Jackson, ey. Hoisted on her own petard, Abbott and Pyne's heroine became unintended and inconvenient collateral damage.

I have no idea whether this had any impact, but it was only after I (and anyone with a legal background would have done) put professional pressure on Stoljar and the RC that they were forced to expose her after their obvious initial kid glove treatment of her when it was blindingly obvious she had arm up to her elbow in the cookie jar.

Back to top

IP Logged

boxy Senior Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 400 Gender:	Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission Reply #51 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:01pm Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference).
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39703
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #52 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm

boxy wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference).

(Bugger it. I just tried to post an extensive answer to that, pressed wrong buttons and it has gone. Take 2. I'm gonna do it in point form this time.)

1. Semantics. Yeas. The Law is all about semantics, meaning of words and nuance.

2. Anything you say at a RC cannot be used in any later proceedings against you unless you have been dumb enough to acknowledge it in later questioning by authority, and/or dumb enough to get into a witness box in those later proceedings.

(What was lost pushing buttons was more expansive, but that'll do. Can't be arsed trying to repeat it.)

Back to top

IP Logged

boxy

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 400
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #53 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:39pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

boxy wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference).

(Bugger it. I just tried to post an extensive answer to that, pressed wrong buttons and it has gone. Take 2. I'm gonna do it in point form this time.)

1. Semantics. Yeas. The Law is all about semantics, meaning of words and nuance.

You're not in court now, jackass, so quit it with the petty semantics.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

2. Anything you say at a RC cannot be used in any later proceedings against you unless you have been dumb enough to acknowledge it in later questioning by authority, and/or dumb enough to get into a witness box in those later proceedings.

That only applies to statements made in private sessions, or by the individual incriminating themselves. Such statements are still on record, and can be further investigated to gain an independent source of evidence (which is probably why some royal commission recommendations lead to convictions, and others don't).

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39703
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #54 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:50pm

boxy wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

boxy wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference).

(Bugger it. I just tried to post an extensive answer to that, pressed wrong buttons and it has gone. Take 2. I'm gonna do it in point form this time.)

1. Semantics. Yeas. The Law is all about semantics, meaning of words and nuance.

You're not in court now, jackass, so quit it with the petty semantics.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

2. Anything you say at a RC cannot be used in any later proceedings against you unless you have been dumb enough to acknowledge it in later questioning by authority, and/or dumb enough to get into a witness box in those later proceedings.

That only applies to statements made in private sessions, or by the individual incriminating themselves. Such statements are still on record, and can be further investigated to gain an independent source of evidence (which is probably why some royal commission recommendations lead to convictions, and others don't).

You've been here for about 120 posts, and already, out comes the personal abuse.

So, it only applies like I said it applies. But you had to be pettily semantic.

Can you tell me when anything coming out of a RC has ended up with a conviction? (I'm not asserting it has never happened. I do assert it never happened after the Cole Commission. Not even a charge laid.)

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #55 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:06pm

Well, let’s see -
1) A Royal Commission is commissioned to investigate a particular issue or set of issues.
2) It takes evidence, from various witnesses.
3) If it deems it necessary, the RC will advise Prosecutors, that certain issues should be looked at.
4) If the Prosecutors agree, they may subsequently take court action.

That certainly sounds like the RC has a role within the legal system, even if the final outcomes may be flawed.

That said, IF George Pell gives evidence via Video link & -
1) the RC comes to the conclusion he should be referred to the Prosecutor.
2) the Prosecutor agrees that George should be brought to court.
3) But, IF George is still at the Vatican, then it has all been for nothing!
4) This process of hiding culprits in the Vatican has happened before, as is confirmed in the Spotlight movie!

Oh & Gday Aussie?

Back to top

IP Logged

boxy

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 400
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #56 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:17pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:50pm:

boxy wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

boxy wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

Semantics. Evidence obtained by RCs does contribute to further court action, and they have more scope to get to the heart of matters, before concrete evidence is gathered, by requiring involved parties to cooperate (if given the scope in their terms of reference).

(Bugger it. I just tried to post an extensive answer to that, pressed wrong buttons and it has gone. Take 2. I'm gonna do it in point form this time.)

1. Semantics. Yeas. The Law is all about semantics, meaning of words and nuance.

You're not in court now, jackass, so quit it with the petty semantics.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

2. Anything you say at a RC cannot be used in any later proceedings against you unless you have been dumb enough to acknowledge it in later questioning by authority, and/or dumb enough to get into a witness box in those later proceedings.

That only applies to statements made in private sessions, or by the individual incriminating themselves. Such statements are still on record, and can be further investigated to gain an independent source of evidence (which is probably why some royal commission recommendations lead to convictions, and others don't).

You've been here for about 120 posts, and already, out comes the personal abuse.

Sure. But that has more to do with your idiocy, than my intolerance for such.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:50pm:

So, it only applies like I said it applies. But you had to be pettily semantic.

Can you tell me when anything coming out of a RC has ended up with a conviction? (I'm not asserting it has never happened. I do assert it never happened after the Cole Commission. Not even a charge laid.)

It has nothing to do with semantics. Even if Pell incriminates himself there (which can't be used directly), his testimony can be used as "avenues of inquiry"... leading to paper trails, or to other perpetrators/witnesses.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39703
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #57 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:26pm

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

Well, let’s see -
1) A Royal Commission is commissioned to investigate a particular issue or set of issues.

Correct.

Quote:

2) It takes evidence, from various witnesses.

Correct.

Quote:

3) If it deems it necessary, the RC will advise Prosecutors, that certain issues should be looked at.

Incorrect. The RC reports to Government and may recommend that a relevant authority investigate, (your words are 'look at.)

Quote:

4) If the Prosecutors agree, they may subsequently take court action.

Correct.

Quote:

That certainly sounds like the RC has a role within the legal system, even if the final outcomes may be flawed.

That's not where this discussion started.

Quote:

That said, IF George Pell gives evidence via Video link & -
1) the RC comes to the conclusion he should be referred to the Prosecutor.

Okay, in very loose terms and to ignore the actual process.

Quote:

2) the Prosecutor agrees that George should be brought to court.

What will change if Pell gives further evidence except in the highly unlikely event he makes some sort of confession? If the Cops (your word is 'prosecutors') reckon there already exists enough evidence to charge him, then they do not need a RC or his appearance before it to get on with it and extradition.

Quote:

3) But, IF George is still at the Vatican, then it has all been for nothing!

I'm no expert (have zero knowledge) on international extradition. Are you asserting Australia cannot seek his extradition from the Vatican?

Quote:

4) This process of hiding culprits in the Vatican has happened before, as is confirmed in the Spotlight movie!

Forgive me if I do not regard Hollywood as a valid legal library.

Quote:

Oh & Gday Aussie?

Sure. While I have your attention. Is it a Rule breach to refer to anyone here as a 'jackass' as you must have just seen?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39703
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #58 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:35pm

More abuse, but p_n can deal with that.

Quote:

It has nothing to do with semantics.

Oh, I see. Yet it was you who said it was.

Quote:

Even if Pell incriminates himself there (which can't be used directly), his testimony can be used as "avenues of inquiry"... leading to paper trails, or to other perpetrators/witnesses.

Get real boxy. If the RC investigators have done their homework, they will already have whatever trail there is, and loaded the Counsels Assisting the RC with all that to question Pell about. You are kidding yourself if you think he is suddenly going break out with some sort of confession or tell them what they do not already know. (Assuming he has had competent legal advice....a given) he will already know exactly what they have in existing hard evidence.

Back to top

IP Logged

boxy

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 400
Gender: male

Re: Cardinal PELL running scared Royal Commission
Reply #59 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:41pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:35pm:

More abuse, but p_n can deal with that.

Good to know there is someone who can, without sooking.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 11:35pm:

Quote:

Even if Pell incriminates himself there (which can't be used directly), his testimony can be used as "avenues of inquiry"... leading to paper trails, or to other perpetrators/witnesses.

Get real boxy. If the RC investigators have done their homework, they will already have whatever trail there is, and loaded the Counsels Assisting the RC with all that to question Pell about. You are kidding yourself if you think he is suddenly going break out with some sort of confession or tell them what they do not already know. (Assuming he has had competent legal advice....a given) he will already know exactly what they have in existing hard evidence.

That's why they want him there. It's much harder to lie to someone's face, at least for the majority of us. And they want what is inside his brain... his testimony, and to be able to tease it out of him, dependent on his... squirming.

Back to top

IP Logged