🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Bain <bobb @ tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Kent Paul Dolan> <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> Bob Bain wrote:

>>> I was never convicted of violating Australia's
>>> "less than liberal" pornography regulations.

>> And yet you personally are the one who told me
>> so, and mentioned the fine you paid as a result,
>> and your public words, easily found online,
>> certainly imply the same reality, as for example
>> here, where you are explaining that your
>> "expertise" on the question of video pornography
>> is based on personal experience:

>>    "The fact that they haven't done so raises
>>    questions as to both police and political
>>    corruption (or ignorance) and given the fact
>>    I've met the police in courts of law I can say
>>    that it isn't out of ignorance and that
>>    'corruption' is a broad word."

> There's nothing in those statements that suggests
> that a fine was imposed on account of violating
> Australia's "less than liberal" pornography
> regulations.  The decision of the court (in
> imposing a fine) was wrong,

So you were convicted and a fine was imposed,
exactly as I said.

> and the wrongness of that decision has been
> confirmed by documents from the Government of
> Australia, and from other sources such as legal
> opinion and from verbal judgements of the
> Commonwealth Ombudsman's Department.  I chose not
> to challenge the decision of the court based on
> biased reporting after the event - although after
> the hearing the press who were present and
> listened to testimony never printed another word
> on the case.

> I have been advised to contest the decision.

That advice doesn't reverse the current reality.

> This requires a lawyer but it can be done -
> however I may chose not to contest the decision
> but to follow through with the correspondence with
> the Prime Minister of Australia and the Federal
> Attorney General in the new Labor government.  It
> was the current Minister for Home Affairs in the
> new Labor Government (the Hon Bob Debus) who
> advised me to address the matters of my concern
> (in the first instance) with the (former) Office
> of Film and Literature Classification.  He didn't
> say what happens then.  I am now awaiting a
> response from Kevin Rudd.

>> Or here, where you mention seizure of such video
>> tape you attempted to import, and whose import
>> was deemed unlawful:

>>    "I do not believe the listing is entirely
>>    complete as I cannot locate a film that *must*
>>    have been refused classification when I
>>    attempted to import it into this country."

>> xanthian, not retracting a damned thing.

> The seizure was unlawful as the wording of the
> Acts of the Australian Pariament do not refer to
> classification law but only to the fact that
> material can only be refused entry into Australia
> "to the extent they should not be imported".  I
> have since downloaded the movie and it contains no
> sexual activity whatsoever.  it is a very very
> tame film.

That interpretation _by you_ of one part of the law
which interpretation is both in direct conflict with
another part of the law and in direct conflict with
the behavior of customs suggests that it is only you
who find that seizure "unlawful". That doesn't
change the reality that you tried to import a tape
which customs confiscated as being forbidden for
import, nor does your later review of the tape
content as "tame" when interpreted under _your_
prejudices change that reality.

> I took this issue up with Australian Customs
> Department and took it directly to the former
> Federal Attorney General - Philip Ruddock and
> picked a film (misclassified) from the shelves of
> the Sydney Adult Book Exchange in Goulburn Street
> Sydney (quite "well known" to the New South Wales
> Police Department - believe me ! ) and requested
> permission to import it.

> Importation was refused

Which again confirms the above mentioned reality.

> - possibly because it fell outside the
> classfication guidelines revised at the "turn of
> the century" and the film was produced later than
> the revised guidelines were put into place proving
> that the film (although misclassfied which is
> illegal) had somehow passed customs as do many of
> the imports of the Eros Association (ask Fiona
> Patten of the Body Politic in Australia about
> that).

Which again has no suasion to exculpate you.

> I really don't have time to delve into all the
> points but I will point out that the suggestion
> that I have ever been convicted of crime involving
> either the possession or sale of illegal material
> in the State of New South Wales is incorrect.

And yet you just admitted exactly that.

> There is only one category of film that falls into
> that category and that is "child pornography".

That is _your_ self-interested interpretation. The
many police raids you mention online confiscating
videos which were _not_ child pornography insists
that not only are you wrong in that interpretation,
but that the reality of the law is quite otherwise,
and again, you have published as much, that it is
also illegal to import/sell "unclassified" material.

> I have seen plenty for sale in Sydney - given that
> the Federal Government have never required age
> verification for imports - but I wouldn't touch
> such material with a bargepole.

That the police are lazy and wish the issue would go
away again has exactly no power to overturn the
reality of your conviction and fine for the reality
that you committed at least one illegal act.

Not one drunk in ten staggering down the sidewalk
here gets arrested. That doesn't make "public
intoxication" somehow suddenly legal in Phoenix.
It just means the police find better uses for
their time than arresting every stumbling drunk.

> I have covered these issues in other forums and in
> correspondence with lawyers and the government(s)
> of Australia.

Yes you have. The material you have posted online
convicts you from your own keyboard, and your
"correspondence" has no power to overturn reality.

So your previous claims that I was libeling you were
false in every detail, and your pretense that you
were somehow "innocent" are based entirely on
your bizarre and apparently mentally ill
interpretations of government inaction, and on no
legal grounds whatsoever.

Thanks, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Now there's no particular need to publish private
email.

I'd suggest that it is long, long past time you
faced your conviction as being entirely the result
of your own illegal actions, faced that you were
guilty as hell, full stop, dropped your obsession
with the pornography laws of Australia, dropped your
obsession with pornography, dropped your paranoia
that you were somehow singled out for government
persecution, and got on with what's left of your
life without the burden of trying to make yourself
innocent by revision of history of that of which you
were guilty in history as it occurred.

If your luck is as bad as mine, you may have 30 or
more years of living left to do. This isn't a way
you should choose to live them.

xanthian, happy new year; why not make it one.

"Inaction" is what bureaucrats _do_, trying to use
it as a basis for professing innocence of laws for
the breaking of which you were tried and convicted
is one with the rest of your off kilter descriptions
of reality.

Inhabit whatever universe you want in your mind, but
tailor your behavior to the one in which your body
lives, or suffer the obvious consequences.