If this vital issue is kept undisclosed before the up coming federal elections, the future elected government would NOT be seen by the Australian voting public as being genuinely Constitutional. This is because the NON disclosure of such a vital issue would produce a flawed election result in the sense that the NON DISCLOSURE would continue to have a HUGE IMPACT on not only the state of the national economy but also on the long term security of employment in Australia ... as well as prolong the current slump in tourism.
When there is COLLUSION between the Judiciary and the Executive Government, the Judiciary is NO LONGER INDEPENDENT.
When there is COLLUSION between the Judiciary and the Executive Government, A Government that is said to be DEMOCRATIC is NO LONGER DEMOCRATIC when it allows two thirds (2/3) of itself to become AUTOCRATIC.
The DUTY of the democratically elected NEW Legislative Government is to restore a TRUE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT in accordance with what is stated in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.
If the royalties that have been recovered and repatriated to Australia from the secret bank accounts in Switzerland where the said royalties had been defalcated ... are not credited to the TRUE AUTHOR of the original artistic work upon which the film at point was based ... the ATO will be seen to be in the ILLEGAL POSSESSION of a substantial amount of funds ...
Is there anybody out there who knows the MEANING of the above terminology ?? Ironically, we are yet to come across a person who does in Australia ...
After viewing the PROCESS OF ELIMINATION right through to the ultimate ISOLATION of the TRUE identity of the veritable author of the original artistic work upon which the film at point was based -- as is published under the HEADING "ORIGINAL CLAIM" -- the viewer is invited to verify what is published under the HEADINGS "DIRECT PROOF" and "TALLY HO" ...
One does not have to be a professional investigator to draw the OBVIOUS CONCLUSION (from the collection of vital evidence listed below) that the clients of the lawyers who insist today that the author should produce his original artistic work in the form of a MANUSCRIPT in hard copy WRITTEN form, have always been in POSSESSION of the AUDIO RECORDING that had been made since May 1984 :
1. The author’s 96 Markers have been incorporated in the finished product (i.e. the film at point itself) by the
2. The Markers put in place in the system by the Federal Government itself (i.e. in telephone directories, electoral rolls and in the form of a counterfeit copy of a birth certificate etc.) to establish that the pen name “Ken Shadie” that the true author had used since 1984 was only a PSEUDONYM at the time.
[Refer to website under the Headings : “Metamorphosis” and “Sham Addresses”]
3. The Federal Government (through the Australian Film Commission) had (since 1985) certified the film at point as an Australian film, so that the film could qualify for the 10BA Tax Incentive scheme.
The material published throughout this web site will demonstrate how the ORIGINAL CLAIM that was made all the way back since the month of May 1984, with regards to the original ownership of the copyright in the original story and also in the original screenplay for the film titled ?Crocodile Dundee? was ESTABLISHED AND SECURED since that point in time (i.e. since May 1984).
The ORIGINAL CLAIM was ESTABLISHED and SECURED by means of a tactical strategy which was simultaneously devised while the creation of the ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY ? which was based on the author?s own original story for the said film ? was being devised.
The tactical strategy devised since May 1984 consisted (intentionally) of 96 markers inserted within the story line for the said film, featuring ONE MARKER at every ONE MINUTE interval of the film's entire duration ? and this happening consistently during the pre-planned entire 96 minute duration of the projected (future) film, the release for exhibition of which had been decided since that point in time (i.e. since May 1984) to be in 1986.
The INFALLIBILITY of the said tactical strategy is BEYOND DISPUTE, simply because a considerable number of these 96 markers are based on real life occurrences, the authenticity of which can be verified by accessing the corresponding publications which have on record the exact dates on which these real life occurrences actually took place and/or by viewing the affidavits that the author's witnesses have consented to provide to that effect.
These publications are held by major libraries across
The affidavits provided by the author's witnesses can be viewed under the HEADING titled "FORENSIC EVIDENCE" which features on every screen of this web site.
Another reason for creating this tactical strategy at the time, was to EXCEED the basic security provision of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968, which requires an author to SIMPLY affix on the subject matter which seeks copyright protection; the date on which the original work is completed, the name of the author and the copyright logo of "C" in a circle.
The various dates on which the original story was ACTUALLY BEING CREATED among several other security features of the said tactical strategy SURELY EXCEEDS this very basic security provision of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968.
The reason why the tactical strategy devised since May 1984 exceeds the basic security provision of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968 is that any DISHONEST person could easily fabricate a manuscript based on the said film?s story line ? AFTER HAVING VIEWED THE FILM (post the release of the said film for exhibition worldwide) and affix a date on the said fabricated manuscript that has been BACK-DATED by several years ...
There is no method, or any other system in existence to date, that can be used to prove that a back-dated manuscript IS NOT AN "AUTHENTIC" original work!
The conspicuous POINT OF SUBSTANCE that applies to the use of this tactical strategy since May 1984, is the UNQUESTIONABLE sequential order of occurrence between the point in time when the ORIGINAL CLAIM was established and secured since May 1984, and the point in time when the very first COUNTER CLAIM was made and published in the magazine Rydges in March 1985.
This sequential order of occurrence is the ESSENTIAL factor that needs to be considered when making the determination with respect to WHICH CLAIM is in fact the ORIGINAL CLAIM and WHICH CLAIM is the VERY FIRST COUNTER CLAIM.
This determination relies UNQUESTIONABLY on the date when the original claim was established and secured since
There is no doubt whatsoever that consensus of opinion among lawyers of good repute would be UNANIMOUS (with the exception of random opinions from some dishonest Boganite or Bolshevist lawyers) that
The creation of this tactical strategy would NOT have been necessary in May 1984, had normal legal channels been employed, instead of the covert action that was used to ambush the author, in order to illegally obtain a wealth of Intellectual Property from him (the author) through an act of extortion.
The author being aware since May 1984 of the adversarial nature of the Justice System in existence in Australia - which system is based incidentally on the same principle as that of the Westminster Statute (i.e. the two opposites co-existing within the same entity) -- devised the said tactical strategy with the exclusive purpose that no door would be left open for any would-be plagiarist or prospective counter claimant to possibly come up with some hypothetical VALID ADVERSE CONTENTION (that was anticipated to be possibly made in the future) in an attempt to support a possible future FRAUDULENT COUNTER CLAIM with regards to the ownership of the original copyright in the said ORIGINAL STORY, as well as the ownership of the original copyright in the ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY for the film.
The author was also aware since that point in time, that the audio magnetic tape recording that was used to record the entire screenplay (with all parts - i.e. male, female & transvestite) being played by the author himself, as well as the author narrating the description of both static and kinesic scenes, would not be accepted as evidence in any Court of Justice anywhere in the world ... or even qualify as legal evidence ? simply because it was considered (even by the Australian Judiciary itself at that point in time) that an audio magnetic tape recording could easily be edited or dubbed at any point in time in the future, so as to create the FALSE IMPRESSION that the material contained in the original artistic work, as well as the date as to when it was completed (as recorded on the audio magnetic tape) are authentic.
It was in fact widely known at the time that -- precisely for this very reason -- the use of audio magnetic tape recordings were strictly forbidden in courts of law anywhere in the world, including in
In contrast, the INFALLIBILITY of the tactical strategy was secured by the IMPOSSIBILITY that any future counter claimant (or future would-be plagiarist) could CONVERT the fabricated initial blatant FALLACY (that was also DELIBERATE) and published in the magazine "Rydges" into THE TRUTH -- or even into anything that could VAGUELY resemble the TRUTH.
It is UNDENIABLE, therefore, that the original claim is in fact the AUTHENTIC ORIGINAL CLAIM which had been established and secured since May 1984, and every other claim subsequently made AFTER the publication of the VERY FIRST COUNTER CLAIM made and published in the magazine "Rydges" on the 30th of March 1985, are also ALL COUNTER CLAIMS including the COUNTER CLAIMS made by Messrs. Hogan and Cornell themselves post March 1985.
This is simply because ALL subsequent COUNTER CLAIMS (so far) are all similar in nature, as well as contain the same blatant and deliberate fallacy contained in the initial article published in the magazine "Rydges" on
It goes without saying that the latest claim made by Mr. Anthony Templeton of the Brisbane Sunday Mail on
[ The said Sunday Mail article dated 3rd of October 2010 can be viewed under the heading titled : " MEDIA ILLUSION" of this same website ]
Any decent person today (with the exception of some Bolshevist lawyers) would make the recognition in good faith that the LAW places the ONUS on ALL COUNTER CLAIMANTS to substantiate their "fraudulent" COUNTER CLAIMS, and that the LAW cannot possibly place the ONUS on the ORIGINAL CLAIMANT who had already established and secured his ORIGINAL CLAIM since May 1984 by means of the afore mentioned set of 96 markers.
It needs to be remembered that the author's ORIGINAL CLAIM that was made to be a FORGONE CONCLUSION since May 1984 was in fact CONFIRMED in December 2001 before the Federal Court of Australia in
What the author considered at the time that he (the author) would need to do IN THE FUTURE would be TO SIMPLY CONFIRM HIS ORIGINAL CLAIM (that was established and secured by means of the set of 96 markers since May 1984) by producing the ONLY LEGAL and FORENSIC EVIDENCE that dated all the way back to that point in time, in order to retrospectively prove the material facts listed in the entire set of 96 markers that were devised since May 1984 ? and which set of 96 markers would TODAY undeniably qualify as a list of material facts contained in a pre-emptive "statement of claim" that had been drafted and put together since May 1984.
We reiterate that this CONFIRMATION actually took place MATERIALLY before the Federal Court of Australia in
On account of the recent discovery that TAX HAS NOT BEEN PAID out of the massive amount of funds ($ 150M.) that have been laundered overseas and hidden in secret bank accounts, it becomes more than evident that the people who associate themselves TODAY with the said act of extortion that was committed since May 1984, now have a SECOND MOTIVE ... and this second motive (TODAY) is to protect this MASSIVE TAX EVASION SCHEME.
Any person failing to make the recognition in good faith TODAY as to the true identity of the author of the original artistic work, and upon which the said film was based, would automatically associate himself or herself with the elements who have recently been charged with TAX EVASION and MONEY LAUNDERING.
This is so as a result of the latter people's defalcation of the author's royalties entitlement which were incorporated in the massive amount of funds which have been laundered to secret bank accounts overseas.
In the eyes of the LAW, the people who associate themselves TODAY with the said act of extortion that was committed since May 1984, when covert action was used to ambush the author, CANNOT INSIST that the author produces a MANUSCRIPT in hard copy form and containing his original work (TODAY) simply because it is something that these people themselves had made to be an IMPOSSIBLE TASK since May 1984, by using COVERT ACTION to ambush the author ? (with the purpose of obtaining a wealth of Intellectual Property from the author through an act of extortion) ? instead of using normal legal channels.
So, with foresight of a possible future demand being imposed on the author that he should imperatively produce his original work as a MANUSCRIPT in hard copy written FORM for copyright to subsist in his original artistic work, the author considered at the time that such a demand would automatically reveal a CLOSE CONNECTION between the people making this hypothetical future demand and the people who had used covert action in May 1984 to ambush him (i.e. the author) and illegally obtain a wealth of intellectual property from him, through an act of extortion.
Looking at this case from a LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, the SALIENT point of substance that comes to light is : The insistence on the part of the Federal Court in V682/01 that the applicant should produce his original artistic work essentially as a MANUSCRIPT in hard copy WRITTEN FORM, reveals a CLOSE CONNECTION between the lawyers making this imperative demand ... and the people who had illegally obtained the wealth of Intellectual Property from the author in May 1984 through an act of extortion.
This is simply because such an imperative demand reveals the existence of a COMMON MOTIVE between these lawyers and the people who had committed the said act of extortion in May 1984. This common motive would be driven quite evidently by the same underlying intention to ILLEGALLY DENY the author the royalties entitlement legitimately owing to him (i.e. the author) for the exploitation of his original artistic work.
The imputation which naturally follows is that the above mentioned imperative demand would be seen as being not only motivated by the same underlying intention from BOTH GROUPS of people (then and now) I.E. - (1) To not only RETAIN THE ROYALTIES ENTITLEMENT which legitimately belong to the author, but (2) to ALSO PROTECT THE MASSIVE TAX EVASION SCHEME entered into, when the author's royalties entitlement, that were part of the massive amount of funds ($ 150 M.) which have been defalcated, laundered and hidden in secret bank accounts overseas, without the tax owing to the ATO being paid.
Any decent person would assume that the LAW applies EQUALLY to both litigants in any law suit.
Honest Australians would be horrified, however, to discover (through the material published throughout this web site) that some people have assigned some special privileges to themselves, by considering their FRAUDULENT COUNTER CLAIMS (that are all based on the same DELIBERATE FALLACY that had been initially published by the media starting from March 1985) to be ABOVE THE LAW.
These people delude themselves to believe that they are exempt from any legal obligation to PROVIDE PROOF of their alleged ?original authorship? of the ORIGINAL STORY for the said film by means of legal evidence. These people also delude themselves to believe that they are exempt from any legal obligation to make the recognition in good faith that the Law PLACES THE ONUS ON THEMSELVES to prove the alleged "MATERIAL FACTS" of their FRAUDULENT COUNTER CLAIMS with evidence that qualifies as LEGAL EVIDENCE.
There is NO LEGAL EVIDENCE in existence today which demonstrates that there is an ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT in HARD COPY FORM having on record an ORIGINAL STORY created by either Mr. Paul Hogan and/or Mr. John Cornell. It simply DOES NOT EXIST !!
On the other hand, there is legal evidence in the form of individual Form 250's signed prior to the production of the film by the afore mentioned gentlemen and dated the 24th of May 1985 - DENYING ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE CREATION OF THE ORIGINAL STORY - that can be viewed on this very same web site under the heading titled : "ESTOPPEL" which features in the menu list at the top of each and every screen of this web site.
The same applies to the non existence of an ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT in HARD COPY FORM having on record an ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY which was either devised by Mr. Paul Hogan and/or Mr. John Cornell ... or even by the other person who had also used the pseudonym "Ken Shadie" in the distant past.
In addition to the said legal evidence that can be viewed under the heading titled : "ESTOPPEL", there is an affirmation by one of the three (3) persons who are ALL alleged to have the same exact name of Kenneth George Shadie and who had allegedly CONVERTED the author?s original screenplay -- by adding some input in the form of material written on "loose bits of paper" -- into the FINAL SCREENPLAY that was actually used during the actual shoot of the said film (right at the end of an article published in the magazine New Idea on the 7th of June 1986) that Mr. Hogan had ONLY "provided some input" to the said FINAL SCREENPLAY in the form of material recorded on "loose bits of paper".
Consensus of opinion would be unanimous among lawyers of good repute today, that loose bits of paper are a far cry from a 180 page screenplay - let alone a 600 page original story in the form of, say, an original manuscript for a novel.
The point of substance that stands out here is that the BASIC SECURITY PROVISION of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968, that requires an author to simply produce his or her original work in the form of a MANUSCRIPT in HARD COPY FORM, and on which MANUSCRIPT is affixed the date when the original work is completed, the name of the author and the copyright logo of ?C? in a circle, has been EXCEEDED by the strategy devised by the true author of the ORIGINAL STORY for the film "Crocodile Dundee" since May 1984 !!!
Why seek less when you have more ??
[If NOTHING is LESS than any amount (large or small) then LESS has to be MORE than NOTHING]
(See material published under heading titled "Estoppel")
The primary purpose of bringing the Internet into existence - when the detailed blueprint to that effect was devised in 1984 - was to give a voice to EVERYBODY.
It would appear that there is now a bunch of AUTOCRATIC misfits who are determined to return the MONOPOLY over the control of information back to mainstream media.
If the Australian voting public allows such an OUTRAGEOUS ASSAULT on their DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS to take place in August 2011, it will certainly be seen retrospectively then as having been self inflicted 12 months before hand.