Stephen Dank has 11 days to hand over papers about supplement program to former Sharks players

[van peebles]

So what you are trying to tell us, if I understand what you are saying, that dank does not have to talk to ANYONE ever again about this issue because he's already told everything to the ACC? Is that what you are saying?

yes,unless ACC cut him loose
his evidence is secreted unless otherwise said

 

[van peebles]

I understand two things of all your statements.

1. You sentence structure and grammar do not have the same level of intellect that you are trying so very hard to portray with your condescending answers.

2. Do you understand that any digital document saved to server, emailed, saved to a portable device etc. Means multiple copies. Even IF the ACC have taken the originals and stored them in the ACC Fort Knox Evidence Room for them to never ever see the light of day. Because by your own admission (you being the expert on all things covert ACC) the ACC does not have control over "Cyberspace". Any investigation could gather these copies that they have found and or court ordered. Unless Dank only ever saved to a laptop not hook up to any server and never shared any files (digital or hard copy) their a copies all over the joint.

Unless of course you are going to now tell me that the ACC also get exclusive creative content rights to all of their collected evidence as well.

Please tell me you understand this. I would hate to have to repeat myself and have you answer a different question that I didn't ask again.

i told you they didnt own "cyberspace"if you read the post

 

[jerry springer]

yes,unless ACC cut him loose
his evidence is secreted unless otherwise said

very highly doubtful. he is a sports "scientist" not a cartel drug baron

 

[jenny61_99]

will his ",ive given my evidence to the ACC and you have to ask them"
the ACC has no authority over common law
but it has the right to protect a closed witness statement{114th time}
interesting to see if civil court will get whats required
ps.i didnt make the rules and didnt profess what would happen

Reading the ACC ACT 2002 these two clauses give us reason to believe that evidence given to the ACC can indeed be used in a court of law.

(12) If:

(a) a person has been charged with an offence before a federal court or before a court of a State or Territory; and

(b) the court considers that it may be desirable in the interests of justice that particular evidence given before an examiner, being evidence in relation to which the examiner has given a direction under subsection (9), be made available to the person or to a legal practitioner representing the person;

the court may give to the examiner or to the CEO a certificate to that effect and, if the court does so, the examiner or the CEO, as the case may be, must make the evidence available to the court.

(13) If:

(a) the examiner or the CEO makes evidence available to a court in accordance with subsection (12); and

(b) the court, after examining the evidence, is satisfied that the interests of justice so require;

the court may make the evidence available to the person charged with the offence concerned or to a legal practitioner representing the person.

So although this situation is different in that Dank is not being charged with anything (yet), the ACC can certainly allow for evidence given by anyone to them in an investigation to be released to both the court and his legal representative. So what you are saying is actually incorrect.

 

[Armchair Critic]

very highly doubtful. he is a sports "scientist" not a cartel drug baron

He is not even a Sports Scientist

 

[van peebles]

btw,small pebble im not trying to portray anything
just giving you the same facts i gave you 1 month ago
he doesnt have to give evidence that he has given to the ACC
that doesnt mean he will never enter a court again
it doesnt other agencies will find other evidence elsewhere
now im portraying hot and bothered and need a beer

 

[Laphroaig]

no i did not
if DANK has had evidence{115 time}heard at ACC,
when he goes to another court or appears at another authority and they ask for him to answer a question or produce a document
he[dank] can answer "this document has been logged{already heard] by the ACC
ask them{for the 117 time}
that court or authority will have to ask the ACC [for the 49th time]permission for that evidence if required
the ACC[for the 128th time]dont have to hand over that information to any authority in the COMMONWEALTH
please tell me you understand this

AS you are so knowledgable, you will of course be able to reference your 128th time opinions.

Some of which go beyond flawed interpretation and are actual bullshit.

 

[I Rock]

i told you they didnt own "cyberspace"if you read the post

I never said you did; if you read the post.

 

[van peebles]

read retired federal court justice hannaford
ive written this before ,so you can go back and find the post if you want
i would imagine and only imagine that unless its a "common law" case,you have no hope of evidence being released.jenny

 

[van peebles]

AS you are so knowledgable, you will of course be able to reference your 128th time opinions.

Some of which go beyond flawed interpretation and are actual bullshit.

yep your right

 

[I Rock]

btw,small pebble im not trying to portray anything
just giving you the same facts i gave you 1 month ago
he doesnt have to give evidence that he has given to the ACC
that doesnt mean he will never enter a court again
it doesnt other agencies will find other evidence elsewhere
now im portraying hot and bothered and need a beer

And that's the point I am trying to reach here; as the ACC don't own "Cyberspace" or any of it's affiliates even if Dank says to the court "Suck an Egg you can't have it. The ACC have my computer and you can't have it." Then Dank kicks back with that stupid smug smile of his stupid face. The prosecution says something along the lines of "Motion to access email correspondence from host provider, server files etc" and the stupid smug smile on his stupid smug face goes bye bye.

 

[van peebles]

And that's the point I am trying to reach here; as the ACC don't own "Cyberspace" or any of it's affiliates even if Dank says to the court "Suck an Egg you can't have it. The ACC have my computer and you can't have it." Then Dank kicks back with that stupid smug smile of his stupid face. The prosecution says something along the lines of "Motion to access email correspondence from host provider, server files etc" and the stupid smug smile on his stupid smug face goes bye bye.

do you think the ACC wants dank to stand up in a civil court and dirty ongoing investigations into importation and distribution
cases which they have invested 1,000s of manhours and shared information with interpol and other authorities.
but your probably right,the courts will do that

 

[Argy]

Jurisdictions aren't exclusive. Neither is evidence. Two separate investigative bodies are entitled to ask a witness for the same evidence. Law enforcement agencies are allowed to share evidence in many circumstances.

 

[Armchair Critic]

do you think the ACC wants dank to stand up in a civil court and dirty ongoing investigations into importation and distribution
cases which they have invested 1,000s of manhours and shared information with interpol and other authorities.
but your probably right,the courts will do that

Dank has threatened to sue everybody , can the ACC stop him doing that as well

 

[van peebles]

Jurisdictions aren't exclusive. Neither is evidence. Two separate investigative bodies are entitled to ask a witness for the same evidence. Law enforcement agencies are allowed to share evidence in many circumstances.

under "common law" i think yes
a senoir victorian detective went to court and the ACC released documents involving the case
as it was murder{common law}they had no choice but to release the evidence

 

[van peebles]

Dank has threatened to sue everybody , can the ACC stop him doing that as well

dunno

 

[Laphroaig]

yep your right

So you can't reference your opinion.

 

[jenny61_99]

read retired federal court justice hannaford
ive written this before ,so you can go back and find the post if you want
i would imagine and only imagine that unless its a "common law" case,you have no hope of evidence being released.jenny

I think you have interpreted things incorrectly. There is no way Dank can refuse to give testimony or hand over evidence in his possession because he testified to the ACC. That is just completely illogical. It is also obvious that the ACC has mechanisms in place that allows either the examiners or CEO to release information to the courts if requested by the courts.

 

[I Rock]

do you think the ACC wants dank to stand up in a civil court and dirty ongoing investigations into importation and distribution
cases which they have invested 1,000s of manhours and shared information with interpol and other authorities.
but your probably right,the courts will do that

So wait I'm a little lost here; some would have us believe that the ACC are nothing more than another toothless Government Agency. However your trying to tell me that the ACC powers are so strong and widespread; that they have the ability to dictate a Civil Court case that they have no direct involvement in.

Wow wee, are the ACC going to go all 1984 on us?

 

[van peebles]

So wait I'm a little lost here; some would have us believe that the ACC are nothing more than another toothless Government Agency. However your trying to tell me that the ACC powers are so strong and widespread; that they have the ability to dictate a Civil Court case that they have no direct involvement in.

Wow wee, are the ACC going to go all 1984 on us?

no never said that
read what justice hannaford said its on page 215 asada vague accounts

 

[jerry springer]

do you think the ACC wants dank to stand up in a civil court and dirty ongoing investigations into importation and distribution
cases which they have invested 1,000s of manhours and shared information with interpol and other authorities.
but your probably right,the courts will do that

once again I think you give Dank too much credit and knowledge.

 

[boncer34]

About bloody time.

 

[Laphroaig]

I think you have interpreted things incorrectly. There is no way Dank can refuse to give testimony or hand over evidence in his possession because he testified to the ACC. That is just completely illogical. It is also obvious that the ACC has mechanisms in place that allows either the examiners or CEO to release information to the courts if requested by the courts.

VP seems to think that all information ever in the possession of the ACC is confidential evidence.

So Dank is immune to speeding fines (the ACC has his drivers licence details, thus he can not be compelled to hand over his licence by Mr Plod.) The ACC has his address and phone number, so he must be deleted from the phone book, and it is an offence to send him mail. The ACC has his name, so we must never speak or write it again.

 

[jerry springer]

About bloody time.

Yep, the day the weasel finally has to answer some questions will be finally a step in the right direction for all parties

 

[TerryWallet]

van peebles, i think you forget that the ACC want people like Dank done on the Drugs in Sport issue. Their CEO made quite a big deal of it remember.