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

[van peebles]

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.

facetious,
well done
if you cant read what justice hannaford said on vague asada accounts page 215
your over doing the ACC
im only giving you the FACTS

 

[Gigantor]

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.

perhaps the ACC makes a distinction between "evidence" and admin details

 

[Armchair Critic]

When providing evidence you are only immune from later prosecution if you tell the Australian Crime Commission that the evidence might be self incriminating before giving the evidence. If you do tell the Australian Crime Commission , your response to those questions cannot be used as evidence against you in later criminal proceedings.
However, the authorities can use your answers to collect other evidence against you. For example they may ask you where a murder weapon is. You could advise the Australian Crime Commission that the evidence might be self incriminating and they cannot use your answer against you. They could however locate the weapon from where you said it was hidden and perhaps find your DNA or fingerprints on the weapon. The murder weapon, fingerprint and DNA evidence can be used against you.
http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/commissions/australian-crime-commission

To me that seems like ASADA could say to Dank , where is your phone or computer and then use anything they find on it.
Or Ask what Dr's he used and go and gather prescription records among other things

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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.

yeah, that's a ridiculously hyperbolic cartoonish interpretation of his views and you know it

 

[Lance Uppercut]

crucify the dissenters!!!

 

[van peebles]

When providing evidence you are only immune from later prosecution if you tell the Australian Crime Commission that the evidence might be self incriminating before giving the evidence. If you do tell the Australian Crime Commission , your response to those questions cannot be used as evidence against you in later criminal proceedings.
However, the authorities can use your answers to collect other evidence against you. For example they may ask you where a murder weapon is. You could advise the Australian Crime Commission that the evidence might be self incriminating and they cannot use your answer against you. They could however locate the weapon from where you said it was hidden and perhaps find your DNA or fingerprints on the weapon. The murder weapon, fingerprint and DNA evidence can be used against you.
http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/commissions/australian-crime-commission

To me that seems like ASADA could say to Dank , where is your phone or computer and then use anything they find on it.
Or Ask what Dr's he used and go and gather prescription records among other things

yep
btw,nobody has said dank was "summoned to appear"
he may have been asked and his legal representative took the chance to give him a free pass
hope you understood justice hannafords words
at least you took the time to read them
credit to you

 

[Armchair Critic]

yeah, that's a ridiculously hyperbolic cartoonish interpretation of his views and you know it

All the legislation that can be found does not back his views one bit though

 

[TerryWallet]

crucify the dissenters!!!

lololol.....

 

[Lance Uppercut]

lololol.....

needs more bold text

 

[Laphroaig]

facetious,
well done
if you cant read what justice hannaford said on vague asada accounts page 215
your over doing the ACC
im only giving you the FACTS

Name dropping, well done. It does no more for your credibility than the pointless capitalization.

I did read it. And you've grossly misinterpreted it.

The amendments to the Act permitting information sharing explicitly carry the condition that information passed on by the ACC to other agencies can not be used as evidence in any prosecution by that agency. They are required to independently gather their own evidence, within the limitations of the law and their own powers.

Your assumption that no other agency or authority is permitted to independently gather such information is utterly unjustified.

 

[van peebles]

All the legislation that can be found does not back his views one bit though

read the top of post 69
and read it slowly

 

[Armchair Critic]

read the top of post 69
and read it slowly

The top of post 69 states "Yep"

 

[van peebles]

Name dropping, well done. It does no more for your credibility than the pointless capitalization.

I did read it. And you've grossly misinterpreted it.

The amendments to the Act permitting information sharing explicitly carry the condition that information passed on by the ACC to other agencies can not be used as evidence in any prosecution by that agency. They are required to independently gather their own evidence, within the limitations of the law and their own powers.

Your assumption that no other agency or authority is permitted to independently gather such information is utterly unjustified.

ive never said that,your now bs ing
i said HIS evidence at the ACC
ive never said that people cant gather other evidence
so stop making that up
im only writing on here to help people understand the situation
if you want to play silly little 7 yo games i can do that to

 

[TerryWallet]

needs more bold text

Instead of bantering, how about giving VP/GG a hand in holding back the crucifying hordes lol.

The faux indignation is quite humorous btw

 

[Armchair Critic]

ive never said that,your now bs ing
i said HIS evidence at the ACC
ive never said that people cant gather other evidence
so stop making that up
im only writing on here to help people understand the situation
if you want to play silly little 7 yo games i can do that to

We are stating they can gather the SAME evidence but as long as they do it through their own accord

 

[van peebles]

We are stating they can gather the SAME evidence but as long as they do it through their own accord

yeah your right again
enjoy the next 120 pages of circle work
im buggered and need a beer
and being wrong about things kills my appetite

 

[I Rock]

ive never said that,your now bs ing
i said HIS evidence at the ACC
ive never said that people cant gather other evidence
so stop making that up
im only writing on here to help people understand the situation
if you want to play silly little 7 yo games i can do that to

No you are not, you are doing the exact same this as you (I mean GG sorry) did with the arbitrator argument. You are making an argument for argument sake and cryptically telling us all that we already know.

We know that nobody (if the ACC choose so) can ask for the evidence the ACC hold and use it to prosecute. WE ALL GET THAT; IT WAS ******* AKNOWLEGED EONS AGO!

however you are rabbiting on
about all kinds of
bullshit to
try to make
yourself
seem smart and saying read this post
the acc can
dank this
at every possible post
and trying for some god unknown reason
to give the impression
that the acc have the power to do as they please
then when someone rightly points
out your
mistake you go back to the
i am just saying nobody can take the acc evidence and use that evidence
to prosecute
i never said they couldn't get there own

Seriously do you have a bet to out BSE, BSE?

 

[Laphroaig]

ive never said that,your now bs ing
i said HIS evidence at the ACC
ive never said that people cant gather other evidence
so stop making that up
im only writing on here to help people understand the situation
if you want to play silly little 7 yo games i can do that to

If the ACC pass it on. Nothing prohibits other authorities, agencies (and even private organisations) gathering the same evidence independently.

Carry on though. And it appears on very short exposure that playing 7YO games with you would be a losing game. I can recognize talent when I see it.

BTW. Have a think about the fact that the vast majority of information held by the ACC is a mystery to everyone else. If you explore that avenue you will find an opportunity to look truly foolish.

 

[tigerwill]

Maybe we should all stick to the topic and save the snide remarks. I include myself in this.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Yeh I reckon the ACC were sooo interested in Danks operation that they gave him full immunity adfinitum for his measly morsels of intel,so he smirks to us from the restaurant at the end of the universe!
Yerp that sounds about right

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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.

Not being a lawyer, I'm getting lost here.

Surely the evidence is the content of the documents and other information, and not tied in any way to a particular copy of them. The computer is not the evidence in and of itself.
If that is true, and I admit I am surmising out of ignorance, wouldn't that mean that any exemption that might come into play because of the ACC holding those documents be the same, regardless of the format or location.

Should other documents come to light that the ACC does not have, that would be different.

 

[I Rock]

Not being a lawyer, I'm getting lost here.

Surely the evidence is the content of the documents and other information, and not tied in any way to a particular copy of them. The computer is not the evidence in and of itself.
If that is true, and I admit I am surmising out of ignorance, wouldn't that mean that any exemption that might come into play because of the ACC holding those documents be the same, regardless of the format or location.

Should other documents come to light that the ACC does not have, that would be different.

Not sure; however from the way I gathered VP was talking the ACC have the ownership to that piece of evidence, not what the evidence implies.

Therefor I took it as the ACC have the control of the emails on Dank's computer; but not the ones sent and received to other parties. I was asking about if Dank had attached a document on email then the sent email and document are up for grabs. Even thought the original document is being held by the ACC.

 

[DesertRoo]

Not sure; however from the way I gathered VP was talking the ACC have the ownership to that piece of evidence, not what the evidence implies.

Therefor I took it as the ACC have the control of the emails on Dank's computer; but not the ones sent and received to other parties. I was asking about if Dank had attached a document on email then the sent email and document are up for grabs. Even thought the original document is being held by the ACC.

It's a stupid argument, if the documents are subpoenaed they will be passed on. The only way they wouldn't is if they have been obtained using the extraordinary powers of the ACC ie phone taps, witness statements.
The civil case has just as much power in this regard to ask for the documents

 

[QuietB]

Point being everyone has made up their mind already - way to miss it

That is because everyone knows what happened, including Essendon supporters. All there is left to do is prove it.

 

[spenze]

Just to interrupt this for a second, he has nine days now.

I wonder if he has a hungry dog because that's the only way I can see him getting out of this