.png@webp "logo title")
In a current matter before the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) the Applicant Port Stephens Council seeks an order against Respondent Telina Webb. That order is to effectively impede her ability to seek access to NSW government information through the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Section 110.
Section 110 uses terms such as ‘restraining order’ as though there has been some kind of violence or threatening behaviours on the part of the intended target.
The truth is Webb has easily and repeatedly exposed Port Stephens Council’s engaging in corrupt conduct and unconscionable conduct occasioned by it Governance Manager / Corporate Policeman Tony Leslie Wickham.
Wickham wanted Webb stopped and he viewed a Section 110 Order was the way to go about it. Wickham was unsuccessful in his earlier application for an order against Webb, but this time the stakes had been raised with an ex-puisne judge now sitting in NCAT suggesting to ‘revisit the Section 110’ and coaching Council ‘I need lots of documentation!’
And so now here Wickham was with his Sworn Affidavit tucked under his arm and his big box of documents, understandably brimming with confidence he’d get his wish this time around.
The Affidavit is a big document totalling (33) thirty three pages, most of which is a chronology of interactions and communications between Port Stephens Council and Telina Webb.
Breaches of Codes of Conduct, complaints to NSW regulatory bodies, proceedings in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), requests for access to NSW government information, even a report to NSW police; each one supported by evidentiary material.
And so Wickham filed a lengthy Sworn Affidavit to support his fat box of papers; he would explain everything, he would set out Webb’s atrocious behaviours that demanded nothing less than an order designed to make her stop; even though that is not the purpose of a Section 110 Order. It's not likely he lacked the comprehension of what a Section 110 Order can actually do.
Section 110 uses terms such as ‘restraining order’ as though there has been some kind of violence or threatening behaviours on the part of the intended target.
The truth is Webb has easily and repeatedly exposed Port Stephens Council’s engaging in corrupt conduct and unconscionable conduct occasioned by it Governance Manager / Corporate Policeman Tony Leslie Wickham.
Wickham wanted Webb stopped and he viewed a Section 110 Order was the way to go about it. Wickham was unsuccessful in his earlier application for an order against Webb, but this time the stakes had been raised with an ex-puisne judge now sitting in NCAT suggesting to ‘revisit the Section 110’ and coaching Council ‘I need lots of documentation!’
And so now here Wickham was with his Sworn Affidavit tucked under his arm and his big box of documents, understandably brimming with confidence he’d get his wish this time around.
The Affidavit is a big document totalling (33) thirty three pages, most of which is a chronology of interactions and communications between Port Stephens Council and Telina Webb.
Breaches of Codes of Conduct, complaints to NSW regulatory bodies, proceedings in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), requests for access to NSW government information, even a report to NSW police; each one supported by evidentiary material.
And so Wickham filed a lengthy Sworn Affidavit to support his fat box of papers; he would explain everything, he would set out Webb’s atrocious behaviours that demanded nothing less than an order designed to make her stop; even though that is not the purpose of a Section 110 Order. It's not likely he lacked the comprehension of what a Section 110 Order can actually do.
But what if the Sworn Affidavit contains untruths?
What if a document sworn as the truth is littered with lies and fabrications?
How many such lies and fabrications does it take to disqualify the document?
It only takes one. Just one. One lie. One single mistruth.
One fabrication is enough. And does anybody actually care?
What if a document sworn as the truth is littered with lies and fabrications?
How many such lies and fabrications does it take to disqualify the document?
It only takes one. Just one. One lie. One single mistruth.
One fabrication is enough. And does anybody actually care?
.png@webp "image title")
Tony Wickham happy he might be more successful with this second Application.
When a person in a position of power reveals he’s totally prepared to provide false and misleading statements to the judiciary, it begs the question what else is he prepared to do.
“There is no doubting the documents and history between myself and Wickham, no doubt whatsoever. But it’s the narrative attached that makes Wickham’s so called testimony of truth an exhibit of the kind of individual he is. I mean, think about it; a Principal Member of NCAT tells him what he needs to be able to give him what he wants and he’s not going to be tempted to embellish or bend the truth, even slightly? Anyone who’s dealt with Wickham knows what I’m saying is just more of the same. He has a history of bullying and intimidation, and we now have him through his own documents and evidence making false and misleading statements, only this time he’s raised the stakes to a Sworn Affidavit. Talk about arrogant!” stated Webb.
“What makes it worse if that’s remotely possible, each page is witnessed by his side-kick Council in-house solicitor Lisa Helene Marshall. She’s been by his side the whole time and she knows he’s committing perjury. That’s what it is. Perjury, straight up,” stated Webb.
So we only need to pick out one lie to discredit the deponent and the whole document.
Just one.
Let’s go to Wickham’s Paragraphs 293 and 294, signed off as truth by both Wickham and Marshall.
He affirms / swears at Paragraph 294 QUOTE “Each of these allegations are baseless and false.” UNQUOTE.
Really?! Let’s go through just a couple of those, shall we?
293 b: Wickham and Marshall deliberately abuse confidential sessions of the Tribunal to influence the Tribunal.
This has occurred on numerous occasions where Wickham’s and Marshall’s fabricated claims Webb and her husband pose a serious risk to the public. Done completely out of sight and reach of any interested parties including the victims of the false allegations.
* So yes this is true. This is what happened.
293 c: Wickham and Marshall deliberately misled the Tribunal.
* So yes this is true. This is what happened.
293 d: Council has manipulated and corrupted the development application process.
* So yes this is true. This is what happened. 293 g: Wickham made a false and misleading statement to an Investigating Officer of the IPC asserting AVO’s had been issued against Webb and her husband.
* Absolutely! This statement is the cream of the crop, with Wickham's own document as evidence of his dirty deed.
Wickham actually included it as an annexure to his documentation in the same proceedings.
The perjurious components of Wickham’s Sworn Affidavit are not limited to those above.
“He is an absolute disgrace to Local Government, to the NSW government overall, the public service sector, to governance, to fundamental decency and honesty. This singular document reveals his total contempt for the community he serves, after all he IS a public servant, and most particularly he’s exhibited the most serious kind of contempt of the judiciary,” stated Webb. Tony Wickham holds a number of conflicting roles within Port Stephens Council including: * Executive Officer* Governance Manager* Code of Conduct Coordinator* Complaints Handling Officer* Right to Information Officer* Privacy Officer* Joint Custodian of Secondary Employment
“Every single issue or enquiry about Council business or questions of ethics, misconduct, breaches of legislation, it all lands on his desk. He knows where all the bodies are. He has the reigns. This is what makes it easy for him to craft any narrative he wants, anytime, or for anyone.”
Wickham’s Sworn Affidavit is available here. Wickham’s false and misleading letter is available here. Francis Marks, ex-puisne judge, LinkedIn Australia Marks' decision is available here. Tony Wickham, Corporate Policeman / Governance Manager, Tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Brenda Tronson, Barrister, btronson@level22.com.au Carlo Zoppo, freelance solicitor, formerly of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers; repeatedly turning a blind eye to corruption Matthew Harker, barrister, matt.harker@greenway.com.au, repeatedly turning a blind eye to corruption Lisa Marshall, Council in-house solicitor, Lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
* So yes this is true. This is what happened.
293 c: Wickham and Marshall deliberately misled the Tribunal.
* So yes this is true. This is what happened.
293 d: Council has manipulated and corrupted the development application process.
* So yes this is true. This is what happened. 293 g: Wickham made a false and misleading statement to an Investigating Officer of the IPC asserting AVO’s had been issued against Webb and her husband.
* Absolutely! This statement is the cream of the crop, with Wickham's own document as evidence of his dirty deed.
Wickham actually included it as an annexure to his documentation in the same proceedings.
The perjurious components of Wickham’s Sworn Affidavit are not limited to those above.
“He is an absolute disgrace to Local Government, to the NSW government overall, the public service sector, to governance, to fundamental decency and honesty. This singular document reveals his total contempt for the community he serves, after all he IS a public servant, and most particularly he’s exhibited the most serious kind of contempt of the judiciary,” stated Webb. Tony Wickham holds a number of conflicting roles within Port Stephens Council including: * Executive Officer* Governance Manager* Code of Conduct Coordinator* Complaints Handling Officer* Right to Information Officer* Privacy Officer* Joint Custodian of Secondary Employment
“Every single issue or enquiry about Council business or questions of ethics, misconduct, breaches of legislation, it all lands on his desk. He knows where all the bodies are. He has the reigns. This is what makes it easy for him to craft any narrative he wants, anytime, or for anyone.”
Wickham’s Sworn Affidavit is available here. Wickham’s false and misleading letter is available here. Francis Marks, ex-puisne judge, LinkedIn Australia Marks' decision is available here. Tony Wickham, Corporate Policeman / Governance Manager, Tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Brenda Tronson, Barrister, btronson@level22.com.au Carlo Zoppo, freelance solicitor, formerly of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers; repeatedly turning a blind eye to corruption Matthew Harker, barrister, matt.harker@greenway.com.au, repeatedly turning a blind eye to corruption Lisa Marshall, Council in-house solicitor, Lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au