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" of this web site -- the viewer is invited to verify what is published under the HEADINGS "DIRECT PROOF" & "TALLY HO" ...
The material published on 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 creation of this tactical strategy would NOT have been necessary at that point in time, had normal channels been employed (instead of covert action to ambush the author) in order to illegally obtain a wealth of Intellectual Property from him (the author) through an act of extortion.
So, with foresight of a possible future demand imposed on the author that he should imperatively produce his original work as a MANUSCRIPT IN HARD COPY 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 the possible future demand – by disclosing (in the future) that their intent would be exactly the same as the intent of the people who had employed COVERT ACTION (in the past – i.e. in May 1984) instead of normal channels, to illegally obtain – (through an act of extortion) – the said wealth of Intellectual Property from the author since that point in time.
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 the author was ambushed, CANNOT INSIST that the author produces a manuscript containing his original work, simply because it is something that they themselves had made to be a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY since May 1984, by using COVERT ACTION to ambush the author – (with the purpose of obtaining a wealth of Intellectual Property from him through an act of extortion) – instead of using normal channels.
It was also considered at the time, that such a demand would also accurately reflect a CLOSE PERSONAL ASSOCIATION between the people making the possible future demand and the people who had illegally obtained the wealth of Intellectual Property from the author since May 1984.
The imputation which naturally follows here is that such a possible demand made in the future would be motivated by the same underlying intent from BOTH GROUPS of people to ILLEGALLY RETAIN the royalties entitlement owing to the veritable author (out of the totality of the gross earnings that the said film would have earned on an international basis over a given period of time) … and which gross earnings would have been generated by the exploitation of the author’s original artistic work through the production of a feature cinematographic film based on the author’s original artistic work.
The author, being aware since then, of the adversarial nature of the Justice System in Australia – which is based incidentally on the same principle as that of the Westminster Statute (i.e. 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 come up with some possible VALID ADVERSE CONTENTION (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 in the said original screenplay for the film.
The author was also aware since that point in time, that the audio magnetic tape recording device that was used to record the entire screenplay (with all parts played by the author) 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 by all International Justice Systems since that point in time that a magnetic tape recording could easily be edited or dubbed at any time in the future, so as to create an illusion that the date on which the original work was recorded was authentic.
Another reason for creating this tactical strategy at the time, was to exceed the basic provision of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968, which requires an author to 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 tactical strategy devised since May 1984 consisted (intentionally) of 96 markers (i.e. 96 SETS of keywords) 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 (May 1984) to be in 1986.
The INFALLIBILITY of the said tactical strategy is also BEYOND DISPUTE, simply because a considerable number of these 96 SETS of key words 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.
are held by major libraries across Australia. This means that the various
dates on which the original story was ACTUALLY BEING CREATED
at the time, have been secured with pin point accuracy and are INDISPUTABLE.
The various dates on
which the original story was ACTUALLY BEING
CREATED among several other security
features of the tactical strategy SURELY EXCEEDS the basic provision of the
Australian Copyright Act, 1968, that requires an author to 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 reason why the tactical strategy devised since May 1984 exceeds the basic 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 both the original claim was established and secured since the 14th of May 1984, and the date on which the very first counter claim was made and published in the magazine Rydges on the 30th of March 1985.
There is no doubt whatsoever that consensus of opinion would be UNANIMOUS (with the exception of dishonest opinions from some Boganite Bolshevist lawyers) that the 14th of May 1984 was a date which preceded the 30th of March 1985, by more than 10 MONTHS.
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 …
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 the 30th of March 1985 – in reference to the authorship of the original story and to the design of the original screenplay for the film titled “Crocodile Dundee”.
Any decent person (with the exception of some Boganite 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 established and secured his ORIGINAL CLAIM since May 1984 by means of the afore mentioned set of 96 key words (as markers).
What was considered at the time that the author would need to do (in the future) would be TO SIMPLY CONFIRM his ORIGINAL CLAIM (that was established and secured by the means of the set of 96 key words [markers] since May 1984) by producing the LEGAL and FORENSIC EVIDENCE that was already in existence at that point in time, in order to retrospectively prove the material facts recorded in the said entire set of 96 key words (as markers) that was devised since May 1984 … and which set of 96 key words (as markers) would undeniably qualify as a list of material facts contained in a pre-emptive statement of claim.
Any person failing to make this recognition in good faith TODAY would automatically associate himself or herself with the elements who have recently been officially charged with TAX EVASION and MONEY LAUNDERING, as a result of their defalcation of the author’s royalties entitlement to secret bank accounts overseas.
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 FALLACY that had been published by the media starting from March 1985) to be above the LAW and, ergo, be exempt from any legal obligation to provide proof of their alleged “original authorship” by means of legal evidence … instead of proving the alleged “MATERIAL FACTS” of their FRAUDULENT COUNTER CLAIMS with evidence that qualifies as LEGAL EVIDENCE.
There is NO LEGAL EVIDENCE that there is a MANUSCRIPT having on record an ORIGINAL STORY or an ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY created by Mr. Paul Hogan and/or Mr. John Cornell in existence. 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, that can be viewed on this same web site, under the heading titled “ESTOPPEL” which features in the menu list at the top of each and every screen.
The same applies to the non existence of a MANUSCRIPT having on record an ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY which was devised by the other person who had also used the pseudonym of “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 is alleged to have CONVERTED the author’s original screenplay into the FINAL SCREENPLAY that was actually used during the actual shoot for 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 pieces of paper.
Consensus of opinion would be anonymous that loose pieces of paper are a far cry from a 180 page screenplay, let alone a 600 page original story in the form of, say, a novel. The point of substance here is that the basic provision of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968 requires an author to produce his or her original work in the form of a manuscript on which is affixed the date on which the original work is completed, the name of the author and the copyright logo of ‘C’ in a circle.
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 MAGNETIC TAPE RECORDING that had been made since May 1984 :
1. The author's 96 SET of Key-Words (as 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 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.