This is Schapelle Corby related news. However, the main subject of this little post is Robin Tampoe; a one-time lawyer for Schapelle Corby.
Robin Tampoe (photo courtesy of here) became involved in the Corby case very early on. He provided pretty bad advice, in my opinion, because his own ego required that he piggy back on this case in order to make a name for himself by using someone else's legal predicament to further his career. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, this has backfired in a big way and has in fact ended his legal career as he has been struck off the role of legal practitioners.
The advice was indicative of someone not knowing the intricacies of the Indonesian legal system and also highlighted a substantial lack of understanding of the substantive law that applies in Indonesia. In this sense, the writing was on the wall for Corby as soon as Tampoe became involved. However, the advice is not the reason for his striking off, but rather his conduct as a lawyer and handling of client information.
It was certainly a Forrest Gump kind of a moment in the type "stupid is as stupid does". Simply, Tampoe came into possession of confidential information which he then divulged to the world on TV. This information related to prior criminal convictions among members of the family. After being dumped from the Corby legal team he then went on to add insult to injury by disparaging them in the documentary, "Schapelle Corby - The Hidden Truth", by calling the family "trash".
The Legal Services Commissioner initiated the action based on an allegation that Tampoe breached client confidentiality. In essence, he failed to uphold the lawyer - client privilege that certain communications are subject to. In a written judgment of Justice Roslyn Atkinson of the Queensland Legal Practice Tribunal, Tampoe was found guilty of professional misconduct. Atkinson then ordered that Tampoe be struck off the roll.
On a side note. It is interesting to see that in the current Manohara case two of Indonesia's senior lawyers, Todung Mulya Lubis and OC Kaligis, have left the legal teams of Prince Tengku Temenggong Mohammad Fakhry and Manohara Odelia Pinot respectively, and then gone on to make some disparaging remarks about their former clients relating to their respective intents to resolve that matter. I wonder, any ethics or professional misconduct issues there?
919 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 919 of 919DJ
Whether a country is democratic or not there are never any guarantees of justice. Whether a country is democratic or not, still does not affect outcomes if there is foul play to begin with.
Arguing whether Schapelle got a fair trial is a rather moot point now because she cannot prove her innocence. She has no champions with any credibility in her corner, she has no government backing her, or connections with people who are connected to Government. Her legal team were hell bent on antagonizing the Indonesians as was evident by their approach, rather than doing a careful risk assessment of the reality of what they were dealing with, and adopting a more logical and tactical approach to minimize the affect that blind freddy and a frieght train could see coming! They chose to ignore good advice for $campaign strategy. They cheated Schapelle!
Yes we all know certain countries are more corrupt than others and their judicial systems more ineffective than others, but it hardly makes sense, when you are with your back against the ropes, to call spades spades and then ask sweetly for a favour. Tactics play a huge part, and diplomacy away from media.
Looks like another Aussie has been charged with smuggling marijuana from Australia to Bali.
See news: Australian man Robert Paul McJannett arrested at Bali airport for drug possession. From: AAP December 29, 2009 5:26PM
Yes it's rare and unexpected... Another Aussie coming into Bali is arrested after marijuana is found in their luggage.
I read a few articles on McJannetts arrest and as a Schapelle supporter I immediately noticed some startling differences:
McJannett - ran with the marijuana and tried to flush it down the toilet.
Schapelle - tried to have the marijuana tested for origin. Initially Schapelle was also free to leave Bali airport and join her 2 friends as police chose to interrogate her brother and not her. Her other bags were not searched she could have picked them up and walked out. She chose to stay.
McJannett - initially refused a urine test for drugs.
Schapelle - was not urine tested for drugs until she demanded her urine and blood be tested. Result- negative.
McJannett - marijuana hidden in socks surrounded by coffee sachets to hide the smell and placed in a tin.
Schapelle - marijuana was in her unlocked boogie board bag placed on top of her flippers and goggles [so it was the first thing seen upon opening her boogie board bag], with the outer plastic bag slashed open to help reveal the pungent smell.
McJannett - refused to open his luggage bag when asked to.
Schapelle - opened her boogie board bag when asked to [however this was disputed by customs officer Gusti Nyoman Winata. Schapelle has always strongly maintained she did unzip her bag when asked so her Defence team demanded on several occasions the CCTV from the customs area be provided to prove this. Unfortunately they were not allowed this CCTV evidence]
I'll be following McJannetts case with interest. If he's guilty - and unlike Schapelle this fellow is certainly acting guilty - then what a fool. If he's innocent, he'll need all the good luck in the world to be allowed to prove it.
Another thought....it isn't just knowing the Indonesian system, it's also how your defence team conduct themselves within it, and with media. Here's a segway - Perhaps the struck-off and obnoxious Robin Tampoe could alert McJannett's lawyer on what NOT to do and say. Tasteless Tampoe being an expert on such matters :)
Anonymous...
Yep, you are a brave little internet troll, aren't you?
I, for one, hope you keep posting here. The simple reason being you put a smile on my dial every time I read what you contribute to this ever-expanding thread. You have no idea about blogging or social commentary or networking or campaign building. Come to think of it, you have no idea about the Schapelle Corby case and what has been done to date or what needs to be contemplated going forward.
It is sad that you call yourself a supporter. Sad, for Schapelle mostly, because if you are what the forum has to offer then there is little likelihood of a coherent and successful campaign ever being mounted in her defense.
The only saving grace is that I know that there are supporters out there, real supporters with real knowledge and real ideas. So, there is still hope.
BTW, this is my blog and not Kay Dane's blog. She contributes and contributes constructively and regularly (as opposed to your good self). I do not dismiss anyone. I look to engage in constructive debate. Unfortunately, most people who call themselves supporters do not have the capacity to argue beyond a very limited set of facts and an approved line of argument set by a core group of supporters. Not likely to enhance the profile of the support group or increase its numbers.
With respect to my working arrangements...I am employed full-time. What about you?
Kay...
It is always nice to have internet trolls as avid fans, particularly when I am so amateurish at blogging.
Although, the personal insults would seem to suggest that I have struck a cord or I am onto something...
Leann...
Thanks for the comment.
I, too, would be interested in what a professional blog looks like in the mind of the little anonymous internet troll that has decided to take up residence here.
Gossip magazines? Interesting call, I wonder if the reference is to New Idea or similar magazines.
The fixation in a lot of ways is flattering. After all, I am just a fella with an interest in a particular case (and only in passing) which has seemingly made me a target of anonymous posters.
I will let Kay respond for herself on the fixation part. However, some of the comments seem a lot more personal than the ones directed at me. Sad really.
I would not be holding my breath for the little internet troll to be ante-ing up with any thing of substance.
I think Murray raised some really constructive points to show the differences between the current arrest and Schapelle's situation.
There have been plenty of documented cases of people importing hashish to Bali but seldom do we read about people taking marijuana there. So that is interesting. Gotta wonder why anyone would do it, particularly after all the media on the Corby case... and that you can buy the stuff cheap in Bali. So why do it?
Leann,
On trolls fixation of me and Rob I guess we might refer to what 'fixation' actually is:
Fixation is the state in which an individual becomes obsessed with an attachment to another person, being or object (in human psychology).
Sigmund Freud theorized that some humans may develop psychological fixation due to:
1. A lack of proper gratification during one of the psychosexual stages of development, or
2. Receiving a strong impression from one of these stages, in which case the person's personality would reflect that stage throughout adult life.
Whether a particularly obsessive attachment is a fixation or a defensible expression of love is at times debatable. Fixation to intangibles (i.e., ideas, ideologies, etc.) can also occur. The obsessive factor is also found in symptoms pertaining to obsessive compulsive disorder.
:-P
Mr. Wolf...
Before I engage you in debate on the substance or lack thereof in your arguments, what law school did you go to that taught you that Indonesia was a good example of a totalitarian legal system? Who were your lecturers or professors that made these arguments?
The reason I ask is that there are not a lot of places teaching Indonesian law in Australia because the number of qualified people to do it here are somewhat limited.
I will get back to you on the substance. Just want to get an idea of where you studied as it seems your beef with Indonesia is more personal in that it seems you may have suffered a personal injustice at the hands of Indonesian authorities.
I have a question for Murray, you say this fellow is acting guilty, But could his reaction be one of fear, rather than guilt, As everyone is aware of the Corby case.
This man would have known immediately he was in a lot of trouble, and any pleas of it not being his would go unheard.
I rather think if I were in his shoes, my initial reaction may also look like one of guilt.
and as I don't have any dealings with any kind of drug,I would in fact be innocent.
Just very afraid that I had been caught with some in a country with sever drug penalties.
Katie...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments and questions are always appreciated.
I will leave Murray to answer the question, if he so desires, but I have similar questions in the sense that sometimes guilty people do things that increases suspicion of guilt, and vice versa, sometimes guilty people do and request things that would lead people to argue that this is the behaviour of innocent people.
The classic Corby arguments in these sorts of scenarios centre on the pre-departure photograph, which supposedly shows us someone who cannot be guilty because she is smiling and seemingly happy. Presumably, anyone about to smuggle 4kgs+ of wacky weed would look a little apprehensive and guilty.
The others include wanting to be urine and blood tested, as well as DNA testing the weed for origin. The interesting part about the urine / blood testing is that being clean means that the tested individual is not currently using, but a clean test never rules out smuggling, does it? Simply, not all smugglers are users (or is that too much of a generalization?)
Hopefully, Murray will share some insights on what his thoughts are on your question.
Katie... Yes I guess that is possible. A self-preservation instinct kicks in. Most Westerners know they won't be paying a fine and getting a slap on the wrist. The adrenalin kicks in.
Mostly I am fascinated with the contrasts. Including how the dope was actually packed. I can't help it.
If the bloke is innocent I'll buy him a 6-pack. But god knows how he goes about proving it. Or if he should even try..
Assuming he will challenge the court, if the drugs are in his possession and he cannot prove where they came from; who put them in there, etc.. then I'd strongly recommend he engage a good lawyer experienced in NEGOTIATION as opposed to anything else and then throw himself at the mercy of the court!
It is suspicious the way the marijuana was packed, in coffee tins to disguise the smell?
If he was set up, I can't understand why it would be concealed like that?
Maybe this guy believed the rumours about lack of good quality marijuana in Bali and decided to take his own.
DJ: I'm also very interested to hear from you about what Australian University is purporting that Indonesia is a totalitarian state. What time frame are we talking about here? Also what course program?
Also, I'm not suggesting anyone use Schapelle's trial as an indicator as to whether Indonesia is a democracy or not. I simply meant that whether it is or isn't doesn't dictate an outcome. Outcomes are decided on a set of complex strategies, negotiations, and working within the system.
I work a great deal in the this field and even working in communist systems and true totalitarian states, where there is total disregard for rule of law, the outcomes are determined by key strategies, diplomatic negotiation etc...
Judicial authorities in such countries and in Indonesia, do tend to on a number of occassions, put their own interpretation on the criminal code and as we often see, some show blatant disregard. So what? We know they do this... so it's no use stamping one's foot and saying 'they don't play by their own rules'. That's why anyone wanting to tackle them head on needs to fully understand the playing field and I don't think the people representing Schapelle have any real grasp of the complexities of that playing field. Fairly obvious, given the outcomes.
I'm not asserting that Indonesia is a full fledged democracy... please don't put words in my mouth. And I have never said that Indonesia follows rule of law.
Bottom line is simple.... if you play with the tigers you should know how to best play.... otherwise you'll get torn to shreds!
G'day all....passin by..
Digressing.......noticed my url link about schappy...yes was a bit of a paragraph or ten going back n forth,
And, I may not agree with what some people have to say, and i say so, but fbd is an open forum to the public and the schapelle section has been there since day one and open to continuing debate and discussion,
I have jumped in at times to edit a post or so I found to be too disrespectful to schapelle and/or the corby family..and I have deleted other posts for it's filth and inuendo's;
But the SC section on fbd will stay as is,
Anonymous, hellooo
your still going onnnnnnn....
Your time would be better used to give schapelle support in her daily life, than bitchin on all the forums and sites that don't agree with you...but i will say one thing...your one dedicated lady..but it's not working here..
And Miss Danes....forever fighting the cause of many...most people out there have no idea how involved and dedicated you are in what you do, but the wankers must start stories of your millions from donations..all your profiteering from sad cases...come on places like these blogs and have a go at you..
camel dung...
few newbies popping in for a spit...
...good blog Rob..
fight on...
oh FORGOT
...AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL...TAKE CARE IN 2010..
Hey 'The bloke from FBD'... ha... you'll surely get in trouble for being nice to me.. Annonymous doesn't care for that sort of talk... she'll say you are pandering to my huge ego! lol But thanks all the same... over the last decade there have been times when your words of encouragement have really lifted me and your opinions mean a great deal to me! I can't believe how long the FBD site has been going and you've certainly seen your fair share of 'anonymous' posters. I hope you and your team (and Maggie) have a great New Year.... especially for all those homeless people you have been supporting over the many years. Gosh... you guys are really inspiring! take care, Kay x
The Bloke from FBD...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving some words of wisdom.
Yep, it was an interesting little exchange over at your place.
Good to hear that the Schappy section will be staying as is over at your place. I, also, tend not to jump in and delete comments unless they are way, way out of line and / or I am asked to do so with a legitimate reason.
Yes, there are a few newbies that jump into the fray every now and then. It is always good to see the divergent views out there in the real world.
I trust yours have had a very Merry Christmas and are about to have a very Happy New Year!
Thanks.
Kay...
Yep, brave man coming out in support of you on here! Anonymous might not be able to contain themselves ;)
g'day peoples...
hi rob, yeh well, i was starting to wonder who's blog it was mate....
Anon...you do really have some good points to your argument...but, the party's over...the door's shut...the horses gone..there's no more dunny paper left...stop wasting your time and energy trying to change world opinion on something that is now history.
The only way that girl is coming home, is an exchange or compassion about her mental state, and most prisoners go through a time of losing the plot on a long sentence, it can take a while to hit after all the hoo har dies down and your just 'another' prisoner..a nobody....it's called adjusting...you either handle it or you lose it..and it doesn't mean your weak to flip out...some can handle it..some can't...some don't..
My main concern is the possible repercussions about what negative things that have been said here in Oz, and read by those with the responsiblility of schapelles immediate and future welfare..I've heard of cases before where the prisoner/person concerned was given hard times because of certain forum and blog entries made in the their homeland by supporters, friends, and enemies..
anyway....jugs boilin..ooroo..
hi rob, sorry..missed that mate...ty and back at ya....Welcome to others..
And Kay..ty..yeh, been going a while..fbd shirts come out soon (slight spam there..give ya free one rob)..and ty again for your support with the homeless, people without faces..no matter what their race is, needin folks like you n me to lend a hand..
take care y'all, let ya's get back to it..
bloke out..
Maybe this annonymous poster is the same one responsible for causing trouble on other sites that mention Corby. If true, then I do hope their real identity is one day revealed. such cowards should not be afforded anonymity.
Kay Danes said...
Maybe this annonymous poster is the same one responsible for causing trouble on other sites that mention Corby.
--------
funny bout that...
click on me and take your pick..
FBD Bloke...
It is a little late to be closing the barn door seeing that the horse has well and truly bolted as it relates to rehashing and rearguing the evidence.
It is time to move on and work on those things that can be influenced and worked in Schapelle's favour.
I wonder whether some of her supporters are moving in that direction. The abuse I have read on my own blog and elsewhere, FBD included, suggests that there is a core view that is intent on not letting go of the past.
It would be a shame if Schapelle was to suffer any further because of the negativity posted on blogs, forums, and in the media here.
Kay...
Karma catches up with everyone, doesn't it?
FBD Bloke and Kay...
I am not against anonymous posting per se. I just find that those who seek to hind behind a veil of anonymity to post the sort of personal attacks that they have here are a little bit on the cowardly side of the equation.
I honestly believe that if you are a "true" Corby supporter, then you would be willing to lay it all on the line and post under your own name.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case here for most so-called supporters who frequent this blog (and this thread in particular).
I'm still waiting to hear from DJ Wolf from the FS Forum who posted earlier. He raised some good points and I was looking forward to the discussion. It's always interesting reading well thought out content.
Quote:I honestly believe that if you are a "true" Corby supporter, then you would be willing to lay it all on the line and post under your own name.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case here for most so-called supporters who frequent this blog (and this thread in particular).Unquote
I am a "true" Schapelle supporter Rob, and while I believe Schapelle is innocent,I long ago came to the belief that what I think is irrelevant now.
And heartily welcome any support for Schapelle, regardless of anyone's view of guilt or innocence.
It is a new year,and maybe it can be a new start,with no more personal attacks,But a year when people join together and help this woman.
The only criteria to be a supporter now is surely just that people care about the woman herself, whom isn't a star in a soap series, but a real person, and I think that is often forgotten, to be honest.
She needs compassion from people who care about her, and if they can help, they will do so.
I have been a supporter of Schapelle from day one, that in my mind makes me a "true" supporter, and this supporter warmly welcomes anyone who can help this poor woman, and that is regardless of their personal views of guilt or innocence.
What does fbd stand for? Do you send the Corbys updates of these posting Rob? Do they wish for you to continue your so called 'mission'?
If you believe there is negativity here - why do you keep this blog open Rob? For the very first time, you have raised an interesting point. Patience is good. There's people here that have believed in you all along.
Kay...
So am I! I guess he is either too busy or only interested in discussing the "substance" without first addressing the preliminary issues regarding some support for his initial claims with respect to where he learned his craft and where he was taught about totalitarian states.
Although, I do note from his FaceBook page that he has listed UWA and Curtain [sic] as places he has studied. This is the link http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=690777182
It is the New Year an all, so Happy New Year to one and all!
Anonymous...
It is nice to see you back. I hope you had a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year?
I would have thought that for a supporter such as yourself, you would not need to ask what FBD stands for. I think there was a link in one of the comments posted to this thread. So, feel free to go and check it out at your own convenience.
As to whether I send these updates to the Corbys. I still find it really amusing that you seem to think that I need their permission to post comments or any new posts to them in order to get their pre-approval. But, a simple answer for a simple question, No!
I am not on a mission. I write about things that pique my interest. And, this case happens to be something that interests me. But, as to whether the Corbys want me to continue on this mission, I honestly cannot say. I have never spoken to any of them in order to discuss the odd post that I might do on Schapelle. My guess is that they are not aware of me, this blog, or care for what my thoughts might be (based on any experience and knowledge I might have developed over 15 years or so in and around Indonesia).
Anything else that I can help you with tonight?
Anonymous...
Are you the same anonymous internet troll that inhabits the anonymous persona that posted before you (too lazy to look up IPs tonight)?
Negativity is part and parcel of blogging. Some people enjoy what you do and drop by regularly to see what is going on in The RAB Experience. Others, are less happy about what I post and make their feelings known, usually under the moniker "anonymous" or some kind of pseudonym, and these are usually negative.
As I have said many times, for me personally, it is water off a duck's back. I find it amusing that so-called supporters are so critical of someone who is advocating that "enough is enough" with respect to the amount of time served for the crime for which Schapelle Corby was convicted of.
I really do not give the proverbial rat's about guilt or innocence. Besides it is no longer relevant in the appeal scheme of things. It is all about advocating for a compassionate and humanitarian release (simple - it is the right thing to do).
This blog is not entirely about Schapelle. Posts relating to Schapelle make up a very small minority of the total number of posts. So, there has never been any thought of shutting it down.
For the very first time? Ouch, that is a little harsh, don't you think? So, I have never raised any valid or good points previously?
I do not think that I have never said patience is not good. In fact, if you look over this thread you will see I have been pretty patient with the commentary of so-called supporters abusing myself and other commenters.
Not sure what you mean by that there have been people here who have believed in me all along?
FBD???
Rob, the questions were not about me but the Corbys. That is, do they even know who you are and/or approve of this unauthorised activiity about Schapelle??
What GOOD has come out of this?
Prove why this diatrite should exist...
Snap point form only please. Use -'s.
Anonymous seems to have a fixation with FBD... for someone who doesn't know what it is.
Wonder if Anonymous spends any time over there?
P.S. This is a "blog". Blogs allow people to state their opinion. Approval is not needed from anyone to write a blog.
Do you think Corby supporters who blog about her trial need to obtain approval from the Indonesian courts or the Australian government? No. You do not need permission to write a blog.
Anonymous...
You will always be my favourite little internet troll. The reason is simple, no matter how much you seemingly disapprove of what I write, you keep coming back to humour me with more sensational comments.
I am sorry but I do not do snap points. As to the 's. Is this on Corby as in Corby's?
I do not know the Corbys personally and as far as I know they do not know me either. My guess is that if they do not know me, then they probably could not give the proverbial rat's.
So, there can only be "authorized" activities relating to Schapelle? Since when? So, everything that is written must first be approved by a trusted Corby or authorized supporter?
Not going to happen, ever! Unfortunately for the Corbys they do not own the media and they certainly do not own the social networking medium (of which blogging is one form).
What good has come of this? As in this particular blog? Perhaps the good is as simple as providing another forum for some frank and open discussion about the issues. Then again, it would seem, at least from your point of view that for anything to be good, it must first be approved by the Corbys.
What is funny, though, is that you claim to be a supporter, but yet you are more focused on tearing down other potential supporters and deriding those who do not hold the "accepted" view points and opinions on the case.
I hardly think that I need to prove why my blog needs to exist. On the contrary, perhaps you should be making arguments as to why you think it should cease to exist. Perhaps while you are at it, you can make some arguments as to what benefits you provide to the cause by commenting anonymously.
Oops...no snap points!
Jacqui...
Thanks for the comment in support of why blogs should / must exist, and why approval for the commentary that starts a thread does not need the approval of the subject matter (in this case Schapelle or her family).
Speaking of approval. I wonder if the Corby family approves everything written on a site such as the Free Schapelle Forum? If it does, then is one to assume that the FS Forum is the mouthpiece of the Corby family and by default Schapelle? Or is it more likely that the FS Forum contains posts and commentary that is not approved or condoned by the Corby family?
I only ask because I would be interested to know, for example, whether the Corby family believes that the home invasion of Alexander Downer's home was a beat up just in order for the former FM to have a dig at the crazy Corby supporters?
The sad thing is that there are some genuine and good people on the FS Forum who only want to see the best possible outcomes happen for Schapelle, but they are often out-posted by a fringe element that prefers to argue government conspiracies and all manner of other theories, rather than focusing on the here and now, and what can be done.
Anonymous seems to be one of those who prefers to focus on the past rather than the future.
Oh well.
Audrey...
I missed your comment. Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated. Even when they offer constructive criticism and critical analysis.
With a bit of luck more supporters like yourself will soon form the majority of supporters, and perhaps some real progress towards a repatriation can be made.
Hey Rob,
Maybe with annonymous's posts this part of your blog will reach 1000. hahaha. She certainly is fixated with you.... maybe all that red wine!
Kay...
To be honest I was thinking the same thing, about getting to 1000 comments ;)
If the anonymous little internet troll keeps commenting, then I will keep responding. So, 100 seems to be within range.
Fixation? Stalking?
As to the wine, I really cannot say :D
Anonymous...
What are the "???" for?
Why all your categorisations and labels??? (Especially on something as unprofessional and 'anonymous' as this)...
Anonymous...
Are we talking about the categories / labels at that accompany the post?
The categories and labels feature helps with respect to search engines and terms / words that people look for to find information. So, that is why they are there.
The categories that are listed for this post are all relevant to the subject matter.
I am not sure I get your point about the unprofessional and anonymous comment.
What is unprofessional about either this post or my blog?
Second, there is nothing anonymous about me. It is all laid out there for people to see (if they are interested) or if they want to follow stuff up, then they can ask :D
If your categorization and labels comment refers to me calling an anonymous poster who refuses to stay on topic and who prefers to attack others an internet troll, then I would encourage you to look up the definition of internet troll and then have a look at some of the comments posted here by anonymous commenters.
Once again, nothing unprofessional or anonymous about my use of the term internet troll.
I trust you are enjoying your new year.
Well, seems you like to dish it out but don't like to take it. Anyway, seems this whole unauthorised thing is your way of finding an alternative community... I'm curious to know why you can't do it through something else (people that like puzzles etc...). That is, if you were to do so that would be harmless. Perhaps this is from sociopathic traits where you don't care about the suffering of others.
No one will take you seriously until this is an AUTHORISED website.
The Corbys have to block out snakes like you because their time is better spent on this emergency they are dealing with.
Seems you know quite a bit about false pretense...
Anonymous...
What are you talking about?
What am I dishing out and what am I not taking? I have not dished anything out and I have taken all the best that most commenters have to offer. So, I am really interested in the specifics of what you are talking about on this one.
Unauthorized? By the Corbys? Do I need their permission to write about the things that I write about on this blog?
An alternative community? Alternative to what? What is it that you think I am trying to find or found with respect to an "alternative community"?
Puzzles? Very good, almost funny too! You need to read a little more widely the majority of the posts on this blog. Once again, if you do take the time, you will find that this is not a Schapelle Corby blog. You will also note that the Corby related posts are minimal. But, I am guessing you will not take the time to read the blog and the diverse posts.
Do you really think this blog is harming Schapelle? Or is it more harming to commenters like yourself who are being exposed for being involved for their own self-interest and not that of the young woman incarcerated in Kerobokan?
Nope, I do not consider any of the posts that I have done on Schapelle likely to cause her long term harm. In fact, if any of my posts serve to highlight the fact that the young woman has done enough time for the crime she was convicted of, then all the better.
This blog will not and has not done Schapelle any harm.
No one will take me seriously until I am authorized? Who do you think I am writing for? The fact that you are here and continue to comment suggests that you are taking me seriously, seriously enough that you are trying to shoot me down and bully me into closing the Schapelle related posts / threads down (you will lose).
Now, if it is true that the Corbys have to block out snakes like me because they have bigger emergencies to deal with, then so be it? I am hardly a snake, and what is contained in this thread is evidence of that. I have offered nothing but support for an early release into a mental health facility and ultimately a repatriation to Australia. Once again, I fail to see where this does any harm.
Explain the false pretense? What false pretense have I been operating under or using?
What is the criteria for obtaining authorization Anonymous? I have never read any statements anywhere or anytime where the Corby's have issued instructions to tell people that they must only support Schapelle via Corby Central. Please clarify.
Kay...
I don't know that anonymous knows the answer to your question. Because, if they did, then it would have made perfect sense to write down the criteria so that I could either get the requisite authority or desist from posting Schapelle Corby related material.
I have not seen any instructions that stipulate that permission must first be obtained from the family if one wants to write about them. I am not sure that I would need permission from you to write about you. Similarly, when I write about the PM of this fine land of Australia, I do not ask his permission.
I think anonymous is having us (me as the poster and others as commenters) on about the need to get authorization.
However, that said, the idea of authorization seems to fit the profile, when one considers the derision that is piled onto potential supporters if they do not pass the initiation test of making public statements that Schapelle is an innocent political prisoner that has been sold out by her government.
Oh well only 147 more comments to go and the thread will have reached a totally undeserved 1000 comments.
Anonymous said...
What does fbd stand for?
--------------
it stands for
www.fbd-australia.com
The discussion forum of www.fairbloodydinkum.com
Bloke from FBD...
Who better to answer the question from anonymous than the bloke himself.
Thanks!
and can i say that FBD has been around for years and years and is moderated by a great bunch of people who obviously intelligent. :-p
Kay...
And they seem to know what they are doing :D
Who is Robin Tampoe?
If you click on 'Show Original Post' you can read back at the start and that will answer your question on who Robin Tampoe is.
Anonymous...
You could take Kay's advice on this one. A Google search would also do the trick.
However, because I am such a helpful person...
Robin Tampoe is a lawyer (now struck off the roll of practitioners in Queensland). He imposed himself on the Corbys and then made a number of disparaging remarks about them.
Nutshell version.
Kay...
Thanks for the directional comment. It seems this post no longer attracts any attention, or hardly any, which is not such a bad thing :D
Most likely because their leader has reigned them back in!
Kay...
Funny that. I would have thought that if you wanted to get your message out that you would be encouraging your people to go forth and comment wherever they could find a forum to do so.
Perhaps the issue is not being able to stay on a coordinated message or something. Not that it matters to me. The peace and quiet is nice :D
Besides having read a few other forums I am not so sure that the strategies are going to work or whether they are in the best interests of Schapelle. It would seem that there is still a desire to rehash and reargue the evidence. There is also a belief that there is an exoneration on the cards for Schapelle.
So, to each there own I guess. It would have been nice if some of the people who commented here had the courage of their convictions to see their arguments to the end rather than drop them in and then cut and run.
Oh well.
Oh, I forgot, maybe I could cut and paste this thread and send it to the PM and the FM. Perhaps, when they saw the depth of feeling for Schapelle and her innocence they might become inspired to do something about the case...then again, perhaps they are working behind the scenes or not.
The Government runs on fact not emotion. All these impassioned pleas are not going to impact because at the end of the day there are protocols for dealing with prisoners detained in foreign countries. It's a pity some supporters didn't dedicate more time learning this, instead of spamming the Government. I just shake my head at the terrible situation Schapelle is in, knowing that her plight has been hindered largely by incompetence, egotists, and inexperience.
Kay...
Indeed it does. Although, there seems to be a belief that if a majority of Australians want something to happen then there will be pressure come to bear on the government, and the government will act.
However, in this case, I have not seen any reliable surveys that suggest there has been a consistent reversal in the trend. By my reckoning the surveys and polls are running decidedly against a repatriation.
In fact, reading some of the comments to some of the news pieces that have been written of late about Schapelle seem to suggest that "you do the crime, you do the time".
So, it will be interesting to see if there is a shift in the winds or whether this is just talking the talk.
Currently Schapelle is waiting on a decision by the President of Indonesia regarding her appeal for clemency. I hope she succeeds but I can't help but feel skeptical. Particularly when you have the Indonesians authorities slamming Bonella's book as a pack of lies. I do hope this doesn't come back on Schapelle. But in light of the criteria set out for clemency applications I think that it may rate slightly below the more important issues of remorse shown by the prisoner, acceptance of court decision, whether or not the authorities feel the prisoner is suitably rehabilitated, behaviour and time served.
Kay...
The appeal for clemency is apparently premised on humanitarian concerns, right? The idea being that the conditions in prison have so affected her mental capacity that simply being in prison is no longer the sort of punishment it was intended to be. She does not appreciate the fact that she is incarcerated for a conviction of a very serious crime.
I pass no comment on whether the humanitarian grounds are made out.
However, generally, in Indonesia a clemency or a pardon request is premised on an admission of guilt, and then some subsequent remorse for having committed the crime. In both instances Schapelle has not confessed and she has shown no remorse. Furthermore, if her mental illness is accepted as being real, then she would not have the capacity seemingly to make an admission of guilt or exhibit any remorse.
Let's face it, she thought Tom Allard was superman and he could step outside into a phone box, change his gear, and then fly in and rescue her.
It is interesting that the Indonesian authorities are slamming the Bonella book as a pack of lies. It seems that Renae Lawrence also thinks very little of the book as a tome of truth, and his quite vocal in suggesting it is a novel full of lies. However, more interesting is the response of the Corby supporters who treat Bonella's book like the word of God and claim that Renae is obviously going to say that because she is under the influence of Indonesians.
Maybe if it is true that Lawrence has taken to protecting Schapelle from those that would seek to exploit her, then some of these Corby supporters should probably have a little think about their position. To my mind it would seem that Schapelle needs all the support she can get.
In any event, one would imagine that a decision on the clemency bid should not be too far away.
The problem I see with the mental health situation is that the Indonesian authorities are not recognizing it as life threatening. Yes they agree that she has depression that can be treated with medication. This is something her own doctors agree on. But for the fact that she remains in Kerobokan would indicate that they are not convinced that she is ill enough for a transfer. usually Indonesia takes such matters seriously IAW their duty of care obligations under the charter : UN Standard Minimum Treatment of Prisoners. It is clear that they would be monitoring her daily behaviour, and that which the head prisoners are responsible to report actualities and not what's in the media. Under the charter, all they have to do is ensure that her medical needs are met. That's being done with the treatment they are providing her with.
So as an observer, it would seem to me that they are not wholly convinced of her 'insanity'. this then will affect the decision of clemency. If they don't believe her to be insane, then they will expect her to fulfil ALL the criteria for application of clemency.
Kay...
I have addressed all these issues previously. Ultimately, she is under the care of Indonesian authorities. I believe that the Indonesian authorities are suitably and sufficiently qualified to make medical determinations on what treatment regime Schapelle needs to follow.
Just looking at the most recent photos of her from the media open day and more recently attached to a Tom Allard article in the SMH, she looks like she has aged (and she has) but she hardly looks like death warmed up. She seems well, at least physically (although photos can be deceiving), and if she is taking her meds then I do not see much likelihood of success for an appeal for clemency based on the mental illness front.
Humanitarian grounds? This seems unlikely without the corresponding insanity / mental illness grounds being satisfied.
Which, as you note, brings us back to whether she satisfies the other grounds for clemency, and I do not think that she does.
I do hope she gets clemency and gets out, but I wonder if the proposition was put to her, "look, admit to doing it, make an unequivocal statement that you are sorry and that you recognize your mistake, and you are on the next plane home!" would she take it?
Those that think she is innocent can still write the admission and remorse off as the girl doing what she as to do to get out, and then they can go hammer and tong trying to prove her innocence if they want. But, at least, she is out of jail and back in Australia.
I just do not think she would take the clemency deal.
The continual mention or reference or pressure on Schapelle Corby by those in authority or those who make mention to her that she should plead guilty to a crime ARE in breach of Schapelle's human right's. It is considered torture see Article 1.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumanor Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1) status of ratifications declarations and reservations monitoring body
The States Parties to this Convention,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975,
Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,
Have agreed as follows:
PART I
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Anonymous...
It would be so much easier and so much more enlightening if you adopted a persona other than anonymous.
It is easy enough to quote the relevant articles from the relevant treaties. But, in practical terms what are your solutions for Schapelle's current predicament?
The reality is that a judicial process has been applied (we can debate evidence, fairness, and the like if you want to - but it is not necessarily going to help see Schapelle released) and she has been convicted.
Schapelle has appealed and to all intents and purposes her appeals have failed. The only legal recourse for her at this present point in time in the Indonesian context is clemency. Her legal team realizes this because they have filed a clemency petition.
The points in the previous comment relate to the hypothetical. It would seem from my experience that clemency petitions in Indonesia rely heavily on an admission of guilt and a show of remorse. I note that neither of these elements have been met. Further, I have stated elsewhere that Schapelle has maintained her innocence throughout. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that clemency usually requires an admission of guilt.
My point was to pose the hypothetical question, "if the offer was made, would she take it?"
Maybe it falls within the definition of torture, maybe it does not, that is a much deeper legal argument than just a quotation of an Article from a convention.
On whether it is a breach of her human rights for me to mention it is kind of funny considering the context is clearly hypothetical. Now, if I was her lawyer and the Indonesian government came to me with that offer, as her lawyer I would be obligated to put that to her. As the convicted person, whether she pleads guilty or not is entirely a decision for her and her family.
Yet, it is a valid question all the same. If you were in that predicament and you had a choice of staying put and maintaining your innocence or pleading to a deal and getting out, what would you do? It is easy for those on the outside to be principled and argue that they would maintain their innocence to the end. And, that given time, things will work out as the truth will set you free.
The problem for Schapelle is that the current truth from the Indonesian perspective is that they have an Australian citizen convicted and sentenced to 20 years in jail in Kerobokan. They consider the legal process to have been fair and the conviction valid. They feel no obligation to release her. They are treating her mental illness and complying with their international obligations.
So, it is a little more complex than just an Article from a convention.
The UN Mandates are merely guidelines that States may opt to adopt in good will. Even the UN will tell you this if you are fortunate enough to have a personal and ongoing dialoge with them as I am. They do not over ride a State's right to sovereignty, to enforce and apply its laws as it so chooses and is legislated.
Many countries, including Australia, sign on to such agreements but often they breech them in some capacity. These mandates are flexible and designed to set a benchmark for governments on how they 'should' act, not how they 'must' act.
Several cases are known where distinct breeches of torture have occurred and yet, those states have not been subjected to legal ramification and those prisoners are still detained.
Logically you would think that if rules were made and broken then there would be repercussions. In an ideal world that would be so. But we do not live in an ideal world.
Schapelle has depression. she is receiving treatment. They are not forcing her to become depressed. The Indonesians are upholding their obligations under the Minimum Standard of treatment for prisoners in her case.
There is a significant difference between an act of torture and a prisoner who becomes depressed. If it were so, that it could be argued that depression is a torture, then you would find most all of the prison population around the world would be eligible for release under the Convention, if indeed this could be enforced which it cannot.
One cannot argue effectively that she is being tortured because SHE is not able to cope with incarceration. It's a rather weak approach and one that won't be taken seriously as a defence, and nor should it. It's about as ludicrous as arguing that she is a POW in the war on drugs.
Further to this, the Act specifically mentions that it does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Schapelle is subject to LAWFUL sanctions, that being her lawful incarceration, in accordance with the laws of Indonesia.
Furthermore; the articles contained therein the Act are without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
The articles are respective to the existing rights and legislation of the State.
Just wondering why someone of this Rob Baiton's calibre would be wasting his time. Well, he says his name is Rob.
From what I understand this Robin Tampoe was disbarred. Rob, are you fighting to have him readmitted?
Do you think this was a wrongful conviction? There is something really sneaky here and it's anyone's guess. Perhaps Robin applied for a position in your chambers and you are raising funds for him through this internet project??
As I said, it's a done deal, he lost his practicing licence. Don't you think Schapelle and the other Australians locked up in that rat hell shit hole's predicament is FAR more urgent and worthwhile??
You will be happy to know several travel agents don't sell flights to such countries as the one in question...
Anonymous...
Thank you!
It probably is a good thing that you have not used a pseudonym or your real name. However, I have not had such a good chuckle for a long time. So, once again thanks.
Your response shows that you have not read the original post. It also shows that you have not read the comments, now somewhere round 876 of them, because if you had then you would not of written what you did.
Wasting my time? On what? Schapelle Corby or Robin Tampoe?
Yep, Mr. Tampoe has been struck off the roll of legal practitioners. Nope, hardly seeking to see this overturned. If you read the original post and the comments you would know this.
Ah, sneaky? Wrongful conviction?
I am not in chambers. Does my blog look very commercial to you?
I cannot see anywhere where I am asking / soliciting for donations, do you?
I agree, there are far more important things than Robin Tampoe in this world. But whether travel agents fly to Bali is not one of them.
You really do need to get a grip of reality.
I once was for helping out Schapelle Corby. I am still in support of a treatment regime and I believe she has served enough time for the crime she has been convicted of. That though is not good enough for some, you have to believe in her innocence if you want to be accepted as a true supporter, and that is just sad.
Sure are a laughing stock Rob. Has Robin Tampoe approved this site?
Do you seriously think that this page is of benefit to anyone?? It seems peppered with negativity. I am upset to be recommended to exaimne this trite by my colleagues...
None of us even know Schapelle or Robin personally. Most certainly inappropriate.
I don't wish to be your pen pal!
Anonymous...
You sound just like a previous anonymous commenter of the past.
I do not need Robin Tampoe's permission to write this particular post. My blog is neither exclusively about Robin Tampoe nor Schapelle Corby.
As I said, if you had read the original post and the subsequent comments, then you would know this. It pays to do a little research and have some idea of what you are talking about.
I hardly think I am the laughing stock here. I, at least, have the courage to post under my own name and defend my points of view. This is a little more than can be said for you.
The point of a blog is to be a forum of information and discussion. However, you have failed to read my blog beyond this post, so you really have no idea what you are talking about.
How is it peppered with negativity. Get a grip of reality here. I am someone who supports the ultimate repatriation of Schapelle, I am someone who has argued that 20 years is too much time, I have consistently argued that it is time for her to be released. I have also argued that it is not going to be as easy as opening the gate to Kerobokan and sending her on her way.
The negativity you refer to is that I have argued her guilt, and I do not subscribe to the idea that you can only be a supporter provided you agree in her innocence. Unfortunately, Schapelle's innocence is currently irrelevant to her current predicament.
If you are upset, perhaps you are upset because it opens your eyes to the idea that not everyone has a homogeneous opinion on the case, but might still be supportive of a release. If you took the time to read the original posts (and the few others here on Schapelle and the comments, then perhaps you would learn something).
There are plenty of people who know Schapelle and Robin personally, some of them have even commented in this thread. So, this is another example of the fact you have not read the original post or the comments posted in response to that piece. Too bad!
Inappropriate? How so?
Who said anything about pen pals? You were the one that commented here. I only responded to your ill-informed comment. It is pretty hard to enter into serious dialogue with an anonymous poster.
Rob, get a life!
Rob, Don't you know when to stop? It's obvious that these fundamentalist supporters want to free Schapelle all on their own by way of New Idea and misquotations of International mandates. I'm now of the understanding that they are completely obsessed, but not in search of tangible solutions that if implemented could improve her current situation, but with flogging a dead horse to further their own self importance.
I feel more sorry for Schapelle every day as I read the rantings of these few individuals who seem to be doing a fine job of undermining both her credibility and her supporters by attacking those of us who won't join their ranks and submit to their mind control. They are littered all over the internet with their abuse and attacks on good people.
BTW... looks like they'll get your blog up to 1000... gotta love em for that at least. lol.
Anonymous...
"Rob, get a life!"?
Really? Is that the best you have? Seriously, I thought you might have been interested in genuine open discussion about the predicament that Schapelle finds herself in, and examine ways of how Schapelle can get a semblance of the life she once had back.
However, it seems that you do not have the courage of your convictions to even use a pseudonym, let alone your real name. I wonder if you are even a real or "true" supporter. It seems that you are more intent on doing the cause of support more harm than you are good.
This is the funny thing, in a perversely sad kind of a way, you are an internet troll so there are some questions about whether it is me who needs to get a life or you? It seems to me that your purpose in life is to 'troll' the internet and discover real people wanting to make a real contribution to helping others and then deride and cast derision upon them if they have the courage not to be sheep. It seems that the only true supporters of Schapelle are those that believe exactly as you do. If someone has the gumption to have a belief of their own, then they need to get a life or do more research (presumably on a supporters approved forum).
I have a life. I would have figured that the more important question for supporters such as yourself is what can be done to see the predicament that Schapelle is in resolved in a way that sees her get the medical treatment she needs and then repatriation to Australia.
Nah, I have a life. The person without the life they want here is Schapelle. It is time that you and your colleagues focused on the important issues.
Thanks for commenting though. As I said yesterday, your complete lack of research (reading the original post and the subsequent comments) positions you as another worthless internet troll with too much time on their hands.
Have a good evening.
Kay...
What would I want to stop for? There are hundreds of hits a day coming in with people looking for Schapelle Corby related posts. I might be educating some people to the fact that not everyone is derided into toeing the single line that some people calling themselves "true" supporters want them to.
The fact that some so called "true" supporters comment here under pseudonyms or as anonymous highlights the points you make about fundamentalists with no flexibility to tolerate alternative viewpoints. It also highlights that there is a real difficulty in engaging in constructive debate and dialogue, if for no other reason than they want to dictate the terms of the debate. If they cannot then it is name calling and the telling of others to get a life.
There seems to be a serious disconnect between what is important. It would seem that the self-importance of the supporters is more important than the well-being of Schapelle and putting real viable alternatives on the table for the ultimate goal of repatriation, Instead, as this thread highlights, there is a bigger desire to want to argue the evidence again and to show how knowledgeable one is on the "facts" of the case.
The case is over to all intents and purposes except for the pending clemency bid. Even Schapelle's lawyers recognize this. If they did not recognize this then they would not have lodged a clemency appeal.
I have some sympathy for Schapelle but no pity. One has to believe that she and her family have discussed what she wants to do, And, this is how they want to go about securing a release. I am not convinced that the tabloid strategy is one that will work in either the short or long terms. I hope I am wrong.
Maybe the thread will make it to 1000, then again maybe not. It is sad in some ways that a nothing post about the striking off of the roll of legal practitioners of one Robin Tampoe attracted this much attention.
Yeah Rob.... the fundamentalists attack anyone whose view doesn't perfectly align with theirs.
FREE SCHAPELLE!
Oh that's right.... I'm not allowed to even write her name according to the fundamentalists!
Kay...
Yep, there is only one view permissible according to the "true" believers (supporters). Anyone with a different view tends to get attacked by a series of anonymous and pseudonym tagged comments.
It seems though that this strategy of alienating potential supporters is not serving to boost support for Schapelle. Most of the surveys that I have read recently suggest that support is running against Schapelle on all fronts. Specifically, there does not seem to be any significant change in numbers who think she is guilty or numbers of people who think she should be repatriated.
In the big scheme of things to each their own.
Rob,
Another example of the paranoia... apparently someone from 'that forum' (the name we shall not speak.....) posted a reply to something said.. and they used the word 'ctrain'... they were immediately reprimanded by the forum master... who proceeded to lecture them on the use of the word and accusing ME of using that word as a derogatory reference to the Corby Support Movement and the family. Apparently, according to the forum master, his minions have reported to him that I have done this on 'a certain blog'... assuming that's yours?... and that words like that are inflammatory... LMAO... because where have I ever used 'ctrain'....
Corby Central, on the other hand, (borrowed from someone on the FBD site...) aptly describes these lunatics who do nothing but attack others... and we already clarified that they are separate to the real Corby Supporters who concentrate their efforts on supporting her.
Oh and apparently, I am supposed to be some chick name Avril on the Facebook site... I can prove that I am not. I post using my real name because I've got nothing to hide... I blocked them all so i don't have to read their vile rants.... one has to wonder why some of them hide behind all those pseudonyms which must surely make up a large proportion of the so called 50,500 hahaha. Oh please...
As for inflammatory... the forum master must be living in a lovely cocoon not to see the damage his minions do where ever they troll.
:-o
Kay...
Last I heard / read was that my blog was a backwater that noone visited anyway and wasn't worth a piece of piss. So, it is nice to know that this might not be true (in any event, the blog stats that I keep suggest that there are about 120 hits per day on average for the Corby-related posts on the blog - at least in January).
Gotta say, I have heard of Corby Central. And, I think that my first encounter with Corby Central was at FBD too . But, Ctrain I have not heard before. And, I do not recall reading it in this thread, but this thread is now 887 comments long.
Ah, Avril. Yes, she certainly has some people wound up over at the FB site where she has placed a few comments. If I am not mistaken someone wrote that they were lodging a police report or something. Serious stuff!
Maybe I should think about doing the same thing now considering some of the stuff that has been written about me here in this thread and a few others.
However, the thread is not about me, it is about a lawyer struck off of the roll of practitioners. The post was not really about Schapelle although the thread most certainly is.
Probably time that some of her supporters re-focused on the issues that are most important to securing Schapelle's release to a facility for treatment and then her eventual repatriation to Australia.
I am supportive of her need for medical treatment and for her need to be repatriated. But, this has seen me ridiculed and vilified, I guess this is not enough for some.
Further to this... I feel sorry for those supporters who are in 'that forum' who keep getting accused of the ridiculous. Too much paranoia and they are all looking at their own shadows funny.... I could have said nothing but why should that supporter get accused of being so mean spirited... particularly when the accusation is false.
I think we've had to defend ourselves more times then Schapelle ever did.... and we're not even in jail. What a waste of energy!
Kay...
I am still trying to work out the conspiracy between the Australian and Indonesian governments and their respective press corps. Work it out in the sense of why do it, and if it is as expansive as suggested how one keeps it from unravelling?
oh well!
Kay...
I have nothing to defend myself from. I am just a fella who thinks that Schapelle has been found guilty in an Indonesian court and sentenced to 20 years in prison for smuggling 4.2kgs of wacky weed into Bali.
I am also a fella who thinks that the time she has served is sufficient punishment for the crime she was convicted of.
I am just a fella who thinks that she needs to be placed into a mental health facility so that she can get more specialized treatment for her [psychotic] depression.
I am just a fella that thinks a repatriation is in order at some point in the future that is a lot less than the 20 years that she was sentenced to do.
However, I am also a fella who realizes that an immediate repatriation is not as easy as it sounds, and that maybe considering the 'urgency' of the need for treatment then a good first step is to get the girl out of jail and into a specialized facility.
Then, that's just me. And, having a read through the comments to this thread, that is just not good enough for some.
Well someone is interested in what you have to say if you are getting 120 hits per day relating to Corby.
Hopefully they'll read the posts again and see that you and I are not saying anything harmful or hurtful about Schapelle and to the contrary, all we've said is exactly what you just articulated and for that we've been subjected to all manner of abuse all heralding from one most obvious camping ground!
oh.... and the stupid thing.... the supporter used ctrain as in 'crazy train' ... not actually thinking they'd be so paranoid to associate it with Corby.... just goes to show how vindictive and paranoid the forum master and his minions are... down right nasty..... turning on good people, who, like us have only ever said that enough's enough for Schapelle and it's time to repatriate her either to a mental health facility there or here. Either way, she's suffered enough!
# 240: 4:37 pm PST, Jan 23 2008 - Kay Danes Brisbane, Australia, - Schapelle's case warrants full re-investigation because clearly there were numerous inconsistencies in the process that found her guilty and at least 14 breeches of International law pertaining to her case.
Hey Rob you piano-man! LOL!
She left this comment not that long ago mate.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/help-bring-schapelle-corby-home-a-free-woman?page=5
Rob I will not be partaking in dialogue with you or her ;) bye
Indeed Rumpole at the time when the window of opportunity was still open it could have been argued by her lawyers that there were legal inconsistencies in her case. And yes there were.... but they didn't seize these opportunities. Many of the breeches were in principle breeches since the ICCPR was not yet ratified at that time.... as I suggested back then, the lawyers could have argued 'in principle'... there are other case precedents for this ....they as usual left Schapelle high and dry. She continues to get poor legal advice! There are however a number of ways to improve her situation but sadly, no one in her camp wants to hear this it seems. They just continue to go with tabloid grabs and sound bites, slagging off at our PM and telling the Indonesians that their laws are ridiculous. Like this is going to help Schapelle? When will they ever learn that there are people who know how to interact effectively with foreign governments... away from the media!
I just viewed the link to that petition and I can tell you 100% that I did not EVER sign my name to that petition. I will be reporting this.
I would not sign my name to a letter that is filled with so many inaccuracies. I think someone is having a bit of fun with you, impersonating me. It's been done before. But I categorically deny having anything to do with that petition!
Rumpole...
Nice pseudonym, good choice.
The last person to tell me I was being played like a piano was also a pseudonym, none other than Larry Ho. I know who Larry Ho is in real life. Never met the fella but have heard a lot about him and from him as his collection of pseudonyms are pretty active trolling the internet to find anything even remotely related to Schapelle Corby and then sets off spreading his brand of support and positivity.
I am surprised you did not post a video response or a link to the hidden truth propositions.
Good call on the not partaking in dialogue. If I was you then I probably would not partake either. Something about not being able to sustain an argument in support of the propositions put forward.
Then again, it would seem that it is more important for you to attack those who are supportive of Schapelle receiving treatment and ultimately being repatriated to Australia. Neither of those bits of support are contingent on whether she is innocent or guilty.
As to Kay Danes. She is a grown woman and has opinions of her own. I do not stalk her every move on the internet. If she posts here on this blog then I respond. If she expresses different views elsewhere then that is up to her.
However, I do find it fascinating that you seem intent on trying to cut her down to size in the classic tall poppy syndrome. Perhaps you are a little jealous that she is acknowledged and recognized for her expertise on matters related to foreign prisoners (particularly Australians incarcerated overseas).
You not getting enough of the action. Let me make this suggestion: post under your real name, let people make determinations about your credibility, and then they might come to you for comment. Kay Danes has done this and people seek her out for that commentary and support.
Just a thought.
Kay...
Don't know what to say, I am the piano man! :D
Kay...
I wonder if I have signed it yet? Maybe I should have a look. I cannot recall having signed it.
The other thing that's stupid of them... and easy to prove is that on the so called day of signing.... I was in NSW the entire day with my neighbour and husband. We left Brisbane at 6am and I didn't return till 7:30PM.... and where we were there were definately no access to internet. So it is impossible for me to have signed it. I have reported this to the care2 petition owners.
Kay...
It seems to happen regularly when it comes to the signing of petitions (completely personal and anecdotal observation on my part), particularly online ones.
People tend to believe that they are completely unidentifiable when they are online and posting through proxy servers and the like. This is probably even more so when impersonating someone else.
Please, let us known how it goes with the administrators of the petition site.
As an aside. It seems that there are people out there going to extreme lengths to discredit you. I have never thought to impersonate someone else and then post something that is in complete contradiction to what has been posted before. I guess I am just not sinister enough!
Typo... change breeches to breaches. oops
Perhaps i should be flattered ....that despite all their rantings they still see my name on their petition as valuable! ha. I'll let Prime Minister Rudd know what they've done personally. After all, he doesn't treat my contact as spam! lol... so no harm done at all. :-)
Kay...
I make 'em too, typos that is. Generally, my fingers go faster than my brain. My faves are there, their, the becoming teh.
Maybe I should get you to put in a good word for me so that the PM and the FM don't think my emails are spam :D (just kidding, have not sent any email / spam to either)
Not really about harm per se, is it? The idea that there are x number of people in support of a certain outcome as evidenced by signatures on a petition relies on the honesty and integrity of the petition.
If the petition is really a nothing more than a collection of 10, 100, or 1000 supporters putting together a collection of pseudonyms and aliases then people will become a little skeptical of the support movement. That is a shame as Schapelle seemingly needs all the real support that she can get!
As you know Rob, I've got no problem writing to the Australian Government asking them to support Schapelle and the other Australians detained overseas. I must admit, it's simply not my style, to write... please help her she's dying.... it's right up there with the allegation that I write 'ctrain'.
You see the mischief they cause... can be undone.... my signature has now been removed! If those idiots aren't careful they might find themselves getting a knock on the door by their local police. They're not invisible even if they change their IP address frequently!
Oh I see the funny side... my learned friend just brought me up to speed....
Rumpole is reference to Rumpole of the Bailey, a TV show about a British lawyer called Rumpole... the low criminal courts in the UK.
UK...mmmmm... now who do we all know from there with at least 26 pseudonyms to his credit.... hahaha
Like I said... no one is invisible. You'd think he'd just 'get a life' and go help Free Schapelle... instead of attacking us all the time.
Kay...
Is she dying? And, if she is dying because of her mental illness (psychotic depression) then is it treatable? And, if it was treated in an acceptable manner (medically and not necessarily requiring repatriation to Australia), would she still be dying?
I wonder if her case is any more serious than those of all the other Australians detained overseas? Then again, most Australians would not know about the other Australians detained overseas unless they had a personal (or particular) interest in a case. Simply, most Australians incarcerated overseas do not have an exclusive deal with New Idea or a new lawyer doing the rounds of the morning news / talk shows like Sunrise on Channel 7 (didn't Mercedes sue Channel 7 for defamation once, and win?)...
Kay...
I wonder does this sort of thing do more harm to the Free Schapelle cause than it does good?
I wonder if impersonating recognized prisoner support advocates and signing them up to petitions is ethical, moral, or even legal?
I wonder whether now that you have had your name removed from the petition because you did not sign it personally is going to form the basis of an "I told you so" argument that Kay Danes never supported Schapelle Corby?
Maybe, just maybe, this will be enough to drag Rumpole or some other pseudonym out of the woodwork.
Kay...
Yep, the Rumpole reference was to that particular character and show.
It was almost clever, almost.
On the pseudonym front. I would have thought that the movement to Free Schapelle was one that demanded that people spoke up under their own names and not as a bunch of pseudonyms. I believe that if you are dedicated to your cause and have the courage of your convictions then you will make the case and advocate under your real name.
Advocating under your real name does not make the cause about you. It does not distract people from the important issues as they relate to Schapelle. However, in contrast, a bunch of pseudonyms trolling the internet and launching verbal attacks against other supporters of the cause will make people wonder whether the cause is really worth supporting. And, that is sad. Because, Schapelle is clearly doing it tough and needs as much support as she can muster, and so-called supporters harassing others away from that cause is silly and it is wrong. It is just not in the best interests of Schapelle Corby.
Rob
All these threats from these control freak pseudonyms is astounding. If they stopped putting so much propaganda out there like 'she's dying' and 'you're responsible Mr. Rudd'.... then people would take them seriously. They are creating these vacumn of little boy who cried wolf... and IT is undermining Schapelle's plight. Hence why none of the big HR groups like Amnesty International, HRW, Civil Liberties Aust and Get Up are taking up her cause.
The only thing they are doing is feeding the note pages of young Uni students studying International Relations and learning all the ways NOT to assist Australians detained overseas.
I don't discount that Schapelle has a serious but treatable mental illness. Her own doctor confirms this as does Dr. Phillips. But in order to have credibility in using this as a strategy for freedom, I think the fundamentalists are deluded.
Kay...
To be honest, to each their own. I have been told that my comments and the discussion, as well as this thread are a breach of professional standards. I have also been told that consequently I have been reported to, or will soon be, the relevant professional boards. Furthermore, there has been a suggestion that I am to be subject to legal action.
On the balance of things, I would say that I have been subject to more abuse and actionable comments than most in my own blog. I believe that people have a right to speak their mind even where I do not agree with them.
For example, Pauline Hanson! Just about everything she uttered was objectionable as it was uninformed, but in our democracy she seemingly has a right to express her opinion and to disagree with others, me included, as to how Australia should manage immigration or race relations or social security.
So, keeping that in mind, I am going to respond only to the parts that cannot be interpreted or misconstrued as referring to a particular individual or group. However, comments relating to strategy should be interpreted as relating to the content of the strategy and not the individuals or groups supporting / driving a particular strategy.
My arguments have been, once we get past whether she is guilty or innocent, that she has done enough time for the crime she was convicted of. And, that her mental illness needs to be treated properly and in a controlled environment with specialized skills relating to the treatment of mental illness.
I do not think that she can get that treatment in Kerobokan. I do believe that she can get that treatment in Indonesia, and in Bali.
I do not see these comments as undermining any bid for clemency or freedom on compassionate grounds.
Having a divergent view on what strategies work best is a matter of opinion. I am also on the record as saying whatever strategy is chosen is a matter for Schapelle, her family, and any trusted advisers that she consults on matters such as that.
I agree, the case has the potential to be used in a learning environment. There are, simply, lots of teachable moments.
Yes well I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the question is asked "So Mr X... tell me, is X your last name? What was that? Oh... you mean it's not your real name at all... it's a pseudonym?....Are you saying it's not you....? Which is it... have you or have you not been poking a stick at a hornet's nest Mr. X?"
Schapelle's plight was unfortunately made worse largely through inexperience and poor choices. The Indonesian authorities whom I have dealings with are not unreasonable. To the contrary, there are ways of doing things that yield good outcomes, IF, you know what you are doing. The issue should be dealt with away from the media and on Indonesian soil. The approach should be carefully maneuvered through appropriate channels. There is most certainly a way forward in all of this to improve the situation for Schapelle, and not offending Indonesia or undermining their position. Let's hope the 'new lawyer' succeeds where others have failed. :-)
Hi Rob,
Thought I'd let you know that you shouldn't let your blog go dormant like you have otherwise you may have to transfer your account to 'certain others' because according to them, you can only really blog about Schapelle (use her name) if you conform to a standard.
The question has been formulated that : should these sites be pulled down or should the owners delete their site or pass ownership to the sites name to an interested third party to continue the site's use in supporting Schapelle?
They are also discussing what action can be taken against owners of such sites where it is shown they no longer have an interest in supporting Schapelle?
Well hello.... the thought police are going to have a tough time on that score... even the Australian Government can't censor the press!
Kay...
I was almost beginning to think no one was interested in picking up the baton and running with it.
Some housekeeping news. I have been really lazy with respect to posting of late. Too many things to do and too much reading to get through. A Masters does that to you sometimes.
Now, onto the blog front.
As I have repeatedly stated, this blog is not a Corby blog. It is about all manner of things that interest me. The name of it does not even include the word Corby (which if I am not mistaken is a Samsung phone).
But, giving credit where credit is due, I am slowly but surely moving all the Schapelle Corby related posts to a new blog. This new blog is going to include the name Schapelle. This should give those that have a beef with people writing about Schapelle some food for thought.
It should be interesting considering there is this misguided belief that using the name Schapelle is tantamount to cyber squatting.
A quick read of the relevant laws, or a call to the relevant international organizations charged with regulating in this area might prove to be very enlightening for the yet to be fully informed.
I figured I might call the blog "Schapelle - Innoguilty". It would be a blog that looks at the arguments in a reasoned way for innocence and guilt, but would have a particular bias towards what the future holds.
The thought police can come all they want and abuse me and threaten me with legal action. Water off a duck's back. Let's face it,to say that Schapelle Corby is guilty is not defamation! It is a statement of fact. She has been found guilty by an Indonesian court of law and sentenced to 20 years in prison. All her appeals to date have failed to reverse that original decision.
Furthermore, to question the strategy regarding how she might be released and then discuss what is not working and what might work is not defamation either. It is called debate.
There is an old saying, perhaps a little cliche now, 'there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry to the pussycat in advance)'. Simply, there is more than one way to support Schapelle Corby. To each their own!
Indeed Rob ... another mad cow comment from the fundamentalist Corby supporters is that an Australian citizen blogging about Schapelle should be charged with treason... for daring to discuss issues relating to PTA, Vienna Conventions, Minimum Standard of Treatment of Prisoners.... etc... in so far as 'giving a heads up' to Indonesia... who are supposedly trolling your blog and learning from us how to legally keep Schapelle in jail.
No wonder the Government keeps ignoring them.
I wouldn't mind having Mr. Tampoe going in to bat for me. i disgree that he is a genius
Medisoft for all your medical software needs.
Robin Tampoe, you got what you deserved! Shame on you. Nice blog by the way.
Medisoft billing software for all your medical software needs.
Thanks very good artcile
yeezy
jordan travis scott
goyard
supreme t shirt
goyard tote bag
goyard outlet
kyrie 5 spongebob
kyrie 7
kevin durant shoes
palm angels hoodie
Post a Comment